Posted on 12/05/2013 6:33:43 AM PST by blam
bene Elohim....means sons of God. But it doesn’t mean THE SON OF GOD, literally God in Flesh. The term bene Elohim refers to the special beings that perform the special tasks of God, who are so in tune with the will of God, they might as well be his sons. They are his angels!
“Genesis 6:2, Job 2:1, Job 38:7 do not contradict. Specifically in Job 38:4 God is speaking to Job. If he is calling angels “sons of God”, then he is contradicting what he said in Hebrews 1:5 (spoken by Paul under the guidance of the Holy Spirit [God]).”
Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 both clearly describe a congregation of angels meeting directly with God, with Satan among them. The term used to describe them is “bene Elohim”, the sons of God, just as it is used in Genesis, and later in Job. The only contradiction with Hebrews is an apparent one. The word bene, while it can mean sons, is used here in the non-literal sense:
“F. sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for un- righteous men] or sons of God [for angels]”
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H1121&t=KJV
Just as when the Antichrist is called a “son of perdition”, you wouldn’t assume that there is a being called “perdition” that literally had a son, there is no reason to read this term literally either.
““When” can refer to time attendant before, during or after. The “morning stars” don’t have be angles, but could be lights in the firmament personified. And Adam and Eve, when they walked with God, and their believing offspring, even after the fall, all surely “shouted for joy.” (Job is post flood, probably a contemporary of Abraham, which puts his time frame approximately 2000 years after creation.)”
This interpretation ignores the context of the verse, both the earlier usages of of “sons of God” in Job 1 and Job 2, and also the immediately preceding verses, which place the time before the creation of man. Adam and Eve, or any man did not exist when God laid the foundation of the world, and therefore they could not be the “sons of God” in this verse. Morning star is also a term used to refer to angels symbolically in Isaiah 14:12. Stars are common symbols for angels, such as when the dragon draws down one third of the “stars” from heaven in Rev. 12:4.
Hmmmmm, I didn't know they brewed beer back then.......
According to Hebrews 1:4 God has never called any angel his son. That title is reserved for "heirs of salvation" (Hebrews 1:14, John 1:12). I know that some want to make a collective/singular distinction, but it is artificial. If God calls a group his sons, then this applies individually as well. And he never called any angel his son, nor any group of angels his sons.
I don't use the dictionary to interpret scripture. Nor do I have to resort to Hebrew or Greek. The Bible itself gives the proper technique as I mentioned earlier: 1 Corinthians 2:9ff:
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth...Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual with spiritual. (1 Corinthians 2:9-13)
This interpretation ignores the context of the verse, both the earlier usages of of “sons of God” in Job 1 and Job 2, and also the immediately preceding verses, which place the time before the creation of man.
At first I thought the timeframe was creation as well. But there is time shift introduced in verse 6:
(6) Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; (7) When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:6,7)
A search of the Bible reveals who this corner stone is:
Job 38:6* Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Isaiah 28:16* Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Ephesians 2:20* And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
1 Peter 2:6* Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Jesus Christ is the corner stone. And Jesus himself in John 8 told an unbelieving crowd:
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad." Then the Jews said unto him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:26-58)
Jesus is speaking in the past tense, yet the laying of the corner stone is his incarnation, death, burial and resurrection (1 Peter 2:6 quoting Isaiah 28:16). And Abraham "saw" it and "rejoiced". The Bible also says that Jesus Christ is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8) God in heaven is in a timeless domain. We on the other hand are constrained by time. The sons of God in heaven (Abraham et al.) can look upon the laying of the corner stone and rejoice. When Jesus says this has not yet completed his work. Yet, the Bible says he was slain from the foundation of the world. Have fun figuring this out. But we are assured by Jesus himself that Abraham, a son of God, rejoiced to see the laying of this corner stone.
We don't have to resort to creative twistings of the Hebrew "bene Elohim". We can see what it means in the many and consistent contexts and usages throughout the Bible, old and new testament. It means "sons of God", that is, "heirs of salvation", in any language. And that excludes the angels who are not heirs of salvation, a position in Christ reserved to all who believe on his name. (John 1:12)
For as many as received him to these he gave the power to become sons of God, even, to them that believe on his name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12,13)
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1 John 5:1)
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:1,2
The angels are NOT sons of God, believers are, because they are in Christ.
“It doesn’t say that it doesn’t. (Two can play this game.)”
There’s no game. If you make a claim, the onus is yours to provide a citation.
“Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of men, but of God. This “plot point” as you call it, is being born of the Spirit, born again.”
That wasn’t what I was referring to. I meant that the incarnation of Christ was a non-physical act of reproduction by a spiritual being. Thus, if you are too quick to rule out that kind of thing, you may throw the baby Jesus out with the bathwater.
“The angel of the bottomless pit is NOT Satan. He is Apollyon (Abaddon) (see both Revelation 9:11 AND Revelation 20:1)”
Beings can be referred to by more than one name, especially in the context of prophecy. The verses are clearly parallel, as both the dragon and Abaddon are cast down to Earth and then lead the war on the saints. However, the angel in verse 20 who binds Satan clearly is not Apollyon, because he is a servant of God, whereas Apollyon is fallen.
“The creatures from the bottomless pit (Revelation 9) are doing God’s will. They are his agents, not Satan’s.”
God places a restriction on them, but that doesn’t mean they are doing God’s will. Satan has restrictions placed on him by God. Is he doing God’s will?
“I quoted the precise language from Matthew 22. “Raise up” means both to plant and tend seed.”
Yes, and your quote says absolutely nothing about the angels raising up seed. The only words about raising up seed in those verses refer to living humans, not angels.
“Hardly moot. God rested from his creation on the seventh day. He has created no new kinds since the beginning. Kinds procreate within kinds.”
Well, according to you, but you refuse to provide a reference for that from the Bible, so we can dismiss it as speculation, no?
No, you've determined it means "angels" in spite of clear statements in the Bible that these are "saved men", "heirs of salvation", not angels who are ministering spirits.
The Septuagint is faulty in its translation. It is inconsistent and resorts to interpretation rather than faithfully and consistently translating the Bible into Greek. In Genesis 6:3 it translates "bene [Elohim]" as "uioi tou theou" (sons of God), but elsewhere in Job it translates "bene" as "angeloi", an intepretive gloss. "bene" means son, child, something that is "begotten".
See Hebrews 1 which clearly states that God has never called an angel (or angels) his son (or sons). That title is reserved to all those who are in Christ Jesus.
“I know that some want to make a collective/singular distinction, but it is artificial. If God calls a group his sons, then this applies individually as well.”
It’s not a collective/singular distinction, it’s a distinction in usage. “Bene Elohim” has been interpreted to mean angels for thousands of years, by the Hebrews, the early Christians, and most Biblical translators. It’s the traditional interpretation, and nothing radical at all to suggest that is the correct reading. As you don’t want to give credence to dictionaries or definitions of words when interpreting the Bible, I don’t think there is any use discussing the matter any more with you, since we can’t have a rational discourse in that case.
Genetic mutations were still extremely minimal. I extremely doubt that the strain of Cain would produce females significantly better looking than Seth’s as to cause his son’s to prefer Cain’s offspring. Nearly perfect human woman were likely all very beautiful, which was what caused the Angels of God to be tempted and ultimately choose to fall and mate with them.
I also believe that Satan and his fallen demonic angels, being imitators, and unable to come up with original ideas, at a later time copied the Angels of God and mated with humans, which created the ugly distorted giants that later populated the promised land area such as Goliath and his ilk.
Since then Satan, I believe, has tried to mate with humans, trying to have more normal looking offspring, thus the “alien abductions”, which usually involve people being genetically compromised. Who knows who today may have demonic genes. The anti Christ is likely to be a son of Satan himself, as he attempts to imitate Christ, the only begotten Son of God.
Haven’t read it yet, but this book looks extremely interesting on the subject of the past giants on the earth. The Nephilim Chronicles-Fallen Angels in The Ohio Valley by Fritz Zimmerman.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Nephilim-Chronicles-Fallen-Angels/dp/1451581262
....or moldy.
The Neandertal Enigma"Frayer's own reading of the record reveals a number of overlooked traits that clearly and specifically link the Neandertals to the Cro-Magnons. One such trait is the shape of the opening of the nerve canal in the lower jaw, a spot where dentists often give a pain-blocking injection. In many Neandertal, the upper portion of the opening is covered by a broad bony ridge, a curious feature also carried by a significant number of Cro-Magnons. But none of the alleged 'ancestors of us all' fossils from Africa have it, and it is extremely rare in modern people outside Europe." [pp 126-127]
by James Shreeve
in local libraries
Today as back then, there are always some who will stick anything anywhere if it might feel good. Back then it was instinct; now it is amorality.
Any port in a storm...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.