show_no_mercy

This depends on which god you're talking about. YHWH has no literal sons, but El does; YHWH is one of El's sons and reflects the polytheism of the earlier Hebrews. This is evident in the Qumran version of Deut. 32.8

show_no_mercy

I think you're right. Son of god was also a title of Roman emperors.

aa5874

Again the word "Christianity" or "Christians" did NOT originate with belief in Jesus.

There were Christians who BELIEVED in ONLY a GOD, not Jesus.

BELIEF in a GOD or GODS predate Jesus by hundreds of years.

Now, it is EVIDENT that it was philosophized in Antiquity, long BEFORE the Jesus stories, that the WORD of God created the UNIVERSE.

GOD SPOKE and HIS WORDS PRODUCE LIFE.

This Athenagoras in "Plea for the Christians" 10 So, there were Christians who did NOT believe the LOGOS was human.

And the author of gJohn did MAKE the Logos into a man like the Greek Poets who represent Gods as MEN.

John 1.1-14 Athenagoras did not EVER call the LOGOS of God by the name of Jesus, he did NOT give any "FLESH" to the LOGOS. The LOGOS of Athenagoras was strictly PHILOSOPHICAL not historical.

The author of gJohn appears to have been INFLUENCED by Greek MYTHOLOGY and turned the LOGOS into a man. The author of gJohn transformed PHILOSOPHY into mythology.

spin

Since when should בני אלהים be considered wrongly translated as "sons of god"? Can you get any more literal than "sons of god"? If one should not translate it literally, why not?? Is it that it isn't acceptable to modern Jewish religious thought?


spin

Kapyong

Gday,

Really?
Please show the original Hebrew, and tell us which Bible translation committee you worked with ?

It wasn't the KJV :
"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

Nor the NIV :
"the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."

Not the New American Standard Bible :
"that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. "

Nor the English Standard Version :
"the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. "

Nor the New King James Version :
"that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose."

Not the New Century Version :
"When the sons of God saw that these girls were beautiful, they married any of them they chose."

Nor the American Standard Version :
"that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose. "

Certainly not Young's Literal Translation :
"and sons of God see the daughters of men that they [are] fair, and they take to themselves women of all whom they have chosen. "


I cannot find ANY translation which says :
"sons of the nobles, or perhaps sons of powerful men."

Do you belong to a sect that is allowed to CHANGE the words of the bible how ever they like ?


K.

No Robots

Heh. The Jews, including the early Christians, despised the Gentiles.

PhilosopherJay

Hi No Robots,

In the early 1930's, there was nobody on Earth who despised the Nazis more than the leadership in the Soviet Union. When the Nazis' harsh and inhumane treatment of their enemies appeared to be successful and give them more power, the Soviet leaders slowly adopted their methods while continuing to hate them.

In 1936, when the Nazis bombed civilian populations in Spanish cities, all decent people in America and Britain were shocked and disgusted. This did not stop them from bombing German and Japanese civilian populations seven years later.

Because you hate somebody doesn't mean you won't adopt their methods if they seem to be successful.

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay

David Deas

What you meant to say was that although "sons of God" is the proper translation, there is much controversy over how "sons of God" should be interpreted and or who these "sons of God" individuals were.

Originally "sons of God" was widely interpreted to refer to the angels. However, later proponents of a non-supernatural interpretation put forth the idea that the phrase "sons of God" must instead refer simply to those in power during that time period. Jewish people tend to fall into this interpretive camp.

Textual evidence and support here is scant. Nevertheless, its not unusual to see a proponent of a non-supernatural interpretation sometimes point out that אלהים is used in some places in the OT to refer to judges and rulers (Exodus 22:8).

GakuseiDon

There are potentially many Sons of God:

Sons (teknon) OF GOD

Phl 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

Sons (huios) OF GOD:

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

aa5874

On what basis do you make such a claim? How can you show that such a potential can be even realized?

What is an ACTUAL son of God as stated in John 1.12? Do you NOW possess the POWER to be a POTENTIAL GOD or a SON of ONE?