christians, what do you think of Genesis 6:1-8?

[waitasec]

And might I add quite unsuccessfully

because that isn't my intension :no:

 

[Adonis65]

nope. even when i was a believer passages like these made me wonder...
what you seem to be saying is that my questioning is to make people trip...
then why respond

Because I like to expose would-be trippers.

 

[waitasec]

Because I like to expose would-be trippers.

so you're saying, free thinkers and skeptics are trippers?

 

[Adonis65]

so you're saying, free thinkers and skeptics are trippers?

No, just you. :sad:

 

[waitasec]

No, just you. :sad:

think what you like...

 

[URAVIP2ME]

thanks,
i have a few questions... angels have free will?
and i'm not sure how they materialized if angels are of the spirit and mankind is of another realm...if angels have free will, what is the difference between us and them? iow, why did god create mankind if he had angels to deal with?

Yes, first of all God had created angels to inhabit the heavenly realm

God being our Creator was [as one person expressed it to me] expanding the family business. God being in the business of creation decided to include a physical/material world.

Both were created with perfection, but perfection does not mean robots.
Both human and angels get to choose who they want to obey.
Both are free moral agents.

Disobedient angels of Noah's day materialized in that they 'put on' human bodies. They lost their fleshly bodies in the Flood, and since then they can no longer materialize into our physical world.- Jude verse 6

 

[waitasec]

Both were created with perfection, but perfection does not mean robots.
Both human and angels get to choose who they want to obey.
Both are free moral agents.

apparently that is what the intention is...to be as robots...do what you're told without question...ignore the curiosity which goes hand and hand with choice...

Disobedient angels of Noah's day materialized in that they 'put on' human bodies.

what's keeping them from doing that all throughout the ages?

 

[outhouse]

Yes, first of all God had created angels to inhabit the heavenly realm

imaginationville ??

God being our Creator

not proven and zero evidence of such.

Both were created with perfection

Isnt this scientifically wrong?? Are we not far from perfect?

Disobedient angels of Noah's day materialized in that they 'put on' human bodies.

wow

Have anything to back that up?

They lost their fleshly bodies in the Flood

in a regional flood??

 

[james2ko]

because that isn't my intension

Let's see if we can get to the core of your true intentions

hold on…angels having sex with humans? as in spiritual beings having sexual desires without a physical body, really? ok. curious, were the daughters of god attracted to the sons of humans?

1. According to God's law, one must be "married" in order to lawfully engage in coitus (Gen 2:24). Since angels do not marry:

Luk 20:35-36 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

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

Mar 12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.​

They cannot engage in sexual intercourse. Furthermore, righteous human beings are also referred to as "sons of God" (Hos 1:10; Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26). The thread throughout Gen 6:1-8 refers to physical human beings, not some strange angelic hybrid. So we can logically conclude the phrase "sons of God" was not referring to the angelic host but to the descendants of righteous Seth (Luk 3:38) who intermarried with Cain's evil descendants.

3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.” wait a minute. god is competing with humans? so what is 120 years compared to an eternity of being?

2. Let's put this verse in its proper context. The Hebrew word for "contend" is "diyn" which can also mean "to judge" or "to plead a cause". The indication is God, through Noah--a preacher of righteousness (2 Pet 2:5)-- warned and pleaded with the people for 120 years to change their ways or face judgment. Josephus refers to this time as "the 120 years of God’s patience (perhaps while the ark was being prepared) till the Deluge…" (Antiquities, Bk. 1, ch. 3). I Peter 3:20 also shows that "the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared."

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. 5 The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. so i guess the nephilim died out...but how and why?

3. Since they were flesh and blood, they were destroyed with the rest of sinful humanity in the flood.

oh yes but of course, god noticed a small tiny piece of real estate which he thought would be just perfect for noah's decedents via shem's offspring... i wonder though, after the water receded...the human carnage must have caused an awful smell... not to mention... disease.

4. Scripture indicates Noah and his family were in the ark for over a year. The implication is the entire earth was covered with water for much of that time period. One theory purports this was plenty of time for advance decomposition to occur and the remains devoured by sea creatures and or buried in the tons of sediment.

and besides, wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity to introduce jesus to the sinful world

5. God sent Christ at the perfect time (Gal 4:4). When you have a count of how many hairs you have on your head (Mat 10:30) and remember every star's name (Psa 147:4), then I may consider your suggestion. Besides, if God will resurrect every person that ever lived from Adam to Christ's return, who did not received a fair shot at accepting Him, questioning the precise timing of His first coming would be inconsequential, wouldn't you agree?

6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. i'm curious as to what the purpose was for wiping out the entire human race (except of course noah and company), even though every inclination of the human heart will still be evil after the flood?

6. This was addressed several times in another thread.

 

[waitasec]

Let's see if we can get to the core of your true intentions

the core of my intentions is to point out the obvious blunders that can only be found in fictitious stories and ask why do people take these stories as literal when the very people these folk tales comes from don't.

1. According to God's law, one must be "married" in order to lawfully engage in coitus (Gen 2:24). Since angels do not marry:

Luk 20:35-36 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

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

Mar 12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.​

They cannot engage in sexual intercourse. Furthermore, righteous human beings are also referred to as "sons of God" (Hos 1:10; Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26). The thread throughout Gen 6:1-8 refers to physical human beings, not some strange angelic hybrid. So we can logically conclude the phrase "sons of God" was not referring to the angelic host but to the descendants of righteous Seth (Luk 3:38) who intermarried with Cain's evil descendants.

nice maneuver...
so the sons were of god while daughters were of humans...? :areyoucra
explain how the sons of god were humans...
1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
and who and what were the nephilim then?

2. Let's put this verse in its proper context. The Hebrew word for "contend" is "diyn" which can also mean "to judge" or "to plead a cause". The indication is God, through Noah--a preacher of righteousness (2 Pet 2:5)-- warned and pleaded with the people for 120 years to change their ways or face judgment. Josephus refers to this time as "the 120 years of God’s patience (perhaps while the ark was being prepared) till the Deluge…" (Antiquities, Bk. 1, ch. 3). I Peter 3:20 also shows that "the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared."

well lets see...we obviously speak english so the word contend means to:
: to strive or vie in contest or rivalry or against difficulties : struggle
2
: to strive in debate : argue
transitive verb
1
: maintain, assert <contended that he was right>
2
: to struggle for : contest
Contend - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

are you redefining words again...?
why use that word if it doesn't convey what it means?

3. Since they were flesh and blood, they were destroyed with the rest of sinful humanity in the flood.

i guess you didn't read the passage...here it is again.
genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days&#8212;and also afterward&#8212;when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. 5 The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the LORD said, &#8220;I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created&#8212;and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground&#8212;for I regret that I have made them.&#8221; 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

i'm not buying it...:no: :no: :no:

4. Scripture indicates Noah and his family were in the ark for over a year. The implication is the entire earth was covered with water for much of that time period. One theory purports this was plenty of time for advance decomposition to occur and the remains devoured by sea creatures and or buried in the tons of sediment.

yeah right...
look, when a fossilized kangaroo, polar bear or penguin is found in the middle east, then i'll believe ya...

5. God sent Christ at the perfect time (Gal 4:4). When you have a count of how many hairs you have on your head (Mat 10:30) and remember every star's name (Psa 147:4), then I may consider your suggestion. Besides, if God will resurrect every person that ever lived from Adam to Christ's return, who did not received a fair shot at accepting Him, questioning the precise timing of His first coming would be inconsequential, wouldn't you agree?

no.

6. This was addressed several times in another thread.

yea i know... and as i recall you kept redefining words and ended up bowing out.

 

[james2ko]

]the core of my intentions is to point out the obvious blunders that can only be found in fictitious stories [/B]and ask why do people take these stories as literal when the very people these folk tales comes from don't.

1. And might I say it failed as usual

so the sons were of god while daughters were of humans...? explain how the sons of god were humans..

2. Scripture clearly reveals, the term "sons of God" is used interchangeably to describe both angels and righteous humans. The context will determine the usage. Gen 6:2 states the "sons of God" married women. Since the biblical evidence clearly states angels cannot marry, the term "sons of God", in the context of Genesis 6, is undoubtedly referring to righteous humans--not angels.

and who and what were the nephilim then?

3. They were merely products of human genetic mutation which is quite common even today.

well lets see...we obviously speak english so the word contend means to: to strive or vie in contest or rivalry or against difficulties:1. to strive or vie in contest or rivalry or against difficulties : struggle 2: to strive in debate : argue transitive verb <contended that he was right>: to struggle for : contest Contend - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

4. Well let's see, any bible student or ex-bible student with the most rudimentary scriptural knowledge is aware the OT was originally written in Hebrew. So using an English dictionary to define a translated Hebrew term is useless.

are you redefining words again...?

5. Nope. I believe you are:

Gesenius Lexicon results:

1) to judge, contend, plead
a) (Qal)
1) to act as judge, minister judgment
2) to plead a cause
3) to execute judgment, requite, vindicate
4) to govern
5) to contend, strive
b) (Niphal) to be at strife, quarrel

The word is used 24 times throughout the OT in the Authorized Version. Here's the breakdown.

AV —judge 18,plead the cause 2, contend 1, execute 1, plead 1, strife 1

why use that word if it doesn't convey what it means?

6. Perhaps due to the fact there is no "definitive" English equivalent. When this happens, translators sometimes inject their own beliefs into the translated term.

i'm not buying it...

7. But it's not for sale

yeah right...look, when a fossilized kangaroo, polar bear or penguin is found in the middle east, then i'll believe ya...

8. Using fallacious logic again, are we? (argument from ignorance) You assert Noah's flood to be false because they have not found displaced fossils but neither have they located any fossils of transitory evolutionary life forms yet you bite into the "evolution myth" hook, line, and sinker

no.

9. Whenever I can reduce your reply to one word, I consider it a victory.

yea i know... and as i recall you kept redefining words and ended up bowing out.

10. I allowed you to have the last post so you take that as bowing out? ...As I recall your fallacious logic was severely exposed. Shall I post the highlights of your faulty logic here as a friendly reminder?

 

[waitasec]

1. And might I say it failed as usual

intention: a course of action that one intends to follow
but intentions do not and cannot fail...
maybe you mean to say my attempt: to try to perform, make, or achieve:
sorry that isn't it...my intention isn't to attempt anything. i'm simply putting it out there for the sake of a discussion, something of which you seem to be having a problem with.

2. Scripture clearly reveals, the term "sons of God" is used interchangeably to describe both angels and righteous humans.

The context will determine the usage. Gen 6:2 states the "sons of God" married women. Since the biblical evidence clearly states angels cannot marry, the term "sons of God", in the context of Genesis 6, is undoubtedly referring to righteous humans--not angels.

i can appreciate your understanding, since this entire story is fictitious, is to attempt to reconcile how this verse separates humans from sons of god

1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
and who and what were the nephilim then?
and may i add, you seem to deliberately omit the passage in question to point out how i misunderstood them...
why? but it's ok. to answer that would require you to be intellectually honest.

3. They were merely products of human genetic mutation which is quite common even today.

really...can you provide for me any evidence of this?

4. Well let's see, any bible student or ex-bible student with the most rudimentary scriptural knowledge is aware the OT was originally written in Hebrew. So using an English dictionary to define a translated Hebrew term is useless.



5. Nope. I believe you are:

Gesenius Lexicon results:

1) to judge, contend, plead
a) (Qal)
1) to act as judge, minister judgment
2) to plead a cause
3) to execute judgment, requite, vindicate
4) to govern
5) to contend, strive
b) (Niphal) to be at strife, quarrel

The word is used 24 times throughout the OT in the Authorized Version. Here's the breakdown.

AV &#8212;judge 18,plead the cause 2, contend 1, execute 1, plead 1, strife 1



6. Perhaps due to the fact there is no "definitive" English equivalent. When this happens, translators sometimes inject their own beliefs into the translated term.

apparently god is a monoglot...
:biglaugh:

7. But it's not for sale

with reason no less.

8. Using fallacious logic again, are we? (argument from ignorance) You assert Noah's flood to be false because they have not found displaced fossils

yup...got a problem with that?

but neither have they located any fossils of transitory evolutionary life forms yet you bite into the "evolution myth" hook, line, and sinker

who brought up evolution? i guess the use of red herrings is just apart of how you reconcile inconsistencies
:biglaugh:

9. Whenever I can reduce your reply to one word, I consider it a victory.

well it was really more than the one word no because i highlighted what you said, that they

did not received a fair shot at accepting Him,

i find it odd how wiling you are to accept this notion that your god isn't fair...

10. I allowed you to have the last post so you take that as bowing out? ...As I recall your fallacious logic was severely exposed. Shall I post the highlights of your faulty logic here as a friendly reminder?

dream on...you haven't allowed anything...who do you think you are?

 

[james2ko]

intention: a course of action that one intends to follow but intentions do not and cannot fail...maybe you mean to say my attempt: to try to perform, make, or achieve: sorry that isn't it...my intention isn't to attempt anything. i'm simply putting it out there for the sake of a discussion, something of which you seem to be having a problem with.

1. If I had a problem discussing your intentions, why would I even bother posting multiple replies?

i can appreciate your understanding, since this entire story is fictitious, is to attempt to reconcile how this verse separates humans from sons of god.

1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. and who and what were the nephilim then?and may i add, you seem to deliberately omit the passage in question to point out how i misunderstood them...why? but it's ok. to answer that would require you to be intellectually honest.

2. Nothing wrong with simply providing the reference when the passage has already been posted multiple times.

really...can you provide for me any evidence of this?

3. Sure...Just google "genetic mutation". You'll get lots of evidence of this common occurrence.

Using fallacious logic again, are we? (argument from ignorance) You assert Noah's flood to be false because they have not found displaced fossils

yup...got a problem with that?

4. Nope. But you do...Faulty logic has no place in a debate..

who brought up evolution? i guess the use of red herrings is just apart of how you reconcile inconsistencies

5. No..It's just part of how I expose a skeptic's inconsistencies. Yours is a classic example.

apparently god is a monoglot...

6. Speaking of red herrings..

i find it odd how wiling you are to accept this notion that your god isn't fair...

7. Another red herring?

who do you think you are?

8. Wow three red herrings in a row? What's the matter waitasec, out of ammo and all you could conjure up are a few small pebbles to hurl? :help:

I allowed you to have the last post so you take that as bowing out? ...As I recall your fallacious logic was severely exposed. Shall I post the highlights of your faulty logic here as a friendly reminder?

idream on...you haven't allowed anything.

9. Since you didn't comment on the last sentence of my post above, I take it you don't want me to showcase your faulty logic in our last discussion and I don't blame you. The illogic you've demonstrated in this thread should be embarrassing enough. Might be a good idea to quit while your behind. Since your argument has run out of steam (that's giving you the benefit of the doubt) I'll allow you the last post.

 

[waitasec]

1. If I had a problem discussing your intentions, why would I even bother posting multiple replies?

my intentions are not the subject, this passage is...
trying to change the subject are you?

2. Nothing wrong with simply providing the reference when the passage has already been posted multiple times.

that's funny...your references are passages written after the "fact" explaining this fictitious story...there is no way i can understand that logic.

3. Sure...Just google "genetic mutation". You'll get lots of evidence of this common occurrence.

still didn't answer the question

4. Nope. But you do...Faulty logic has no place in a debate..



5. No..It's just part of how I expose a skeptic's inconsistencies. Yours is a classic example.

i guess you are not willing to discuss how it is that this passage is so misunderstood...

6. Speaking of red herrings..



7. Another red herring?



8. Wow three red herrings in a row? What's the matter waitasec, out of ammo and all you could conjure up are a few small pebbles to hurl? :help:

how?

9. Since you didn't comment on the last sentence of my post above, I take it you don't want me to showcase your faulty logic in our last discussion and I don't blame you. The illogic you've demonstrated in this thread should be embarrassing enough. Might be a good idea to quit while your behind. Since your argument has run out of steam (that's giving you the benefit of the doubt) I'll allow you the last post.

i'm sorry james...
you seem to have solutions of which i cannot for the life of me reconcile with common logical sense...

if you want to try to discuss this sometime let me know, i'll be happy to. thus far you just seem to want to change the subject...about me.

one wonders why...

 

[outhouse]

3. Sure...Just google "genetic mutation". You'll get lots of evidence of this common occurrence.

so when its suits yuou, you believe in evolution?

somehow genetic mutation doesnt apply to your context, beyond imagination

 

[james2ko]

so when its suits yuou, you believe in evolution?

You sure you replied to the right thread? If so, where did you get that crazy idea?

somehow genetic mutation doesnt apply to your context, beyond imagination

[in my boring professor voice] Please explain to the class why mr outhouse

 

[outhouse]

You sure you replied to the right thread? If so, where did you get that crazy idea?



[in my boring professor voice] Please explain to the class why mr outhouse

your dealing in mythical charactors, reality doesnt apply

 

[james2ko]

your dealing in mythical charactors, reality doesnt apply

Ok I have some time to play...prove it!!!

 

[espo35]

what's keeping them from doing that all throughout the ages?

From Isaiah 26:

13 LORD our God, other lords besides you have ruled over us,
but your name alone do we honor.
14 They are now dead, they live no more;
their spirits do not rise.
You punished them and brought them to ruin;
you wiped out all memory of them

 

[outhouse]

Ok I have some time to play...prove it!!!

adam is said to live 950 years, that is mythical.

moses is said to have done miracles, that is mythical.

noah is said to have built a boat to evade a global flood, aslo mythical.


refute that