Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Do YOU Believe?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

    Originally posted by Tony P View Post
    In what way are they different?
    When Athanasius answered your response to his post I really thought you would be able to understand.
    I was just confirming I understood what he stated. He was clear and concise.

    I am pointing you back to his post, # 165.



    Days, plural, is not the same as day, singular. The context is easy in this verse. In Genesis, each day is in the singular form. That is the difference, IMO.
    I would say that days were more of period of time, a generation or such.
    What does the minds eye see at this point? As in the telling of a story.
    I believe the story, and have no need to think of it as 1 or 100 or 1000 days.

    I do see the difference, and have not limited my defense of understanding to the use of the word Yom, was just interjecting more than anything else.

    There are many interpretations. This verse helped explain it to me.

    Luke 20:34 Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 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.

    According to Jesus, the Sons of God are equal to angels being sons of the resurrection. To me, that means we become sons of God after the resurrection when we become immortal. I would take that to mean the "sons of God' in Genesis were indeed angels. But, this is just my understanding.
    I did read the scriptures in Luke 20.

    I do not see it the same as you do-- I can correlate it to the O.T. men of Faith.
    Those who had faith in God in the O.T. are justified by their faith. Just as we, today, are justified by faith in Jesus, we have become sons, by faith. (John 1:2, Galatians 3:26)

    Those in Christ being equal to the angels, in the resurrection--- (spiritually)
    In life we are high in standing and given honor from God that are in (Faith) Christ on this earth (even though we do not deserve this, everything is mercy and grace)

    Angels are spirit. Hebrews 1:14
    I see this in Luke 20, also, that angels are not given in marriage--- as man of this age are.
    Angels just cannot procreate.
    In the resurrection we too will no longer be flesh but spirit only, as no flesh can inherit the Kingdom of God. We will not then be given in marriage. We will no longer procreate.

    The context in Genesis 6 is talking about the wickedness of man, and angels are never mentioned.

    I am taking a conservative and non fantasy type view that the men of Faith (Sons of God) from the line of Seth, fell---by the lust of their eyes for the women of man, Cain's line. (IMO)
    Peace to you!

    It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

    1 Corinthians 1:30

    Comment


    • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

      Originally posted by Tony P View Post
      If I have missed a post, please forgive me. There are many pages that I have conversation going and forget where they are at times. Also, I may be busy for a couple of days and the thread is several pages ahead. Please, if there is something that I missed, point it out and I will address it. Thanks.

      Of course, feel free to jump in at any time to any conversation. Everyone is valuable here.
      Life happens and we are supposed to be a part of it happening...understood.
      Peace to you!

      It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

      1 Corinthians 1:30

      Comment


      • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

        Originally posted by Scooby_Snacks View Post
        I did read the scriptures in Luke 20.

        I do not see it the same as you do-- I can correlate it to the O.T. men of Faith.
        Those who had faith in God in the O.T. are justified by their faith. Just as we, today, are justified by faith in Jesus, we have become sons, by faith. (John 1:2, Galatians 3:26)

        Those in Christ being equal to the angels, in the resurrection--- (spiritually)
        In life we are high in standing and given honor from God that are in (Faith) Christ on this earth (even though we do not deserve this, everything is mercy and grace)

        Angels are spirit. Hebrews 1:14
        I see this in Luke 20, also, that angels are not given in marriage--- as man of this age are.
        Angels just cannot procreate.
        In the resurrection we too will no longer be flesh but spirit only, as no flesh can inherit the Kingdom of God. We will not then be given in marriage. We will no longer procreate.

        The context in Genesis 6 is talking about the wickedness of man, and angels are never mentioned.

        I am taking a conservative and non fantasy type view that the men of Faith (Sons of God) from the line of Seth, fell---by the lust of their eyes for the women of man, Cain's line. (IMO)
        I understand this. The problem for me becomes the sons of God being wicked and still called sons of God. In the passage you showed, the sons of God are the saved in Christ, which wasn't possible for those in Genesis 6. Also, why would a specific lineage of people be called sons of God?

        Genesis 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose....4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

        Sons of God is an awfully weird term for normal humans. The giants make the human theory even stranger. But, I don't really see that this is a major deal either way.

        We do read about satan tempting Eve in person in Genesis 3. It certainly reads as if satan was there physically as Eve knows to blame him. If satan literally walked the earth in the beginning, I don't see why other angels couldn't be here also.


        Here is another weird one.

        2 Samuel 21:20 Yet again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant.

        I've seen several ancient rock carvings with giant human figures with 6 fingers and toes. The rock carvings had normal human carvings with them and the proportions by comparison were huge. It would appear that the giants were 3-4 times as tall as the normal humans. That are a lot of strange things in history. Not much would surprise me anymore.

        Comment


        • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

          Everyone in Genesis 6 is human. Angels can't procreate with humans, we're given no indication that they find humans sexually or aesthetically appealing, and if we admit for the sake of argument that they're capable of taking human form (is there any reason to think they don't simply appear human?), then the result would be human children. If these were angels, then why don't we see punishment for them as we do for humanity? If they're fallen angels, why are they called sons of God? We'd also be looking at a situation where a being of one species, angels, could become a being of an entirely different species, human. Angels were trans before it was cool? The angelic interpretation should also have significant implications for the imago Dei (are angels also imago Dei, and if not, then how can they be truly human?).

          I think it's more likely that Genesis 4.26 leads into Genesis 6.2. People called on the name of the Lord, then increasingly they didn't.

          (Also Tony, I replied to you here about Hosea 6 if you missed it.)

          Comment


          • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

            Originally posted by Athanasius View Post
            Everyone in Genesis 6 is human. Angels can't procreate with humans, we're given no indication that they find humans sexually or aesthetically appealing, and if we admit for the sake of argument that they're capable of taking human form (is there any reason to think they don't simply appear human?), then the result would be human children. If these were angels, then why don't we see punishment for them as we do for humanity? If they're fallen angels, why are they called sons of God? We'd also be looking at a situation where a being of one species, angels, could become a being of an entirely different species, human. Angels were trans before it was cool? The angelic interpretation should also have significant implications for the imago Dei (are angels also imago Dei, and if not, then how can they be truly human?).

            I think it's more likely that Genesis 4.26 leads into Genesis 6.2. People called on the name of the Lord, then increasingly they didn't.
            Agree. In the Dino thread there is a good article on this. Not sure where.
            “A” cannot be “A” & not “A” at the same time.

            מקום כניעה סך הכל

            Comment


            • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

              Originally posted by bluesky22 View Post
              Agree. In the Dino thread there is a good article on this. Not sure where.
              Looks like you first mention it in reply #80, and then it gets picked up in more detail around page 45.

              Comment


              • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                Originally posted by Athanasius View Post
                Looks like you first mention it in reply #80, and then it gets picked up in more detail around page 45.
                Thank you sir!
                “A” cannot be “A” & not “A” at the same time.

                מקום כניעה סך הכל

                Comment


                • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                  Originally posted by Tony P View Post


                  Here is another weird one.

                  2 Samuel 21:20 Yet again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant.

                  I've seen several ancient rock carvings with giant human figures with 6 fingers and toes. The rock carvings had normal human carvings with them and the proportions by comparison were huge. It would appear that the giants were 3-4 times as tall as the normal humans. That are a lot of strange things in history. Not much would surprise me anymore.
                  Giantism is normally caused by a tumor on the pituitary gland. It causes growth of the hands, feet and face.
                  I do know one person who had this disorder from birth. It is a terrible condition for the individual.
                  I imagine back in those days, it was impossible to understand such as we do today, disorders existed and had a scientific reason behind them, instead, people gave supernatural reasons, superstitions...
                  This would also include hyperdactyly, a congenital physical anomaly evidenced by an individual having more fingers or toes.
                  Peace to you!

                  It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

                  1 Corinthians 1:30

                  Comment


                  • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                    Originally posted by Scooby_Snacks View Post
                    Giantism is normally caused by a tumor on the pituitary gland. It causes growth of the hands, feet and face.
                    I do know one person who had this disorder from birth. It is a terrible condition for the individual.
                    I imagine back in those days, it was impossible to understand such as we do today, disorders existed and had a scientific reason behind them, instead, people gave supernatural reasons, superstitions...
                    This would also include hyperdactyly, a congenital physical anomaly evidenced by an individual having more fingers or toes.

                    Yes scooby, I agree. This may be a possible solution and your thinking is spot on.

                    Or, perhaps, this:

                    There Could have been just a giant "mankind" race, just as there was an original "cat kind". This giant "mankind" may have long gone extent or a combo of a medical condition that still lingers today (as you say)

                    They existed, this is why we have giant legends all around the world. There are many. I will dig something up.

                    It might not just be that all the Giants of Genesis are DNA mutations, but perhaps the original Adam and Eve "kind" had built into them tremadious DNA variety, one which, was a giant "Kind" of man. (David and Goliath?)

                    The six toes reference might be simply be Genesis describing "defects" that have come from in-breeding of the pagans nations.

                    Just some thoughts.

                    I suspect it's a combo of mutations and a Giant race kind. These two elements have given rise to the giant talk. Scripture just talks about it.



                    Good article on Giants and the bible for those interested.

                    https://answersingenesis.org/bible-c...old-testament/
                    “A” cannot be “A” & not “A” at the same time.

                    מקום כניעה סך הכל

                    Comment


                    • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                      Originally posted by Athanasius View Post
                      Sure (I'm not super familiar with the argument so I'm learning it as I go).

                      Cardinal number = how many
                      1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and so on

                      Ordinal number = what position
                      1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and so on

                      So let's say we have Genesis 1.13 in mind (in Hebrew):

                      וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי
                      And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

                      From our English bibles we know this ends with something like 'the third day'. Third is the ordinal number ('שְׁלִישִׁי) and day is the expected yom or yowm form (יוֹם). We have something greatly the same in Hosea 6.2 (the form of yom is a bit different but it seems inconsequentially so):

                      יְחַיֵּנוּ, מִיֹּמָיִם; בַּיּוֹם, הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, יְקִמֵנוּ, וְנִחְיֶה לְפָנָיו
                      After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.

                      You'll notice the same Hebrew form for third, and similar form for yom (the extra character in front of yom gives it the different form I mention above).

                      So what's the significance? It's common to hear that in Hebrew it's a rule that yom + number always refers to a 24 hour period, but in Hosea 6.2 we have an instance of yom + number that doesn't refer to a 24 hour period, breaking the rule (that isn't really a rule). It's not an argument that the days of Genesis are ages, millions of years, etc., only that the days of Genesis could be something other than 24 hour periods, and / or that the days, even if they're grammatically understood to be 24 hours, could be metaphors.
                      Yes. Thanks for the heads up in the other post. I missed this.

                      Okay. It appears this whole argument is built upon the assumption that Hosea 6:2 isn't about literal days. Before "the rule" can be broken, some sort of reasonable doubt needs to show that Hosea is not literal. Until then, any building upon this theory cannot be founded. Even IF a 1% exception can be found, how does that rule out the 99% of the time Yom is used as a literal day? If even Yom can be longer than a literal day, it also can mean a literal day. So far I have yet to even find that 1% exception to "the rule," let alone an example of Yom being millions of years. I've made a detailed search and I cannot find any evidence that Genesis 1 can be anything other than literal days. My personal opinions set aside.

                      The vast majority of Hebrew scholars that I have read concerning Genesis 1 all agree that the days are written as literal. Although, many of them do not believe in a literal 6 day creation. The grammar is rather straightforward, even for those who don't believe or accept it. The grammar argument is built upon sand, which is easily washed away.

                      I noticed that you have already anticipated the failure of the grammar argument and have moved the goalpost to say that Yom could be a metaphor. Perhaps, but even so, it is at least as likely that it is not metaphor. Since the grammar issue has been dealt with, I will go along with you in this new direction. Do you have any examples in scripture where Yom is a metaphor outside of Genesis 1?

                      Comment


                      • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                        Originally posted by Tony P View Post
                        Yes. Thanks for the heads up in the other post. I missed this.

                        Okay. It appears this whole argument is built upon the assumption that Hosea 6:2 isn't about literal days. Before "the rule" can be broken, some sort of reasonable doubt needs to show that Hosea is not literal. Until then, any building upon this theory cannot be founded. Even IF a 1% exception can be found, how does that rule out the 99% of the time Yom is used as a literal day? If even Yom can be longer than a literal day, it also can mean a literal day. So far I have yet to even find that 1% exception to "the rule," let alone an example of Yom being millions of years. I've made a detailed search and I cannot find any evidence that Genesis 1 can be anything other than literal days. My personal opinions set aside.

                        The vast majority of Hebrew scholars that I have read concerning Genesis 1 all agree that the days are written as literal. Although, many of them do not believe in a literal 6 day creation. The grammar is rather straightforward, even for those who don't believe or accept it. The grammar argument is built upon sand, which is easily washed away.

                        I noticed that you have already anticipated the failure of the grammar argument and have moved the goalpost to say that Yom could be a metaphor. Perhaps, but even so, it is at least as likely that it is not metaphor. Since the grammar issue has been dealt with, I will go along with you in this new direction. Do you have any examples in scripture where Yom is a metaphor outside of Genesis 1?
                        Spot on Tony. Spot on.
                        “A” cannot be “A” & not “A” at the same time.

                        מקום כניעה סך הכל

                        Comment


                        • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                          Originally posted by Athanasius View Post
                          Everyone in Genesis 6 is human. Angels can't procreate with humans, we're given no indication that they find humans sexually or aesthetically appealing, and if we admit for the sake of argument that they're capable of taking human form (is there any reason to think they don't simply appear human?), then the result would be human children. If these were angels, then why don't we see punishment for them as we do for humanity? If they're fallen angels, why are they called sons of God? We'd also be looking at a situation where a being of one species, angels, could become a being of an entirely different species, human. Angels were trans before it was cool? The angelic interpretation should also have significant implications for the imago Dei (are angels also imago Dei, and if not, then how can they be truly human?).

                          I think it's more likely that Genesis 4.26 leads into Genesis 6.2. People called on the name of the Lord, then increasingly they didn't.
                          This isn't a big issue for me at all, so I don't really want to make an argument out of it. This is just for your information. I have no problem with accepting or rejecting this.

                          There are several books that are now considered Apocrypha that deal with the angels mating with women during this period. One of which explain when the angels descended and how many came. It discusses how they corrupted mankind, etc. What I found interesting is they record that the offspring of these 200 angels were cursed by God because of their violence and when they were all killed in the flood, their spirits remained. Angels are immortal of course, even their half human offspring. It says that these spirits are the evil spirits that are on the earth today. The same ones that Jesus cast out, etc. Of course, I cannot vouch for this. I just thought is was interesting and perhaps explains how evil spirits got here in the first place. But, this is apocrypha, right? Sure, but this same book, which dates back to the BC era at least, contains a very detailed description of the rapture and wrath of the last days. Many of the details match exactly what is written in Revelation. But, Revelation wasn't yet written and Jesus wasn't even born yet when this book was written. Hmm... Apocrypha has a negative connotation today, but actually just means hidden. I will concede that many apocryphal books are ridiculous. Please feel free to disregard this. I just thought it was interesting. Depending on your eschatological views, this might make some sense. The clay in Daniel 2 mingles with the seed of men.

                          Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day

                          Comment


                          • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                            Originally posted by Tony P View Post
                            Okay. It appears this whole argument is built upon the assumption that Hosea 6:2 isn't about literal days. Before "the rule" can be broken, some sort of reasonable doubt needs to show that Hosea is not literal. Until then, any building upon this theory cannot be founded. Even IF a 1% exception can be found, how does that rule out the 99% of the time Yom is used as a literal day? If even Yom can be longer than a literal day, it also can mean a literal day. So far I have yet to even find that 1% exception to "the rule," let alone an example of Yom being millions of years. I've made a detailed search and I cannot find any evidence that Genesis 1 can be anything other than literal days. My personal opinions set aside.
                            The argument is that the use of 'day' in the case of Hosea is metaphorical or analogical. Even if 'day' here is grammatically a 24 hour period of time, it's understood to be referring to something else, i.e., it's literary function is different than that of indicating a concrete 24 hour period of time.

                            Originally posted by Tony P View Post
                            The vast majority of Hebrew scholars that I have read concerning Genesis 1 all agree that the days are written as literal. Although, many of them do not believe in a literal 6 day creation. The grammar is rather straightforward, even for those who don't believe or accept it. The grammar argument is built upon sand, which is easily washed away.

                            I noticed that you have already anticipated the failure of the grammar argument and have moved the goalpost to say that Yom could be a metaphor. Perhaps, but even so, it is at least as likely that it is not metaphor. Since the grammar issue has been dealt with, I will go along with you in this new direction. Do you have any examples in scripture where Yom is a metaphor outside of Genesis 1?
                            This was one of the first things I mentioned after your initial reply to the articles I posted. See #158.

                            Originally posted by Tony P View Post
                            This isn't a big issue for me at all, so I don't really want to make an argument out of it. This is just for your information. I have no problem with accepting or rejecting this.

                            There are several books that are now considered Apocrypha that deal with the angels mating with women during this period. One of which explain when the angels descended and how many came. It discusses how they corrupted mankind, etc. What I found interesting is they record that the offspring of these 200 angels were cursed by God because of their violence and when they were all killed in the flood, their spirits remained. Angels are immortal of course, even their half human offspring. It says that these spirits are the evil spirits that are on the earth today. The same ones that Jesus cast out, etc. Of course, I cannot vouch for this. I just thought is was interesting and perhaps explains how evil spirits got here in the first place. But, this is apocrypha, right? Sure, but this same book, which dates back to the BC era at least, contains a very detailed description of the rapture and wrath of the last days. Many of the details match exactly what is written in Revelation. But, Revelation wasn't yet written and Jesus wasn't even born yet when this book was written. Hmm... Apocrypha has a negative connotation today, but actually just means hidden. I will concede that many apocryphal books are ridiculous. Please feel free to disregard this. I just thought it was interesting. Depending on your eschatological views, this might make some sense. The clay in Daniel 2 mingles with the seed of men.

                            Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day
                            I'm aware of the argument, it's the one I got in bible college I don't find it very compelling for the reasons I listed, but like you I'm not really too concerned about it unless it starts to have an impact on something else, e.g. the imago Dei.

                            Comment


                            • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                              Originally posted by bluesky22 View Post
                              Yes scooby, I agree. This may be a possible solution and your thinking is spot on.

                              Or, perhaps, this:

                              There Could have been just a giant "mankind" race, just as there was an original "cat kind". This giant "mankind" may have long gone extent or a combo of a medical condition that still lingers today (as you say)

                              They existed, this is why we have giant legends all around the world. There are many. I will dig something up.

                              It might not just be that all the Giants of Genesis are DNA mutations, but perhaps the original Adam and Eve "kind" had built into them tremadious DNA variety, one which, was a giant "Kind" of man. (David and Goliath?)

                              The six toes reference might be simply be Genesis describing "defects" that have come from in-breeding of the pagans nations.

                              Just some thoughts.

                              I suspect it's a combo of mutations and a Giant race kind. These two elements have given rise to the giant talk. Scripture just talks about it.



                              Good article on Giants and the bible for those interested.

                              https://answersingenesis.org/bible-c...old-testament/
                              I found these articles interesting as well: Both from the U.S. National Library of Medicine-National Institutes of Health.

                              Hereditary Giantism- the Biblical Giant Goliath and his brothers
                              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4113151/
                              And

                              Acromegaly and giantism:
                              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18683056

                              One thing that Genesis 6:4 mentions is that there were Giants in those days, and after that.
                              Peace to you!

                              It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

                              1 Corinthians 1:30

                              Comment


                              • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                                Originally posted by Scooby_Snacks View Post
                                I found these articles interesting as well: Both from the U.S. National Library of Medicine-National Institutes of Health.

                                Hereditary Giantism- the Biblical Giant Goliath and his brothers
                                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4113151/
                                And

                                Acromegaly and giantism:
                                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18683056

                                One thing that Genesis 6:4 mentions is that there were Giants in those days, and after that.
                                Very interesting, thanks brother!
                                “A” cannot be “A” & not “A” at the same time.

                                מקום כניעה סך הכל

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X