- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Mike,
When God sets aside a group of humans as his very own he calls the his children even though all humans are his children by creation. The difference between the line of Seth and the line of Cain are clear. It is so clear that Seth's line is actually started by Adam's creation by God, Genesis 5:1-2 and Cain's line is started with Cain after he left the presence of God, Genesis 4:16-17.
The line of Seth remained in the presence of God while the line of Cain was not in the presence of God.
The LXX makes the case for two type of giants. The first type were on the earth in a time called “those days” and afterwards at a time when the sons of God sired the second type of giants on the daughters of man. The first type could be dinosaurs for all these words but I figure they were men because Nephilim later refers to human giants. The second are giants among men, heroes as the Hebrew word is commonly translated mighty men.
The book of Enoch shows us that some Jews believe as you do and perhaps such Jews translated the LXX.
Quote (kerwin @ June 02 2014,13:10) The difference between the line of Seth and the line of Cain are clear. It is so clear that Seth's line is actually started by Adam's creation by God, Genesis 5:1-2 and Cain's line is started with Cain after he left the presence of God, Genesis 4:16-17.
So then you think Cain's line WASN'T started by Adam's creation by God?
Come on, Kerwin.Quote (kerwin @ June 02 2014,13:10) The LXX makes the case for two type of giants. The first type were on the earth in a time called “those days” and afterwards at a time when the sons of God sired the second type of giants on the daughters of man.
Where do you get a “second type of giants”? Show me the words, exactly.Quote (kerwin @ June 02 2014,13:10) The book of Enoch shows us that some Jews believe as you do and perhaps such Jews translated the LXX.
So the ancient Jews who translated the version that Jesus and his disciples most often quoted agree with ME?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 03 2014,08:11) Quote (kerwin @ June 02 2014,13:10) The difference between the line of Seth and the line of Cain are clear. It is so clear that Seth's line is actually started by Adam's creation by God, Genesis 5:1-2 and Cain's line is started with Cain after he left the presence of God, Genesis 4:16-17.
So then you think Cain's line WASN'T started by Adam's creation by God? Come on, Kerwin.That is how their lines are written. Earlier in the chapter it is written that Cain was a man begotten of Eve.
Quote Quote (kerwin @ June 02 2014,13:10) The LXX makes the case for two type of giants. The first type were on the earth in a time called “those days” and afterwards at a time when the sons of God sired the second type of giants on the daughters of man.
Where do you get a “second type of giants”? Show me the words, exactly.You want to see the words so I have to either go back to the post or find the LXX verse for you.
Quote Quote (kerwin @ June 02 2014,13:10) The book of Enoch shows us that some Jews believe as you do and perhaps such Jews translated the LXX.
So the ancient Jews who translated the version that Jesus and his disciples most often quoted agree with ME?If you are correct then I would say yes. They did not quote that verse.
Kerwin,
Kangaroo Jack once listed a stat that said 67% of the OT quotes found in the NT are from the LXX.
Quote (kerwin @ June 05 2014,11:12) You want to see the words so I have to either go back to the post or find the LXX verse for you.
Okay. Please do so.I only ask because I'm sure you are incorporating a “second kind of giant” into the words.
I don't think the words themselves actually imply such a thing.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 06 2014,07:28) Kerwin, Kangaroo Jack once listed a stat that said 67% of the OT quotes found in the NT are from the LXX.
Mike,I use weasel words because I do not feel like doing the research to verify that and I do not think it is important as the used both versions. The differences did not seem to bother them.
In this case I do not think it is significant as heroes are called giants in some cultures.
Mike,
Quote .LXX 6:4 Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore [children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown. There is two instances of the word giants mentioned. The first instance happens in “those days” and the second instance happens in the time “after that”
It is two different words in Hebrew. The Nephilim are the first giants and the second giants are might men.
Here is another case of them calling mighty men giants.
I believe you are understanding the statement wrong, Kerwin.
6:4 Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore [children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown.
This is saying that the giants were on the earth AS A RESULT of the sons of God mating with the daughters of men. Those giants were powerful, and as such, were men of renown.
The words “and also after that” are a parenthetical note – letting the reader know that some of these giants remained in the world long after the time their parents, the angels, mated with human women.
Genesis 6:4 NET ©
The Nephilim 1 were on the earth in those days (and also after this) 2 when the sons of God were having sexual relations with 3 the daughters of humankind, who gave birth to their children. 4 They were the mighty heroes 5 of old, the famous men.Footnote #2 says:
This observation is parenthetical, explaining that there were Nephilim even after the flood. If all humankind, with the exception of Noah and his family, died in the flood, it is difficult to understand how the postdiluvian Nephilim could be related to the antediluvian Nephilim or how the Anakites of Canaan could be their descendants (see Num 13:33). It is likely that the term Nephilim refers generally to “giants” (see HALOT 709 s.v. נְפִילִים) without implying any ethnic connection between the antediluvian and postdiluvian varieties.
Mike,
The note actually agrees with me though it seems to believe those day were the days up to and including the flood and after that was after the flood.
“Those days” seems to be a vague time but “after that” clearly seems to be when the Sons of God married the daughters of man so I am not see where they obtained their interpretation.
Moses was telling us how these giants came to be on the earth. Angels mated with human women. So in “those days” (the days in which angels mated with human women), giants were in the world.
But Moses was also pointing out that those giants were not ONLY in the world “in those days” when the angels mated with human women………. but that some of them were in the world “after that” as well (as in Numbers 13:33 – which Moses also wrote).
Consider this statement:
Barack Obama was elected as the President of the U.S.A. in 2008 (and also after that), taking a giant step toward the healing of race relations in America.
All I'm saying is that Obama was elected at one time……… AND THEN AGAIN at a later time. My words do not imply that I'm talking about TWO DIFFERENT Obamas.
Similarly, Moses was saying that the giants were in the world at one time (when the angels mated with human women) AND THEN AGAIN at a later time (Num 13:33).
The problem this causes is that all life was thought to have been wiped out by the flood. So how did descendants of the Nephilim end up living in the land of Canaan AFTER the flood?
It is a mystery, the answer to which we can only guess. Perhaps the wife of one of Noah's sons was of the Nephilim line? Perhaps a couple of angels AGAIN mated with a couple of human women after the flood? Or perhaps, like the NET scholars suggest, “Nephilim” is a generic word for “big and tall men”.
At any rate, it seems very clear to me that the “big and tall men” Moses wrote about in Gen 6 were the RESULT of angels mating with human women.
You have a right you your own understanding as well. But that is my understanding, and I'm happy with it.
Milke,
A better example, based on the wording of Young's Literal Translation is:
Barack Obama was president of the U.S.A. in 2009, and even afterwards when there was a giant step toward the healing of race relations in America.
Young's has a different take on the Genesis 6:4 that is actually favorable to your understanding.
Genesis 6:4
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)4 The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them — they [are] the heroes, who, from of old, [are] the men of name.
Yeah, Young's is okay, I guess.
For me, the point is that the only reason Moses brought up the Nephilim AND the fact that sons of God mated with daughters of Adam – is because the former was the RESULT of the latter.
It was BECAUSE sons of God mated with daughters of Adam that the Nephilim were in the world in those days.
Mike,
I mentioned it as the fallen could be angels.
I believe you prefer that “and afterwards when” is a comment that is inserted in the sentence.
Mike,
I think that means it would be a comment by the editor not the writer. I learned to put my comments in commas unless I am quoting someone else then I use (). The only excepting is when I also include and alternative word or phrase as I am not really sure what is proper in that case. The bottom line is the same and some translators chose to go that way while others did not.
Quote (kerwin @ June 14 2014,13:00) Mike, I think that means it would be a comment by the editor not the writer.
Could be………. but not necessarily.A later scribe could have put a note in the margin specifying that the Nephilim were also in the world at a later time, ie: Num 13:33.
Or Moses himself could have added the parenthetical note, since he was still around in those later days of Num 13:33.
At any rate, you can find millions of examples of parenthetical notes that were made by the original writer. There is no reason to automatically assume a parenthetical note was added in by a later writer.
Mike,
Translators do not necessary use “proper” writing form and that form changes so you could be correct.
Quote (Wakeup @ April 23 2014,12:25) Before God created Adam;He already knew that he must die.
God could not have the idea that flesh should live forever.
For He is the Lord of Spirits. Not flesh.First there was darkness;and then light.
Light has nothing in common with darkness.
First there was the flesh; and then spirit.
spirit has nothing in common with flesh.Jesus had nothing in common with satan.
1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a *natural body*; it is raised *a spiritual body*. There is a natural body, *and there is a spiritual body*.
wakeup.
wQuote Before God created Adam;He already knew that he must die. is this not evil
and your scripture does not support that ;but it seems that what it says is for a few to receive (144k)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
