-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Since the daughters of men are not identified in any way except that they were the daughters of men, therefore we have nothing from the bible that would give us permission to place them as the daughters of Cain only. Being the daughters of men would simply mean that they came from Adam and Eve, there is no evidence that they were only the daughters of one of Adam's sons(Cain) and not the daughters of another of Adam's sons(Seth). So the idea that the daughters of men had to refer to the descendants of Cain and not the descendants of Seth, has no biblical basis whatsoever...pure human imagination and adding to scripture.
Genesis 4:22 "And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naaman."The mention of one female that was not a wife and she's not even identified as a daughter.
Genesis 5:4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26 and 30 "After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters...7 After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters...10 After he begot Cainan, Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and had sons and daughters...13 After he begot Mahalalel, Cainan lived eight hundred and forty years, and had sons and daughters...16 After he begot Jared, Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years, and had sons and daughters...19 After he begot Enoch, Jared lived eight hundred years, and had sons and daughters...22 After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years, and had sons and daughters...26 After he begot Lamech, Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years, and had sons and daughters...30 After he begot Noah, Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years, and had sons and daughters.
In the context of the genealogies we have one mention of a female that is not a wife and not even mentioned as a daughter. With 9 verses saying, sons and daughters were born to the mentioned dependent of Adam. In that context Genesis
In the context of Genesis 4:17-24 who is are the ones that were not many and have no mention of daughters being born to them? Cain. In the Context of Genesis 5:1-32 who have mention of many sons and daughter being born to them? Adam, because his genealogy was multiplying on the face of the earth and had many daughter born to his genealogy, in the context, with Cain not so much, with again not even the mention of a daughter being born to them, in the context. This is why Genesis 6:1 starts out with, "Now it came to pass" when and daughters. In that context set up in Genesis 4:17-5:32, who is it talking about that were not multiplying or having daughters on the face of the earth? Cain, identified as "men" and now they were multiplying and having daughters on the face of the earth.
6:1 "Now it came to pass, when "men" began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,"
The judgement Genesis 6:3 “And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with "man" forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” It's not talking about men that are now having daughters and multiplying on the face of the earth. The LORD is now talking about both genealogies and that He will strive (time to repent) with him (man) 120 years.
Genesis 6:5 "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Is the LORD blind or is He playing favorites, why is He judging all of mankind, if 6:4 are fallen angels and those children are half angel and half human, He's not because they are not. They are mankind that has become wicked and every intent of thought in their hearts were only evil continually.
Why did the LORD judge all mankind for the deeds of some fallen angels and some provocative women, He did not. He judge what man had become. The sons of God is not that they were in special relationship with the LORD, it's that Adam's genealogy is being identified with Adam as he was identified in Luke 3:38 "Adam, the son of God", the term "men" is used for Cain to separate his genealogy from Adam's. Them when the judgment was rendered it was on "man" no separation, it is on all men.
So she was not in mind when the writer of 6.1 wrote. He rather had in mind the many daughters he has mentioned in ch 5 immediately before 6.1 (no chapters in Hebrew). Thus the 'daughters of men' have mainly in mind the daughters of Seth.
So it is quite clear whom the writer of 6.1 has mainly in mind, the daughters of Seth,
So we do not expect his line suddenly to become prominent.
The line of Seth.
This is Seth's genealogy,
So using your own argument that mention must have been made previously of the bene Elohim, so mention must also have been previously of the daughters of men? Thus Cainites are not in mind. Or does it just apply to when you want it to?
Cain. So why should he suddenly be introduced when chapter 5 has clearly indicated daughters of 'adam
'Now it came to pass' naturally assumes the continuation of the immediately prior section, chapter 5.
But Cain is called 'ish. It is Seth who is linked with 'adam ('children of 'adam - men)
So naturally men ('adam) who have daughters born to them are the line of Seth previously mentioned as having daughters born to them
So he is defining the word 'man' as now referring to both genealogies? ALL 'men' are men lol
Yes the wickedness of ALL men. The line of Seth was no longer godly. Only one family were still godly.
It is BECAUSE all men have been affected that ALL must be destroyed, (apart from one family who remained unaffected). But it is clear that you have no idea what demon intercourse IS.
And how has mankind become SO evil? The affect of demonization.
It was because the whole of mankind was affected, not just because of 'some provocative women'. That was why the WHOLE had to be destroyed.
EXACTLY.
What else does it mean? The bene Elohim (sons of supernatural beings) are precisely and literally THAT.
but Adam is not said to have been the son of God. He is simply said to be 'of God'.
Besides the term bene Elohim does not equate to huios theou. One is Hebrew, the other (which anyway is not used of the relationship between Adam and God) is Greek.
.
It seems odd then that 'men' ('adam) is NEVER elsewhere used of Cain in Gen 4-6, but it is used of Seth. It is NOT used to separate Cain's genealogy from Adam. Indeed 'adam would link with 'Adam, which suggests 'adam are the line of Seth.
So it suddenly does not indicate the line of Cain after all? Your so called exegesis is twisted beyond belief..
Okay, another rabbit trail, but to one of your points. sons of God or to make it sound like I know more bene elohim. It not being mentioned or applied to Adam or Seth genealogy, can you show me where it is shown to be angel before Genesis 6:2?
So stop with the bold critics and bring a bold contextual exegete, if you do it with all honesty you will have to change what you think about these Scriptures if you indeed believe they are about fallen angels, because you have not actually said what you believe, only that I'm wrong, because you say so. No explanation of the context or reference to the context of the Scriptures.
II Timothy 2:23-26 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. 24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.
Is this a salvation doctrine, no, what it is, it's the first place in the Scripture where if you do not follow the context it will leave you looking for answers where they should not be looked for, because the answer is right in front of you. The context reveals who the sons of God are. It's really that simple. To your point there are no chapter brakes and that throws the majority of people off, because they forgot the context. Every time someone posts and does not do a contextual exegete of the Scripture they prove my point over and over and over again and again and again.
My only comment here would be.....Naaman would be offended if you called him a woman to his face. LOL
Again proving my point and now the LORD's as well. Proverbs 1:22 How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? Won’t you ever stop sneering and laughing at knowledge? 29:9 If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.
What? You respond like this to a joke? You really must think a lot of yourself....Please do not take yourself so serious
You are fond of rabbit trails. But rabbit trails lead to the Burrow. And our rabbit trails' lead to truth.
In Genesis 1.26 the angels are shown to be Elohim, as YHWH discusses with them his plans (1.26).He confirms this in 3.22. Thus the bene Elohim fit in nicely.
Shen I was young I believed what you believed. But when I studied more deeply, and especially the use of bene elohim in the OT, I saw how wrong it was. Incidentally the reason for the book of Enoch was because the intertestamental Jews saw it that way too.
I presume you read with your eyes closed and can only see what you WANT to see. I have both stated clearly what I believe, and given full context for my arguments,
So you call rightly interpreting Scripture a cause for strife?. Well it can be when I am talking to the ignorant, but that can be said of any disagreement about the Bible,
which is precisely what I am doing. Hurry up and repent, then I can move to more valuable topics.,
yep. hope you soon come to your senses and escape the snare of the Devil as he blinds you to the truth about his activity in Gen 6.1-4.
Hats why I have followed the context.
Yes, the angels (Gen 1-3; Job 1&2, etc).
If there were no chapter breaks they would move straight from ch 5 to ch 6 and realise that the daughters of men must be at least the 'daughters' of Seth' who are fairly prominent in the immediate context.
Last edited:
Yes I have to keep saying that because that is all that is being offered, everyone as yourself. No one has taken the Scriptures and do a contextual exegete of the context to prove their theory right as to fallen angels in Genesis 6:2, 4. Again you prove my point even further, with yet another rabbit trail that leads no where but away for the Scriptural context of the story line of two genealogies. What is so hard about showing everyone the context and how it comes to the conclusion that fallen angels is what is being talked about, is it because it can not be done? Yes, that's exactly why, other wise someone would of done after three weeks now of purposing this to those that hold the fallen angel view. They have only offered a brake down of my contextual exegete, but will not do one of their own.
All the cleaver little sayings and all the LOL are not a contextual exegete of the Scriptures in question, I can only be redundant because that what's being offered, you are not the first to brake down what I've post with outside of the context rebuttals. Even your attempt at trying to say that Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 are talking about angels is not only not part of the story but I'll grant it to you. you can not even come to the proper conclusion on that. That is the LORD conversing with-in Himself as in the Trinity, there is no mention of angels anywhere in that context and I don't think you'll get many if any to agree with you on that. You either do not understand what is happening in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 or you are part of a cult that teaches that.
Please do not prove my point further by doing a critic of what I posted, do an actual contextual exegete of the Scriptures in question so I don't have to keep being redundant. Because that's all that is being offered, with no one ever trying to come close to a contextual exegete of the Scripture. hopefully you'll be the first or you will fall into the line of other that further prove my point by not doing it. Thank you for that. Tis has been going on for three weeks now and no one will step out and do it. There is only one conclusion, they know it can't be done so they don't do it, because if it could be done someone would of done it to show that I wrong and the context does not show that.
You keep saying to do an exegete and you're right, its not possible. An Exegete is a person who does an exegesis. . Do you even know what you're going on about? I agree that there is no place in the bible that says expressly that the sons of God are angels, and that there is no place that says that the sons of God were men either. No place where the word says the daughters of men are daughters of Seth, Cain or Colonel Sanders...You are just as guilty of making things up as you accuse others of being. Stop acting like a puffed up professor and get real. Can do?
The bible says
Ps 50
And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself. Selah.
PS 97:6 The heavens declare[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] his righteousness, and all the people see his glory.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] the Bible tell us the the heavens too tell of the existence of God. found in Rom chapter one. Council of the Lord [/FONT]
I am very sorry if it was a joke, a jk would of helped. You don't know w how many have LOL not in a joking way. Again I apologize that I took it the wrong way.
you mean you close your eyes and will not accept it?
I have shown that daughters of 'adam in context must include daughters of Seth'
No it is because a new idea was being introduced, but based on Genesis 2 & 3. 'Beth' elohim is not found anywhere in the previous context. It is a completely new idea. And to the Hebrew it would mean 'son of the angels' as I have clearly demonstrated.
I have ignored your so-called textual exegesis because it is irrelevant. Instead I have given one of my own,
then you don't know what a contextual exegesis means.
.
Yes you are redundant lol
It is part of the whole context of Gen 1-11
How can the Lord converse with something no one at the time knows about? My view is held by all the leading commentaries as best explaining the 'us' . He is talking to his council of Elohim.
Yes it includes scholars of all denominations LOL
You are redundant, although I don't think you know what it means? And I have done an actual contextual exegesis of the important points which proves the children of men are the children of Seth and others. And the bene Elohim are angels..
that is because you read with closed eyes. And to call yours an exegesis is a travesty. You simply pick out points which you hope will be accepted.
I have done it, albeit briefly. Butt enough to prove my point.
Most of us don't care whether you believe it or not. We write for others who READ what is said. You have been shown to be wrong but you will just not admit it. That's ok. If you miss the point it will not affect us. It is hardly a crucial question
So contextual exegesis is the proper term? But is not my challenge for a person to be the expounder of the Scriptures in question, which would make it their contextual exegete of the Scriptures because they would be expounding on them or are you using this as a red herring?
Which means you understood or got the point, yet still did not do a contextual expounding of the Scriptures and if you are saying that there is no context to the story line that determines who the character are, then you've made a bigger mistake then any one word.
Do you believe that the context determines what the Bible is saying? Wrong word or not, with you knowing what was the proper word makes it ever more to my point and it can't be done, not because of your reasoning, the context doesn't not work. Without going outside the context of the story. You would have eisegesis the context of the story line, it a presupposition from else where, not from the context.
All those that go with fallen angels go outside of the context and ever misinterpret a verse in the context. Genesis 6:4, the Nephilim are not the children born to the unions of 6:2 in 6:4 because they were already on the earth, in those days and also after, when the sons of god came into the daughters of men and they had children, who were those children, they were the mighty men of old, men of renown.
Again if you are saying that there is no way to know who are the characters in Genesis 6:2, 4 by the context of Genesis 4:13-6:1 you either don't understand the what context determines or you do and since it does not fit your theory you say that it can't be determined.
There's your problem is the immediate context is not introducing a new thought as you said the context is from 1-11, no new thought and no mention of angels. To say that know one knows about the triune nature of God is to say the act of redemption was not done because the writer of Hebrews shows how the three worked in the redemption process, 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.you mean you close your eyes and will not accept it?
I have shown that daughters of 'adam in context must include daughters of Seth'
No it is because a new idea was being introduced, but based on Genesis 2 & 3. 'Beth' elohim is not found anywhere in the previous context. It is a completely new idea. And to the Hebrew it would mean 'son of the angels' as I have clearly demonstrated.
I have ignored your so-called textual exegesis because it is irrelevant. Instead I have given one of my own,
then you don't know what a contextual exegesis means.
.
Yes you are redundant lol
It is part of the whole context of Gen 1-11
How can the Lord converse with something no one at the time knows about? My view is held by all the leading commentaries as best explaining the 'us' . He is talking to his council of Elohim.
Yes it includes scholars of all denominations LOL
You are redundant, although I don't think you know what it means? And I have done an actual contextual exegesis of the important points which proves the children of men are the children of Seth and others. And the bene Elohim are angels..
that is because you read with closed eyes. And to call yours an exegesis is a travesty. You simply pick out points which you hope will be accepted.
I have done it, albeit briefly. Butt enough to prove my point.
Most of us don't care whether you believe it or not. We write for others who READ what is said. You have been shown to be wrong but you will just not admit it. That's ok. If you miss the point it will not affect us. It is hardly a crucial question
And yet again no offer of a contextual exegete by any one, only expounding on what I've said. Further proving my point. Sure it's not critical now but when everyone was expounding their own idea with no challenge it was, now it's not.
Question for all. In verse 3 man is flesh ALSO.... What is the verse contrasting? Who else was flesh besides man?
Genesis 6:1-3 KJV
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
[2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
[3] And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Genesis 6:1-3 KJV
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
[2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
[3] And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Flesh breeds with flesh? One can touch an angel..We only assume that angels are spirits because like Jesus they can pass through solid walls etc. I'm assuming that God was saying such a thing. Look at the verses you quoted in another version...
[SUP]4 [/SUP]HaNefilim were on ha’aretz in those yamim; and also after that, when the bnei HaElohim came in unto the banot HaAdam, and they bore children to them, the same became gibborim which were of old, men of renown.
Here is the origin of the giants...
I'm not asking if flesh breeds with flesh, I'm asking who is the contrast to man. If man is flesh ALSO, who is the OTHER flesh?