Were Nephilim (Gen 6) judged differently by God?

[Amanuensis]

The THREE Groups mentioned all are about sexual immorality at a LEVEL going far beyond mere adultery.
This is why they are grouped together and the Judgment was SET thru these THREE as an example for us to fear God.

Ponder/Dwell/Meditate on this = God said ALL flesh had corrupted themselves and the earth had to be CLEANSED from this corruption.

The plan of satan was almost 100% successful = pollute the bloodline to prevent the Messiah

Only 8 made it thru = God knew why and HE told us why.

This is all a great example of eisegesis. Reading ones own ideas into the text. The text does not state these things.

This need to Ponder/Dwell/Meditate sounds good but not when it becomes the reason to violate other rules of hermeneutics and implement riddles that the author never intended.

Why can't it just mean what it says?


1Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with wickedness. 12God saw how corrupt the earth was, for every creature had corrupted its way on the earth. 13Then God said to Noah, “I have decided to put an end to every creature, for the earth is filled with wickedness because of them; therefore I am going to destroy them along with the earth.

I comprehend the English translation corruption as it is usually intended, like a corrupt politician, or a corrupt priest. Fallen, having decided to follow sins and lusts that they knew were wrong. Having become wicked. I don't think there is any secret riddle about DNA. That is eisegesis. There is no intention by the author to talk about DNA, genes or bloodlines. The emphasis is on moral wickedness that men are guilty.

CSB Version
5When the Lord saw that human wickedness was widespread on the earth and that every inclination of the human mind was nothing but evil all the time,a 6the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth,a and he was deeply grieved. 7Then the Lord said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I created, off the face of the earth, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky — for I regret that I made them.” 8Noah, however, found favor with the Lord.a

Here is the context which should be the superior rule to use in interpretation.

Chapter 4 mentions the daughters of men when it names two of the women in Cain's camp who's names in the Hebrew meant Fair and Pleasant/Lovely. Now imagine a Hebrew reader having read that before they got to chapter 6.

Also in Chapter 4 it mentions Seth's lineage after having listed Cain's and his daughters (children of men/daughters of men) and When it lists Seth's lineage it said that they began to call themselves by the name of the Lord, that is what it says in the Hebrew. So a Hebrew reader would notice that these on Seth's camp on the West of Eden were calling themselves by the name of the Lord (sons of God) and that the sons of men on the East of Eden (thrust out from the presence of the Lord) and building a city which has in it's name a reference to Man, and whos daughters have names that mean FAIR, would not be as confused as the English reader when they read chapter 6.

The Hebrew reader would remember who the sons of God were from chapter 4 and they would remember the women in Cain's camp that were fair and they would know exactly who the author was referring to when they read "the sons of God and the daughters of men" Which is why the author does not explain in Gen 6 because he assumed the reader caught the reference from chapter 4.

This is superior interpretation because it is exegesis following the rule of context and normal reading comprehension skills.

This also fits the theological theme for the rest of the bible about the godly falling way when they married wicked idolatrous wives. It also fits the New Testament admonition to not have fellowship with darkness and to not be unequally yoke with unbelievers.

Exegesis vs eisegesis.

Gen 6 is concise but it really is not cryptic. One only needs to include the context of Gen 4 then it makes perfect sense. Without the context of Gen 4 people find the myth plausible. After exegeting the context of Gen 4 they ought to be able to abandon the myth they built by ignoring the context. This is how we discover our errors in hermeneutics. Once we realize that we made the mistake of ignoring the context of Gen 4 we should be able to correct our bad interpretations we created by speculation on who the sons of god were.

 

[DavidTree]

This is all a great example of eisegesis. Reading ones own ideas into the text. The text does not state these things.

This need to Ponder/Dwell/Meditate sounds good but not when it becomes the reason to violate other rules of hermeneutics and implement riddles that the author never intended.

Why can't it just mean what it says?


1Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with wickedness. 12God saw how corrupt the earth was, for every creature had corrupted its way on the earth. 13Then God said to Noah, “I have decided to put an end to every creature, for the earth is filled with wickedness because of them; therefore I am going to destroy them along with the earth.

I comprehend the English translation corruption as it is usually intended, like a corrupt politician, or a corrupt priest. Fallen, having decided to follow sins and lusts that they knew were wrong. Having become wicked. I don't think there is any secret riddle about DNA. That is eisegesis. There is no intention by the author to talk about DNA, genes or bloodlines. The emphasis is on moral wickedness that men are guilty.

CSB Version
5When the Lord saw that human wickedness was widespread on the earth and that every inclination of the human mind was nothing but evil all the time,a 6the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth,a and he was deeply grieved. 7Then the Lord said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I created, off the face of the earth, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky — for I regret that I made them.” 8Noah, however, found favor with the Lord.a

Here is the context which should be the superior rule to use in interpretation.

Chapter 4 mentions the daughters of men when it names two of the women in Cain's camp who's names in the Hebrew meant Fair and Pleasant/Lovely. Now imagine a Hebrew reader having read that before they got to chapter 6.

Also in Chapter 4 it mentions Seth's lineage after having listed Cain's and his daughters (children of men/daughters of men) and When it lists Seth's lineage it said that they began to call themselves by the name of the Lord, that is what it says in the Hebrew. So a Hebrew reader would notice that these on Seth's camp on the West of Eden were calling themselves by the name of the Lord (sons of God) and that the sons of men on the East of Eden (thrust out from the presence of the Lord) and building a city which has in it's name a reference to Man, and whos daughters have names that mean FAIR, would not be as confused as the English reader when they read chapter 6.

The Hebrew reader would remember who the sons of God were from chapter 4 and they would remember the women in Cain's camp that were fair and they would know exactly who the author was referring to when they read "the sons of God and the daughters of men" Which is why the author does not explain in Gen 6 because he assumed the reader caught the reference from chapter 4.

This is superior interpretation because it is exegesis following the rule of context and normal reading comprehension skills.

This also fits the theological theme for the rest of the bible about the godly falling way when they married wicked idolatrous wives. It also fits the New Testament admonition to not have fellowship with darkness and to not be unequally yoke with unbelievers.

Exegesis vs eisegesis.

Gen 6 is concise but it really is not cryptic. One only needs to include the context of Gen 4 then it makes perfect sense. Without the context of Gen 4 people find the myth plausible. After exegeting the context of Gen 4 they ought to be able to abandon the myth they built by ignoring the context. This is how we discover our errors in hermeneutics. Once we realize that we made the mistake of ignoring the context of Gen 4 we should be able to correct our bad interpretations we created by speculation on who the sons of god were.

Jude gives us insight into exactly what type of wickedness was committed by the fallen angels.

The GREATEST wickedness ever committed on earth when satan sent a select group of his angels to abandon their spiritual domain
and corrupt the Genome of "man made in the image of God".

Crucifying the LORD was no where as evil as the sin of the fallen angels - WHY = because HE came to offer Himself as a Living Sacrifice that the world can be Saved thru His Sinless Blood Offering for Atonement.

Had GOD not preserved Noah and his wife, satan would of won right then.

 

[Amanuensis]

This is not directed at you but at those, who over a period of 2,000 Years, replaced and/or diluted the Truth with carnal religion and tradition.

The evidence is worldwide of the Fallen Angel Hybrid Nephilim.

There is so much that has been hidden by religion/satan to keep the Truth of Scripture contained as much as possible.

Only by complete abandonment from religion to the Word and the Holy Spirit can one see clearly, the Picture God painted for us from Genesis to Revelation.

Is this about those fake stories on the internet about the Smithsonian hiding giant Nephilim bones?

Actually the interpretation I have been presenting about Seth's' seed being the sons of God and marrying the daughters of men in Cain's camp and falling away to depravity is a theme that is highlighted again in the story of Balaam counseling King Balak to send his Moabite women down to the Israel camp to fornicate with them and lead them into idolatry would cause God to judge them or curse them.

The names of a prophet Balaam and a king Balak have both been found in archaeological findings in the area of ancient Moab.

And no one has tried to hide it. It proves that the bible is historically accurate and that the things and people mentioned in them existed in the time in history that the Bible mentions them.

So why can't that be the archaeological proof to support the bible? Isn't that better than bones?

Now, isn't it interesting that the lesson of Balaam and Balak, which was how to get the Israelites to encounter the judgment of God by fornication with idolatrous Moabite women is something God has allowed us to find Archeological proof about?

That is not a conspiracy theory.

That message is what we should pay attention to. Jesus told the church at Pergamum Rev 2:14But I have a few things against you. You have some there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to place a stumbling block in front of the Israelites: to eat meat sacrificed to idols and to commit sexual immorality.

So rather than looking for Angel and Women Hybrid giant offspring Bones that don't exist and the hiding of which is only a conspiracy theory, why not pay attention to the message Jesus is preaching about the godly falling into sin by following the advice of Balaam which was when godly men mated with ungodly women.

That is what happened in Gen 6 and that is what happened in the story of Balaam and we have archeological proof that such a man as the prophet Balaam and King Balak existed which would support the bible so if anyone was needing archaeological support they have it. It is not hidden. And its not about angels man hybrids.

Seems like once again people by focusing on the giant myth in archeology, are missing out on the real discoveries God has allowed us to find. These discoveries are not coincident. Of all the discoveries we could have found we find something about Balaam and Balak. Maybe that is a message to pay attention to what that was all about in the bible and make sure we are heeding the warning.

 

[Amanuensis]

Jude gives us insight into exactly what type of wickedness was committed by the fallen angels.

The GREATEST wickedness ever committed on earth when satan sent a select group of his angels to abandon their spiritual domain
and corrupt the Genome of "man made in the image of God".

Crucifying the LORD was no where as evil as the sin of the fallen angels - WHY = because HE came to offer Himself as a Living Sacrifice that the world can be Saved thru His Sinless Blood Offering for Atonement.

Had GOD not preserved Noah and his wife, satan would of won right then.

Those "What if" scenarios are no way to establish theology but if you want to go there, certainly you understand that Adam and Enoch and Abel to name a few are in the number of the righteous by faith. They will have had the blood of Christ applied by now.

This genome idea is a fantasy. It didn't happen. Angels left their first estate and followed satan. They did not mate with men. It's really rather obscene to propogate the fantasy. It is a Greek mythological idea to try and force an interpretation of the Greek heroes who were supposed to be half men half gods. That was never the intention of Gen 6 but the Greek/Jewish sect in the 2nd century BC after they had been Helenized by Greek occupation came up with this myth and you would do well to abandon it and go back to the oldest Hebrew interpretation which is as I have already presented, the Seths camp vs Cains Camp.

 

[DavidTree]

Those "What if" scenarios are no way to establish theology but if you want to go there, certainly you understand that Adam and Enoch and Abel to name a few are in the number of the righteous by faith. They will have had the blood of Christ applied by now.

This genome idea is a fantasy. It didn't happen. Angels left their first estate and followed satan. They did not mate with men. It's really rather obscene to propogate the fantasy. It is a Greek mythological idea to try and force an interpretation of the Greek heroes who were supposed to be half men half gods. That was never the intention of Gen 6 but the Greek/Jewish sect in the 2nd century BC after they had been Helenized by Greek occupation came up with this myth and you would do well to abandon it and go back to the oldest Hebrew interpretation which is as I have already presented, the Seths camp vs Cains Camp.

The evidence of Giants is documented around the world = look up Images of Giant Fossil Footprints.

Start investigating the evidence that agrees with scripture - no rush.

 

[DavidTree]

Those "What if" scenarios are no way to establish theology but if you want to go there, certainly you understand that Adam and Enoch and Abel to name a few are in the number of the righteous by faith. They will have had the blood of Christ applied by now.

This genome idea is a fantasy. It didn't happen. Angels left their first estate and followed satan. They did not mate with men. It's really rather obscene to propogate the fantasy. It is a Greek mythological idea to try and force an interpretation of the Greek heroes who were supposed to be half men half gods. That was never the intention of Gen 6 but the Greek/Jewish sect in the 2nd century BC after they had been Helenized by Greek occupation came up with this myth and you would do well to abandon it and go back to the oldest Hebrew interpretation which is as I have already presented, the Seths camp vs Cains Camp.

There is no 'what ifs' from Genesis and Jude.

CLEAR designation of specific wording for intended purpose from the FATHER for us to know.

Unbelief blinds/hinders/covers, whereas child like acceptance of "It is written" SAVES/Informs/Corrects/Guides/Blesses/Strengthens/Warns/Protects

***IMPORTANT - i am, in no way, questioning your walk and faith or maturity in the LORD.

Too many people on here jump to that erroneous conclusion.

PEACE

 

[Amanuensis]

There is no 'what ifs' from Genesis and Jude.


PEACE

You said..."Had GOD not preserved Noah and his wife, satan would of won right then." That is a "What if scenario"

But it doesn't matter. Moving on...

I think you are claiming theories as settled scriptural doctrine and I would never be comfortable doing that.

I see that you are digging in and that you are ready to die on that hill so I will leave it alone for now.

It is good to visit this subject from time to time. It has caused me to notice things in the scriptures I was not paying attention to before.

Of course I always end up more persuaded than ever that I have interpreted it the correct way and that I should preach it as a sermon including the story of Balal, and Balaam, and maybe Samson and Delilah, Solomon, and on other examples all the way to the New Testament where the heart truth is finally applied to the Christian life and the admonition not to compromise with the world.

We are sons of God that shine like lights in the world holding forth the Word of Life and we must resist all attempts of the enemy to draw us away with riches of the world, fame, fortune, women, etc. The same war still rages on. Our eye must be single.

It is no disrespect to women, but the bible uses the fair women leading them astray motif because it illustrates a theological truth and is not about saying all women are evil. Of course not. But women can tell you that there is such a thing as women who make it their goal to entice a man and delight in the idea of a preacher or a priest giving up the ministry for them. They think that is romantic but it is actually very very wicked.

Now sin in general can be that wicked woman. But the truth is that prophets must especially be on their guard against women who would draw them into sin and cause them to miss God and ruin their ministry.

The desire for money can do the same thing. But the wicked woman drawing away the godly man motif From Gen 6 to Rev is repeated over and over again to get our attention and to teach us "DON"T LET THIS BE YOUR STORY"

 

[DavidTree]

You said..."Had GOD not preserved Noah and his wife, satan would of won right then." That is a "What if scenario"

But it doesn't matter. Moving on...

I think you are claiming theories as settled scriptural doctrine and I would never be comfortable doing that.

I see that you are digging in and that you are ready to die on that hill so I will leave it alone for now.

It is good to visit this subject from time to time. It has caused me to notice things in the scriptures I was not paying attention to before.

Of course I always end up more persuaded than ever that I have interpreted it the correct way and that I should preach it as a sermon including the story of Balal, and Balaam, and maybe Samson and Delilah, Solomon, and on other examples all the way to the New Testament where the heart truth is finally applied to the Christian life and the admonition not to compromise with the world.

We are sons of God that shine like lights in the world holding forth the Word of Life and we must resist all attempts of the enemy to draw us away with riches of the world, fame, fortune, women, etc. The same war still rages on. Our eye must be single.

It is no disrespect to women, but the bible uses the fair women leading them astray motif because it illustrates a theological truth and is not about saying all women are evil. Of course not. But women can tell you that there is such a thing as women who make it their goal to entice a man and delight in the idea of a preacher or a priest giving up the ministry for them. They think that is romantic but it is actually very very wicked.

Now sin in general can be that wicked woman. But the truth is that prophets must especially be on their guard against women who would draw them into sin and cause them to miss God and ruin their ministry.

The desire for money can do the same thing. But the wicked woman drawing away the godly man motif From Gen 6 to Rev is repeated over and over again to get our attention and to teach us "DON"T LET THIS BE YOUR STORY"

OK, i see what you were referring too now. I thought you were applying 'What If' to Genesis and Jude

Well here is a simple deduction from the Scripture = Why did God wipe the earth clean of ALL flesh, except for Noah + 7 ???
AND
How do we know that satan would of won from Scripture (easy find).

You can only become a 'Son of God' if you were created as an angel or were circumcised in your heart by the Holy Spirit.

All other flesh are dead men walking.

 

[Amanuensis]

OK, i see what you were referring too now. I thought you were applying 'What If' to Genesis and Jude

Well here is a simple deduction from the Scripture = Why did God wipe the earth clean of ALL flesh, except for Noah + 7 ???

You can only become a 'Son of God' if you were created as an angel or were circumcised in your heart by the Holy Spirit.

All other flesh are dead men walking.

I understand you to be saying that "son of God" in Job refers to angels. Or that is your understanding about Job.

And you are probably saying that in the new testament in John 1:12 it says
" But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name"
I am assuming that is what you are meaning by your statements.

However that does not prove that the author of Genesis was using son of God in that way.

We intuitively think he probably has something else in mind because he was not the author of Job and we don't even know if he was aware of Job at the time of writing Gen. And we know that the gospel of John did not exist nor the revelation of how men would become sons of God in the New Testament sense.

And if the author of Genesis said in chapter 4:26 that "then began men to call upon the name of the Lord" which in Hebrew is also said to be "began to call themselves by the name of the Lord" (which is in the KJV notes by the original scholars) Then there is strong evidence that the author of Genesis was referring to these same men when he called them "sons of God" in Gen 6. If you call yourself by the name of the Lord you are saying "we are the sons of God, we are the people of God," Those people over there in Cain's camp, are not. We are. That is probably what the author intended here. It is the most natural logical reading.

If one were to ask the question "What did the author mean when he wrote "sons of God?" would not a reference in Chapter 4 have greater authority than a reference in Job or John? I think so. We want to look first within the text preceding this statement to see if we can get a clue as to what the author intended the reader to understand.

We come across the statement "sons of God" in Gen 6 and we ask ourselves... "Is he going to explain? What no explanation? Then I must have missed a previous reference. Let me go backwards. Ah there it is in Chapter 4 .. they called themselves by the name of God.. sons of God. I get it."

Or we are left thinking. "What? No explanation? So here is some great mystery to solve?" Which is where people take a wrong turn. They start trying to treat it like a "Bible Code" and search for a hint from some other author and some other book and plug it in here making this author intend the same thing as another author. Which is highly questionable hermeneutics.

The same with the "daughters of men" Who were fair. "What? No explanation? Why is the author calling them "daughters of men" that is sort of odd. Wait? Did I miss something where they were mentioned before.?"
And we go back to Chapter 4 and sure enough one of Cain's sons had a sister named Fair. (Hebrew Naamah) Why did the author name these women in Cain's camp but no women in Seth's camp? He was highlighting that they were Fair and setting the reader up for what he was going to tell them in Gen 6 when he says "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair;"

To ignore that the author mentions a woman in Cain's camp whos name means Fair has anything at all to do with this statement in Gen 6 is just odd to me. The only reason people would ignore it is if they did not catch it, which is easy to do when reading in English.

But even without knowing that her name means Fair people should be asking themselves. "why did he mention these women? To what purpose?" And looking for the reason. That should make them at least suspect that they are possibly the reason why he mentions daughters of men with no explanation.

"Am I as the reader expected to know that he was talking about them or women like them, in Cains camp? " Well once we discover her name means Fair in Hebrew and imagine the Hebrew reader reading "Fair" when reading Naamah we understand that the Hebrew reader would have made a connection right away when reading "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair;"

Of course they would have thought of Naamah/Fair from Chapter 4. And they would have understood that he was calling these women the daughters of men.

And also the readers of Genesis would have know that Seths Camp marrying Cains Camp was a really bad idea and it would have been a reminder to them not to do the same thing by marrying the women of the idol nations surrounding them in the promise land. They would have considered this another story to put next to the Balaam / Balak fiasco and the Moabite women that infiltrated their camp and caused so many to die by a plague of judgment. This is how the early Jews interpreted this. It is the oldest and correct interpretation.

It it so easy when you include Chapter 4. I don't know why people can extract themselves from fantasy angel story that takes on all kinds of fantasy details not in scripture but that they imagine like a sci fi movie and they talk about it as if these things are in the scripture but they are all just made up details using a bad interpretation of one or two sentences. They then construct an elaborate story that will fill a book and don't ever stop and look at it and say. "I just made all that up"

 

[DavidTree]

I understand you to be saying that "son of God" in Job refers to angels. Or that is your understanding about Job.

And you are probably saying that in the new testament in John 1:12 it says
" But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name"
I am assuming that is what you are meaning by your statements.

However that does not prove that the author of Genesis was using son of God in that way.

We intuitively think he probably has something else in mind because he was not the author of Job and we don't even know if he was aware of Job at the time of writing Gen. And we know that the gospel of John did not exist nor the revelation of how men would become sons of God in the New Testament sense.

And if the author of Genesis said in chapter 4:26 that "then began men to call upon the name of the Lord" which in Hebrew is also said to be "began to call themselves by the name of the Lord" (which is in the KJV notes by the original scholars) Then there is strong evidence that the author of Genesis was referring to these same men when he called them "sons of God" in Gen 6. If you call yourself by the name of the Lord you are saying "we are the sons of God, we are the people of God," Those people over there in Cain's camp, are not. We are. That is probably what the author intended here. It is the most natural logical reading.

If one were to ask the question "What did the author mean when he wrote "sons of God?" would not a reference in Chapter 4 have greater authority than a reference in Job or John? I think so. We want to look first within the text preceding this statement to see if we can get a clue as to what the author intended the reader to understand.

We come across the statement "sons of God" in Gen 6 and we ask ourselves... "Is he going to explain? What no explanation? Then I must have missed a previous reference. Let me go backwards. Ah there it is in Chapter 4 .. they called themselves by the name of God.. sons of God. I get it."

Or we are left thinking. "What? No explanation? So here is some great mystery to solve?" Which is where people take a wrong turn. They start trying to treat it like a "Bible Code" and search for a hint from some other author and some other book and plug it in here making this author intend the same thing as another author. Which is highly questionable hermeneutics.

The same with the "daughters of men" Who were fair. "What? No explanation? Why is the author calling them "daughters of men" that is sort of odd. Wait? Did I miss something where they were mentioned before.?"
And we go back to Chapter 4 and sure enough one of Cain's sons had a sister named Fair. (Hebrew Naamah) Why did the author name these women in Cain's camp but no women in Seth's camp? He was highlighting that they were Fair and setting the reader up for what he was going to tell them in Gen 6 when he says "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair;"

To ignore that the author mentions a woman in Cain's camp whos name means Fair has anything at all to do with this statement in Gen 6 is just odd to me. The only reason people would ignore it is if they did not catch it, which is easy to do when reading in English.

But even without knowing that her name means Fair people should be asking themselves. "why did he mention these women? To what purpose?" And looking for the reason. That should make them at least suspect that they are possibly the reason why he mentions daughters of men with no explanation.

"Am I as the reader expected to know that he was talking about them or women like them, in Cains camp? " Well once we discover her name means Fair in Hebrew and imagine the Hebrew reader reading "Fair" when reading Naamah we understand that the Hebrew reader would have made a connection right away when reading "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair;"

Of course they would have thought of Naamah/Fair from Chapter 4. And they would have understood that he was calling these women the daughters of men.

And also the readers of Genesis would have know that Seths Camp marrying Cains Camp was a really bad idea and it would have been a reminder to them not to do the same thing by marrying the women of the idol nations surrounding them in the promise land. They would have considered this another story to put next to the Balaam / Balak fiasco and the Moabite women that infiltrated their camp and caused so many to die by a plague of judgment. This is how the early Jews interpreted this. It is the oldest and correct interpretation.

It it so easy when you include Chapter 4. I don't know why people can extract themselves from fantasy angel story that takes on all kinds of fantasy details not in scripture but that they imagine like a sci fi movie and they talk about it as if these things are in the scripture but they are all just made up details using a bad interpretation of one or two sentences. They then construct an elaborate story that will fill a book and don't ever stop and look at it and say. "I just made all that up"

There has only been one Author of the Scriptures.

 

[DavidTree]

I understand you to be saying that "son of God" in Job refers to angels. Or that is your understanding about Job.

And you are probably saying that in the new testament in John 1:12 it says
" But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name"
I am assuming that is what you are meaning by your statements.

However that does not prove that the author of Genesis was using son of God in that way.

We intuitively think he probably has something else in mind because he was not the author of Job and we don't even know if he was aware of Job at the time of writing Gen. And we know that the gospel of John did not exist nor the revelation of how men would become sons of God in the New Testament sense.

And if the author of Genesis said in chapter 4:26 that "then began men to call upon the name of the Lord" which in Hebrew is also said to be "began to call themselves by the name of the Lord" (which is in the KJV notes by the original scholars) Then there is strong evidence that the author of Genesis was referring to these same men when he called them "sons of God" in Gen 6. If you call yourself by the name of the Lord you are saying "we are the sons of God, we are the people of God," Those people over there in Cain's camp, are not. We are. That is probably what the author intended here. It is the most natural logical reading.

If one were to ask the question "What did the author mean when he wrote "sons of God?" would not a reference in Chapter 4 have greater authority than a reference in Job or John? I think so. We want to look first within the text preceding this statement to see if we can get a clue as to what the author intended the reader to understand.

We come across the statement "sons of God" in Gen 6 and we ask ourselves... "Is he going to explain? What no explanation? Then I must have missed a previous reference. Let me go backwards. Ah there it is in Chapter 4 .. they called themselves by the name of God.. sons of God. I get it."

Or we are left thinking. "What? No explanation? So here is some great mystery to solve?" Which is where people take a wrong turn. They start trying to treat it like a "Bible Code" and search for a hint from some other author and some other book and plug it in here making this author intend the same thing as another author. Which is highly questionable hermeneutics.

The same with the "daughters of men" Who were fair. "What? No explanation? Why is the author calling them "daughters of men" that is sort of odd. Wait? Did I miss something where they were mentioned before.?"
And we go back to Chapter 4 and sure enough one of Cain's sons had a sister named Fair. (Hebrew Naamah) Why did the author name these women in Cain's camp but no women in Seth's camp? He was highlighting that they were Fair and setting the reader up for what he was going to tell them in Gen 6 when he says "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair;"

To ignore that the author mentions a woman in Cain's camp whos name means Fair has anything at all to do with this statement in Gen 6 is just odd to me. The only reason people would ignore it is if they did not catch it, which is easy to do when reading in English.

But even without knowing that her name means Fair people should be asking themselves. "why did he mention these women? To what purpose?" And looking for the reason. That should make them at least suspect that they are possibly the reason why he mentions daughters of men with no explanation.

"Am I as the reader expected to know that he was talking about them or women like them, in Cains camp? " Well once we discover her name means Fair in Hebrew and imagine the Hebrew reader reading "Fair" when reading Naamah we understand that the Hebrew reader would have made a connection right away when reading "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair;"

Of course they would have thought of Naamah/Fair from Chapter 4. And they would have understood that he was calling these women the daughters of men.

And also the readers of Genesis would have know that Seths Camp marrying Cains Camp was a really bad idea and it would have been a reminder to them not to do the same thing by marrying the women of the idol nations surrounding them in the promise land. They would have considered this another story to put next to the Balaam / Balak fiasco and the Moabite women that infiltrated their camp and caused so many to die by a plague of judgment. This is how the early Jews interpreted this. It is the oldest and correct interpretation.

It it so easy when you include Chapter 4. I don't know why people can extract themselves from fantasy angel story that takes on all kinds of fantasy details not in scripture but that they imagine like a sci fi movie and they talk about it as if these things are in the scripture but they are all just made up details using a bad interpretation of one or two sentences. They then construct an elaborate story that will fill a book and don't ever stop and look at it and say. "I just made all that up"

The Author separates and denotes 'sons of God' as distinct from 'daughters of men'

God's Word is written for children.

 

[Amanuensis]

The Author separates and denotes 'sons of God' as distinct from 'daughters of men'

God's Word is written for children.

Yes even children know to look to see if the sons of God and daughters of men were mentioned before this statement and they are in Chapter 4. Chapter 4 is not going to go away. I have made a better case using context with Chapter 4 than the Jewish/Greek Myth so I will let it go for now.

 

[Amanuensis]

There has only been one Author of the Scriptures.

Interpreting Scriptures requires that you ask what the author who wrote it intended. When you answer that question you also answer what did the Holy Spirit who inspired the author intend. It is the same thing but the Holy Spirit used men and their own individual style of writing and use of words and sentence structure.

 

[DavidTree]

Yes even children know to look to see if the sons of God and daughters of men were mentioned before this statement and they are in Chapter 4. Chapter 4 is not going to go away. I have made a better case using context with Chapter 4 than the Jewish/Greek Myth so I will let it go for now.

No mention of "sons of God" in cahpter 4

 

[DavidTree]

Interpreting Scriptures requires that you ask what the author who wrote it intended. When you answer that question you also answer what did the Holy Spirit who inspired the author intend. It is the same thing but the Holy Spirit used men and their own individual style of writing and use of words and sentence structure.

We little children who believe every word that proceeds from the Mouth of God know what Genesis 6 means because HE told us exactly what it means.

To be like a little child before HIM means to completely abandon all preconceived notions of religion.

Don't be afraid - it's Great to let the Spirit of Truth lead us.

 

[Amanuensis]

No mention of "sons of God" in cahpter 4

Then men began to call themselves by the name of the Lord (KJV Scholar Marginal Notes) The Hebrew can be translated either "on the name of the Lord" or "by the name of the Lord") And this calling themselves "by the name of the Lord" would be the reference to why he says the "sons of God" in 6.

He has been telling a story. The story has Cain being "thrust out from the presence of the Lord" and building a city on the east of Eden.

Then he talks of some of his sons and their accomplishments, being the first to invent various things related to earthly life and making it better I suppose one might say. Then he mentions some of the women in that city whose names meant fair.

Then he continues the story of the people in Adams camp on the other side of Eden. When this separate group develop they begin to call themselves by the name of the Lord.

Then he says when the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair they married them and God says he will not always strive with man because he is flesh and he gives him 120 years before the flood.

This story is easy to understand if one reads all of the story from 4 through 6.

If one only reads 6 and ignores the background they make dumb mistakes. Even children no better than to open up in the middle of a story book and ignore the first half of the story.

Come on man. You know I'm right.

What profit is there in imagining all this nonsense about angels and giant hybrids? How can you use that in your daily life. And if you try to come up with a method like "avoiding vaccines" you have gone off the deep end and are engaging in a thought life about stuff the Lord does not want you to be thinking about, talking about or teaching.

The truth you should be living and teaching from Gen 4-6 is how the godly lost their faith soon after Enoch was translated and went over to Cain's side leaving only Noah left who still walked with God. It was a fading out. The camp of Adam and Seth and Noah, they all went over to Cain's side, drawn by the women who were probably doing things to make themselves enticing. Yes I know I am speculating, but the rest of the bible continues such patterns as does life today.

This has nothing to do with DNA corruption and everything to do with MORAL corruption. That is what we should be meditating on today. Are we falling into the same sin or not? The war is still raging. Which side are you on? Meditation on angels corrupting DNA is a vain thought life, no profit, nothing can be applied to make you a better Christlike disciple.

If avoiding the temptation to fellowship with darkness is one of the most important things to be alert to, then it makes sense that satan would want people to think this was about angels and women and giant hybrids because they will talk about that while not being alert to not fellowshipping with darkness.

I believe the Spirit of God leads me into all truth, and you believe that He is doing the same for you, and yet we disagree on this. So that is why we have to use the rules of interpretation and see which view is following all the rules.

It might be difficult for someone to give up an idea that they have invested so much time in, and admit that it was all a bunch of nonsense but the desire to want to know what the author meant when he wrote it and not something we invented will lead us to the right choice. Intellectual honesty and a desire to focus on the main message that God intended for us to apply to our lives.

I wish you well on your journey.

 

[DavidTree]

Then men began to call themselves by the name of the Lord (KJV Scholar Marginal Notes) The Hebrew can be translated either "on the name of the Lord" or "by the name of the Lord") And this calling themselves "by the name of the Lord" would be the reference to why he says the "sons of God" in 6.

He has been telling a story. The story has Cain being "thrust out from the presence of the Lord" and building a city on the east of Eden.

Then he talks of some of his sons and their accomplishments, being the first to invent various things related to earthly life and making it better I suppose one might say. Then he mentions some of the women in that city whose names meant fair.

Then he continues the story of the people in Adams camp on the other side of Eden. When this separate group develop they begin to call themselves by the name of the Lord.

Then he says when the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair they married them and God says he will not always strive with man because he is flesh and he gives him 120 years before the flood.

This story is easy to understand if one reads all of the story from 4 through 6.

If one only reads 6 and ignores the background they make dumb mistakes. Even children no better than to open up in the middle of a story book and ignore the first half of the story.

Come on man. You know I'm right.

What profit is there in imagining all this nonsense about angels and giant hybrids? How can you use that in your daily life. And if you try to come up with a method like "avoiding vaccines" you have gone off the deep end and are engaging in a thought life about stuff the Lord does not want you to be thinking about, talking about or teaching.

The truth you should be living and teaching from Gen 4-6 is how the godly lost their faith soon after Enoch was translated and went over to Cain's side leaving only Noah left who still walked with God. It was a fading out. The camp of Adam and Seth and Noah, they all went over to Cain's side, drawn by the women who were probably doing things to make themselves enticing. Yes I know I am speculating, but the rest of the bible continues such patterns as does life today.

This has nothing to do with DNA corruption and everything to do with MORAL corruption. That is what we should be meditating on today. Are we falling into the same sin or not? The war is still raging. Which side are you on? Meditation on angels corrupting DNA is a vain thought life, no profit, nothing can be applied to make you a better Christlike disciple.

If avoiding the temptation to fellowship with darkness is one of the most important things to be alert to, then it makes sense that satan would want people to think this was about angels and women and giant hybrids because they will talk about that while not being alert to not fellowshipping with darkness.

I believe the Spirit of God leads me into all truth, and you believe that He is doing the same for you, and yet we disagree on this. So that is why we have to use the rules of interpretation and see which view is following all the rules.

It might be difficult for someone to give up an idea that they have invested so much time in, and admit that it was all a bunch of nonsense but the desire to want to know what the author meant when he wrote it and not something we invented will lead us to the right choice. Intellectual honesty and a desire to focus on the main message that God intended for us to apply to our lives.

I wish you well on your journey.

And Adam again had relations with his wife, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another seed in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.”
And to Seth also a son was born, and he called him Enosh

At that time men began to call upon the name of the LORD.

This has nothing to do with Genesis ch6 = "the Sons of God who took for themselves the daughter of men.

Genesis ch6 - "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and afterward as well—when the sons of God had relations with the daughters of men. And they bore them children who became the mighty men of old, men of renown."

 

[Amanuensis]

And Adam again had relations with his wife, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another seed in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.”
And to Seth also a son was born, and he called him Enosh

At that time men began to call upon the name of the LORD.

This has nothing to do with Genesis ch6 = "the Sons of God who took for themselves the daughter of men.

Genesis ch6 - "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and afterward as well—when the sons of God had relations with the daughters of men. And they bore them children who became the mighty men of old, men of renown."

I am not sure if you aware of this but the majority of biblical scholars do think that is exactly what it means. The angel theory is a minute fraction, minority interpretation. It is gaining popularity on the internet using sensational videos and entertaining sci fi stories. But the biblically educated still prefer the view that Chapter 4:26 is the reference that is intended when the "sons of God" are mentioned in 6:2.

Also Gen 6:4 does not say that after the sons of God and daughters of man had children that they were giants.

It says...

4There were giants in the earth in those days;

and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The most natural reading would be interpreted as saying that there were giants in the Land even before the sons of God and the daughters of men had children who became mighty men of renown.

The constant misquoting of the verse, saying that "after the sons of God and the daughters of men had children they were giants" is a red flag that the people speaking this are not being intellectually honest and should know that they are really changing what the author said. And I suspect that they don't care about that.

Did the author mean to indicate that the children of the union were giants? Or did he mean to communicate that there were giants in the Land even before the children of this union came about?

I read it as two different statements. "There were giants in the Land even before the mighty men of renown were born."

So those that believe this was angels and women should say that they produced hybrids that were mighty men of renown but they should not stress that they were giants because that does not seem to be what the text says.

It's just another of the many problems with this angel myth theory.

 

[DavidTree]

I am not sure if you aware of this but the majority of biblical scholars do think that is exactly what it means. The angel theory is a minute fraction, minority interpretation. It is gaining popularity on the internet using sensational videos and entertaining sci fi stories. But the biblically educated still prefer the view that Chapter 4:26 is the reference that is intended when the "sons of God" are mentioned in 6:2.

Also Gen 6:4 does not say that after the sons of God and daughters of man had children that they were giants.

It says...

4There were giants in the earth in those days;

and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The most natural reading would be interpreted as saying that there were giants in the Land even before the sons of God and the daughters of men had children who became mighty men of renown.

The constant misquoting of the verse, saying that "after the sons of God and the daughters of men had children they were giants" is a red flag that the people speaking this are not being intellectually honest and should know that they are really changing what the author said. And I suspect that they don't care about that.

Did the author mean to indicate that the children of the union were giants? Or did he mean to communicate that there were giants in the Land even before the children of this union came about?

I read it as two different statements. "There were giants in the Land even before the mighty men of renown were born."

So those that believe this was angels and women should say that they produced hybrids that were mighty men of renown but they should not stress that they were giants because that does not seem to be what the text says.

It's just another of the many problems with this angel myth theory.

Biblical Scholars = Giants of confusion

This is a children's book written for HIS Children and the Story Teller is the Holy Spirit.

"If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you."

 

[Amanuensis]

Biblical Scholars = Giants of confusion

This is a children's book written for HIS Children and the Story Teller is the Holy Spirit.

"If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you."

We are probably miscommunicating about the term.

I could have said, "those who are expert in the original languages and manuscripts in extant, and who are born again and believe that the bible is inspired, and who have spent a great deal of their lives studying and discussing all the details of a particular book of the bible and written commentaries that have a good reputation among their peers who know as much as they do on the subject" But that takes too long; so I say Biblical Scholar.

I would love to live long enough to be one. I don't think that is probably what will happen but I do think it is a valuable contribution to the body of Christ.