Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roland · 10-05-2007, 07:35 PM

I always love how YEC's spin this story. Since it comes right before the story of Noah's flood, they argue that one of the reasons God sent the flood was to wipe this "evil" species of supermen off the face of the planet. The problem is that the Christians then have to explain how this race of "giants" makes a reappearance at various points later in the Bible.

And why have no fossils ever been discovered of any of these "giants"?

aa5874 · 10-05-2007, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

What - dear scholars - should one make of this:
"Ch 6:vs 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of
the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Vs 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were
fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Vs 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,
for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred
and twenty years.
Vs 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after
that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men
which were of old, men of renown" ?

Sons of God - daughters of men? And "they bare children"?
Thank you for your kind attention

'When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God [men] saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man for ever, he indeed is carnal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." Arrogant men were on the earth in those days — and also afterwards — when the sons of God [men] went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were tyrants, the notorious men of old.' Ge 6:1-4

Your reconstruction is a bit clumsy. Why didn't you change the word 'men' to 'sons of God'? If you can unilaterally change or interpret "sons of God" to "men", then someone else can do the reverse.

'Sons of God, according to the OT, were walking on earth. Job 1.6-8, " Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence camest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord and said, from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it".

GakuseiDon · 10-05-2007, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

What - dear scholars - should one make of this:
"Ch 6:vs 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of
the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Vs 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were
fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Vs 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,
for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred
and twenty years.
Vs 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after
that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men
which were of old, men of renown" ?

Sons of God - daughters of men? And "they bare children"?
Thank you for your kind attention

My own individual take on this is that "the sons of God" refers to the children of the people he made in Gen 2:7 (i.e. Adam and Eve), while "the daughters of men" were the children of the people that God made in Gen 1:27.

wordy · 10-06-2007, 01:03 AM

My poor english fails me. Is it not named "reverse engineering"? deduction?

You start with something that is odd. Most people are short and then we have Massai that are tall and slender and good runners? How does one explain this.

One do a thought experiment like "reverse engineering" like "God did it" or Angles did it and God got angry and God forbid them to get back to Heaven so now the evil is the Bad guys as spirits possessing people and making us sick.

Sanctioned wild guessing. Or one could maybe see it as a Sci Fi story to make a moral lesson or something. Hold on to God and all goes well. Stray from God and you end up worse than the Bad spirits. Gruesome future.

Clouseau · 10-06-2007, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

'When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God [men] saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man for ever, he indeed is carnal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." Arrogant men were on the earth in those days — and also afterwards — when the sons of God [men] went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were tyrants, the notorious men of old.' Ge 6:1-4

Quote:

Why didn't you change the word 'men' to 'sons of God'?

So the Hebrew means 'men', you think? That would make life easier.

Quote:

'Sons of God, according to the OT, were walking on earth. Job 1.6-8, " Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence camest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord and said, from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it".

That does not means that 'sons of God' always denotes angels. Now if Satan is a son of God, the word 'son' must mean nothing more than 'creation'. The same sense can therefore apply to wicked men in Genesis.

Clouseau · 10-06-2007, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

What - dear scholars - should one make of this:
"Ch 6:vs 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of
the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Vs 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were
fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Vs 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,
for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred
and twenty years.
Vs 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after
that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men
which were of old, men of renown" ?

Sons of God - daughters of men? And "they bare children"?
Thank you for your kind attention

My own individual take on this is that "the sons of God" refers to the children of the people he made in Gen 2:7 (i.e. Adam and Eve), while "the daughters of men" were the children of the people that God made in Gen 1:27.

I think that there is irony here. God makes man, males in this case, in his image, and here he is behaving badly, throwing his manly weight around. It is women who suffer as a consequence, so they are referred to as daughters of men, whereas the men are pointedly referred to as sons of God to shame them.

aa5874 · 10-06-2007, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So the Hebrew means 'men', you think? That would make life easier.

Quote:

'Sons of God, according to the OT, were walking on earth. Job 1.6-8, " Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence camest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord and said, from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it".

That does not means that 'sons of God' always denotes angels. Now if Satan is a son of God, the word 'son' must mean nothing more than 'creation'. The same sense can therefore apply to wicked men in Genesis.

Satan is a wicked man? No, it appears, that Satan is a wicked son of God, according to scripture.

Clouseau · 10-06-2007, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

So the Hebrew means 'men', you think? That would make life easier.

That does not means that 'sons of God' always denotes angels. Now if Satan is a son of God, the word 'son' must mean nothing more than 'creation'. The same sense can therefore apply to wicked men in Genesis.

Satan is a wicked man? No, it appears, that Satan is a wicked son of God, according to scripture.

So if a reprobate entity can be a son of God, so can one expected to be virtuous.

Stephen T-B · 10-06-2007, 08:04 AM

"It is women who suffer as a consequence, so they are referred to as daughters of men, whereas the men are pointedly referred to as sons of God to shame them." (Clouseau)
But that wouldn't account for the "mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
I don't think Clouseau's suggestion or the "fallen angels" idea comports with that.
How about that this is a bit of very old mythology which the author of this part of Genesis incorporated into the story because of its tradition.
It gets tacked on to the Flood tradition, which is why there seems to be a lack of continuity.
For instance, how did these "mighty men" manage to turn around the whole of creation and make it so wicked that god decided to wipe it all out and start again?
It seems pretty incoherent to me, and more likely that the authors weren't even thinking it through - just joining up various traditions which consist of quite separate stories.

Clouseau · 10-06-2007, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

"It is women who suffer as a consequence, so they are referred to as daughters of men, whereas the men are pointedly referred to as sons of God to shame them." (Clouseau)

Quote:

But that wouldn't account for the "mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Why not? Renown is divinely disapproved in the story of Babel, and might is rarely right. But anyway:

'Then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man for ever, he indeed is carnal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." Arrogant men were on the earth in those days — and also afterwards — when the sons of God [men] went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were tyrants, the notorious men of old.' Ge 6:3-4

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-05-2007, 07:35 PM	#11
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	I always love how YEC's spin this story. Since it comes right before the story of Noah's flood, they argue that one of the reasons God sent the flood was to wipe this "evil" species of supermen off the face of the planet. The problem is that the Christians then have to explain how this race of "giants" makes a reappearance at various points later in the Bible. And why have no fossils ever been discovered of any of these "giants"?

10-06-2007, 01:03 AM	#14
wordy Contributor Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sweden, Europe Posts: 12,091	My poor english fails me. Is it not named "reverse engineering"? deduction? You start with something that is odd. Most people are short and then we have Massai that are tall and slender and good runners? How does one explain this. One do a thought experiment like "reverse engineering" like "God did it" or Angles did it and God got angry and God forbid them to get back to Heaven so now the evil is the Bad guys as spirits possessing people and making us sick. Sanctioned wild guessing. Or one could maybe see it as a Sci Fi story to make a moral lesson or something. Hold on to God and all goes well. Stray from God and you end up worse than the Bad spirits. Gruesome future.

10-06-2007, 08:04 AM	#19
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	"It is women who suffer as a consequence, so they are referred to as daughters of men, whereas the men are pointedly referred to as sons of God to shame them." (Clouseau) But that wouldn't account for the "mighty men which were of old, men of renown." I don't think Clouseau's suggestion or the "fallen angels" idea comports with that. How about that this is a bit of very old mythology which the author of this part of Genesis incorporated into the story because of its tradition. It gets tacked on to the Flood tradition, which is why there seems to be a lack of continuity. For instance, how did these "mighty men" manage to turn around the whole of creation and make it so wicked that god decided to wipe it all out and start again? It seems pretty incoherent to me, and more likely that the authors weren't even thinking it through - just joining up various traditions which consist of quite separate stories.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.