Genesis 6:1-2 Revisited. Unredeemable
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
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.
....if Adah meant beautiful....but it doesn’t. It means “ornament”. There is really no end to the reaching one must do when trying to fit the square pegs of scripture into the round holes of personal interpretation. There is a reason I no longer subscribe to any finite explanation of Genesis accounts. It is because there just isn’t enough pieces in the puzzle to make a true image. From what it says, we are made in the image of elohim (gods), and after their likeness. Then sons of gods mated with daughters of men and produced mighty men. That is what is given, plainly. All else is speculation. Is it possible Adam was created by Jehovah specifically, to tend His Garden, and other men created by elohim (gods)? Could these be the people Cain feared? Again, speculation. For someone to say they have it all figured out is either stupidity or dishonesty. I prefer neither, so I remain undecided.
What’s funny is that there is a body type with accompanying facial features in some people today. I know a few dudes and one lady in particular that look as though they were artistic interpretations of Neanderthals. The lady even with pertruding brow, short neck, and stocky build is quite attractive. She may never be a model but far from what I would call homely.
S
Adah means both Beautiful Ornament. I am not a Hebrew Scholar but that is what I am finding when I look it up. However setting the meaning of the name of Adah aside I would underline the name and mention of Naamah which also means beautiful, pleasant, lovely, all three. However you can drop the name beautiful from both these names and the fact that they were FAIR would still apply.
Now it has been mentioned often in commentaries that we cannot know why the sister of Tubalcain was singled out and mentioned. I find it perfectly makes sense that she should be singled out if her name meant pleasant, lovely. If you have a KJV that retains the scholars marginal notes you will find Beautiful in the margin. I had one when I originally read this, I do not have one now. Someone can check me on this.
Both these women were mentioned to make the point that their women were fair to look upon. The meaning ornament may be to suggest that they were using ornaments to make themselves look good. They were making themselves seductive through ornamentation. Right in the middle of an accounting of men who were inventors of things like "artificer in brass" we have a woman who's name means beautiful ornament, and another who is lovely, pleasant, might I say Fair. (This is next statement is conjecture so you don't have to tell me it is conjecture, but I conjecture that these women were inventing things also. They were the inventors of how to make themselves look good to the lusts of men.. end of conjecture). This is why the sons of God in Adams camp began to take to them these wicked wives until they had all fallen away to their flesh drawn lusts and departed from righteousness, until only Noah was left.
I do not agree that we cannot know what was intended. I am fully persuaded that the context tells us what we need to know. I first read the bible in prison without any reference materials to help. Later I was able to get a small bible dictionary. And eventually when I was released I was able to access commentaries. When I first read this passage in prison without human intervention (my first bible being a simple bible without study notes) I understood it to mean the sons who were living with Adam and Seth and the daughters of men being the ones who were living with Cain on the east of Eden. Only later did I hear of a theory about angels and this did not fit the context of which I had understood from Gen 4. If it was that simple for me to grasp upon first reading with no church history, no bible history, never having read the story before, then I am sure it can be understood by most people. I dropped out of high school in the 11th grade with failing grades and was dumber than a box of rocks when I first got saved. I was following the rules of interpretation (hermeneutics) by relying on the context of Gen 4 when I interpreted Gen 6 and I did not even know the word hermeneutics yet.
What happens to people is that after they are exposed to the wildly imaginative interpretations (that do not come to them naturally without being taught them) they get confused and lose confidence that anyone can know what the scriptures mean. However if they go back to the rules of hermeneutics they will be able to see where these rules are being ignored and trampled by the alternative interpretations.
Now it has been mentioned often in commentaries that we cannot know why the sister of Tubalcain was singled out and mentioned. I find it perfectly makes sense that she should be singled out if her name meant pleasant, lovely. If you have a KJV that retains the scholars marginal notes you will find Beautiful in the margin. I had one when I originally read this, I do not have one now. Someone can check me on this.
Both these women were mentioned to make the point that their women were fair to look upon. The meaning ornament may be to suggest that they were using ornaments to make themselves look good. They were making themselves seductive through ornamentation. Right in the middle of an accounting of men who were inventors of things like "artificer in brass" we have a woman who's name means beautiful ornament, and another who is lovely, pleasant, might I say Fair. (This is next statement is conjecture so you don't have to tell me it is conjecture, but I conjecture that these women were inventing things also. They were the inventors of how to make themselves look good to the lusts of men.. end of conjecture). This is why the sons of God in Adams camp began to take to them these wicked wives until they had all fallen away to their flesh drawn lusts and departed from righteousness, until only Noah was left.
I do not agree that we cannot know what was intended. I am fully persuaded that the context tells us what we need to know. I first read the bible in prison without any reference materials to help. Later I was able to get a small bible dictionary. And eventually when I was released I was able to access commentaries. When I first read this passage in prison without human intervention (my first bible being a simple bible without study notes) I understood it to mean the sons who were living with Adam and Seth and the daughters of men being the ones who were living with Cain on the east of Eden. Only later did I hear of a theory about angels and this did not fit the context of which I had understood from Gen 4. If it was that simple for me to grasp upon first reading with no church history, no bible history, never having read the story before, then I am sure it can be understood by most people. I dropped out of high school in the 11th grade with failing grades and was dumber than a box of rocks when I first got saved. I was following the rules of interpretation (hermeneutics) by relying on the context of Gen 4 when I interpreted Gen 6 and I did not even know the word hermeneutics yet.
What happens to people is that after they are exposed to the wildly imaginative interpretations (that do not come to them naturally without being taught them) they get confused and lose confidence that anyone can know what the scriptures mean. However if they go back to the rules of hermeneutics they will be able to see where these rules are being ignored and trampled by the alternative interpretations.
The context can not be over looked which many do. God was angry at men as the chapter says. the words sons of God also refer to human beings. You can't use Job in this context are different. Genesis 6 says men over and over again. If you want to see the normative of 'sons of God in the New testament Jesu Himself said in John 1:12
" 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:"
and many more times like Roman 8:14, Phil 2:15, and 1john 3:1
in each time we try to look at Gen 6:1-9 and find sex with angels when the evil that was done was done my man. who are called the sons of God then as they are now them who know Christ. To interject " angels" as the sons of God will cause a rippling effect through the whole word of God. JOB is not contextual to get 6 Jude had not provided enough to make the case of angels having sex with women.
Jude is to men and is speaking of the action of men. men need contend for the faith . it was certain men who crept in not angels.
in Jude 1:6
the angels speaking here who did not keep the first state and left their own in habitants mean why?
" 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:"
and many more times like Roman 8:14, Phil 2:15, and 1john 3:1
in each time we try to look at Gen 6:1-9 and find sex with angels when the evil that was done was done my man. who are called the sons of God then as they are now them who know Christ. To interject " angels" as the sons of God will cause a rippling effect through the whole word of God. JOB is not contextual to get 6 Jude had not provided enough to make the case of angels having sex with women.
Jude is to men and is speaking of the action of men. men need contend for the faith . it was certain men who crept in not angels.
in Jude 1:6
the angels speaking here who did not keep the first state and left their own in habitants mean why?
-
1
- Show all
Well if she were a Neanderthal...
That's all speculation of what they looked like since we only have a few bone fragments of Neanderthals which allegedly lived 40,000 years ago...thus contradicting Bible history. Heck, do we even know what Moses or Aaron looked like (and they were only 3300 years ago)? One could say they saw them on the silver screen, similar to where we get our visuals of Neanderthals.
S