Genesis REVISITED
- Thread starter Infamous Plug
- Start date
philosophizer
New member
Re: Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED
Re: Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED
I remember that thread, Turbo.
I'm really leery of the idea that angels, fallen or otherwise, could produce offspring by having sex with humans.
God is the Creator. I've never seen an example of any other being actually being able to create something. Now for angels (especially fallen angels trying to pollute the gene pool) to produce offspring with humans, they would have to create the whole genetic structure of a human body.
The main reason I doubt the angel offspring theory is because I think only God has the power to create a human body. The appearances of angels in other stories could be either a mere representation that seemed physical, or a physical body granted them by God for their particular task.
But I don't recall anyone, angel or devil, besides God who was able to really create anything. If you have some verses I'd love to see them.
Re: Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED
I remember that thread, Turbo.
I'm really leery of the idea that angels, fallen or otherwise, could produce offspring by having sex with humans.
God is the Creator. I've never seen an example of any other being actually being able to create something. Now for angels (especially fallen angels trying to pollute the gene pool) to produce offspring with humans, they would have to create the whole genetic structure of a human body.
The main reason I doubt the angel offspring theory is because I think only God has the power to create a human body. The appearances of angels in other stories could be either a mere representation that seemed physical, or a physical body granted them by God for their particular task.
But I don't recall anyone, angel or devil, besides God who was able to really create anything. If you have some verses I'd love to see them.
Down with Pomegranates!
Down with Pomegranates!
Turbo quote:
"I think it makes more sense that the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a unique tree, which no longer exists. Check out Ezekiel 31."
I'm just making a point that it wasn't an apple. I'm more inclined to agree with you. BTW, I hate pomegranates!
Turbo quote:
"Just because it makes more sense according to your theology doesn't mean it's a more accurate translation. The NIV translators baked a lot of their own interpretation into that verse rather than just translating what the Hebrew text says.
I admit that this verse is perplexing, but I highly recommend reading the thread I linked in my previous post."
I've read that thread before and wasn't particularly impressed with the supernatural sons of God theory because I used to believe it and was already familiar with the arguments in favor. After studying it in my college days, I changed my opinion on the subject to what I believe now.
In regards to translation, read any version you like and they all say basically the same thing. Besides, why would "perfect in his generations" refer to his gene pool when the rest of the verse is talking about the his moral qualities?
Turbo quote:
"Batman, have you ever heard the case that Job was actually written before Genesis?"
I know it but don't accept it. The theology of Satan presented in Job is too advanced to have been written before Genesis. In fact, a case could probably be made that the style of writing is too advanced. I hold to the theory that it was probably written during the time of the Exhile to those that had to endure it but had followed God before the Exhile and continued to do so.
When it comes to the "sons of God", I think the simplest solution is the best. It refers to men, not righteous men or descendants of Seth or angels, just men.
Down with Pomegranates!
Turbo quote:
"I think it makes more sense that the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a unique tree, which no longer exists. Check out Ezekiel 31."
I'm just making a point that it wasn't an apple. I'm more inclined to agree with you. BTW, I hate pomegranates!
Turbo quote:
"Just because it makes more sense according to your theology doesn't mean it's a more accurate translation. The NIV translators baked a lot of their own interpretation into that verse rather than just translating what the Hebrew text says.
I admit that this verse is perplexing, but I highly recommend reading the thread I linked in my previous post."
I've read that thread before and wasn't particularly impressed with the supernatural sons of God theory because I used to believe it and was already familiar with the arguments in favor. After studying it in my college days, I changed my opinion on the subject to what I believe now.
In regards to translation, read any version you like and they all say basically the same thing. Besides, why would "perfect in his generations" refer to his gene pool when the rest of the verse is talking about the his moral qualities?
Turbo quote:
"Batman, have you ever heard the case that Job was actually written before Genesis?"
I know it but don't accept it. The theology of Satan presented in Job is too advanced to have been written before Genesis. In fact, a case could probably be made that the style of writing is too advanced. I hold to the theory that it was probably written during the time of the Exhile to those that had to endure it but had followed God before the Exhile and continued to do so.
When it comes to the "sons of God", I think the simplest solution is the best. It refers to men, not righteous men or descendants of Seth or angels, just men.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED
Re: Re: Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED
There is no reason to deny that fallen angels couldn't have done likewise. In fact just the opposite evidence exists. I think the case is pretty strong.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED
I don't consider having children a "creation" in the same sense as creating like God creates (or created). God created us with the ability to procreate and therefore we can.
There is no reason to deny that fallen angels couldn't have done likewise. In fact just the opposite evidence exists. I think the case is pretty strong.
Infamous Plug
New member
Hehe
It feels like i started a forest fire ,
I hope no one gets carpal tunnel.
I love the feedback, keep it coming,its good learning
It feels like i started a forest fire ,
I hope no one gets carpal tunnel.
I love the feedback, keep it coming,its good learning
Infamous Plug
New member
I don't base my whole ideals on certain verses, Like some may think.
Just trying to learn with with the extra time i'm given.
I'm even seeing mistakes in my tread even before I read any replys.
But i'll keep trying.And i appriciate the feed back
Just trying to learn with with the extra time i'm given.
I'm even seeing mistakes in my tread even before I read any replys.
But i'll keep trying.And i appriciate the feed back
philosophizer:
"The text sounds pretty straight forward. "She took some [of the fruit] and ate it." You'd need a pretty fancy decoder ring to transform that into "she had sex with Satan."
So where does this "seduction" idea come from?"
FrankiE:
Throughout the Bible, trees are often used as similes or metaphors for people. If one wishes to understand what is going on, one must follow the simile or metaphor to its logical conclusion.
Genesis 3:3 says, in part, "... Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." The Hebrew word for "touch" used is "naga" which means "reach out" and is a euphemism for "to lie with a woman." Satan is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, his spirit is the serpent. Satan is often referred to as a serpent. I would be hard pressed to accept the idea of a literal talking snake as I would the idea of a literal knowledgable tree.
As a literal reading, I would find it difficult to figure that eating a piece of fruit would make one wise, or become as gods, or know good from evil.
Further on, we read (Genesis 3:6-13) that Adam and Eve sewed aprons made of fig leaves. What does an apron cover? God asks, Who told thee thou wast naked? Why would they worry with that IF they had merely eaten a piece of fruit?
Does not a picture start to form of what is actually going on?
"The text sounds pretty straight forward. "She took some [of the fruit] and ate it." You'd need a pretty fancy decoder ring to transform that into "she had sex with Satan."
So where does this "seduction" idea come from?"
FrankiE:
Throughout the Bible, trees are often used as similes or metaphors for people. If one wishes to understand what is going on, one must follow the simile or metaphor to its logical conclusion.
Genesis 3:3 says, in part, "... Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." The Hebrew word for "touch" used is "naga" which means "reach out" and is a euphemism for "to lie with a woman." Satan is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, his spirit is the serpent. Satan is often referred to as a serpent. I would be hard pressed to accept the idea of a literal talking snake as I would the idea of a literal knowledgable tree.
As a literal reading, I would find it difficult to figure that eating a piece of fruit would make one wise, or become as gods, or know good from evil.
Further on, we read (Genesis 3:6-13) that Adam and Eve sewed aprons made of fig leaves. What does an apron cover? God asks, Who told thee thou wast naked? Why would they worry with that IF they had merely eaten a piece of fruit?
Does not a picture start to form of what is actually going on?
Last edited:
Re: Genesis REVISITED
Does it need to explain dinosaurs?
Did it explain Kangaroos or Marsupials?
I'm guessing you haven't understood Genesis fully as yet.
The First chapter is symbolism to show that the order of Creation was under the hand of the Soverign God, that creation was not triggered by a spark but rather beautifully architeched and planned by God.
If you read Genesis 2, you'd find that it somewhat contradicts Genesis 1 in the order of Creation, where man was created first then animals then woman...as opposed to Genesis 1 where man was created last.
The imagery of a snake has symbolic meaning...
The forbidden Fruit is symbolism of the first sin. That Fruit of Tree and Knowledge, the definition of sin is rebellion against God.
Hence the Fruit, is all about wanting to be God, which is why we try to rebel against God.
And it's so true with so many people. All sin is rebellion against God, and all sin is all about us trying to be like God.
Theres greed, we want more...like God who's abundant. Lying to get away with more...etc.... list goes on!
This is opening up for some huge debate!!!
Does it need to explain dinosaurs?
Did it explain Kangaroos or Marsupials?
I'm guessing you haven't understood Genesis fully as yet.
The First chapter is symbolism to show that the order of Creation was under the hand of the Soverign God, that creation was not triggered by a spark but rather beautifully architeched and planned by God.
If you read Genesis 2, you'd find that it somewhat contradicts Genesis 1 in the order of Creation, where man was created first then animals then woman...as opposed to Genesis 1 where man was created last.
The imagery of a snake has symbolic meaning...
The forbidden Fruit is symbolism of the first sin. That Fruit of Tree and Knowledge, the definition of sin is rebellion against God.
Hence the Fruit, is all about wanting to be God, which is why we try to rebel against God.
And it's so true with so many people. All sin is rebellion against God, and all sin is all about us trying to be like God.
Theres greed, we want more...like God who's abundant. Lying to get away with more...etc.... list goes on!
This is opening up for some huge debate!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED
Could not have the saying be translated as "Kings" ?
I think I might leave this open...cause I've heard a lot of interpretation for it.
However, remember what Jesus said to the Saducee...
He said "We'd be like angels" and we don't need to marry...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED
Could not have the saying be translated as "Kings" ?
I think I might leave this open...cause I've heard a lot of interpretation for it.
However, remember what Jesus said to the Saducee...
He said "We'd be like angels" and we don't need to marry...
FrankiE:
Genesis 4:2 "And she again bare his brother Abel. ..."
How did that happen?
philosophizer:
"Um.... they had sex. Someone forget to tell you the birds and the bees? "
FrankiE:
Where does it say Adam and Eve had sex and conceived Abel?
Genesis 4:2 "And she again bare his brother Abel. ..."
How did that happen?
philosophizer:
"Um.... they had sex. Someone forget to tell you the birds and the bees? "
FrankiE:
Where does it say Adam and Eve had sex and conceived Abel?
Cool-Icy:
"The imagery of a snake has symbolic meaning..."
FrankiE:
That it does. Mind telling me what the symbol stands for?
Cool-Icy:
The forbidden Fruit is symbolism of the first sin. That Fruit of Tree and Knowledge, the definition of sin is rebellion against God.
FrankiE:
And that sin was?
Cool-Icy:
"Hence the Fruit, is all about wanting to be God, which is why we try to rebel against God."
FrankiE:
And the fruit is symbolic of ...?
"The imagery of a snake has symbolic meaning..."
FrankiE:
That it does. Mind telling me what the symbol stands for?
Cool-Icy:
The forbidden Fruit is symbolism of the first sin. That Fruit of Tree and Knowledge, the definition of sin is rebellion against God.
FrankiE:
And that sin was?
Cool-Icy:
"Hence the Fruit, is all about wanting to be God, which is why we try to rebel against God."
FrankiE:
And the fruit is symbolic of ...?
philosophizer
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED
I'm sorry, I don't think I stated my point very well.
The "creation" I was talking about isn't the production of children. Yes, reproduction creates a new life but the process uses already existing genetic material and re-orders it.
So the procreation wasn't the part of it I had a problem with. It was the initial creation of the angels' physical bodies.
In order for the procreation to work, there would have to be a new creation of the angels' bodies. That would be a production of a completely new genetic code. Can an angel do that-- create a whole new creation themselves?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED
I'm sorry, I don't think I stated my point very well.
The "creation" I was talking about isn't the production of children. Yes, reproduction creates a new life but the process uses already existing genetic material and re-orders it.
So the procreation wasn't the part of it I had a problem with. It was the initial creation of the angels' physical bodies.
In order for the procreation to work, there would have to be a new creation of the angels' bodies. That would be a production of a completely new genetic code. Can an angel do that-- create a whole new creation themselves?
philosophizer
New member
Did your parents ever say they had sex to conceive you? If they didn't would it be any less likely?
philosophizer
New member
It looks really funny in this post, with you new avatar, when you say "Batman is right." :chuckle:
Imposter!
Imposter!
You can't be Batman too! Just b/c your costume looks real and mine is made from bed sheets and trash bags, means nothing! I'm the real Batman! And if I hear Commissionor Gordon cry to me on the red phone one more time, I'm gonna give him something to cry about!
Imposter!
You can't be Batman too! Just b/c your costume looks real and mine is made from bed sheets and trash bags, means nothing! I'm the real Batman! And if I hear Commissionor Gordon cry to me on the red phone one more time, I'm gonna give him something to cry about!