Job is said to be the oldest book in the Bible
Then the usage of "sons of God"(and it's perceived meaning) was that they were the same as in Job when Moses spoke of them afterwards?
nephilim
- Thread starter ckhascall
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Then the usage of "sons of God"(and it's perceived meaning) was that they were the same as in Job when Moses spoke of them afterwards?
I don't see why that would be necessarily so.
As I previously said, both Jesus and Satan are referred to as "Morning Star."
Same designation with a clear distinction between the two, none-the-less
I don't see why that would be necessarily so.
As I previously said, both Jesus and Satan are referred to as "Morning Star."
Same designation with a clear distinction between the two, none-the-less
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah 14:12&version=KJV before or after he fell?
I suppose threads such as these do end up with one point of view seeking to prove their view over the other but my intention is only to look at how it was intended when written and how it was perceived by those when it was written. Lucifer at one time was perceived as beautiful and as one of Gods angels but after he fell he was not any longer seen that way. In Job when he attended the meeting along with the other SoG he seems to still have access to that group in Gods presence but afterwards in time he does not.
NO, they would not, they would have the context of Sons of God found in the first five books of the law. Genesis account in chapter 6 is and stays in chapter 6-8 also you must look at the limitation of the English translation of the words " son's of God" Elohim which can mean many things depending on the context god, angels, and man and the word giants translated Nephilim which also speaks of mighty men of war. This is gen 6 is speaking on those whose action were sinful and offended God mans action as it states in verses
Gen 6:1,3-7
Now to nail the coffin shut on this I think you only have to listen to the words of Jesus who is the authority whenever HE is speaking. Jesus said in Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
If sleeping with women was so egregious to God by angels, why did not Jesus name that in the words he spoke? But he did mention what men were doing. Jesus did not even hint at the angelic beings in the full context of the Olivet Discourse doing anything as sexual relations with women. This great sin is just overlooked BY the Lord Jesus who apparently must have forgotten this great sinful act by an angel that caused God to bring:
1. rain that had never happen before on earth
2. flood the whole earth
3. to kill a spiritual being with the substance that could not kill them.
4. Jesus not even mention it
That is a big stretch unless you read into the word of God something that it doesn't speak of.
When you consider we are talking about something that was not written in English, and has various meanings for many words as most languages do, which would be defined and understood by the context in which they are written, you cannot simply link up one or two words with similar words from another book written in another time - unless it is clear by the context that the use should be the same.
Morning star for example simply meant very bright one, (pharaoh called himself that,) angel Meant messenger of God... by the context We usually know it refers to a heaven sent spiritual being.
Sons of God - this term depends entirely on context too. It is a term we can argue all day about - but if we remove the context we can make pretty much anything say what we like if it fits our pre-existing bias/ whatever we have been taught.
I have a catholic friend who read the bible and was very serious about study, however she was raised to believe Mary was an eternal Virgin.
No matter how many times she read that joseph consummated his marriage with Mary after Jesus was born, it never registered with her. It was as if she hadn’t read it.
She read that Jesus mother and brothers were standing outside, but believed as she was taught and thought they must be his spiritual brothers... even though the context makes it beyond clear it was not the case.
Context helps us understand, and if we ignore it we can forget working out these definitions correctly.
it won’t affect anyone’s salvation at the end of the day, if they think it’s angels or men in the wrong context, it just makes things confusing at times and of course leads to these endless debates.
If would be sensible perhaps just to say it could mean both, and that the op needs to look at the contexts Of each occurrence prayerfully, and in detail, and make up their own mind.
Personally I don’t think God refers to angles as his sons because of what is written in Hebrews . Maybe people do however, and if so they could use the term to translate/describe angels in the scripture sometimes.
Let’s live at peace wherever possible, and behave and respond to one anotherlike Sons and Daughters of a loving, gracious and humble saviour.
Morning star for example simply meant very bright one, (pharaoh called himself that,) angel Meant messenger of God... by the context We usually know it refers to a heaven sent spiritual being.
Sons of God - this term depends entirely on context too. It is a term we can argue all day about - but if we remove the context we can make pretty much anything say what we like if it fits our pre-existing bias/ whatever we have been taught.
I have a catholic friend who read the bible and was very serious about study, however she was raised to believe Mary was an eternal Virgin.
No matter how many times she read that joseph consummated his marriage with Mary after Jesus was born, it never registered with her. It was as if she hadn’t read it.
She read that Jesus mother and brothers were standing outside, but believed as she was taught and thought they must be his spiritual brothers... even though the context makes it beyond clear it was not the case.
Context helps us understand, and if we ignore it we can forget working out these definitions correctly.
it won’t affect anyone’s salvation at the end of the day, if they think it’s angels or men in the wrong context, it just makes things confusing at times and of course leads to these endless debates.
If would be sensible perhaps just to say it could mean both, and that the op needs to look at the contexts Of each occurrence prayerfully, and in detail, and make up their own mind.
Personally I don’t think God refers to angles as his sons because of what is written in Hebrews . Maybe people do however, and if so they could use the term to translate/describe angels in the scripture sometimes.
Let’s live at peace wherever possible, and behave and respond to one anotherlike Sons and Daughters of a loving, gracious and humble saviour.
In Job,Job says that he wished the things that had happened(the story) were written https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Job-19-23/ so it was probably written after it actually happened but by who(?). In that time frame they would probably have written in this script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script so the descriptions would be very primitive in a book that old because they had less than four thousand words to work with.
In other threads I have seen here on CC on this topic I notice that when the OD is mentioned it is never mentioned that he says "until the flood came". Why I'm mentioning this is that "in the day of Noah" could mean both before and after the flood because he lived in both time frames. So when Jesus says "until the flood came" he is narrowing that down to meaning only prior to the flood in Noah's days.
Whoever these are in Gen.6 they are also flesh/mortal and so the offspring between the two would not be spirit only but also flesh and could die https://biblehub.com/genesis/6-3.htm similar to the myths in Greece,Egypt,epic of Gilgamesh ect. where they say "my mother was a human and my father was a God"(not that I am endorsing their myths).
S
Scribe
Guest
I disagree completely. You can't just reduce the context of Gen 6& 7 from what Jesus said and quoted in Matthew 24:37-39
in the Book of Job please remember Job's relationship with God was nothing like Moses who was Major Prophet and seen and KNew God in a way never seen before. it is not even known who wrote Job for certain many theologians think Moses wrote the account. Are you suggesting the writer of JOB was unlearned about God? I think is dismissed in JOB when God says " I will ask you " answer me if you know".
In reference to your comment
"I notice that when the OD is mentioned it is never mentioned that he says "until the flood came". Why I'm mentioning this is that "in the day of Noah" could mean both before and after the flood because he lived in both time frames. So when Jesus says "until the flood came" he is narrowing that down to meaning only prior to the flood in Noah's days."
Jesus, before he said until the flood came said "as the days of NOE, were" and then gave a description to what it was the man was doing. it was what man did that caused the flood to come in the first place it was the judgment the last day for all men expect those in Ark. If one reads gen 6 and see angels as why God judged the earth with a great flood and not sin, Jesus, would not have made that connection in Matthew 24
S
Scribe
Guest
Not at all. Different authors should be allowed to tell their own stories within their own context. If the author of Genesis mentions sons if God without an explanation your first reaction is to see if it is because he has already mentioned these and you find strong support in Gen 4. Immediate context trumps a different book and author context in hermeneutics.
I don't know I will say the first book of the bible is gen, not Job and Job is not the book of Beginnings Genesis is. And God clearly would it to be seen as the first Book no matter when it was written
I agree the events in Job would be "in a time" before Moses was born based on the few pieces of evidence in the book of Job(no mention of the LoM,his friends,places they were from ect.) so who the readers of Genesis 6 would have had the preconceived bias that Moses was referring to the same SoG they already knew of from Job.
Again the words "Son of God" must be seen in the context of the Hebrew they were given in and where they were used. SOG which is English instead of Elohim which is gods, angels, and men. You base angel, not of the words "son" of but of the word Eloyhim which means: gods, angels, and men. The son's of God slept with the daughter of men speaks more to what God would address later in the Genesis account. Sons of God were also " the call out ones" to be seen as the people of God and not the pagan of the daughters of men. The outsiders of the called-out ones. Of course, since man is in the early season after falling the identity is still very close to God and not as distant yet. You do not find sons of God as a normative in context to the man until the Born again experience.
Which I am a son of God today.
Man sinned and grew away from God and so did HIS original relationship with man. Sin separated man and caused distance but Christ brought us near again in HIM.
How is that when it is written of Job making the following statement?
23 Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!
24 That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!
Job 19
But why would have they have seen the SoG's in Job as a reference to the men were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God? The reference to the sons of God refers to the seven Spirits of God in Genesis 1:4. The next couple of verses in the book of Job describes how the LORD covered the earth with the firmament from the frozen waters that cover the earth. which is described as the cloud which covered the earth like a garment, you know the cloud that the bow was set in. In fact that Chapter in Job is about what occurred in Chapter 1 of Genesis.
While there was only one Man created, there were more than one son of God formed in the beginning of man on earth, but don't confuse the sons of God with the Man who is the Son of God, who is not the Son of Man which shall be called the Son of God.
S
Scribe
Guest
It is a baseless conjecture to say that Moses readers would have common knowledge that the phrase "sons of God" always meant angels based on their familiarity with the book of Job, as though they were all well read in Job or as though the impact of the book of Job had so permeated the culture that everyone knew what this meant based on the book of Job and therefore it needed no explanation.
You are imagining something that is not supported by anything but your imagination. It is not likely to be the case. These people out of Egypt were probably not at well read in the book of Job.
It is much more likely that the reason that Moses did not explain who the sons of God were in the immediate context of Gen 6:2 is because he had already explained them in Gen 4:26 when the at the beginning of the lineage of Seth the world had become two divided groups, those with Cain on the East of Eden and these who were following after faith in God and they began to Call upon the name of the Lord and as the Hebrew also translates "Call themselves by the name of the Lord." Having previously made this statement Moses does not feel the need to explain who the "sons of God" are as it is assumed that you grasped that when he made his point in Gen 4:26.
Moses had also mentions daughters only in Cain's lineage (no mention of daughters in Seth's) and these daughters had names that mean Fair, Pleasant and Beautiful. Therefore the reference to the daughters of men who were beautiful does not need further explaining because they also were previously pointed out in Gen 4:22 howbeit knowing the meaning of the Hebrew names is helpful to the English reader to recall the context when reading Gen 6:2 and remember that they were mentioned in 4:22.
If we take the "I am on a desert Island with no one to talk to and no previous knowledge or interpretations to consider" and no knowledge of Job approach to interpretation, it is most likely that the average person who looks back to see if they missed something when they read Gen 6:2 will find Gen 4:26 and come up with the interpretation I have just presented. And for that reason I find it the best interpretation to go with.
I also have the rest of the bible that continues to teach this "people who are called to be separate being led away into sin by ungodly wives/ungodly in general" motif that keeps showing up in scripture, which also supports this hermeneutic.
S
say what?