"The Sons of God!" Mere mortals, literal sons or angels? (Jerusalem, quote)

[citizenkane2]

Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane

I knew that other thread would be closed so I figured I would start this here.

For the record, I know that in the New Testament and the book of Hosea, humans are referred to as "sons of god." My argument surrounds the EARLIER used title found in books such as Genesis and Job.

Also, I do NOT believe in angels, sons of any gods or giants nor do I believe in angels and humans copulating. I simply want to treat the literature AS IS on its own merit and how it was intended to be interpreted. I don't believe in flying angels any more than I believe in Phaeton driving a fiery sun chariot across the sky, but WITHIN the story of the book and WITHIN the book only, Phaeton drove a fiery sun chariot across the sky. I hope this distinction is made clear.

So for starters, who were the sons of god of Genesis 6? Mere mortals or divinity?

Context is king. That means that "context" rules the interpretation of any word, phrase or text. Example: Depending on the context, the word "trunk" can mean something different. The Bible is a literary work. Grammar still applies. But often, people neglect that and end up with wrong intepretations.

Sons of God has at least 3 different meanings in scripture. Each one is thru its context.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by citizenkane2

Sons of God has at least 3 different meanings in scripture. Each one is thru its context.

And in THIS context (Genesis 6), it means...???

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by citizenkane2

Context is king. That means that "context" rules the interpretation of any word, phrase or text. Example: Depending on the context, the word "trunk" can mean something different. The Bible is a literary work. Grammar still applies. But often, people neglect that and end up with wrong intepretations.

Sons of God has at least 3 different meanings in scripture. Each one is thru its context.

Perhaps I should have asked, which one of the 3 is being used in Genesis 6?

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane

Actually, I don't think this is correct. YES, the 10th century CE Hebrew Masoretic Text does say "children of Israel" and the King James Version, in line with that text says the same thing. However, the OLDER HEBREW Dead Sea Scrolls says "Sons of God" while the Greek Septuagint (older than the Masoretic Text also) says "angels of God." Neither of the older texts says anything about "children of" or "sons of Israel" and this makes sense. Israel was NOT a nation when the nations were divided as per Genesis 10 (or is it 11 or 12) They could not be used as the standard when they, as a people, were not even in existence as yet. And what sense would it make to divide the nations by another nation? What would have been the purpose? Dividing them up amongst royal sons is a much likely scenario, don't you think?

Now, by the time the Masoretic Text was completed (some 900 years or so AFTER the time of Jesus), the Jews were an already established monotheistic people compared to their ancient forefathers who were far from such a thing. It would make sense that uncomfortable passages such as Deuteronomy 32:8 would be "cleaned up" to say otherwise and to reflect the Jewish theology of that day, in the same way Christians retroject their current beliefs and biases back into the Old Testament. I hope you can understand this.

Now, consider this. In those ancient times, it was believed that the supreme father god had sons. In some places, it was believed he had 70 sons. Is it just sheer coincidence that the nations were divided into 70 nations? As I also submitted before, the ancient Israelites admitted other gods existed who were responsible for their respective nations, as was the case with Chemosh and the people he was responsible for - the Ammonites. Of course, nationalism would lead the Israelites to believe THEIR god was the head honcho which is, in part, the definition of henotheism. "We know other gods exist but OUR god is the biggest and baddest."

There is also that curious figure in the book of Daniel known as the "Prince of Persia." Modern Christians would see him as some Satanic figure who was there to obstruct Daniel's answer to prayer (who would have thunk angels flew back and forth to deliver answers to prayer???). To the Jewish understanding of the time, however, the Prince of Persia was the "angel" ("god" to the more ancient Jew) who was commissioned to preside over Persia in the same way Michael was responsible for Israel. See the evolution? See the process???

In light of Deuteronomy 32:7-9 where the LORD (Yahweh) is given Jacob as HIS portion (part of his inheritance), isn't it interesting that Yahweh appears out of nowhere to Moses and begins his responsibility to his portion - Jacob? In fact, Deuteronomy 32:10-12 says:

"“He found him in a desert land
And in the wasteland, a howling wilderness;
He encircled him, He instructed him,
He kept him as the apple of His eye.
11 As an eagle stirs up its nest,
Hovers over its young,
Spreading out its wings, taking them up,
Carrying them on its wings,
12 So the Lord alone led him,
And there was no foreign god with him."


Notice that the writer gives a precise moment when Yahweh takes that responsibility to own up to his portion. He found Israel in the desert and wilderness and we are told in the Exodus narrative that Yahweh joined himself to his people, Israel, via a covenant in the desert at Mount Sinai and it is emphasized that no other god had a part in consummating the relationship.

Prior to that time God made a covenant with Abraham. He also told Abraham his sons would go into Egypt and be humiliated there 400 years and afterward God would deliver them. So it is not as if God all of a sudden took responsibility for Israel.

Genesis 15:7-14 And saying is He to him, "I am Yahweh Elohim Who
brought you forth from Ur of the Chaldeans, to give to you this land to
tenant it. (8) And saying is he, "My Lord Yahweh, whereby am I to know
that I am to enjoy its tenancy? (9) And saying is He to him, "Take for Me
a heifer in her third year, and a goat in her third year, and a ram in his
third year, and a turtledove, and a fledgling. (10) And taking is he for Him
all these and sundering them is he in the midst, and is putting each
sundered part to meet its associate. (11) Yet the birds he did not sunder.
And descending are the birds of prey on the severed cadavers, yet Abram
is sitting by and turning them back. (12) And, at the coming of the
setting of the sun, a stupor falls on Abram. And, behold! The dread of a
great darkness is falling on him. (13) And saying is He to Abram,
"Knowing, yea, knowing are you that a sojourner is your seed to become in
a land not theirs, and they are to serve them. Yet evil shall they do to
them and humiliate them four hundred years. (14) Moreover, also, the
nation which they are serving will I adjudicate. And afterward they are to
fare forth hither with great goods.




Insane, as to "El" and "Israel," that is really interesting what you bring up.

I am not sure why the later Masoretic text would change "El" to "Israel".
Unless the scribe, who was copying the older text to the newer one saw "el" and there could have been a space between "sons" and "el" enough that "Isra" could fit in? Or his eye accidentally saw something. I wonder if this is corrected in the margin?

Here is the Concordant Literal:

7 Remember the days of the eon;
Understand the years of generation
+ after generation.
Ask your father, and he shall tell you,
Your elders, and they shall say to you:
8 When the Supreme gave the nations allotments
When He parted the sons of Adam,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of 7 El Q

32:8 7-Q El: Hb Israel.

So the Concordant version does have "Son of El."

It is possible you are correct that the above could not be concerning the "sons of Israel" because at that time Jacob aka Israel was not even born yet nor his sons. Or it could be due to something else.

However, if we go to Genesis 10:32 we have this:

(YLT) "These are families of the sons of Noah, by their births, in their
nations, and by these have the nations been parted in the earth after the
deluge."

The above verse I think was 200 years prior to Abraham.

Here is what A.E. Knoch says of Deuteronomy 32:8. In his text he is quoting the Masoretic:

"As Yahweh Elohim's plan for this eon and the next calls for one nation to rule
and bless many nations, so His early efforts all tend to divide humanity,
first into three divisions, Shemites, Japhethites, and Hamites, and these
into many nations. To these the land was distributed in the days of Peleg
(Phlg DISTRIBUTE). In Deuteronomy (32:8) we read:

When the Supreme allotted to the nations,
When He parted the sons of Adam,
He stationed the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Israel.


"Yet the promised land was first given to the descendants of Canaan, who
is specially mentioned along with Noah's three sons. They received the land
from Sidon through Sodom, to Lasha. It looked as if no land had been
reserved for the chosen nation.

"The land was not reserved for Israel in the days of Peleg. Even the small
portion they have hitherto occupied had been given to seven other nations
(Acts 13:19), and remnants were left in order to test them. The slavery of
Egypt afforded Yahweh an opportunity to be their Saviour, and the trials of
the wilderness taught them His provision. The conquest of the land not
only revealed His power, but the inviolability of His promises. He had
promised the land to Abram, to Isaac and to Jacob, yet they never
occupied any of it, except a burial place, as theirs. After they had
developed into a nation, in Egypt and the wilderness, then they
immediately began to exercise their function as the head of the nations, by
judging the descendants of Canaan and taking over their land.

"Joktan had a large family, including thirteen sons. As most of these do not
play any further part in divine revelation, we will merely mention each name
with its probable meaning.


"Almodad (Almudd COMPRESS-FOND); Sheleph (Shlph PULL); Hazarmaveth
(Chtzr-muth ENVIRON-DYING); Jerah (Irch IS-WIND [blow]ING, moon);
Hadoram (Edurm OBTRUDE-HIGH); Uzal (Auzl DEPARTING); Diklah Dqla;
Obal Oubl; Abimael Abi-m-al FATHER-FROM-SUBJECTOR); Sheba (Shba
RETURN); Ophir (Auphr SOIL, Africa?); Havilah (Chuile PERFORATE, travail)
Jobab (Iabb WILL-BE-IN-IN).

"Why are these given? Could it be that they represent Arabian tribes near
the border of Israel and others which settled on the shores with whom
Solomon had dealings? But the following note as to the location of these
families is very vague in our versions, and in the Hebrew, as from Mesh as
you come to Sephar is not clear. The Septuagint has till for as, so gives
Mesha as the western boundary and Sephar as the eastern mountain
boundary. The only mountains in the east must be the short chain on the
Persian gulf.

"Thus the nations were distributed over the central part of Eurasian Africa
after the deluge and Babel." (Unsearchable Riches, vol.47

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

But it doesn't prove Jude quoted from a book which today we call "Enoch." That's my point.

You didn't answer my following question. Which version is your translation from? Here's the Greek of Jude 1:14:

Ἰδοὺ ἦλθε Κύριος ἐν μυριάσιν ἁγίαις αὑτοῦ ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων, καὶ ἐξελέγξαι πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς αὐτῶν, περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὑτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν, καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς

Here's the only Greek translation of this verse from Enoch available, from the sixth century CE (identical words are bolded):

Οτι ερχεται συν ταις μυριασιν αυτου και τοις αγιοις αυτου ποιησει κρισιν κατα παντων, και απολεσαι παντας τους ασεβεις, και ελεγξαι πασαν σαρκα, περι παντων εργων της ασεβειας αυτων ων ησεβησαν, και σκληρων ων ελαλησαν λογων κατ αυτου αμαρτωλοι ασεβεις.

Since we have many other Greek, Ge'ez, and Aramaic manuscripts of other portions of Enoch, and they tend to have quite significant differences between them, and because the above is close enough in the critical lexical elements, the only reasonable solution is that these are two different Greek translations of closely related, but not identical, variants of the same text. The differences are easily accounted for.

Here's the extant Aramaic of the verse as it exists in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

]את*קדישו[
]שרא*על*עובד[

Simply put, Jude is absolutely quoting from our book of Enoch, at least the version of the book he had at the time. To insist the minute differences mean he's quoting from some other book complicates your entire worldview, as numerous Old Testament texts quoted in the New Testament differ significantly from the versions we have available to us today. Compare Amos 9:11-12 as quouted in Acts 15 to the Hebrew and the Greek versions we have today:

Acts 15:16-17: Μετὰ ταῦτα ἀναστρέψω καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω τὴν σκηνὴν Δαβὶδ τὴν πεπτωκυῖαν καὶ τὰ κατεσκαμμένα αὐτῆς ἀνοικοδομήσω καὶ ἀνορθώσω αὐτήν ὅπως ἂν ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὸν κύριον καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ᾽ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς λέγει κύριος ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα πάντα

And now the Greek (with the different words bolded):

LXX Amos 9:11-12: ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἀναστήσω τὴν σκηνὴν Δαυιδ τὴν πεπτωκυῖαν καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω τὰ πεπτωκότα αὐτῆς καὶ τὰ κατεσκαμμένα αὐτῆς ἀναστήσω καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω αὐτὴν καθὼς αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ αἰῶνος ὅπως ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ᾽ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα

This is a far more drastic disparity. I guess James isn't really quoting from the Old Testament, is he? What text is he quoting?

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Prior to that time God made a covenant with Abraham. He also told Abraham his sons would go into Egypt and be humiliated there 400 years and afterward God would deliver them. So it is not as if God all of a sudden took responsibility for Israel.

Genesis 15:7-14 And saying is He to him, "I am Yahweh Elohim Who
brought you forth from Ur of the Chaldeans, to give to you this land to
tenant it. (8) And saying is he, "My Lord Yahweh, whereby am I to know
that I am to enjoy its tenancy? (9) And saying is He to him, "Take for Me
a heifer in her third year, and a goat in her third year, and a ram in his
third year, and a turtledove, and a fledgling. (10) And taking is he for Him
all these and sundering them is he in the midst, and is putting each
sundered part to meet its associate. (11) Yet the birds he did not sunder.
And descending are the birds of prey on the severed cadavers, yet Abram
is sitting by and turning them back. (12) And, at the coming of the
setting of the sun, a stupor falls on Abram. And, behold! The dread of a
great darkness is falling on him. (13) And saying is He to Abram,
"Knowing, yea, knowing are you that a sojourner is your seed to become in
a land not theirs, and they are to serve them. Yet evil shall they do to
them and humiliate them four hundred years. (14) Moreover, also, the
nation which they are serving will I adjudicate. And afterward they are to
fare forth hither with great goods.

I will deal with the rest later, but the way I see it (and I don't expect you to agree) was that the idea of Israel's god operating on their behalf IN ADVANCE in the days of Abraham was a "write into" by later scribes to make the special ethnocentric calling and choosing of Israel all the more special. Then Yahweh hides out silently for 400 years only to make a grand appearance to a bewildered Moses, showing up to take responsibility of a new nation.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane

I will deal with the rest later, but the way I see it (and I don't expect you to agree) was that the idea of Israel's god operating on their behalf IN ADVANCE in the days of Abraham was a "write into" by later scribes to make the special ethnocentric calling and choosing of Israel all the more special. Then Yahweh hides out silently for 400 years only to make a grand appearance to a bewildered Moses, showing up to take responsibility of a new nation.

But God wasn't in hiding for 400 years!

Just do a search on the word "Yahweh" from Genesis 15 when He told Abram his progeny would go into Egypt and He would rescue them after 400 years.

So search Yahweh from Genesis 15 on and see if Yahweh was in hiding. Your conclusions are not based on fact but theory.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Here are the verses in the Concordant Literal Old Testament where "distinguished" is used:

(Genesis 6:4) Now the distinguished come to be in the earth in those days, and, moreover, afterward, coming are those who are sons of the elohim to the daughters of the human, and they bear for them. They are the masters, who are from the eon, mortals with the name.

That is an absolutely ludicrous translation.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Of my bibles for 6:4 eight have "giants," three have "Nephilim," one has "fallen ones," and one has "distinguished." So it should be "distinguished."

Nephilim is a transliteration of נפלים, which literally means "fallen ones." The sons of Elohim are not called "Nephilim," though. The Nephilim are simply identified as being on the earth at the same time this deal with the sons of Elohim is going on. You're totally misreading the text and you're totally misunderstanding the word. It simply has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of being "distinguished." Your translation is simply wrong.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

(Exodus 33:16) Whereby shall it be known, indeed, that I find grace in Your eyes, I and Your people? Is it not by Your going with us that we may be distinguished, I and Your people, from all the peoples who are on the surface of the ground?
In 33:16 two bibles have "glorified," five of my bibles have "distinguished," four have "separated" and one "separate."

And the Hebrew word is פלה, which is totally unrelated. You obviously have no clue what you're doing with the other texts, so I'm going to skip them.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Luk 3:38 "the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

This is from the New Testament. We're talking about the Old Testament, which uses the phrase entirely differently.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Since "Elohim" is the Hebrew for "God" and since the Greek's translated "Elohim" into "Theos" and since "Theos" is used in Luke 3:38, it can be said that "Adam is a son of Elohim."

But that has nothing to do with the usage of the technical phrase בני*אלהים in the Old Testament. This is grade school exegesis you're doing.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 and told His listeners John 10:34-36 Jesus
answered them, "Is it not written in your law, that 'I say you are gods'? "
(35) If He said those were gods, to whom the word of God came (and the
scripture can not be annulled), (36) are you saying to Him Whom the
Father hallows and dispatches into the world that 'You are blaspheming,'
seeing that I said, 'Son of God am I'?

Surely you are not going to say, that Jesus was an angel, that He was not a man and the Hebrew people He spoke to were not humans.

Why don't you read a paper I presented at SBL in San Francisco on the use of Psalm 82 in John 10. It has specifically to do with the Latter-day Saint use of the text, but there's quite a bit of information you would do well to consider. You can find it here. When you're done, we can continue.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Eusebius
Since "Elohim" is the Hebrew for "God" and since the Greek's translated "Elohim" into "Theos" and since "Theos" is used in Luke 3:38, it can be said that "Adam is a son of Elohim."

But that has nothing to do with the usage of the technical phrase בני*אלהים in the Old Testament. This is grade school exegesis you're doing.

If you wish to have a logical communication with me I suggest you limit your statements such as your last sentence to ZERO.

The Septuagint translated Elohim as "Theos." Therefore "Theos" in Greek is "Elohim" in Hebrew and therefore Adam was a son of Elohim. If you look at a Hebrew translation of Luke 3:38 you will see Adam is a son of Elohim. click here

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Eusebius
Here are the verses in the Concordant Literal Old Testament where "distinguished" is used:

(Genesis 6:4) Now the distinguished come to be in the earth in those days, and, moreover, afterward, coming are those who are sons of the elohim to the daughters of the human, and they bear for them. They are the masters, who are from the eon, mortals with the name.

That is an absolutely ludicrous translation.

Not really. It is actually a great translation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Of my bibles for 6:4 eight have "giants," three have "Nephilim," one has "fallen ones," and one has "distinguished." So it should be "distinguished."

Nephilim is a transliteration of נפלים, which literally means "fallen ones." The sons of Elohim are not called "Nephilim," though. The Nephilim are simply identified as being on the earth at the same time this deal with the sons of Elohim is going on. You're totally misreading the text and you're totally misunderstanding the word. It simply has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of being "distinguished." Your translation is simply wrong.

I never said the sons of Elohim are called Nephilim. The distinguished ones were the sons of the (lower case) elohim.

Later on, after the flood, the new distinguished ones were sons of Anak per Numbers 13:3. The sons of Anak surely were not "fallen ones" as you suggest.

"The deluge was due to the evil of humanity on the earth (Gen.6:5-7), not to an intrusion of spirit beings, sometimes called angels, or nephilim, or giants, etc., which produced a hybrid race. Mankind lived very much longer in those days than at present, so it may well be true that they were of extraordinary size and strength, for such men, as Goliath, lived in David's day. The name nphlim comes from the same stem as is used in Ex.11:7: Yahweh is distinguishing between the Egyptians and Israel. This did not consist in size or race, for Egyptians as well as Israelites were of average stature. "

In the Hebrew text Knoch quotes above the Hebrew word is "iphle." Strong's pronounces it as "palaw" but if this is the case Nephilim should be Nepalim or something with a hard 'p'.