"The Sons of God!" Mere mortals, literal sons or angels? (Buddhism, hell)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah yes, you can find this theme in cultures around the world which often prompts me to ask, did something really go down in the deepest recesses of human history on a level we can only now understand via myth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
Ah yes, you can find this theme in cultures around the world which often prompts me to ask, did something really go down in the deepest recesses of human history on a level we can only now understand via myth?
Usually when you ask what something means in one part of the Bible it is answered in another part.
From the book of Job, chapter one:
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil. 2 And seven sons and three daughters were born to him. 3 Also, his possessions were seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred female donkeys, and a very large household, so that this man was the greatest of all the people of the East.
4 And his sons would go and feast in their houses, each on his appointed day, and would send and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 So it was, when the days of feasting had run their course, that Job would send and sanctify them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, “It may be that my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” Thus Job did regularly.
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. 7 And the Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
**********
Here the sons of God are what we would call angels. Or divine beings.
What's the difference between a divine being and a god?
Only that they are not the sons of God but the sons of Angels. Elohim means Judges, Angels, gods and God, so in this case reference is not made to those sons of the gods who came into the daughters of men.
No, elohim means "gods." Angels are gods, which is why it can refer to angels. It absolutely never means "judges."
I suggest that you ask one more question and try to answer it yourself:
“Are there sons of gods mentioned in any other people’s traditions?”
Mythology is full of sons of gods that the gods produced by raping “mortal” women. Why should the sons of gods of the Hebrew traditions be different?
P.S. Whoppers post was excellent this time.
There are those who believe that the ones who were "sons of the elohim" were of the line of Seth. If we track the word "they" in Genesis 6:4 the antecedent would be "sons of the elohim." These were called "the distinguished" in verse 4 and who were the distinguished? Genesis 5 gives us the answer to that. Chapter 5 leads up to 6. They were "mortals with the name." In chapter 5 it names those distinguished by name. They were distinguished in the earth back then. Adam is called a son of Elohim. Elohim, meaning "Subjector" would tell us that these sons of the elohim were sons of the subjector which is not necessarily GOD but a human subjector.
God told Moses that he would be Elohim (subjector) to Pharaoh and Aaron would be his prophet. So Moses was an elohim. His sons were sons of elohim since Moses was elohim. Adams direct sons were sons of the elohim.
In Psalms 82:6 it is said to the Hebrews: "I say ye are elohim and sons of the Supreme are all of you." So if they were elohim, their sons would be sons of elohim. If we tie it all together it need not be angelic beings.
There are those who believe that the ones who were "sons of the elohim" were of the line of Seth. If we track the word "they" in Genesis 6:4 the antecedent would be "sons of the elohim." These were called "the distinguished" in verse 4 and who were the distinguished? Genesis 5 gives us the answer to that. Chapter 5 leads up to 6. They were "mortals with the name." In chapter 5 it names those distinguished by name. They were distinguished in the earth back then. Adam is called a son of Elohim. Elohim, meaning "Subjector" would tell us that these sons of the elohim were sons of the subjector which is not necessarily GOD but a human subjector.
God told Moses that he would be Elohim (subjector) to Pharaoh and Aaron would be his prophet. So Moses was an elohim. His sons were sons of elohim since Moses was elohim. Adams direct sons were sons of the elohim.
In Psalms 82:6 it is said to the Hebrews: "I say ye are elohim and sons of the Supreme are all of you." So if they were elohim, their sons would be sons of elohim. If we tie it all together it need not be angelic beings.
How do you then explain and account for the JEWISH detailing found in the First Book of Enoch 6?
Secondly, the passage makes a marked distinction between the "sons of god" and the "daughters of men." If you think about it, where were the "daughters of god" and "sons of men" in all of this? Are we to believe ONLY the daughters of men and some wayward "godly" men were in on this?
Eusebius, regional religious history, ancient Jewish tradition, biblical scripture and even non-biblical scripture ALL point to "sons of god" being divine beings. I know you know deep down inside WHY alternate views, fraught with problems, had to be employed. The ramifications are far reaching and brings down much of the house of cards.
Last edited by InsaneInDaMembrane; 05-08-2012 at 07:41 PM..
How do you then explain and account for the JEWISH detailing found in the First Book of Enoch 6?
Secondly, the passage makes a marked distinction between the "sons of god" and the "daughters of men." If you think about it, where were the "daughters of god" and "sons of men" in all of this? Are we to believe ONLY the daughters of men and some wayward "godly" men were in on this?
Eusebius, regional religious history, ancient Jewish tradition, biblical scripture and even non-biblical scripture ALL point to "sons of god" being divine beings. I know you know deep down inside WHY alternate views, fraught with problems, had to be employed. The ramifications are far reaching and brings down much of the house of cards.
The book of Enoch means nothing to me. It could mostly be the result of someone with a wild imagination or someone on drugs.
Jesus, who was a Jew and who not only knew the Bible, also knew the traditions of the Jews told them that they by their traditions make the word of God of none effect. So I'm not too keen on the Jews and their understanding of the Bible, who very rarely were in line with God's will. They often went after the gods of the nations and imbibed in their traditions rather than remaining in the tradition of the One True God.
There is no house of cards when it comes to the Bible. It is on solid rock.
The book of Enoch means nothing to me. It could mostly be the result of someone with a wild imagination or someone on drugs.
That's what many people say about the Book of Revelation. In fact, the Book of Enoch CLEARLY served as a template for books like Revelation, following in the tradition of apocalyptic books like Daniel.
Jesus, who was a Jew and who not only knew the Bible, also knew the traditions of the Jews told them that they by their traditions make the word of God of none effect. So I'm not too keen on the Jews and their understanding of the Bible, who very rarely were in line with God's will. They often went after the gods of the nations and imbibed in their traditions rather than remaining in the tradition of the One True God.
I find the above rather insulting to the actual people who would KNOW their scripture best. It is that attitude that led to Christians inflicting much persecution on said people. I am sure Jesus was WELL aware of the Book of Enoch, as it was held in high regard by people of his era.
Quote:
There is no house of cards when it comes to the Bible. It is on solid rock.
What's the difference between a divine being and a god?
Both Santa Barbara wearing topless and Venus naked are divine beings. Gods are usually more decent!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
No, elohim means "gods." Angels are gods, which is why it can refer to angels. It absolutely never means "judges."
This thread is absolutely not the one to discuss the term “Elohim.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
Yes, academic articles are unfortunately quite expensive, unless you have institutional access.
Clever guys!!
Only stupid laymen would pay to read their articles and thus they get rid of the smart ones!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
In Psalms 82:6 it is said to the Hebrews: "I say ye are elohim and sons of the Supreme are all of you." So if they were elohim, their sons would be sons of elohim. If we tie it all together it need not be angelic beings.
You are quite right!
Angelic beings are products of the imagination, the Elohim were watched by our ancestors while they were producing their sons.
The sons of Elohim in the Greek tradition were called sons of Zeus whom he produced also by using the daughters of men, so why bother so much trying to interpret every single word in the OT?
That's what many people say about the Book of Revelation. In fact, the Book of Enoch CLEARLY served as a template for books like Revelation, following in the tradition of apocalyptic books like Daniel.
John's revelation is indeed not an island unto itself. All revelation in the Old testament is expanding. John's revelation expands upon Daniels. But John wrote what he actually saw. He did not see his vision based on the reading of Daniel! Daniel saw what he saw and wrote it down as did John.
Quote:
Eusebius wrote:
Jesus, who was a Jew and who not only knew the Bible, also knew the traditions of the Jews told them that they by their traditions make the word of God of none effect. So I'm not too keen on the Jews and their understanding of the Bible, who very rarely were in line with God's will. They often went after the gods of the nations and imbibed in their traditions rather than remaining in the tradition of the One True God.
Quote:
I find the above rather insulting to the actual people who would KNOW their scripture best. It is that attitude that led to Christians inflicting much persecution on said people. I am sure Jesus was WELL aware of the Book of Enoch, as it was held in high regard by people of his era.
Imagine how insulted the Jews were in Jesus' day when He told them that. They did not know their scripture best. They killed their own prophets, which means they did not understand what the prophets were saying. They killed their prophets because those prophets were trying to get them to come back to God. They loved the gods of the nations more which proves they didn't really understand their own One True God.
Quote:
If you say so.
Thanks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
