Murders depicted in the Bible

[Samie]

6 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I dont understand how these scriptures you quoted can mean what you say/imply. They do not say that God never punishes anyone or that He never destroys anything/one. He simply stated that He "forsook" the people He was referring to. It seems quite like "human reasoning" that this quote is contributing to the equation.

Hey, better watch out, or be in Kevin's ignore list.

[Samie]

8 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

We're straying off topic here, but sorry, there was never any such thing as breeding with angels.  Those who make such a claim usually base it on a passage in Genesis chapter 6 pertaining to a people group that was entirely wiped out in the Flood, so even if it had occurred, how would they have remained?  The fact is, angels "neither marry, nor are given in marriage" according to Jesus' own words.  We don't have male and female angels.  We don't have baby angels.  If we did, then where are all the doctrines about baby devils, and demon whores, etc.?  Angels are not created in the same fashion in which we are with the ability to procreate.  Mrs. White makes clear that the passage in Genesis which has been translated in the KJV as the "sons of God" refers to the righteous lineage of Seth, whereas the "daughters of men" refers to the worldly/wicked descendants of the murderer Cain. 

Sorry, but I tried for many times to start a new thread in response to the post above-quoted lest I be misunderstood to be derailing or hijacking this thread, but to no avail.  Hence, this post.

Let me start by saying that in the Bible, there are at least three kinds of intelligent beings: men, angels, and Deities (God the Father, our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit). Compared to humans, angels excel in strength and power (Ps 103:20). Of course, both humans and angels were created by God.  I pointed this out so that if the phrase “sons of God” as used in the OT is proven to be referring to humans, then they cannot refer to angels, or vice versa.

In the context of Genesis 6, the intermarriage between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” seemed to have contributed greatly to the corruption of the earth prompting God to end the evils of that time.

KJV Genesis 6:4-6   

4 There 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. 

5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 

Based on the foregoing verses, the timing of the intermarriage between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” was around the time when God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, proving that indeed the intermarriage did not provide a let up of corruption but instead contributed to its getting even worse.

Let us now consider the scenario painted by the popular belief that the “sons of God” as referring to the male descendants of Seth and perceived to be righteous, effectively excluding the male descendants of Cain whose descendants, it is assumed, were corrupt. Here’s Angel Manuel Rodriguez of the BRI:
    

Quote

 

  “2. Immediate context. In Genesis 4 and 5 the human race is divided into two main groups: the descendants of Cain (Gen. 4: 17-24) and those of Seth (verses 25, 26).

      In Genesis 6:1,2 this division is clearly recognized by referring to those who followed the Lord as "sons of God" and to the rest of humanity as "men." There is nothing in the immediate context to suggest that the "sons of God" are kings, angels, or heavenly beings. ”https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/bible-ot-texts/genesis-61-4"

 

But can it be shown from Scriptures that the subject “sons of God” in Gen 6:1-4 indeed compose the righteous branch of Adam’s descendants, that is, Seth’s family line?  Let us try to dig a bit deeper into Scriptures.

Antedeluvians have long life spans. Starting from Adam, we have Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah. Adam was still alive until his great, great, great, great, great, great grandson Lamech was 56 years old. Seth was 744 years old when Lamech was born. Lamech was 168 years old when Seth died 14 years before Noah was born. Enos died when Noah was 84 years old. Cainan died when Noah was 179 years old. Mahalaleel died when Noah was 234 years old.  Jared died when Noah was 366 years old. Enoch did not die. Methuselah died on the year of the Flood, outliving his son Lamech by 5 years.  Lamech died 5 years before the Flood.

From Adam to Lamech, the average life span was 907.5 years.  This tells us that at the time just before  the flood, people born 300 years before Noah, those born at most 70 years after Methuselah, were still alive! These include those who were supposed to have intermarried with the “daughters of men”, the “sons of God” who, proponents of “sons of God” = male descendants of Seth say, are righteous and who followed the Lord.

But were they righteous in God’s sight? Here’s how Scriptures described the inhabitants:

Genesis 6:7-12   

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 

9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. {perfect: or, upright} 

10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 

11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.  12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

We can easily deduce from the foregoing verses that all the earth was corrupt and that should include both Cain’s and Seth’s descendants, with one exception:

NAS Genesis 7:1 Then the LORD said to Noah, "Enter the ark, you and all your household; for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time.

The evidence of Scripture seems not to agree with the idea that the “sons of God” = Seth’s descendants and that they are righteous and are followers of the Lord.

IMO, the position that the “sons of God” who intermarried with "daughters of men" are the male descendants of Seth is biblically untenable.

So, to who does the phrase “sons of God” in Gen 6:1-4 refer to?  My next post will address this issue.

[Samie]

27 minutes ago, Samie said:

So, to who does the phrase “sons of God” in Gen 6:1-4 refer to? 

I believe it refers to angels, specifically evil angels. How so?

First, we will let the Bible be its own interpreter, in finding out from the sacred pages of the OT as to who does the phrase “sons of God” refer to.  The phrase “sons of God” in the OT occurs 5 times in the KJV (Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) This phrase is from the Hebrew ~yhiêl{a/h' ynEåB.. (transliterated Bünê hä´élöhîm, or ben elohim, for simplicity).

Job 1:6 & 2:1 tell us of a certain day when these “ben elohim” are to present themselves before the LORD. During that particular date with God, Satan was among them. It can be inferred that Satan is of the same level as these “sons of God” who presented themselves before the LORD.

^KJV Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

In verse 8,  "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"                                                    

Notice God's description of Job: none like him in the earth, perfect and upright man.  If the phrase "ben elohim" refers to Seth's descendants which is claimed as the righteous line of Adam's descendants, then Job must be with those "ben elohim" who presented themselves before the LORD, since there is none in earth like him.  But he was not with them.

When God confronted Job, He asked him:

Job 38:4-6   

⁴ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

⁵ Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?

⁶ Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof?

 

And then He told Job what transpired when the foundation of the earth was laid:

 

^KJV Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The “sons of God” were already existent when the foundations of the earth were but being laid by the Creator PRIOR to the creation of man.  Hence, the “sons of God” can not be humans and we are left with no other option but to conclude that they are angels.

But why do I believe that the angels in Gen 6:1-4 are evil?  It is because of the simple reason based on the words of Christ that angels in heaven do not marry.

Matthew 22:30   ³⁰ For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

 

Mark 12:25   ²⁵ For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

 

For me, it is highly possible, that the angels of Gen 6:1-4, being on earth instead of in heaven, are those who sided and were cast down to earth with Satan. Hence, evil angels. What more, their intermarrying with humans simply showed that indeed they are evil, because angels are not supposed to marry, as what I understand from the words of our Lord.

 

The observation that angels do not marry because they have no sexual capability has no support of Scriptures.  Most eunuchs don’t marry, but that doesn’t mean they are not capable of procreating. Potiphar, Joseph’s master in Egypt, was a eunuch, but he had a wife. See Gen 39: 7, 19, 20.

 

In my first post relative to this issue, Scriptures were presented that negate the prevalent belief that Seth's descendants comprise the righteous branch of Adam's descendants.  In those verses, God Himself pronounced that it was only Noah who God found righteous in His sight.  Hence, the claim that "sons of God" refer to Seth's descendants can't hold water.

 

In this post, Scriptures were presented where God Himself told Job that prior to creating Adam, there were already "ben elohim" who were shouting for joy.  Hence, "ben elohim" or "sons of God" in the OT cannot possibly refer to humans.

 

Therefore, the phrase "sons of God" in the OT can only refer to angels and those who intermarried with the "daughters of men" are evil angels.

[Samie]

5 minutes ago, Samie said:

Therefore, the phrase "sons of God" in the OT can only refer to angels and those who intermarried with the "daughters of men" are evil angels.

Are the "daughters of men" in Gen 6:2-4 the women descendants of Cain, considered the unrighteous branch of Adam's descendants?

To start with, let us read Gen 1:26, 27.

^KJV Genesis 1:26-27   ²⁶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  ²⁷ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I’d like to point out that the word man in Gen 1:26, 27 is from the Hebrew ~d'a' (ADAM). This word occurs 585 times in a total of 555 verses in the OT.  In the KJV, this Hebrew word was transliterated into “ADAM” 22 times in 20 verses of the OT.

The following verse records what transpired when Cain (Hebrew !yIq; Qayin) was born:

^KJV Genesis 4:1 And ADAM knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Note that the word man in this verse is from the Hebrew vyai  ('iysh), and of course, ADAM is from ~d'a'.  Here is another verse that used both these words:

^KJV Genesis 2:23 And ADAM said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

In the above verse ADAM is from ~d'a', and Man is from vya ('iysh).. Of course, Woman is from hV'ai  ('ishshah).

Let’s now go to the verses in our study:

^KJV Genesis 6:1-4 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,  ² That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.  ³ And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.  ⁴ There 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 words men in the verses above are from the same Hebrew word ~d'a' used in Gen 1:26, 27.

It appears to me, that the daughters of men – from the same Hebrew word ADAM in Gen 1:26, 27- should naturally be the daughters that descended from the subject ADAM of Gen 1:26, 27, if one were to properly apply the principles of exegesis. That should, as a matter of course, include those that descended from Cain who likewise descended from ADAM.  This I think is the better choice rather than make the daughters of men as applying to only those that descended from Cain to the exclusion of the daughters that descended from Seth. What more, I haven’t yet found any verse in Scriptures that links, directly or otherwise, the phrase “daughters of men” with only those that descended from Cain.

On the other hand, the phrase “daughters of men” can be linked to the female descendants of Seth, as gleaned from the following verse:

^KJV Genesis 11:5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

Exegesis dictates that in the phrase “children of men” in Gen 11:5 the word “men” should likewise refer to what was referred to by the same word “men” in the phrase “daughters of men” in Gen 6:1-4. Same Hebrew word, same book, same author. IOW, if the word “men” in Gen 11:5 refers to the descendants of Cain, then the word “men” in Gen 6:1-4 should also refer to the descendants of Cain.

Gen 11:5 is about the story of the tower of Babel, after the Flood. We all know that only the children of Noah, a descendant of Seth, remained alive. All descendants of Cain perished in the flood. Hence, the “children of men” in Gen 11:5 denoting both “sons and daughters of men” can only refer to the descendants of Seth.  It then follows that the “daughters of men” are those that descended from Seth, instead of from Cain.

Therefore, IMHO, the phrase “daughters of men” in Gen 6:1-4 should refer to the female descendants of ADAM, and, naturally, should include both those that descended from Cain as well as from Seth.

[Samie]

2 hours ago, Kevin Straub said:

Your scenarios are all human reasoning from a human paradigm of human governance based upon rewards and punishments. It is behaviourism, based upon deterrence. It will never produce a universe free from fear or from danger of rebellion arising again.

Whom will God grant to be with Him and the Lamb FOREVER AND EVER?  Only those whose names were NOT blotted out from the book of life (Rev 3:5, 21).  Their names were not blotted out because during their life on earth, they have overcome evil with good.  Having proven themselves overcomers of evil, and that should include the evil of rebellion, possible rebellion arising through them is just NOT possible.

 

2 hours ago, Kevin Straub said:

Furthermore, it is unbiblical, for God has stated unequivocally how punishment comes.

Jesus Himself UNEQUIVOCALLY stated that He will RENDER to each one according to what each has done (Matt 16:27; Rev 22:12).  To render is active, not passive.  You can't produce a verse from the Bible that God will simply "let over" in rendering to the wicked his due reward. Here's the apostle Paul:

KJV Romans 2:5-11   5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;  6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:  7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:  8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,  9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;  10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:  11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

[Kevin Straub]

21 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

 

I dont understand how these scriptures you quoted can mean what you say/imply. They do not say that God never punishes anyone or that He never destroys anything/one. He simply stated that He "forsook" the people He was referring to. It seems quite like "human reasoning" that this quote is contributing to the equation.

We do not say God never punishes or destroys. In the Hebrew parlance, He does so. By hiding of face, giving over, giving up, sparing not, etc. He lets the results of sin have its course, which means that a rejection of God is a rejection of His sustenance and protection and being left to the tender mercies of Satan, of wickedness in the human heart, and of the powers God gave to us in nature for our benefit. You can't take a knife in your hand and "forsake" someone with it. You can come at them with force. We do not believe God comes at people with force to harm. Didn't I ever say this before? If I have a weapon in my hand and use it upon another, what am I giving them over to? Myself? Does God protect us from Himself? Is that what His mercies are? How is this any different from an organized crime protection racket? "Strong-arming." Extortion.

Note again Deut. 31:17. The evils come because God is NOT among them. Man destroys by moving toward the victim with intent to exert power to cause damage. God destroys by moving away from the one rejecting Him, with grief that He can do nothing to save them.

[JoeMo]

Here are some different translations of Genesis 6:4:

In those days, giants lived on the earth and also afterward, when divine beings and human daughters had sexual relations and gave birth to children (CEB)

The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later. (CEV)

The ·Nephilim [^Lfallen ones; ^Cthe significance of the name is unclear] were on the earth in those days and also later. That was when the sons of God ·had sexual relations with [^Lcame in to] the daughters of ·human beings [^Tman; ^CHebrew: Adam; 1:27–28]. These women gave birth to children ·who became famous [^Lmen of a name] and were the mighty warriors of long ago. [^CThe Nephilim of Num. 13:31–33, thouIn those days, and even later, there were giants on the earth who were descendants of human women and the heavenly beings.gh not related genealogically, were giants, suggesting these pre-flood Nephilim were also.] (EXB)

In those days, and even later, there were giants on the earth who were descendants of human women and the heavenly beings. (GNT)

The Nephilim were on the earth at that time (and also immediately afterward), when those divine beings were having sexual relations with those human women, who gave birth to children for them. (ISV)

In those days, and even afterwards, when the evil beings from the spirit world were sexually involved with human women, their children became giants. (TLB)

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, as well as later, when the sons of Elohim slept with the daughters of other humans and had children by them. (NOG)

Furthermore, scripture does NOT say angels CAN'T have sex; it says they DON'T have sex. " At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." (Matt. 22:7)  In fact, it doesn't even say angels don't have sex; it simply says they don't marry. It's easy to infer (I think correctly) that angels don't have sex because sex outside of marriage is unlawful.  Just because beings DON'T do something doesn't mean they CAN'T.  I DON'T use heroin; but that doesn't mean I CAN'T.  All free-will beings (divine or human) CAN do whatever they choose.

What is so outrageous about angels and humans procreating?  Jesus - the Son of God is the result of a supernatural union between God and a human woman.  I'm not saying that Jesus was the same as a Nephillim; but the chief Divine Being in the universe impregnated a human woman, who bore the "God-made man".  Why  is it so incredulous that angels couldn't do the same thing?