• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

old testament was detorted

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Jay said:
You have no clue as to the intentions of the Biblical writers, or even who they were. The fact of the matter is that much that we find in the Torah is fully conformant with the mythology of the Levant - including the Jacob story. Learn something about these things before you presume to instruct others. :rolleyes:
None of your statement refutes the argument that anthropomorphism is a method that was used to better understand the divine -- in whatever mythology we're talking about. The fact that I have "no clue" as to who the Biblical writers were is non sequitur. Neither does anyone else...Guess I'm in pretty good company.:rolleyes:
Neither does your refutation diminish the fact that a literalistic reading of this particular passage is probably not the best way to analyze the scripture for either its message or its veracity, nor does calling one passage into question diminish the veracity of the Torah as a whole.
 

!Fluffy!

Lacking Common Sense
but i have a hard time believing that the all-powerful G-d couldn't get Jacob in a Figure-4 leg lock and make him tap out

...or wrestle until daybreak, or until he's made his point. :shrug: (your word picture made me laugh, good job).

But seriously. Either G_d is sovereign, or He isn't. Either scenario is possible and really makes little difference in view of the impact, layered messages and revelation contained within.

...nor does calling one passage into question diminish the veracity of the Torah as a whole

Amen, and a good thing to keep in mind.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
sojourner said:
Neither does your refutation diminish the fact that a literalistic reading of this particular passage is probably not the best way to analyze the scripture for either its message or its veracity, nor does calling one passage into question diminish the veracity of the Torah as a whole.

It is interesting to note that every time Christ referenced Scripture He took it literally.
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
sandy whitelinger said:
It is interesting to note that every time Christ referenced Scripture He took it literally.

i suppose then jesus would admit that he has brothers fathered by G-d/Himself based upon a literal reading of Gen.6:2
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
sandy whitelinger said:
It is interesting to note that every time Christ referenced Scripture He took it literally.
Do you mean to say that he took it at its face value as scripture? If so, then he probably did. But I don't think it's clear at all that he understood scripture in the same literalistic fashion as many read it today.
 

!Fluffy!

Lacking Common Sense
jewscout said:
i suppose then jesus would admit that he has brothers fathered by G-d/Himself based upon a literal reading of Gen.6:2

No more than he would believe so based on Hosea 1:10:
Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people, [there] it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.


Also it is interesting to note that throughout the NT Christ's followers are referred to as the Sons of God.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
jewscout said:
i suppose then jesus would admit that he has brothers fathered by G-d/Himself based upon a literal reading of Gen.6:2
I have no problem believing it - I'm one of those brothers, and so are you :)
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
SoyLeche said:
I have no problem believing it - I'm one of those brothers, and so are you :)

so did you see "the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. " and thus gave birth to giants?:sarcastic
 

!Fluffy!

Lacking Common Sense
"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"
 

SoyLeche

meh...
jewscout said:
so did you see "the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. " and thus gave birth to giants?:sarcastic
A "son of God" and a "daughter of man" got together and gave birth to Shaquile O'neal, so I don't see a big problem there :)

Just so you know - I am not a literalist. I do believe that a good part of Genesis is symbolic.
 

!Fluffy!

Lacking Common Sense
Googled and chosen at random, but readily available elsewhere:

The phrase "sons of God" is used many times in the Bible to refer to men, but more specifically, God's followers here on earth (see Hosea 1:10). In Luke 3:38, Adam is called "the son of God" and throughout the new Testament, Christians are referred to as "the sons of God". Take for instance these familiar verses: "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:1-2) Notice that John uses this title twice in reference to believers in Jesus Christ. Again in John 1:12, we find him using it again in the same manner, "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". Paul also used this phrase the same way in Romans 8:15 and Philippians 2:5.

So since the "sons of God" are the people on earth that serve and follow the Lord, it would make sense that "the sons of men" or "the daughters of men" could be a title for the wicked people that don't serve God. Does the Bible support this idea? Yes it does; In Genesis 11:5, those who had rebelled against God to build the tower of Babel were called "the sons of men" (NASB & RSV) or "the children of men" (KJV). In the Psalms, the wicked enemies of David were sometimes called "the sons of men"(Psalm 4:2 & Psalm 57:4). Other times, this phrase was used for the human race in a general sense, but it was a title for the wicked in certain cases.

Now here in Genesis 6, we find these two opposing groups: the "sons of God" and "the daughters of men". It's important to note that the book of Genesis is a narrative that flows from chapter to chapter. In Chapters 4 and 5 we have two groups as well: the descendents of Cain and Seth. If we read Genesis and the story of how sin entered this world, we find that the sons of God are those who are faithful to God and His plan for salvation, from Adam to Abel and down to Seth. On the other hand, the sons and daughters of men are those who are the children of Cain. Genesis 4:15-16 states that the Lord put a mark on Cain and he went out from the presence of the Lord and was driven to the land of Nod on the East side of Eden. From here, there was a separation between Cain's descendants and those of Seth.

Throughout the history of this world, we find God's people mixing with the "daughters of men" and we observe the outcome throughout the Bible - apostasy! The result is a leaving of God's plan for their lives and a yielding to sin. And unfortunately, that's happened here in Genesis chapter 6 and this is what led up to the flood (verses 5-7), which is one of the other reasons why we know that these "sons of God" were not angels. The judgment pronounced upon the earth was against "man" (verses 3 and 5). God would not punish man because of something the angels had done.


It's always been God's plan that believers should not be
"unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14) The sons of Seth made the grave mistake of intermingling with the "heathen" women, and with these relationships came the influence for evil and compromise. Apparently, they chose worldly pleasure over the Lord and this resulted in Noah being the only righteous person left on the face of the entire earth! (Genesis 6:8-9, and 7:1)


Who Were the Giants or Nephilim?

What about these mighty men or giants found in Genesis 6:4? (The Hebrew word used in this verse is "Nephilim") Remember that just shortly before the flood, Adam lived, as well as Enoch (who was translated to heaven because he walked continually with God) and Methuselah. (Genesis 5). They lived over 900 years and some believe that these people were over 9 feet tall. So maybe giants weren't that uncommon in those days. Perhaps these growth spurts occurred because of the breeding that took place between these two formally isolated tribes. It's also interesting to note that the original Hebrew word "Nephilim" which is translated "giants" in this verse can simply mean "a bully or tyrant" (Strong's Concordance).

Source:
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
jewscout said:
i suppose then jesus would admit that he has brothers fathered by G-d/Himself based upon a literal reading of Gen.6:2

Well, except that the "sons of God" doesn't refer to Christ I suppose you might have a point.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
sojourner said:
Do you mean to say that he took it at its face value as scripture? If so, then he probably did. But I don't think it's clear at all that he understood scripture in the same literalistic fashion as many read it today.

No silly, He took it to mean exactly what it said.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
sandy whitelinger said:
No silly, He took it to mean exactly what it said.
What does it say? Obviously Jesus understood metaphor, because he used metaphor. Jesus obviously understood that much scripture is couched in metaphor. Interpretation is always key in deriving meaning from any but the most technical of texts. The Bible is not a technical text.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
sojourner said:
What does it say? Obviously Jesus understood metaphor, because he used metaphor. Jesus obviously understood that much scripture is couched in metaphor. Interpretation is always key in deriving meaning from any but the most technical of texts. The Bible is not a technical text.

What Scripture do you use to verify that Jesus knew that Scripture is couched in metaphor?
 

Mujahid Mohammed

Well-Known Member
divine said:
why, because it contradicts the q'uran of course!:p
No that is not it at all. it contradicts itself. the whole book is a contradiction of testimony. If it were put in a court of law as a valid witness the testimony would be thrown out because of inconsistence testimony. but for whatever reason people believe it as ABSOLUTE truth when there are clear problems in transmission and translation.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
sandy whitelinger said:
What Scripture do you use to verify that Jesus knew that Scripture is couched in metaphor?

Two places leap to mind readily:
Matt. 4:4. Jesus uses the term "bread" metaphorically here, in reference to scripture.
Matt. 26:31. Jesus recognizes the terms "shepherd," "sheep" and "flock" as metaphors, and not literal shepherds, sheep and flocks.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
jewscout said:
it can be translated in different ways, given the circumstances.
it is often translated as judge too

In many of the passages in which Elohim occurs in the Bible it refers to non-Israelite deities, or in some instances to powerful men or judges (Exodus 21:6).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Elohim

given the context, Jacob wrestling w/ a man, and since Judaism does not believe that G-d would take physical form (ex. being a man) therefore the term "elohim" must mean another type of being...in this case an angel.

but, again, i'll look more deeply into it and see if other commentators and sages have other perspectives or interpretations.

In that passage from Genesis why would Jacob worry that he would die from seeing an angel face to face? I wasn't aware that this was possible. I though the admonition was that you couldn't look on the face of God and live.
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
>old testament was detorted

Hmmm.

I'll admit that it contains plenty of torts, but the last I heard, nobody had detorted it. . . . :-S

<g, d&r>

Bruce
 
Top