Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: John Leland 1789
That doesn't work for many reasons. No humans are "sons of God" without regeneration, the new birth. Seth's line was not regenerated.

What about Enoch? He was in this line.

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Why would the males in Seth's progeny, marrying the daughters of other men produce Giants ?

The term "giants" doesn't necessarily mean they were 10' tall. The Israelites encountered other tribes they thought were "giants" who just appeared that way because they were so aggressive. This is after the flood so it's unlikely that the nephilim repopulated the earth. They were all killed in the flood.

The Scriptures never call Seth's progeny "sons of God," nore do the Scriptures ever call Cain's progeny, "daughters of men."

Chapter 6 immediately follows Chapter 5 in which the line of Seth is written about. I think it is more likely that in this instance the phrase "sons of God" refers back to them. Other than chapter 6 we don't see any other instances where Angels may be procreating with humans. We have a lot of Scripture that points out that Angels do not procreate with other Angels and while they may appear to have physical form and can perform incredible acts in the physical world they are spiritual beings.

BTW, I love these threads. I wish I had seen them sooner. FWIW, if you post something like this you can click on my screen name and you will find an end times ping list. You will find a lot of posters who will be interested in this kind of topic.

38 posted on 08/15/2012 10:01:46 AM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: wmfights
Frankly, IMHO your arguments are simply rationalizing and humanizing ; it just seems that you must believe something that seems less supernatural ; perhaps you fear the supernatural.

GIANTS in Genesis 6, is exactly the same sense as the giant that young David faced in open combat.

According to Genesis 6:4, ("and also after that") this phenomenon of sons of God cohabiting with daughters of men was not isolated to the time immediately prior to the flood ; it took place in subsequent generations in Canaan and Israel. Thus, it is not talking about Seth's progeny, which if claimed through Noah, would be dispersed even unto our own day in all three races of men.

No, Enoch was not a "new creature" in the sense of regeneration ; was never labeled a "son of God." The expression "son of God" ALWAYS refers to a direct, individual creation of God: either by physical/material creation (including the angels, who are called "sons of God" in the OT; or in the NT sense, being created after the image of Christ. Men in the OT---not even Enoch, Abraham, David, etc. were "born again". Christ had to die and be raised from the dead before INDIVIDUALS could be "born again."

39 posted on 08/15/2012 10:38:31 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson