PDA

View Full Version : Noah's Ark !



King David
Nov 27th 2007, 05:55 AM
Again ,, Does anyone have the answer to my question ! "How many people were there on earth after the flood "?

Nihil Obstat
Nov 27th 2007, 06:26 AM
Eight. Moses and his wife, their three sons, and their sons' wives. See 1 Pet. 3:20.

Edit: "Moses" made an ark too, and wrote about Noah's ark, and it's late, and I got excited that I was the first to respond to this post, and all these factors lead to a poor excuse for why I accidentally wrote "Moses" instead of "Noah". Please accept my apologies! In hopes of saving face, I focus your attentions to my second post (below), where I correctly name the one to find grace in God's eyes in those days, and say a bunch of other way-better things too also worthy of discussion! Blessings!

Diggindeeper
Nov 27th 2007, 06:27 AM
This should answer your question....

Genesis 6:
17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

(All because Noah, and Noah ONLY, FOUND GRACE!)

Nihil Obstat
Nov 27th 2007, 06:42 AM
I believe that the reason that Moses used "local Flood" language in Genesis when speaking of the "land" was to stress the fact that the wicked in those days were all in one place, though they were commanded by God to spread out across the earth. Wicked people united in purpose, deed, and place is a dangerous thing. These who Noah preached to for 120 years were so wicked that even the Sethites, God's chosen lineage to birth the world's Messiah, were harloting themselves to demon worshipers (physically, then spiritually), so that only one man of this chosen seed was faithful to God; Noah. God is never more harsh in His judgments than is necessary to produce the most amount of people to reach the greatest level of love for Him. When He wiped out the entire earth's population (it is probable that there were up near a billion people on the earth in those days, all in one locale), and only saved eight people, we should understand clearly that the levels of darkness that the wicked were giving themselves to was so potentially detrimental to His promised seed that He had to bring upon the earth a global flood, effectively destroying all men outside of that ark. This is essentially what Jesus meant in Matt. 24:37-42... these days are soon coming - they are upon us! - Lk.11

jeffweeder
Nov 27th 2007, 07:44 AM
Again ,, Does anyone have the answer to my question ! "How many people were there on earth after the flood "?


8



Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.
18 "But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife, and your sons' wives with you.


count them, Noah and wife =2 + 3 sons = 5, plus the sons wifes = 8.


Eight. Moses and his wife, their three sons, and their sons' wives. See 1 Pet. 3:20.

I'm sorry, but Moses was not on the ark. He was on a little thing all by himself in a different century.

Duane Morse
Nov 27th 2007, 07:58 AM
Ya, Moses was a long time after the flood.
It was Noah...

People should really re-read their posts before hitting that 'submit' button.

Nihil Obstat
Nov 27th 2007, 08:41 AM
Yeah, people are funny that way... :D

Soj
Nov 27th 2007, 09:43 AM
Again ,, Does anyone have the answer to my question ! "How many people were there on earth after the flood "?When God created the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, he commanded them to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth with people. Well God ended up destroying all of the earth's population about 1200 or so years later and after he flooded them out started mankind off again with Noah and his three sons, and their wives, a total of eight people. Then repeating what he had told Adam and Eve, God commanded Noah and his sons to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth with people...and here we are!

Genesis 9:18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

Duane Morse
Nov 27th 2007, 10:05 AM
Actually, it was more like the Hebrew year of 1656 (or 2104 BC) that the flood took place.


Other than that... cool.

KnightwithDignity
Nov 27th 2007, 10:39 AM
you know, we should also read the scriptures closer as well.

I always thought that Noah preached about the flood for 120 years.

But then I read the scriptures again.

Gen 5 tells us that Noah was 500 years old when he had his family.
Gen 6 tells us that God called Noah to build the ark but it also says that noahs sons were already married.

Gen 7 tells us that the flood came when noah was 600

That means that the period that Noah preached was 100 years or less. Not the 120 years I had always been told.

just a small point to take note of

Duane Morse
Nov 27th 2007, 10:54 AM
Was when he had his sons the time in which he preached about the flood, or was it another event?


The comet Hale-Bopp first appeared in 2209 BC - 105 years prior to the flood.

It next appeared in 1997.

Hale-Bopp is a pretty unique comet - both in its properties, and in its prophesies.

alethos
Nov 27th 2007, 12:43 PM
Again ,, Does anyone have the answer to my question ! "How many people were there on earth after the flood "?

Could you specify if you mean real or imaginary people?
If you mean real people then the answer is eight
If imaginary, then the answer is tens of thousands, give or take a few million

Isaac-Saxon
Nov 27th 2007, 01:32 PM
When these passages were written it would be hard to believe they were made with the understanding of a global planet. We have to recall that it was not much more than 500 years ago that people believed the "earth" was flat. The word "earth" used in these passages of Genesis is the Hebrew word "erets" (Strong's O.T.#776). Erets does not actually carry any connotation of a global, spherical planet in its translation. While it has been translated as "earth" many times, it is also translated "country" 140 times, "land" 1,476 times, and "ground" 96 times in the Old Testament. In the various references to erets it can be shown it is most often used to infer a limited land area rather than the entire planet.

There is evidence that in the Black Sea area that this flood happened. There was a fresh water lake some 100 feed below current levels. There is a reason they built the tower of Babel. They had to know about the flood. China has records that show their people were there during the flood. I believe the Bible and the fact that Noah built the Ark. The flood is real and the Word is true. I am sure some of you will not like this post but I believe in looking at everything I can find to back up the Bible and the facts are there to do it.

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/noahsflood1.html

RogerW
Nov 27th 2007, 05:19 PM
When these passages were written it would be hard to believe they were made with the understanding of a global planet. We have to recall that it was not much more than 500 years ago that people believed the "earth" was flat. The word "earth" used in these passages of Genesis is the Hebrew word "erets" (Strong's O.T.#776). Erets does not actually carry any connotation of a global, spherical planet in its translation. While it has been translated as "earth" many times, it is also translated "country" 140 times, "land" 1,476 times, and "ground" 96 times in the Old Testament. In the various references to erets it can be shown it is most often used to infer a limited land area rather than the entire planet.

There is evidence that in the Black Sea area that this flood happened. There was a fresh water lake some 100 feed below current levels. There is a reason they built the tower of Babel. They had to know about the flood. China has records that show their people were there during the flood. I believe the Bible and the fact that Noah built the Ark. The flood is real and the Word is true. I am sure some of you will not like this post but I believe in looking at everything I can find to back up the Bible and the facts are there to do it.

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/noahsflood1.html

Your scientific research failed to mention the account of a global catastrophe that spared NOT the OLD WORLD of the ungodly is confirmed in the New Testament.

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

World here is translated from kosmos; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):--adorning, world.

Apparently kosmos, unlike the Greek word ge ghay; translated earth, is inclusive of the whole world. If the global flood that destroyed the WORLD of the ungodly had been translated 'earth' from ge, instead of 'world' from kosmos, then your scientific research might have some merit, because 'ge' can mean simply a certain region and not necessarily the whole. But since the flood was global and included the whole world of the ungodly I accept the truth from Scripture, not science, when disputing the all encompassing global effects of the whole KOSMOS.

Blessings,
RW

Illumined
Nov 27th 2007, 05:41 PM
When these passages were written it would be hard to believe they were made with the understanding of a global planet. We have to recall that it was not much more than 500 years ago that people believed the "earth" was flat. The word "earth" used in these passages of Genesis is the Hebrew word "erets" (Strong's O.T.#776). Erets does not actually carry any connotation of a global, spherical planet in its translation. While it has been translated as "earth" many times, it is also translated "country" 140 times, "land" 1,476 times, and "ground" 96 times in the Old Testament. In the various references to erets it can be shown it is most often used to infer a limited land area rather than the entire planet.

There is evidence that in the Black Sea area that this flood happened. There was a fresh water lake some 100 feed below current levels. There is a reason they built the tower of Babel. They had to know about the flood. China has records that show their people were there during the flood. I believe the Bible and the fact that Noah built the Ark. The flood is real and the Word is true. I am sure some of you will not like this post but I believe in looking at everything I can find to back up the Bible and the facts are there to do it.

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/noahsflood1.html

H776
ארץ
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.


It looks like you are choosing from the grocery bag your goodies and throwing the groceries away.


Gen 6:17 And, behold,2009 I, even I,589 do bring935 (853) a flood3999 of waters4325 upon5921 the earth,776 to destroy7843 all3605 flesh,1320 wherein834 is the breath7307 of life,2416 from under4480, 8478 heaven;8064 and every thing3605 that834 is in the earth776 shall die.1478

Genesis 6:17
17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.


Don't make it complicated.

Gary Rake
Nov 27th 2007, 06:33 PM
Dear King David:

My first question is why are you asking this specific question...why does it matter to you how many people were on the ark, and where do you want to go with this question?

I'm not clear why you are asking and if I understood what's behind your query maybe I could respond with some degree of intelligence, although some might argue that point I'm sure.

Secondly, and probably it is a bit of a bunny trail, but is there any scriptural mandate for us to believe in a global flood or could there have been a localized flood? If there were a localized flood would it make any difference if all those God called "wicked" were in fact done away with anyway? This is a genuine question I'm making here, no secondary agendas, for the moment I'm neutral on this one.

Ooops, that's 3 questions, oh well, like I said about the intelligence thing.

Blessings,
gr

King David
Nov 28th 2007, 05:26 AM
The reason for my question was that it came up in my bible study class ! I was taught that there was eight (8) people on earth ! Now i'm told that there was another group of people that was on earth after the flood ! About a third says that they have also heard that there was more people on earth other than Noah and his family !

markedward
Nov 28th 2007, 05:44 AM
it is probable that there were up near a billion people on the earth in those days, all in one localeI don't really know a lot about statistics and birthing rates in a human's lifespan (especially during a time that individals lived for centuries), but... holy mackeral that's a lot of people crowded into Mesopotamia.

Duane Morse
Nov 28th 2007, 06:45 AM
Now i'm told that there was another group of people that was on earth after the flood ! About a third says that they have also heard that there was more people on earth other than Noah and his family !
Told by whom?
Heard... where?

There is no indication of such thing in the Bible as far as I know.

alethos
Nov 28th 2007, 12:20 PM
is there any scriptural mandate for us to believe in a global flood or could there have been a localized flood? If there were a localized flood would it make any difference if all those God called "wicked" were in fact done away with anyway? This is a genuine question I'm making here, no secondary agendas, for the moment I'm neutral on this one.

Blessings,
gr

If the flood was a local flood God would have told Noah to move, not build an ark. If the flood was local, other people could have moved as well to avoid perishing. If the flood was local, then why do we see a global fossil record.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Gen 6:17 And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon this earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is in the earth shall die.
Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the ground.
Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both birds, and cattle, and beasts, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
Gen 7:23 And every living thing was destroyed that was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark.
Gen 8:9 but the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him to the ark; for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: and he put forth his hand, and took her, and brought her in unto him into the ark.

After the flood any geneology mentioned in the Bible can only be traced back as being descendants of Noah's three sons Shem, Ham and Japeth

Diggindeeper
Nov 28th 2007, 05:48 PM
And as far as the evil people mentioned later, or giants mentioned later (like Goliath) or those who were enemies to God's chosen people, they were all descendants of Noah's three sons! We must remember we don't have a clue to the lineage of the wives of those three sons.

Saved7
Nov 28th 2007, 06:07 PM
The reason for my question was that it came up in my bible study class ! I was taught that there was eight (8) people on earth ! Now i'm told that there was another group of people that was on earth after the flood ! About a third says that they have also heard that there was more people on earth other than Noah and his family !


Well, I don't see it anywhere in the bible, and since there is no real evidence that I know of to prove otherwise, I would just go with what the Word says.:saint:

Jubal
Nov 29th 2007, 04:47 AM
Does anyone have the answer to my question ! "How many people were there on earth after the flood "?
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. - 1 Peter 3:20

Soj
Nov 29th 2007, 06:33 AM
And as far as the evil people mentioned later, or giants mentioned later (like Goliath) or those who were enemies to God's chosen people, they were all descendants of Noah's three sons!Not wishing to get into a debate about the giants and how they were the result of the "sons of God" marrying the daughters of men before the flood, but I don't believe that the giants who were on the planet after the flood were descendants of Noah's three sons, I believe the sons of God (fallen angels) came down and procreated again after the flood, and I say that because of this verse:

Genesis 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.

Diggindeeper
Nov 29th 2007, 07:00 AM
Not wishing to get into a debate about the giants and how they were the result of the "sons of God" marrying the daughters of men before the flood, but I don't believe that the giants who were on the planet after the flood were descendants of Noah's three sons, I believe the sons of God (fallen angels) came down and procreated again after the flood, and I say that because of this verse:

Genesis 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.


I agree this could be another entire thread, but remember...Noah was AFTER THAT! But I only say the giants AFTER that were descendants of one of the wives of Noah's sons.

The only ones left alive AFTER the flood were Noah's descendants.

In fact, if I had time and this thread was about the giants, (which it is not) I could show you the lineage of a wife (or concubine) of King David who was a direct descendant of one of the giant kings. Her name was Maachah, mother of Absalom.

Soj
Nov 29th 2007, 07:15 AM
I agree this could be another entire thread, but remember...Noah was AFTER THAT!Genesis 6:4 says giants in the earth in "those days", which were the days of Noah (Matt 24:37) who came 4 verses later, and "after that" would likely be after Noah's days, definately after the flood though!


But I only say the giants AFTER that were descendants of one of the wives of Noah's sons.That's true, the sons of God would have needed someone to procreate with. I just don't subscribe to the theory that the three sons of Noah carried in them the giant gene that showed up later with the children of Anak, etc.

Duane Morse
Nov 29th 2007, 07:30 AM
I just don't subscribe to the theory that the three sons of Noah carried in them the giant gene that showed up later with the children of Anak, etc.
If it was in fact a 'giant gene' from altered DNA, one of the wives of the 3 sons could have had it. If it was recessive it might have taken a while to show up again.

Not subscribing to something does not make the point any less valid or unbelievable.

Nihil Obstat
Nov 29th 2007, 07:45 AM
Or maybe that's not what that passage means at all... there were already giants on the earth when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men (Gen. 6:4). Who were the men of renown? I think that Num. 16:2 may shed some light on that... The Lord is striving with men here, men in covenant with Him. Only one man from the line of Seth, the chosen lineage, found grace in God's eyes: Noah. This should tell us that the men that God was striving with were Sethites! The Sethites were the sons of God, the chosen and those in covenant with God, not fallen angels... cp. Num. 31:16's context. Giants are not the spawn of demons and women. Giants were a judgment on the unfaithful sons of covenant. And God's chosen people of the promised lineage continually broke covenant with their Husband over and over again (cp. Jdg. 2), hence the giants continually spring up both before and after the Flood to judge His people. Yes, proportionately, Goliath had to have been supernaturally strong with all the armor and weapons he is said to have been wearing and carrying, and it probably was demonically supernatural, but that doesn't mean that he had "Satan's literal seed" in his DNA. Again, it was God's judgment on His people...

Rephaim ("giants") = Gen. 14:5; 15:20; Jos. 15:8; 18:16; 2 Sam. 5:18, 22; 23:13; 1 Ch. 11:15; 14:9; Isa. 17:5... Zuzim (also Zamzummim) = Gen. 14:5; Deut. 2:20... Emim = Gen. 14:5; Deut. 2:10-11... Horites = Gen. 14:5; 36:20, 21, 29, 30; Deut. 2:12, 22... Anakim = Deut. 1:28; 2:10, 11, 21; 9:2; Jos. 11:21, 22; 14:12, 15... Argob = Deut. 3:4, 13, 14; 1 Ki. 4:13; 2 Ki. 15:25... Bashan... Anak... giants... etc.

Even the two (debatable) NT "references" to this deny that Gen. 6:1-4 has anything to do with procreation between angels and humans! The context in 2 Pet. 2:1-8 is "false prophets among the people" - therefore v.4 is not about Gen. 6's "sons of God" but about the fall of Lucifer from heaven. And Jude's context (v.4-8) is similar (Jude was written first), telling of men who crept into the congregation of God's people to poison the people into denying Jesus - therefore v.6 is also not about Gen. 6 but about Isa. 14 or Eze. 28. The theme is unbelief through false brethren in these two NT passages, not sexual immorality, though Sodom and Gomorrah is mentioned... but why were these cities destroyed? Eze. 16:49-50 tells us, and sexual immorality is not mentioned! It is the fruit, but not the root! Peter mentions Noah's day, meaning that the sons of God were false prophets of Seth's lineage; people of covenant breaking covenant, and encouraging / deceiving other brethren to do so as well. Again, see Balaam (cp. 2 Pet. 2:15; Jude 11)...

This whole "giants = demon children" thing needs to just go away... - Lk.11

Duane Morse
Nov 29th 2007, 08:06 AM
"Who were the men of renown?"

Ge 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.

The 'mighty men of renown' were the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men.

Nihil Obstat
Nov 29th 2007, 08:15 AM
"Who were the men of renown?"

Ge 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.

The 'mighty men of renown' were the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men.

Precisely my point. The giants were already in the land when the "men of renown" were born and raised up to become renowned men. But as seen in Num. 16:2, "men of renown" are the leadership within the covenantal people of God who lean upon their own strength, breaking covenant with their Husband and encouraging others to follow them into the pit. The men of renown in Gen. 6:4 are those that Peter is warning of and declaring judgment upon; not fallen angels, and not demon-children. It's not good to be a man of renown when there's only one godly man in the whole land - one in the entire people of promise...

Soj
Nov 29th 2007, 08:28 AM
Not subscribing to something does not make the point any less valid or unbelievable.Correct, but I think I'll continue my subscription to Genesis 6:4 "also after that".

Duane Morse
Nov 29th 2007, 08:34 AM
You were the one to bring up a 'giant gene', don't forget.

If there were giants before, then it had to be genetic.

Perhaps a stray cosmic ray or someone getting too close to some radioactive substance or something, if it was not fallen angels mating with human women.

I am not supporting either side, because there are too many unknowns and vague scriptures on the matter.

Soj
Nov 29th 2007, 08:47 AM
You were the one to bring up a 'giant gene', don't forget.

If there were giants before, then it had to be genetic.

Perhaps a stray cosmic ray or someone getting too close to some radioactive substance or something, if it was not fallen angels mating with human women.

I am not supporting either side, because there are too many unknowns and vague scriptures on the matter.Still not wishing to debate the whole giants/sons of God thang...so I won't!

P.s Fallen angels all the waaaaaaay

Diggindeeper
Nov 30th 2007, 05:45 AM
:OFFT: ...Uh back to the topic of the thread--The only ones left alive AFTER the flood were Noah's descendants. ;)

King David
Nov 30th 2007, 06:41 AM
Hello, You really need to dig a little deeper and learn more ! Try :Charles A. Weisman ! What version of the bible do you read most ? (King James ?) Do you know who King James was ? Do you know that King James did not Translate the bible ?

Duane Morse
Nov 30th 2007, 06:51 AM
King David, perhaps you could enlighten us.
And please do it with scripture.

Nihil Obstat
Nov 30th 2007, 06:58 AM
If there were giants before, then it had to be genetic.

Then was either Adam or Eve a giant...?

Duane Morse
Nov 30th 2007, 07:01 AM
Then was either Adam or Eve a giant...?
There is no indication that they were.
No indication that they were not, either.

But mutations do happen, and giantism may have simply been a genetic mutation.

Nihil Obstat
Nov 30th 2007, 07:03 AM
Still not wishing to debate the whole giants/sons of God thang...so I won't!

P.s Fallen angels all the waaaaaaay

[arms spread wide, fingers like claws, knees slightly bent] You don't want to debate with me [points finger at you after doing some sweet karate kick, mouth moves in typical dub-style] because I will destroy you [does back flip, the splits, rolls, unsheathes blade] with my superior skills [bows, and readys for attack] bringing shame upon your family [extends arm, motions with fingers for you to "try me"].

- Lk.11 (whatever that was about... :D)

Nihil Obstat
Nov 30th 2007, 07:06 AM
But mutations do happen, and giantism may have simply been a genetic mutation.

So there were already genetic mutations in less than ten generations...? Why aren't we all now then complete freaks?!

Duane Morse
Nov 30th 2007, 07:12 AM
So there were already genetic mutations in less than ten generations...? Why aren't we all now then complete freaks?!
I dunno, I was just giving a possibility.
The gene could also have been present from the beginning, but dormant or recessive.


It is all speculation, in any case. The Bible simply does not give enough information on the subject to come to any firm conclusions. So argueing it endlessly really serves no purpose that I can see.

King David
Nov 30th 2007, 07:13 AM
You should read a little more ! King James appointed 50 men to translate the bible ( Greek, Hebrew and Islam ) King James became King when he was 13 months old ! He had 9 children, one was born stillborn ! He would kiss men in public ! This is History not scripture ! 50 men !

Duane Morse
Nov 30th 2007, 07:16 AM
You should read a little more ! King James appointed 50 men to translate the bible ( Greek, Hebrew and Islam ) King James became King when he was 13 months old ! He had 9 children, one was born stillborn ! He would kiss men in public ! This is History not scripture ! 50 men !
What in the world does that have to do with how many people there were just after the flood?

Nihil Obstat
Nov 30th 2007, 07:45 AM
It is all speculation, in any case. The Bible simply does not give enough information on the subject to come to any firm conclusions. So argueing it endlessly really serves no purpose that I can see.

Then why are you rising to the occasion...? You obviously have an opinion on it, whether it's a thought out one or not, and you obviously have feelings about those personal convictions that you have about this topic, as seen by your sharing your thought on it at all. And it's hardly speculation! There are tons of indications to what is going on here that make plain what is happening, and not only that, but understanding it wrongly will dynamically effect much of your thinking on the entire Bible, seeing as how these are the first few chapters of the first book of God's word!

It's men who God is striving with. What men does the OT follow? God's chosen family. So who is God specifically striving against? His people of covenant. What is "the way of Balaam" (since Peter is talking about this when he mentions Noah's generation)? God's people procreating with pagan women and harloting themselves to their gods. This is a major theme in all the OT, one that Moses is saying brought upon God's chosen people a global flood! Israel was to be a nation of priests. For whom? The Gentile nations! From Seth would come the promised seed. What were the Sethites doing? Why was Noah the only Sethite who found grace in God's eyes? All the other Sethites were harloting themselves to pagan gods! The Sethites were so wicked that "every intent of the thought of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5)! These were whom the promised seed was to be birthed through to defeat Satan and his seed! It has nothing to do with fallen angels procreating with human woman to spawn giant babies. And especially not about fallen angels taking wives! It makes no sense with the flow of the narrative - of the story of the OT!?! It's about God's chosen people breaking covenant with Him - that's the only thing that makes sense. That is the story that the OT tells. Think; Moses wrote this after the Exodus out of Egypt and before Israel entered into the Promised Land - and he wrote it for a reason; people alive then read it for a reason. And what do we see in Joshua's day? Suddenly this chapter gives them a divine fear of the Lord to be faithful to His every command! He commanded them to destroy all idols and high places, and told them that'd they'd defeat the giants in the land by His hand should they but keep His covenant with Him...

I don't know how else to say it - it's clear that the sons of God aren't fallen angels, and it's important to understand that. And it is important to you, Duane, because you're reading this (caught you!) and thinking about it... - Lk.11

Diggindeeper
Nov 30th 2007, 07:48 AM
What in the world does that have to do with how many people there were just after the flood?

......................................:agree: !!!

Duane Morse
Nov 30th 2007, 07:53 AM
Then why are you rising to the occasion...? You obviously have an opinion on it, whether it's a thought out one or not, and you obviously have feelings about those personal convictions that you have about this topic, as seen by your sharing your thought on it at all. And it's hardly speculation! There are tons of indications to what is going on here that make plain what is happening, and not only that, but understanding it wrongly will dynamically effect much of your thinking on the entire Bible, seeing as how these are the first few chapters of the first book of God's word!

It's men who God is striving with. What men does the OT follow? God's chosen family. So who is God specifically striving against? His people of covenant. What is "the way of Balaam" (since Peter is talking about this when he mentions Noah's generation)? God's people procreating with pagan women and harloting themselves to their gods. This is a major theme in all the OT, one that Moses is saying brought upon God's chosen people a global flood! Israel was to be a nation of priests. For whom? The Gentile nations! From Seth would come the promised seed. What were the Sethites doing? Why was Noah the only Sethite who found grace in God's eyes? All the other Sethites were harloting themselves to pagan gods! The Sethites were so wicked that "every intent of the thought of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5)! These were whom the promised seed was to be birthed through to defeat Satan and his seed! It has nothing to do with fallen angels procreating with human woman to spawn giant babies. And especially not about fallen angels taking wives! It makes no sense with the flow of the narrative - of the story of the OT!?! It's about God's chosen people breaking covenant with Him - that's the only thing that makes sense. That is the story that the OT tells. Think; Moses wrote this after the Exodus out of Egypt and before Israel entered into the Promised Land - and he wrote it for a reason; people alive then read it for a reason. And what do we see in Joshua's day? Suddenly this chapter gives them a divine fear of the Lord to be faithful to His every command! He commanded them to destroy all idols and high places, and told them that'd they'd defeat the giants in the land by His hand should they but keep His covenant with Him...

I don't know how else to say it - it's clear that the sons of God aren't fallen angels, and it's important to understand that. And it is important to you, Duane, because you're reading this (caught you!) and thinking about it... - Lk.11
Actually, that was not what I was referring to. It was the speculations about Adam and Eve being giants, etc.

I do agree with you that it is desirable to understand who the 'sons of God' were, and in the correct context. And what you have brought up, in the way you brought it up, has made me think about it more and lean more (if not totally) towards the point of view that they were not fallen angels.

Diggindeeper
Nov 30th 2007, 08:00 AM
Astrongerthanhe, were these "Sethites?"

Job 1:6
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:1
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.

Nihil Obstat
Nov 30th 2007, 08:03 AM
Oh. Well then. [lowers blade, looks at shirt, notices that it is all sliced up in ribbons; shoulders slump] I concur. [disappears in cloud of smoke - it is the way of the ninja]

Nihil Obstat
Nov 30th 2007, 08:06 AM
Astrongerthanhe, were these "Sethites?"

Job 1:6
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:1
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.

No.
Are they fallen angels? No.
Does "sons of God" necessarily always have to mean "angels"? No. Maybe in the book of Job, but not throughout the OT...

Duane Morse
Nov 30th 2007, 08:07 AM
Oh. Well then. [lowers blade, looks at shirt, notices that it is all sliced up in ribbons; shoulders slump] I concur. [disappears in cloud of smoke - it is the way of the ninja]
:lol::lol::lol::rofl::rofl::rofl::lol::lol::lol:
:hug:

Duane Morse
Nov 30th 2007, 08:13 AM
Does "sons of God" necessarily always have to mean "angels"? No.
Correct.

Was Adam an angel, or a man?

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

So no, the term 'son of God' can not be applied strictly to angels.

Nihil Obstat
Nov 30th 2007, 08:13 AM
A "son of God" would be one according to the likeness of God - according to His kind. A fallen angel is hardly such a one as this. Could you without conviction declare that Satan is a son of God? I could say that with Michael or Gabriel, but Lucifer? No way! Could I say such a thing about the pagan Gentiles? No, but I could about God's people of covenant, the Sethites... - Lk.11

Duane Morse
Nov 30th 2007, 08:22 AM
A "son of God" would be one according to the likeness of God - according to His kind. A fallen angel is hardly such a one as this. Could you without conviction declare that Satan is a son of God? I could say that with Michael or Gabriel, but Lucifer? No way! Could I say such a thing about the pagan Gentiles? No, but I could about God's people of covenant, the Sethites... - Lk.11
Adam was a 'son of God'.
Yet, Adam was the first to sin.

Does God sin?

Lucifer is to fallen angels, as Adam is to fallen Man.

Perhaps both are 'in the image of' (in some way) - and perhaps, the 'image' is not so well understood as it is thought to be by most.

Diggindeeper
Nov 30th 2007, 08:37 AM
According to Strongs, the "sons of God" have the same, exact meaning in Gen. 6 and in Job 1 and 2.

But, it is not the same meaning as in these:

Jn 1:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) 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:

Rom 8:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Rom 8:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Phil 2:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=50&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1 Jn 3:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) 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.

1 Jn 3:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) 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.

Nihil Obstat
Nov 30th 2007, 08:41 AM
Adam was a 'son of God'.
Yet, Adam was the first to sin.

Does God sin?

Lucifer is to fallen angels, as Adam is to fallen Man.

Perhaps both are 'in the image of' (in some way) - and perhaps, the 'image' is not so well understood as it is thought to be by most.

Yes, Adam sinned, but deception came through the serpent, the devil. Just because Adam broke covenant here in the garden didn't mean that he was no longer in the image of God, or a son of God. Why? - because he was immature, yes, but still sincere! He sincerely loved the Lord - God is not opposed to those who sincerely love Him, even in their immaturity. It is those who blatantly deny Him, those who hate the truth, who He is opposed to, and who no longer are His image bearers (by their own choices, choosing to bear the images of false gods) - Adam and Eve were not like that; they were sincere in their love. When they ate the forbidden fruit and saw that they were naked, they heard the sound of the Lord coming! Our translations say that He was "walking in the garden in the cool of the day" (Gen. 3:8), but really that's not what the Hebrew means at all. The Hebrew of that phrase means "a war horse snorting air out of its nose"! God was not coming peacefully! And yet, He was not angry at Adam and Eve - He was furious at Satan! And so He called out for Adam and Eve to remove them from Satan's place of influence, like a hen gathering her chicks under her wings, or like saving your children from a burning building. Adam and Eve were still His covenant people; they were still His sons; they were still in His image. They were now fallen, still immature, and still sincere, and the Lord gave them opportunity (which they accepted - Gen. 3:21) to renew covenant with Him. God does not break covenant with anyone (Hos. 1-3; Rom. 9-11)! - Lk.11

Nihil Obstat
Nov 30th 2007, 08:52 AM
According to Strongs, the "sons of God" have the same, exact meaning in Gen. 6 and in Job 1 and 2.

But, it is not the same meaning as in these:

Jn 1:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) 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:

Rom 8:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Rom 8:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Phil 2:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=50&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1 Jn 3:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) 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.

1 Jn 3:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) 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.

Yes, the OT word-for-word is the same in both Genesis and Job, but that doesn't mean that it's meaning always refers to elect angels, or always to the people of covenant in all the passages it's found in. For example, "Elohim" can refer to God, angels, and men in the OT. So we have to look at the context to know how to interpret it's meaning. Generally, I would say that "sons of God" means "elect ones" or something to that effect. One of the reasons that the NT has a different word-for-word for "sons of God" is because the OT is Hebrew, and the NT is Greek. But the meaning is not all that much different, if at all. It carries with it the meaning, "in God's likeness; from God", which was why I said only elect angels and people of promise would be (in my opinion) considered "sons of God". And because elect angels don't procreate with women, I choose the other; Sethites. - Lk.11

Diggindeeper
Dec 1st 2007, 06:50 AM
But, where is any scripture to connect Seth to any evil whatsoever? I have done a lot of tracing of bloodlines in the Bible--a lot! Try looking at the lineage of Noah's son, Ham! Talk about bad blood...man, that Ham had some wicked descendents! But I don't find that in Seth's lineage at all.

Where is any scripture that proves your "Sethites" theory?

Nihil Obstat
Dec 1st 2007, 06:51 AM
What? I don't understand... Ham was a Sethite!

Diggindeeper
Dec 2nd 2007, 05:24 AM
But so were Ham and Japeth! Like I said, where is any scripture that proves your "Sethites" theory? Just one. That's all I ask. I can not find even ONE scripture that tells us that Seth broke any covenant with anyone, not even with God.

Just one scripture, please, as proof of your "Sethite" theory.

Nihil Obstat
Dec 2nd 2007, 06:52 AM
Only one man of all of God's people of promise found grace in God's eyes. Noah. What about all the other Sethites? - all the thoughts of their hearts were only wicked all the time, and God was striving with them. From Seth would come the promised seed... - Lk.11

Duane Morse
Dec 2nd 2007, 10:25 AM
Only one man of all of God's people of promise found grace in God's eyes. Noah. What about all the other Sethites? - all the thoughts of their hearts were only wicked all the time, and God was striving with them. From Seth would come the promised seed... - Lk.11
Seth led to Jesus (seed to seed to seed to...), which was the promised (ultimate) seed.
The only One.

All others are, well, inconsequential (even Noah).

This obsession with 'Sethinites', is worthless.

From Adam to Seth to... did come the promised seed - and His name was Jesus.
Those in-between were not the promised - so can not be used to prove anything one way or the other.


Noah was the most righteous of his time - and it is Noah (and sons/wives) that the new world was based upon.

Jesus was the promised, in the end (as well as from the beginning).
And Jesus came, as promised (not to mention, delivered).



In the end, Jesus is the only one that has Grace in the eyes of God.
Because Jesus is the only one that was found guilty, yet was innocent.


We are only saved by the Grace of God, THROUGH the Grace of Jesus.


He could have said...

To HELL with you all!!! I made it through - so why couldn't you???!!!

Yet, He didn't.

He said (basically) - I made it through, so that you could, also.