Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 21, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2014 6 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. Genesis chapter 6 ... The bible clearly demonstrates that jesus wasn't the only begotten son of god. Why continue to believe he was? *https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6&version=KJV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Because JESUS! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helvetios Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 http://www.struggler.org/Giants.html Theory 1: the 'sons of God' are fallen angels and the 'daughters of men' are mortals. However, this means that some human beings today would not be descended completely from Adam and that creates even more thorny theological problems (from a certain point of view). Theory 2: the 'sons of God' are the tribe of Seth and the 'daughters of men' are the tribe of Cain. This view is more adopted but I find it unconvincing. Theory 3: the 'sons of God' were kings. (recent evidence) (not very exciting, and I don't sense that interpretation from the text at all) http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss_book_of_giants.htm Now that I no longer believe the Bible is authoritative I have become very interested in lost/ignored texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, apocrypha, the Book of Enoch, anything that the Council of Nicea didn't like, etc. The mythological history is a lot richer this way. Part of the DSS, the Book of Giants illustrates some of the giants' exploits: includes Gilgamesh, pre-flood stories, and Lamech being concerned that Noah is a Nephilim-baby. All fun stuff. I'll likely reply later with a properly researched response since this is a really interesting topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helvetios Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Relating back to the question though, I suppose the only difference would be that the divine part of Jesus' heritage was God himself and not one of the nephilim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 21, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2014 http://www.struggler.org/Giants.html Theory 1: the 'sons of God' are fallen angels and the 'daughters of men' are mortals. However, this means that some human beings today would not be descended completely from Adam and that creates even more thorny theological problems (from a certain point of view). Theory 2: the 'sons of God' are the tribe of Seth and the 'daughters of men' are the tribe of Cain. This view is more adopted but I find it unconvincing. Theory 3: the 'sons of God' were kings. (recent evidence) (not very exciting, and I don't sense that interpretation from the text at all) http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss_book_of_giants.htm Now that I no longer believe the Bible is authoritative I have become very interested in lost/ignored texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, apocrypha, the Book of Enoch, anything that the Council of Nicea didn't like, etc. The mythological history is a lot richer this way. Part of the DSS, the Book of Giants illustrates some of the giants' exploits: includes Gilgamesh, pre-flood stories, and Lamech being concerned that Noah is a Nephilim-baby. All fun stuff. I'll likely reply later with a properly researched response since this is a really interesting topic. Good response. The problem I have with the three theories is that none of them match what the text actually says. The text says "sons of god". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Theory 4 In the original passage there was one God Most High and he had a bunch of sons who were also gods and the local patrons tribal gods, including Yahweh. When the passage was edited for monotheism. The God Most High's name was removed and replaced with simply "God" and these other deities were simply sons of God. The new religion held that all Israeli men were sons of God. The passage couldn't be edited again for Christianity because it had already been well distributed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. -KJV If the sons of God came to present themselves before him, and Satan was among them, is he also one of God's bastards? Hmmmmm. However, with newer versions, humans realized "oh shit, we better retconn this. One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan the Accuser came with them. -NLV So sons of God now meant angels, but hang on... Don't christians believe that jeshitwa sacrificed himself to himself to save HUMANITY from his own wrath? That's what made us "sons and daughters of God." If this sacrifice was meant for humanity and not angelic beings, why are angels 'sons'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Regarding Genesis' mention of "sons of God" The three primary views on the identity of the sons of God are 1) they were fallen angels, 2) they were powerful human rulers, or 3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain.Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html#ixzz3Go2hEnZz The fuck? The one book that yeshitwa inspired can have 3 widely different meanings? Fallen angels != godly descendants... Honestly the level of hamster wheel running is strong with this passage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Theory 5: Aliens. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Theory 5: Aliens. The birth of yeshitwa that they don't want you to see: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Oh, but of course, despite the passage you quoted in Genesis, we know that in fact Jesus was the only begotten son of God. It says so right in John 3:16. Therefore, you misunderstand the words In Genesis because the Bible contains no contradictions. God will explain it all to those who make it to heaven. Until then, just have faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 21, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2014 Regarding Genesis' mention of "sons of God" The three primary views on the identity of the sons of God are 1) they were fallen angels, 2) they were powerful human rulers, or 3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html#ixzz3Go2hEnZz The fuck? The one book that yeshitwa inspired can have 3 widely different meanings? Fallen angels != godly descendants... Honestly the level of hamster wheel running is strong with this passage. All the theories are rubbish. They're just another attempt by christians to claim that the bible doesn't mean what it says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 yet his days shall be an hundred What's up with the grammar? Is it a new rule that we use 'a' in front of a consonant or did the King James translator fuck up here? Sorry, I guess I find this stuff more interesting than theology, which all amounts to moot for me anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 yet his days shall be an hundred What's up with the grammar? Is it a new rule that we use 'a' in front of a consonant or did the King James translator fuck up here? Sorry, I guess I find this stuff more interesting than theology, which all amounts to moot for me anymore. When the king of England make a translation into English he makes up any grammar he bloody well feels like making up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 21, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2014 yet his days shall be an hundred What's up with the grammar? Is it a new rule that we use 'a' in front of a consonant or did the King James translator fuck up here? Sorry, I guess I find this stuff more interesting than theology, which all amounts to moot for me anymore. When the king of England make a translation into English he makes up any grammar he bloody well feels like making up. The British often use the word "an" in front of a word beginning with the letter "h". They'll say something like, "This is truly an historic moment unparalleled by anything in recent history." I'm guessing they've been doing that since King Jimmy's day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 yet his days shall be an hundred What's up with the grammar? Is it a new rule that we use 'a' in front of a consonant or did the King James translator fuck up here? Sorry, I guess I find this stuff more interesting than theology, which all amounts to moot for me anymore. When the king of England make a translation into English he makes up any grammar he bloody well feels like making up. The British often use the word "an" in front of a word beginning with the letter "h". They'll say something like, "This is truly an historic moment unparalleled by anything in recent history." I'm guessing they've been doing that since King Jimmy's day. Don't be too hard on them. They didn't have American teachers to instruct them in the ways of SAE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 You rang? Let me first start off by saying God Bless our Men and Women in Armed Forces for their service to the Defence of our Nation and Protection of our Liberty. So this is the Lion's Den? 11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: 12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Isaiah [or Elias] 29:11-12 Did you teach yourself how to read? I was admonished for asking that question in another section, which wasn't actually mean to be derogatory so hopefully it will not be taken as such this time. But in case you are one that didn't, no shame in that since the ability to read and write is what is referred unto as being 'faith to faith' representing that it takes one who has received the knowledge to pass that to one who doesn't. So if you believe that, then what, it says to make inquiry, question, then examine, the test to prove. That is the faith, believing all things might be possible is just the first step not the destination, that would be the principle I think one might consider. Has anyone noticed how the Scripture will say this in one verse and then that in another? Such as the one in Isaiah given above, Is not this laid up in store with me, and sealed up among my treasures? Deut 32:34 Hopefully you agree with 1 John 2:21 in which it is written, "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth." Is that a crock or what? Some might say it is developing cognitive reasoning, unless one believes the truth is a lie. 3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. 4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. Rev 5:3-4 So if I say that Adam married a man in Genesis, would you say she dam sure did or would you say I am a liar? One might understand why not to believe 1 John 2:27 from John 12:44, the reason no man will ever be found worthy, unless first believes it is possible, heck if someone doesn't believe something is possible then do you think that their effort will be (+) toward learning or (-) refuting. Not that everything is true, nor that one should just simply believe and accept as truth but rather follow the principles of the process. They are in the scriptures, they are not just laid out for any to find, but a quote of Thomas Paine might help to explain it better than me, " Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles; he can only discover them." Thomas Paine Well here kitty kitty.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 What the heck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 What the heck? Where you waiting long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 21, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2014 You rang? Let me first start off by saying God Bless our Men and Women in Armed Forces for their service to the Defence of our Nation and Protection of our Liberty. So this is the Lion's Den? 11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: 12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Isaiah [or Elias] 29:11-12 Did you teach yourself how to read? I was admonished for asking that question in another section, which wasn't actually mean to be derogatory so hopefully it will not be taken as such this time. But in case you are one that didn't, no shame in that since the ability to read and write is what is referred unto as being 'faith to faith' representing that it takes one who has received the knowledge to pass that to one who doesn't. So if you believe that, then what, it says to make inquiry, question, then examine, the test to prove. That is the faith, believing all things might be possible is just the first step not the destination, that would be the principle I think one might consider. Has anyone noticed how the Scripture will say this in one verse and then that in another? Such as the one in Isaiah given above, Is not this laid up in store with me, and sealed up among my treasures? Deut 32:34 Hopefully you agree with 1 John 2:21 in which it is written, "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth." Is that a crock or what? Some might say it is developing cognitive reasoning, unless one believes the truth is a lie. 3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. 4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. Rev 5:3-4 So if I say that Adam married a man in Genesis, would you say she dam sure did or would you say I am a liar? One might understand why not to believe 1 John 2:27 from John 12:44, the reason no man will ever be found worthy, unless first believes it is possible, heck if someone doesn't believe something is possible then do you think that their effort will be (+) toward learning or (-) refuting. Not that everything is true, nor that one should just simply believe and accept as truth but rather follow the principles of the process. They are in the scriptures, they are not just laid out for any to find, but a quote of Thomas Paine might help to explain it better than me, " Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles; he can only discover them." Thomas Paine Well here kitty kitty.... Did you teach yourself to write? Coherent sentences and intelligible concepts are always welcome, especially if they have something to do with the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 You rang? Let me first start off by saying God Bless our Men and Women in Armed Forces for their service to the Defence of our Nation and Protection of our Liberty. So this is the Lion's Den? 11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: 12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Isaiah [or Elias] 29:11-12 Did you teach yourself how to read? I was admonished for asking that question in another section, which wasn't actually mean to be derogatory so hopefully it will not be taken as such this time. But in case you are one that didn't, no shame in that since the ability to read and write is what is referred unto as being 'faith to faith' representing that it takes one who has received the knowledge to pass that to one who doesn't. So if you believe that, then what, it says to make inquiry, question, then examine, the test to prove. That is the faith, believing all things might be possible is just the first step not the destination, that would be the principle I think one might consider. Has anyone noticed how the Scripture will say this in one verse and then that in another? Such as the one in Isaiah given above, Is not this laid up in store with me, and sealed up among my treasures? Deut 32:34 Hopefully you agree with 1 John 2:21 in which it is written, "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth." Is that a crock or what? Some might say it is developing cognitive reasoning, unless one believes the truth is a lie. 3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. 4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. Rev 5:3-4 So if I say that Adam married a man in Genesis, would you say she dam sure did or would you say I am a liar? One might understand why not to believe 1 John 2:27 from John 12:44, the reason no man will ever be found worthy, unless first believes it is possible, heck if someone doesn't believe something is possible then do you think that their effort will be (+) toward learning or (-) refuting. Not that everything is true, nor that one should just simply believe and accept as truth but rather follow the principles of the process. They are in the scriptures, they are not just laid out for any to find, but a quote of Thomas Paine might help to explain it better than me, " Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles; he can only discover them." Thomas Paine Well here kitty kitty.... Did you teach yourself to write? Coherent sentences and intelligible concepts are always welcome, especially if they have something to do with the OP. What would that be impossible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 What the heck? Where you waiting long The author of 1 John and the author of Isaiah had different religions. If they had lived at the same time they would see each other as competitors or even enemies. This is why the "scripture" will say one thing in one verse and sometimes the complete opposite in a different verse. It was written by men who didn't agree with each other and then it was edited and reedited by more men who couldn't agree with each other. Now if you want to make Adam gay or female that is none of my concern. It is a popular trend to take fictional characters and revise them with a different gender or different sexual orientation. I'm far more concerned that you would reperesnt Adam as non-fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Theory 5: Aliens. The birth of yeshitwa that they don't want you to see: Because yeshitwa is kind of a bloody dick? Anybody who has read the Old Testament knows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 What the heck? Where you waiting long *Were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Now if you want to make Adam gay or female that is none of my concern. It is a popular trend to take fictional characters and revise them with a different gender or different sexual orientation. I'm far more concerned that you would reperesnt Adam as non-fiction. Coincidentally, if Adam were originally gay, he would've told Eve off and stayed in the garden, and we wouldn't be here because him and Steve can't procreate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts