Nephilim

[ProDeo]

And of the sons of Seth, right out of the gate at the time of his son Enosh, problems start.

Genesis 4:26 (NKJV) And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord.

This is a gross mistranslation. The Hebrew behind that really states more like "then men began to profane the Name of the Lord.

I could only find one translation that translates it that way, the ISV. The interesting thing about the ISV is that quote:

The International Standard Version (ISV) is the first modern Bible translation in any language to provide an exclusive textual apparatus comparing the text of the famed Dead Sea Scrolls with the traditional Masoretic text of the Hebrew Tanakh (i.e., the “Old Testament”).

I must say the ISV on Gen 4:26 makes much more sense (fits better) in regard how the story develops, the corruption of mankind and how that led to the destruction by Noah's flood. Reading the traditional translations always left me with the feeling: what happened, things were going so well.

How the translators have screwed that one up is anyone's guess.

Why is it that you are so sure?

[Aristarkos]

I could only find one translation that translates it that way, the ISV. The interesting thing about the ISV is that quote:

The International Standard Version (ISV) is the first modern Bible translation in any language to provide an exclusive textual apparatus comparing the text of the famed Dead Sea Scrolls with the traditional Masoretic text of the Hebrew Tanakh (i.e., the “Old Testament”).

I must say the ISV on Gen 4:26 makes much more sense (fits better) in regard how the story develops, the corruption of mankind and how that led to the destruction by Noah's flood. Reading the traditional translations always left me with the feeling: what happened, things were going so well.

Why is it that you are so sure?

Because it's the only thing that makes sense with the events happening. In Appendix 21 of the Companion Bible it says:

« What was really begun was the profanation of the Name of Jehovah . They began to call something by the Name of Jehovah. The A. V. suggests « themselves », in the margin. But the majority of the ancient Jewish commentators supply the Ellipsis by the words « their gods »; suggesting that they called the stars and idols their gods, and worshipped them.

The Targum of Onkelos explains it:
« then in his days the sons of men desisted from praying in the Name of the Lord ».

The Targum of Jonathan says:
« That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the Name of the Word of the Lord ».

Kimchi, Rashi, and other ancient Jewish commentators agree with this. Rashi says:
« Then was there profanation in calling on the Name of the Lord ».

Jerome says that this was the opinion of many Jews in his days. Maimonides, in his Commentary on the Mishna (a constituent part of the Talmud), A.D. 1168, in a long treatise on idolatry, gives the most probably account of the origin of idolatry in the days of Enos. The name Enos agrees with this, for his name means frail, weak, sickly, incurable ».

Aristarkos

[ProDeo]

Because it's the only thing that makes sense with the events happening. In Appendix 21 of the Companion Bible it says:

« What was really begun was the profanation of the Name of Jehovah . They began to call something by the Name of Jehovah. The A. V. suggests « themselves », in the margin. But the majority of the ancient Jewish commentators supply the Ellipsis by the words « their gods »; suggesting that they called the stars and idols their gods, and worshipped them.

The Targum of Onkelos explains it:
« then in his days the sons of men desisted from praying in the Name of the Lord ».

The Targum of Jonathan says:
« That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the Name of the Word of the Lord ».

Kimchi, Rashi, and other ancient Jewish commentators agree with this. Rashi says:
« Then was there profanation in calling on the Name of the Lord ».

Jerome says that this was the opinion of many Jews in his days. Maimonides, in his Commentary on the Mishna (a constituent part of the Talmud), A.D. 1168, in a long treatise on idolatry, gives the most probably account of the origin of idolatry in the days of Enos. The name Enos agrees with this, for his name means frail, weak, sickly, incurable ».

Aristarkos

That was my logic as well. The ISV has more surprises, been reading Gen 1-3, guess what? The serpent in the garden is called "the Shining One".

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...+3&version=ISV

[Cliff]

Why is it that you are so sure?

Probably because I have heard many Hebrew speaking scholars suggest that the translators messed it up. I didn't arrive at this conclusion about Genesis 4:26 in a vacuum. I didn't realize it myself until it was pointed out to me by a Jewish acquaintance. And then look at how it has been understood from the Targums of Jewish commentary on the verse....

The Targum of Jonathan says:
Quote:
And Adam knew his wife again, at the end of a hundred and thirty years after Habel had been slain; and she bare a son, and called his name Sheth; for she said, The Lord hath given me another son instead of Habel whom Kain slew. And to Sheth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the name of the Word of the Lord.

The Targum of Onkelos says:
Quote:
And Adam knew yet his wife, and she bare a son, and called his name Sheth; Because, said she, the Lord hath given me another son instead of Habel, whom Kain slew. And to Sheth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. Then in his days the sons of men desisted (or forbore) from praying in the name of the Lord.

Here's Rabbi Maimonides (12th Century) on the subject of idolatry comments on Genesis 4:26....

“In the days of Enos the sons of Adam erred with great error, and the counsel of the wise men of that age became brutish, and Enos himself was (one) of them that erred....And in process of time there stood up false prophets among the sons of Adam, which said that God had commanded and said unto them, Worship such a star, or all the stars, and do sacrifice unto them thus and thus; and build a temple for it, and make an image of it, that all the people, women, and children may worship it.

And the false prophet showed them the image which he had feigned out of his own heart, and said it was the image of such a star, which was made known unto him by prophecy. And they began after this manner to make images in temples, and under trees, and on tops of mountains and hills, and assembled together and worshipped them, etc. And this thing was spread through all the world, to serve images with services different one from another, and to sacrifice unto and worship them. So, in process of time, the glorious and fearful name (of God) was forgotten out of the mouth of all living, and out of their knowledge, and they acknowledged him not."

So the Hebrew commentators on the Hebrew scriptures seem to be in general agreement that Genesis 4:26 should be more in line with "(profaned-defiled-abused) the name of the Lord" as opposed to "call upon the name of the Lord". It's their language, so they might actually be a little more in tune with how the language is translated. And Strong's as well as Brown-Driver-Briggs both agree with these Hebrew scholars.

[Cliff]

That was my logic as well. The ISV has more surprises, been reading Gen 1-3, guess what? The serpent in the garden is called "the Shining One".

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...+3&version=ISV

You do know, don't you, that the name Lucifer is actually the word for "light bearer" in Latin? (Isaiah 14:12) Some KJV only folks have had fits that the name Lucifer is missing from some "new age" translations and that makes them suspect. Just because the KJV translators were lazy and just transposed the Latin over to the translation does not make it correct. Another one of those little nuggets that show the church in general had grown accustomed to thinking Satan's name is Lucifer and so the KJV guys just couldn't get their minds around using the literal translation "light bearer" instead they just punted to the Latin word for light bearer, lucifer, and cementing in stone the idea that Satan's name is Lucifer.

[Aristarkos]

That was my logic as well. The ISV has more surprises, been reading Gen 1-3, guess what? The serpent in the garden is called "the Shining One".

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...+3&version=ISV

Which I knew for years, but it's hard to fight against tradition. The word used in Scripture is « Nachash » and is indeed used for a certain type of serpent because of its shining appearance. I don't know if you have a Companion Bible, but there you can find why it cannot be a serpent through the structure. I've already posted it once:

Attachment 13314

You can see that E1 to balance with E2 has to have a higher spiritual life form and not a carnal animal, cherubs do not balance with a serpent, but do balance with a covering cherub.

Aristarkos

[Cliff]

Because it's the only thing that makes sense with the events happening. In Appendix 21 of the Companion Bible it says:

« What was really begun was the profanation of the Name of Jehovah . They began to call something by the Name of Jehovah. The A. V. suggests « themselves », in the margin. But the majority of the ancient Jewish commentators supply the Ellipsis by the words « their gods »; suggesting that they called the stars and idols their gods, and worshipped them.

The Targum of Onkelos explains it:
« then in his days the sons of men desisted from praying in the Name of the Lord ».

The Targum of Jonathan says:
« That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the Name of the Word of the Lord ».

Kimchi, Rashi, and other ancient Jewish commentators agree with this. Rashi says:
« Then was there profanation in calling on the Name of the Lord ».

Jerome says that this was the opinion of many Jews in his days. Maimonides, in his Commentary on the Mishna (a constituent part of the Talmud), A.D. 1168, in a long treatise on idolatry, gives the most probably account of the origin of idolatry in the days of Enos. The name Enos agrees with this, for his name means frail, weak, sickly, incurable ».

Aristarkos

Thanks for those references. I commented on the post you responded to before seeing yours. My bad. You hit on the right conclusion before me so you deserve the credit. Thanks!

[Aristarkos]

Thanks for those references. I commented on the post you responded to before seeing yours. My bad. You hit on the right conclusion before me so you deserve the credit. Thanks!

The credit is the Lord's my friend, I just point out what He says, but thank you anyway.

Aristarkos

[Cliff]

What do you mean by natural? Men rejecting God for unGodly women (and women rejecting God for unGodly men) is certainly unnatural, yet happens time and time again.

See, that wasn't so difficult.

I'm now going to ignore the rest of what you've written because it would take an afternoon to address everything that's wrong with it, and that's just not worth the effort.

But you are imposing a view on the text that is not supported by the context. The last few posts have shown that there was no "Godly line" as presupposed by many commentators. And we can only honestly view how "sons of God" was used elsewhere to glean the meaning in Genesis 6. And since the general consensus is that Job was probably written before Genesis, it is not unreasonable to use the reference on Job as a description of who the "sons of God" are.

Again, Daniel gives us a clue that something bizarre is going on. In Daniel 2:43, they (whoever they are) mingle with the seed of men. Simple reasoning suggests that if they are mingling themselves with the seed of men, they are probably something other than the seed of men. And Jude 1:6 also lends us a little insight. Of course, the non-canonical book of Enoch 1 really piles it on regarding what was going on. Don't dismiss Enoch... the NT writers referred to Enoch roughly 70 times according to many NT scholars.

It all can seem quite bizarre and not fit comfortably into many people's world view, but we have to go with what the text says and not try and make it fit in our comfort zone.

[Athanasius]

But you are imposing a view on the text that is not supported by the context. The last few posts have shown that there was no "Godly line" as presupposed by many commentators.

You've presented an argument you find compelling, which is not the same - necessarily - as showing that 'X' view has been defeated. It hasn't, and I'm about as likely to accept your alternative as you are at acknowledging biological reality.

And we can only honestly view how "sons of God" was used elsewhere to glean the meaning in Genesis 6. And since the general consensus is that Job was probably written before Genesis, it is not unreasonable to use the reference on Job as a description of who the "sons of God" are.

Job and Genesis are different genres (and I'm hard pressed to think of Job as anything but a theodicy), so while it's helpful to look at how the term is used in Job, doing so doesn't necessitate that the author(s) of Genesis used it the same way.

Again, Daniel gives us a clue that something bizarre is going on. In Daniel 2:43, they (whoever they are) mingle with the seed of men. Simple reasoning suggests that if they are mingling themselves with the seed of men, they are probably something other than the seed of men. And Jude 1:6 also lends us a little insight. Of course, the non-canonical book of Enoch 1 really piles it on regarding what was going on. Don't dismiss Enoch... the NT writers referred to Enoch roughly 70 times according to many NT scholars.

Again, again, Daniel is talking about nations and politics, not species. This is an insane reading of Daniel, and appealing to to a book which is explicitly non-canonical - and written within two centuries of Christ's life - isn't helping the argument. We also don't know that there wasn't a common source Jude was referring to, that the psuedopigraphical 'book of Enoch' also referred to. That is, the book of Enoch may not be the originator of the quotations in question as you suggest.

It all can seem quite bizarre and not fit comfortably into many people's world view, but we have to go with what the text says and not try and make it fit in our comfort zone.

I'm not appealing to comfort, I'm appealing to know what know in terms of special and natural revelation, and the direct words of Jesus.

We know that angels don't marry, therefore they are not sexual beings.
We know that species cannot intermix. An angel and a human cannot produce offspring any more than a human and a dog can.
We know that one species cannot become another species, or fundamentally alter its own being.

Can men become women, and women become men? No.
Can humans produce offspring with animals? No.

How much harder, than, for angels (who are creations like you and I, and not magical beings merely by virtual of their supranatural existence).

[Aristarkos]

I'm not appealing to comfort, I'm appealing to know what know in terms of special and natural revelation, and the direct words of Jesus.

We know that angels don't marry, therefore they are not sexual beings.
We know that species cannot intermix. An angel and a human cannot produce offspring any more than a human and a dog can.
We know that one species cannot become another species, or fundamentally alter its own being.

Can men become women, and women become men? No.
Can humans produce offspring with animals? No.

How much harder, than, for angels (who are creations like you and I, and not magical beings merely by virtual of their supranatural existence).

We know nothing like that, you are defending tradition and not Scripture. What you say is pure conjecture, which is given by what you believe. Scripture says otherwise, you just choose not to believe it. This is fine of course, but don't bring it as if its the only truth, it isn't.

Aristarkos

[Athanasius]

We know nothing like that, you are defending tradition and not Scripture. What you say is pure conjecture, which is given by what you believe. Scripture says otherwise, you just choose not to believe it. This is fine of course, but don't bring it as if its the only truth, it isn't.

Aristarkos

Of course we do:

Matthew 22.30
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

If we keep this in mind and refer back to Genesis 1/2, we notice that sexuality and marriage are inextricable. They are introduced together, not separately, for the purpose of 'being fruitful'. We can reason from this that if there is no marriage, there is no need for sexuality either, except perhaps where it expresses our image-of-Godness, and not as a means or procreation. We have no reason to believe, however, that angels express this same image-of-Godness, so even if we argue that 'X' applies to humans, it's not true necessarily that it also applies to angels.

That's Matthew, and two instances of Genesis, which is pretty good for someone who isn't 'defending Scripture'. And no, Scripture does not 'say otherwise'. Poor readings of Scripture say otherwise.

Again:
- Humans and angels are two different species
- Angels are aliens as far as humanity is concerned (they do not originate on earth, and possibly also pre-exist this creation)
- Cross-species procreation is not possible
- And so on, and so forth

And no, interpreting Scripture incorrectly and arriving at something other than the truth is not fine. This is an odd complaint/acknowledgment when you're doing the same for your own view.

[Aristarkos]

Of course we do:

Matthew 22.30
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

If we keep this in mind and refer back to Genesis 1/2, we notice that sexuality and marriage are inextricable. They are introduced together, not separately, for the purpose of 'being fruitful'. We can reason from this that if there is no marriage, there is no need for sexuality either, except perhaps where it expresses our image-of-Godness, and not as a means or procreation. We have no reason to believe, however, that angels express this same image-of-Godness, so even if we argue that 'X' applies to humans, it's not true necessarily that it also applies to angels.

That's Matthew, and two instances of Genesis, which is pretty good for someone who isn't 'defending Scripture'. And no, Scripture does not 'say otherwise'. Poor readings of Scripture say otherwise.

Again:
- Humans and angels are two different species
- Angels are aliens as far as humanity is concerned (they do not originate on earth, and possibly also pre-exist this creation)
- Cross-species procreation is not possible
- And so on, and so forth

And no, interpreting Scripture incorrectly and arriving at something other than the truth is not fine. This is an odd complaint/acknowledgment when you're doing the same for your own view.

You're quote isn't saying what you would like it to say, what is said about the return of the Lord?:

1 John 4:3 « And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is cometh in the flesh is not of God ... ». So when the Lord returns He will come in the flesh. Where does Scripture say angels can't materialize? Nowhere, because they can, they can take on a body of flesh as we see for example with Abraham when he is visited by the Lord and two angels: « And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him ... And said, My Lord (adonay), if now I have found favour in Thy sight ... and they did eat ... », (Gen. 18:2, 3, 8) so like I said, you're using a lot of words to defend tradition, Scripture says otherwise.

Aristarkos

[ProDeo]

You do know, don't you, that the name Lucifer is actually the word for "light bearer" in Latin? (Isaiah 14:12) Some KJV only folks have had fits that the name Lucifer is missing from some "new age" translations and that makes them suspect. Just because the KJV translators were lazy and just transposed the Latin over to the translation does not make it correct. Another one of those little nuggets that show the church in general had grown accustomed to thinking Satan's name is Lucifer and so the KJV guys just couldn't get their minds around using the literal translation "light bearer" instead they just punted to the Latin word for light bearer, lucifer, and cementing in stone the idea that Satan's name is Lucifer.

Interestingly the YLT (which I have in high regard) has Isa 14:12 as Shining One.

How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations.

[Athanasius]

You're quote isn't saying what you would like it to say, what is said about the return of the Lord?

So you've asserted, but you haven't argued it.

1 John 4:3 « And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is cometh in the flesh is not of God ... ». So when the Lord returns He will come in the flesh. Where does Scripture say angels can't materialize? Nowhere, because they can, they can take on a body of flesh as we see for example with Abraham when he is visited by the Lord and two angels: « And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him ... And said, My Lord (adonay), if now I have found favour in Thy sight ... and they did eat ... », (Gen. 18:2, 3, 8) so like I said, you're using a lot of words to defend tradition, Scripture says otherwise.

Aristarkos

Jesus isn't an angel, so that's a strange example.

Why would I say that angels can't appear and interact with the world? Obviously they can. That doesn't mean that they're therefore sexual beings. If they take on a 'body of flesh' it would be angelic, or the appearance there-of. They are not taking on human flesh.

You keep asserting that I'm defending tradition (an odd accusation in itself), but your use of Scripture hasn't been exceptionally profound.