Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
Sign in to follow this  
JoeMo

Questions on Genesis

Recommended Posts

JoeMo
21 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

The Bible does not delve into such subjects for a reason. I believe we should follow that example.

The Bible does delve into it, just not in graphic detail.

"The divine beings saw how beautiful these human women were, so they married the ones they chose." Gen. 6:2 CEB

"Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted." Gen 6:2  CEV

"Some divine beings noticed how attractive human women were, so they took wives for themselves from a selection that pleased them." Gen. 6:2 ISV

I'm no Hebrew scholar, but some translations are clearer on this than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
45 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

The Bible does delve into it, just not in graphic detail.

"The divine beings saw how beautiful these human women were, so they married the ones they chose." Gen. 6:2 CEB

"Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted." Gen 6:2  CEV

"Some divine beings noticed how attractive human women were, so they took wives for themselves from a selection that pleased them." Gen. 6:2 ISV

I'm no Hebrew scholar, but some translations are clearer on this than others.

I guess I was thinking when I said the Bible doesn't "delve into this for a reason" that I was thinking it doesnt elaborate at all on it, as in all the details that we are asking. A parenthetical mention of something does not make it into a doctrine? I think we have to acknowledge that details on this are very sketchy in the Bible?  But I need to look into it further when I have a little more time. I will look forward to following up on this a bit in the near future. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TrevorL

Greetings JoeMo,

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

The Bible does delve into it, just not in graphic detail.

"The divine beings saw how beautiful these human women were, so they married the ones they chose." Gen. 6:2 CEB

"Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted." Gen 6:2  CEV

"Some divine beings noticed how attractive human women were, so they took wives for themselves from a selection that pleased them." Gen. 6:2 ISV

I'm no Hebrew scholar, but some translations are clearer on this than others.

I suggest that these translations are interpretive, and they are clear in only one sense, that they give a particular view. If they give the wrong view, then they have muddied the water. My understanding is that Genesis 3:15 speaks of two seeds, the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. Ultimately the seed of the woman who would overcome sin in all its manifestations is Jesus, the son of Mary and the Son of God. Another view of Genesis 3:15 is that we are introduced to Cain and Abel, and after this the division of the world into two lines of descendants, those of Cain and those of Seth, one following the ways of the flesh, and the other the ways of God. This latter group could be called the Sons of God, and I believe that this is what is being referred to in Genesis 6:2. It indicates that up until then the two groups lived separately and did not intermarry. The crisis of Noah’s day is when a large portion of the Godly descendants turned their back on the separation, and married descendants of Cain. The result was the children of these marriages became more rebellious than even the normal descendants of Cain. The end result was that only a few faithful were left in the earth, and by the time of the flood, God only separated and preserved Noah and his family. This view gives a smooth understanding of why only Noah and his family were left out of the presumably many descendants of the originally faithful line. Luke 20:34-36 indicates that Angels do not marry.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phkrause
On 4/21/2018 at 7:53 PM, The Wanderer said:

I hope you realize there are some important differences? :D

Exactly!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
5 hours ago, TrevorL said:

Another view of Genesis 3:15 is that we are introduced to Cain and Abel, and after this the division of the world into two lines of descendants, those of Cain and those of Seth, one following the ways of the flesh, and the other the ways of God. This latter group could be called the Sons of God, and I believe that this is what is being referred to in Genesis 6:2. It indicates that up until then the two groups lived separately and did not intermarry. The crisis of Noah’s day is when a large portion of the Godly descendants turned their back on the separation, and married descendants of Cain. The result was the children of these marriages became more rebellious than even the normal descendants of Cain.

This is also a popular (probably the prevalent) interpretation of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2.  The Hebrew for this term is "bənê hāʼĕlōhîm". This same Hebrew term is used in Job 1:6, 2:1, 38.7, and in Deuteronomy 32:8 in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  in each of those verses, the "sons of God" are clearly supernatural beings.  Why would we make an exception for Genesis 6:2?  Just because it's a little weird for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
28 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

This is also a popular (probably the prevalent) interpretation of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2.  The Hebrew for this term is "bənê hāʼĕlōhîm". This same Hebrew term is used in Job 1:6, 2:1, 38.7, and in Deuteronomy 32:8 in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  in each of those verses, the "sons of God" are clearly supernatural beings.  Why would we make an exception for Genesis 6:2?  Just because it's a little weird for us?

As an aside to the OP here, I came across an interesting quote by Ellen G White on Gen 6:4 and the Nephalim:

Quote

There perished in the Flood greater inventions of art and human skill than the world knows of today. The arts destroyed were more than the boasted arts of today (Letter 65, 1898).  {1BC 1089.1}

This was one of her comments in an ESword module of her writings.  What think ye.  (I realize this is not scripture per se, but I just found the idea interesting.

Edited by The Wanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
7 hours ago, TrevorL said:

I suggest that these translations are interpretive, and they are clear in only one sense, that they give a particular view.

I would definitely agree with this point. Well-taken. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

Taking "wives" of all they chose - reminds me of ancient potentates who would take which ever women they fancied.  They did not usually "marry" them. 

Does EGW say that ALL descendants of Cain died in the flood of Noah? 

I would love to see just a few human skeletons among all the bones of dinosaurs and such, left by the flood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
17 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

There perished in the Flood greater inventions of art and human skill than the world knows of today. The arts destroyed were more than the boasted arts of today (Letter 65, 1898).  {1BC 1089.1}

The archeological evidence totally agrees with this.  IMHO, there is no way the pyramids could have been built to the grandeur and precision to which they are built without advanced technology - probably given to them by fallen angels. (I believe the pyramids were built by antediluvians; not Hebrews.  Carbon dating places the age of the pyramids at least 5,000 years ago.  Hebrews were employed making mud bricks; not quarrying and transporting unbelievably huge  blocks of precision cut stones.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H
On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 12:29 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Does EGW say that ALL descendants of Cain died in the flood of Noah? 

No she does not say that all of Cain's decedents died in the flood. Now we have to remember that it is NOT her job to tell us something like that. That would be a question of exegesis. She tells us that exegesis is OUR job that her job is to make APPLICATION to our day. May I recommend questions to ask about a topic before we should ask if Mrs. White gave us guidance on it:

1. Would this information be necessary to encourage Adventists to understand that God was still leading them in their Millerite experience and for them to not give it up as a false experience.

2. Would this information be necessary for the development of the Seventh-day Adventist church including things like information on how to evangelize a city?

3. Would this information be necessary for the development of our medical and educational work?

4. Would this information be necessary to deal with the 3 deceptions of Satan/the issues of the Great Controversy?

5. Would this information be useful in helping us how to make choices that encourage a Christ like character as opposed to making choices that can develop selfishness?

If your answers to these 5 questions are "No" then don't expect or wish that Mrs. White would say something about it. Not to say that it is not important, but that it would be a question on exegesis and not a question on application and that it is therefore our job not hers. (even when a superficial reading makes it appear that Mrs. White is doing an exegesis, unless there is something very important in the above 5 questions she is more than likely saying "As far as we are concerned this is what was happening."

Mrs. White tells us what visions do for her and what they do not do for her. What is her ministry and what is not her ministry. Interesting every attack against her is in the fields that she says is not her ministry and things that the visions do not do for her. Thus instead of proving her a false prophet, these attacks show her to be right.

Now the names on both lists indicate intermarriage between the 2 families, some times they may be two different people with the same name but others can be the same, we can especially see this in Lamech. who died at the young age of just a little over 7 hundred 70s, and indicates that no matter how you want to interpret the sons of god marrying the daughters of man, there was definitely a problem in the decedents of Seth marrying the decedents of Cain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
4 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Now the names on both lists indicate intermarriage between the 2 families, some times they may be two different people with the same name but others can be the same, we can especially see this in Lamech. who died at the young age of just a little over 7 hundred 70s, and indicates that no matter how you want to interpret the sons of god marrying the daughters of man, there was definitely a problem in the decedents of Seth marrying the decedents of Cain. 

Some notes from Gen 6 that I put together using the SDA Bible Commentaries and EGW writings

1. "And it came to pass." This expression does not imply that the conditions here described arose subsequent to events recorded in previous chapters. The author is simply pointing to the state of society in the days of Noah, when ten generations of increasing corruption reached a climax.
Men began to multiply. The human race increased rapidly not only in wickedness but in numbers as well. Among the manifold dangers for pious Sethites were the beautiful daughters of unbelievers. Wives were taken not because of their virtue but for beauty’s sake, with the result that godlessness and wickedness made heavy inroads among Seth’s descendants.

2. "The sons of God." This phrase has been interpreted in various ways. Ancient Jewish commentators, the early church Fathers, and many modern expositors have thought these “sons” to be angels, comparing them with the “sons of God” of Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. This view must be rejected, because punishment soon to be meted out was for the sins of human beings (see v. 3), and not of angels. Further, angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30). The “sons of God” were none other than the descendants of Seth, and the “daughters of men,” of the godless Cainites (PP 81). God later spoke of Israel as His “firstborn son” (Ex. 4:22), and Moses called the people of Israel “children of the Lord your God” (Deut. 14:1).

"They took them wives." These unholy alliances between Sethites and Cainites were responsible for the rapid increase of wickedness among the former. God has ever warned His followers not to marry unbelievers, because of the great danger to which the believer is thus exposed and to which he usually succumbs (Deut. 7:3, 4; Joshua 23:12, 13; Ezra 9:2; Neh. 13:25; 2 Cor. 6:14, 15). But the Sethites did not heed the warnings they surely must have received. Guided by sense attractions, they were not content with the beautiful daughters of the godly race, and often preferred Cainite brides. Moreover, the prevalence of polygamy seems to be suggested by the plural expression used, they took “wives.”

3. My spirit shall not always strive. The fact that this statement follows immediately after the reference to these unsanctified marriages would suggest that God’s displeasure was most particularly displayed toward this evil practice. Captive to their passions, they were no longer subject to God’s Spirit. The word “strive” in the Hebrew means “to rule,” and “to judge,” as corollary to ruling. These words indicate that the Holy Spirit could continue working but a little longer, and would then be withdrawn from the unregenerate and unrepentant of the human race. Even God’s long-suffering must end. Peter refers to the work of the Spirit on the hearts of the antediluvians, saying that the Spirit of Christ preached to these prisoners of Satan (1 Peter 3:18–20).

4. "There were giants in the earth." These “giants,” nephilim, were not the product of mixed marriages, as some have suggested. The LXX translated nephilim by gigantes, from which the English “giant” is derived. In Num. 13:33 the Israelites reported that they felt like mere grasshoppers in the sight of the nephilim, which the KJV translates “giants.” There is reason to believe that this Hebrew word may come from the root naphal, and that the nephilim were “violent” ones, or terrorists, rather than physical “giants.” Since in those days the entire human race was of great stature, it must be that character rather than height is designated. The antediluvians generally possessed great physical and mental strength. These individuals, renowned for wisdom and skill, persistently devoted their intellectual and physical powers to the gratification of their own pride and passions and to the oppression of their fellow men (PP 80,  84, 90)

Quote

 It is true that the people of modern times have the benefit of the attainments of their predecessors. The men of masterly minds, who planned and studied and wrote, have left their work for those who follow. But even in this respect, and so far as merely human knowledge is concerned, how much greater the advantages of the men of that olden time! They had among them for hundreds of years him who was formed in God's image, whom the Creator Himself pronounced "good"--the man whom God had instructed in all the wisdom pertaining to the material world. Adam had learned from the Creator the history of creation; he himself witnessed the events of nine centuries; and he imparted his knowledge to his descendants. The antediluvians were without books, they had no written records; but with their great physical and mental vigor, they had strong memories, able to grasp and to retain that which was communicated to them, and in turn to transmit it unimpaired to their posterity. And for hundreds of years there were seven generations living upon the earth contemporaneously, having the opportunity of consulting together and profiting each by the knowledge and experience of all.  {PP 83.1}  
The advantages enjoyed by men of that age to gain a knowledge of God through His works have never been equaled since. And so far from being an era of religious darkness, that was an age of great light. All the world had opportunity to receive instruction from Adam, and those who feared the Lord had also Christ and angels for their teachers. And they had a silent witness to the truth, in the garden of God, which for so many centuries remained among men. At the cherubim-guarded gate of Paradise the glory of God was revealed, and hither came the first worshipers. Here their altars were reared, and their offerings presented. It was here that Cain and Abel had brought their sacrifices, and God had condescended to communicate with them.  {PP 83.2}

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H
On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 12:29 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

 would love to see just a few human skeletons among all the bones of dinosaurs and such, left by the flood.

This is making assumptions that may or may not be true.  As Seventh-day Adventists we understand things happening before creation week which are important in the issues of the Great Controversy. While Mrs. White DOES talk some more about this because it is important in the Great Controversy, it is implied in the words translated "Without form and void" and the waters of chaos.  While it is possible for man and Dinosaurs to have existed together and they being destroyed at the flood, we are also open to the possibilities that they may have played a role in the pre-creation week things that were going on here in helping the angels and beings on the other worlds decide what side of the Great Controversy to be on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×