New look days of Noah and the sons of God

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
First off, I don't mind minor edits to correct spelling or grammar, but please do not add your comments to the quoted text. One, I'm not going to read it, and two, it indicates you're not interested in responding to what I actually said, but rather what you want me to have said.

It's extremely dishonest.

No, I'm not confusing the two.

Good.

So glad you asked this question. It gives me a chance to share more about how I see Gen. 1,2,3.

Don't care.

We really have no clue how long they lived sinless in the Garden... it seems long enough to understand cleaving.


This is a totally different event from Gen. 2:21-23.

Duh. My question was about whether you understood the difference between how the two passages were written, that being that the former is a quotation of what Adam literally said, and the latter is narrative (iow, NOT a quotation) about something that happened, not necessarily something that Adam said.

Moses may have been recording history for us but he wrote what Adam said in the moments things happened.

Not in Genesis 3:20, he didn't.

Which is exactly my point.

You're changing the text to fit your beliefs.

That's not good.

Moses wasn't writing about his day, but the days of Adam, Woman, and the LORD.

Genesis 3:20 is narrative, not quotation.

A mother of whom?
I've concluded: She WAS the Mother of all those already/currently living.

So she was the mother of the angels?

The mother of all other creatures, such as the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, the fish in the seas?

Do you not see the problem with that?

These who would have had the right to be called human"sons of God.'

You're reading into the text something that isn't there.

There were no humans on earth prior to day 6.
The only two humans on earth after day 6 were Adam and Eve.
Aside from Adam and Eve, there were no other humans on the earth prior to Cain. Abel was her second-born.
Adam and Eve had other children after Cain as indicated by the text (Eve is the mother of all living), and of his sisters, one of them he took as his wife.
The last named (at least, as far as Scripture is concerned) person Adam and Eve had was Seth.

As per the above kgov link, there would not have been anywhere near enough time for Eve to have had any other children prior to the fall, and they were kicked out of the garden shortly after their fall, likely by the end of the day they fell.

No, Adam gave the reasons and Moses told about the events as they would have happened in the time frame of Adam's day.

Adam did not give any reasons for anything in Genesis 3:20.

Adam is not the one speaking in that verse.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Keep in mind I'm not trying to be argumentative ...

I would much rather you make arguments instead of just mere claims.

but I am trying to present a new way of looking at the sons of God and who they might have been in Noah's day.

It doesn't matter what that way of looking at it is if it contradicts scripture.

And it does.

Well, yes... God had a language of some sort.

No, not "of some sort."

He spoke, interacted with man through speech.

None of what God is recorded as saying was anything other than language.

In Fact, the WORD was God and was with God and God spoke things into existence.

"Word" is a very poor translation of the Greek word "LOGOS."

LOGOS means "logic (it's literally where we get the word logic from), reason."

It would be more accurate to translate John 1:1 as God being reason itself.

QUESTION: But does that rule out that humanity didn't?
The human language began with Gen. 2:19.

There is no such thing as "the human language."

Yes, Genesis 2:19 is the first time Moses recorded a human using language. But it's not the first time someone spoke.

As I pointed out, the first time someone spoke was in Genesis 1:3. "Let there be light."

Moses pointed out the exact time this began.
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed [versus created. These things were created in Gen.1but not manifested] every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and bought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature,that was the name thereof.

Supra.

I'm aware of what God the Spirit did in Genesis 1, but Gen. 2:4 begins what is called "the generation when..." This is a new time period/era ... when The LORD/YHWH began to work within creation in a hands-on face-to-face manner.

No, Genesis 2:4 onwards is not a new era, different than what was described in Genesis 1.

Chapter 1 was the overview. Chapter 2:4 onwards gets into the details of life in the garden.

Note what verse 5 says, that it is describing a time "before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had GROWN. . . . there was no man to till the ground".

It's describing the period after day 3 and before God created man on day 6.

He formed from the dust of the ground/the elements from which creation was formed,

Creation? No.

God created the elements on day 1, Genesis 1:1.

He made everything in the universe throughout days 2-6 using what He created on day 1.

all the bodily parts of a man's body.

Man was made from the dust of the ground, yes.

Well, I agree Moses did write that she WAS the mother.... and he wrote that because God revealed to him that this was Adam said.

We don't know what Adam said.

All we know, per scripture, is that Adam called her Eve, not because Moses recorded his words, but because Moses recorded that he did so.

To assert that that was what Adam said is to add to scripture, and to go beyond what the text says.

Don't add to scripture.

Don't go beyond what the text says.

I've NEVER suggested that.

Are not the archangels Michael and Gabriel "living"?

What about all the other creatures God made? Are they living, too?

If Eve is the mother of all living, does that mean she is the mother of all creatures that are "living"?

Or perhaps, just maybe, it's not saying anything other than that Eve is the mother of all human beings, being referred to as such before having bore any human beings in her womb?

Adam and Woman would have only produced men/sons ... and later daughters on earth.

Correct.

This is why the sons of God, in Noah's day, who had been born unto Adam and Woman in the Garden went down unto the daughters of born unto Adam and Eve on the present day earth produced only MEN OF RENOWN.

The Hebrew phrase here is "men of name," the idea being that they were famous enough to have been known by their names for their deeds.

Yet, despite being "men of name," their names are not given...

Why is that?

The "gods/angels" were not given this ability to reproduce with women.

The Bible doesn't say either way.


God gave the children of God, also known as sons of God[Ps 82:6], that command - to multiply and reproduce.

The problem is this:


Well, Adam and Woman did produce ONE FLESH. It was a boy, who would leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and repeat the process Adam had witnessed and described.

"produce one flesh"?

What are you talking about?

The Bible doesn't say "produce one flesh."

It says that a man and a woman "become one flesh."

If you can't even get that much correct, how in the world do you expect to get anything else correct with your theology?

So, do you think these MEN of RENOWN were freaks?

I believe they were only partially human, and likely incapable of a relationship with God, both reasons being why God had to destroy them.

Freaks? Indeed.

Abominations, at the very least.

Does being a giant make one a super-natural freak?

Being the spawn of demons does.

I recommend reading the following links:

I don't assume that. Special and renown...probably.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I believe that the reason pagan religions have so many gods that act like "men" is due to such "men of renown," their deeds being so legendary that they turned into myths. For example, the Greek gods Zeus, Poseidon, the Titans, etc, the Roman gods Jupiter, Mars, Venus, etc, and plenty of other deities of pagan religions, I'd argue most if not all were stories of the "men of renown" of Genesis 6, or even of the giants that came after the flood, the stories of which were passed down through the generations of humans by Noah's sons.

Of course there had to be some cleaving ... and multiplying before some of them grew to become famous and perhaps leaders in their own rights.

Again, I point to the fact that they were men of "name," yet their names are not given.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
It's just that, since nothing in Genesis 6, or in the rest of the Bible has led me to think Genesis 6 must be talking about fallen angels, instead of men, I have never felt compelled to seek for extra-Biblical "reasons" to think it must be doing so.

On the contrary, in the Old Testament, the 3 other times "sons of God" is used, they all refer to angels (cf Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). Given that, I'd say it's a safe assumption that the phrase in Genesis 6 also refers to angels as well, both times.

In Genesis 6:4, I read: "the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them". You wrote, "...if their 'fathers' were mere men'," putting quotation marks around the noun, 'fathers'. By the quotes, do you mean to signify doubt or denial that the sons of God mentioned in this passage were really fathers of the children whom the daughters of men bare to them (the "them" being, presumably, these sons of God)? I mean, it seems to me that the sons of God really were the fathers of the children whom the daughters of men bore them.

By putting quotations around fathers I was simply allowing for the fact that perhaps their children were not fathered the same way human children are fathered.

Does that make sense?

It wasn't questioning the fatherhood, so much as the means by which they fathered those children.

I don't know why God chose to use the phrase "sons of God" to refer to the men who married the women whom He chose to refer to using the phrase "daughters of men".

I think it's far more likely, given the context of the passage, and the Bible in general, that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were, in fact, fallen angels.

It's never been clear to me, though, what is supposed to debar men from being called by God, "sons of God".

Supra, re: all instances of the phrase in the OT referring to angels

I know that a handful of passages in the Bible are commonly claimed as "proof" that God calls at least some angels, "sons of God", but I've never considered such claims about those passages to be of any substance.

Supra, RE: Job passages

As we all know, God is on record in Luke 3:38 as having referred to at least one man -- viz., Adam -- by the singular phrase, "the son of God".

It seems that all of the uses of the phrase "sons of God" in the New Testament are referring to humans.

Screenshot_20241009-043113.png

But, I do not recall having read in the Bible that God ever referred to Satan by that phrase;

Agreed.

and, I don't recall any claimers of the fallen angels claim about Genesis 6 ever referring to Satan by saying "Satan, which was the son of God", or to some other fallen angel by saying "That devil, which was the son of God".

Agreed.

Also, in Genesis 6:4 --

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.


-- I do not see that the giants in the earth in those days were the personages referred to by the noun, 'children', or the personages referred to by the phrase, 'the same', or the personages referred to by the phrase, 'mighty men which were of old, men of renown'. I do not see that it is being said that whomever or whatever are being referred to by the name, "giants", became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. I'm definitely open to hearing, and trying to understand whatever anyone has to say who favors thinking these giants that were in the earth "in those days" were the children born to the wives of the sons of God in Genesis 6. But, at the very least, it seems kind of strange to me -- seeing as the text says that giants were in the earth "in those days" before it even mentions the coming in of the sons of God to the daughters of men -- to think that, in the latter part of the very same sentence those same giants/Nephilim are re-introduced as the referents of the noun, 'children'.

If you only look at 6:4, sure.

But there's one more instance of "sons of God" prior to that, in verse 2:

Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 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. And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

In the NIV

I generally advise against using the NIV.

of the first half of Genesis 6:4, we have:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them.


The NIV seems to be making "those days" to be (at least in part) the same period as that "when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them". The question is, did the giants' being on the earth precede the daughters of men having children by the sons of God? If so, then it seems pretty clear that whoever or whatever these giants were, they were not the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men; for, how would these giants have already been on the earth prior to being born to the sons of God and the daughters of men, if the former (the giants) were really the children of the latter. And if not, then, at best, it would seem awkward and superfluous to write, as does the NASB --

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore children to them.


-- instead of simply writing "When the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, they bore their children, the Nephilim, to them."

See below.

Another way to put what I'm trying to say is that, if the Nephilim were the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men, then the Nephilim would be the referent of the phrase, "their children", and it seems that what we would have in that text would amount to:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore [the Nephilim] to them.


Or, similarly:

The [children born to the sons of God and the daughters of men] were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore children to them.


Which, at best, would seem a bizarre redundancy to me.

Now, again, the common claim is that, in Genesis 6, the sons of God are fallen angels, rather than men. But I find this interesting: according to https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nephilim:

The Hebrew word nefilim is sometimes directly translated as “giants” or taken to mean “the fallen ones” (from the Hebrew naphal, “to fall”), but the identity of the Nephilim is debated by scholars.


It seems peculiar to me that we are commonly told that the Nephilim were children born to fallen angels, and yet, in Genesis 6, the fallen angels, themselves, are supposedly (according to the common claim) referred to by a (I think) quite inapt phrase -- "the sons of God" -- a term which, in itself, seems to have not a trace of a suggestion of fallenness; whereas, only fallen angels' supposed children are supposed to be referred to in that passage by a term having to do with fallenness. If that's really what's going on in the text, I fail to see the point of such cryptography: referring to fallen angels by a term which, in and of itself seems to have nothing to do with fallenness, instead of by a perfectly apt term such as nefilim. To me, that would seem kind of akin to the bizarre practice in Celtic folklore of referring to evil spirits by the term, "the good people".

And, since we are told that the Nephilim -- the fallen ones -- were born to fallen angels and women, the question arises about them: In such case, from what, exactly, are these Nephilim supposed to be fallen, and to what? And, when did these supposed children of fallen angels and women fall? And, what was the nature of their fall?

I vaguely remember seeing a video on YouTube pushing the fallen-angels-married-women claim, in which they showed a clip of some guy named Rob Skiba making a show about how important it supposedly is to go along with that claim, and take it seriously. And, in that clip, he brought up Ephesians 6:12, in which Paul writes, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." And I thought to myself, what, really, is that supposed to have to do with your (Rob Skiba's) dire, sensationalist reporting about how we are to fear and be in some sort of ready, defensive stance against some supposed offspring of fallen angels and women? I mean, these supposed fallen angel/human offspring: are they supposed to be flesh and blood, or not? It seems like, if they're supposed to be flesh and blood, and he's all about trying to warn us that we wrestle against -- or are in danger of wrestling against -- these Nephilim, then he couldn't have more poorly chosen a Bible verse for trying to drive home his point, a verse expressly stating that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood.

Instead of posting it in this thread, I had thought to use the text of this post to start a fresh thread that would be more specifically a discussion of Genesis 6 and the fallen-angels-married-women claim, so as not to prolongedly diverge this present thread away from its OP subject matters. But then, I thought that this post, by the nature of it, just wouldn't quite make for an OP. If I get around to it, I'll try to start a new thread along those lines, unless someone else does so before I get around to it. It, to me, has some potential for some interesting discussion. I've wrangled with people in comment sections on YouTube on the topic, but, YouTube comments have quite a bit to be desired as a vehicle for sustained discussion.

Gotcha.

One final point I would like to make that I think seals the deal, at least on the idea that the giants (nephilim) are both the original non-human (at the very least, if not fallen angels) fathers of other giants and the "sons of God" mentioned in both verses 2 and 4.

For context, I'll quote the relevant passage:

Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 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. And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. And Noah begot three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

Chapter 6 starts out with men multiplying on the face of the earth. It tells us that the daughters of those men were beautiful, and that not men, but "sons of God" took whichever women pleased them as wives (in all likelihood, violently, if they so desired (modern liberals would die of horror if they knew how those men treated women, lol)).

Verses 1 and 2 make a distinction between the men who fathered the beautiful women, and the entities that took those beautiful women as wives.

Verse 3 has God regretting that He made man.

Verse 4 tells us that there were giants on the earth, and ALSO afterward, "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them."

Allow me to rephrase it:

There were giants BEFORE AND AFTER the sons of God came in to the daughters of men who bore children to those sons of God.

Verse 5 mentions not only how evil men had become, but also how even mens thoughts were only evil continually.

Verse 6 again has God being sorry that He made man, being grieved in His heart.

Verse 7 is God committing Himself to destroying mankind which He had created, because He was sorry that He made them.

Verse 8 introduces Noah, a man who "found grace in the eyes of the LORD."

Then it says something interesting in the next verse:

Verse 9 says that Noah was a just man, "perfect in his generations."

Verse 10 notes Noah's three sons.

And then again, we have something interesting being said in verse 11-12, within the context of the "genealogy of Noah" in verse 9:

Verse 11 says "The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. (v12) So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth."

So first, we have men siring beautiful daughters.
Next we have the sons of God going into those daughters, with giants both before and after they do so.
Then we have Noah being "perfect in his generations,"
And finally, we have all the flesh of the earth being entirely corrupted, and "flesh" here can also, by euphemism, refer to the pudenda (external genitalia) of men.

The entire passage seems to be focusing on the genetics of humans just prior to the fall, how God's masterpiece had become so genetically corrupted that only one family on the entire earth was still pure.

Thus (verse 13, not quoted) God enacts His plan to save Noah and His family, because "the end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them;" and He does this by telling Noah to make an ark.

It simply doesn't make sense for the sons of God to be men, because the human genome was not yet to the point where genetic defects would have arisen from humans copulating with close relatives (that point wouldn't come until many hundreds of years later, perhaps over a thousand years later, when God forbade incest through the Mosaic Law, and that's a testament to how robust God designed the human genome!).

The only conclusion that can be made that is consistent with the context is that the "sons of God" were not human, and thus corrupted the human genome by having children with human women (not the other way around, by the way), and that both they and their offspring were giants, nephilim.

By the way, I strongly recommend watching this video. It's not quite the same topic, but it's still about Genesis 6, a true "fresh look" at Genesis 6.

 

Ps82

Well-known member
Thanks for pointing that out.

@Ps82, is that how you see that verse? I noticed you didn't address my assertion that Jesus tells us the passage refers to men as "gods" and God doing the speaking. Would you like to now?



Yes, that seems disingenuous, doesn't it.

That's a common problem around here.
Derf, I am sorry to say I have not had time to post. My life!!! So busy! Also I do not follow 7djengo7. When I first returned here to start posting again I ran across about 4 individuals who really were confrontational. They immediately labeled me as this and that and when one finally starting calling me uncalled for names, I just decided to continue posting with the hopes of finding people who were at least interested in hearing different takes on things ... based on what I've studied.

So, I did not respond to your question for me because I haven't had time, I wasn't sure of the verse and I had never seen the icon @Ps82. Sorry. Let me see if I can address that question... but have a list of 11 things to do by Sunday. One is to teach an adult Ladies Bible Class.
 

Ps82

Well-known member
Thanks for pointing that out.

@Ps82, is that how you see that verse? I noticed you didn't address my assertion that Jesus tells us the passage refers to men as "gods" and God doing the speaking. Would you like to now?



Yes, that seems disingenuous, doesn't it.

That's a common problem around here.
I believe the narrative in Ps 82 makes these points clear:
God is the judge.
Satan is standing before God pleading his own defense at this own trial.
His defense is this: God you are an unjust judge ... the reason being that you accept "these persons" who are needy, poor, fatherless, in physical danger of evil ones but yet you rescue them repeatedly. Also, they are the real reason the whole earth is out of sorts. They are simply clueless to boot.
At this point God interrupts Satan and says this regarding everyone involved in causing the world to be out of sorts, "I have said YE [Satan and your rebellious kind] are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Now, my conclusion regarding the "ALL OF YOU"who are called children includes all angels and all persons.
Only the angels are referred to as children and gods.
After all they are super-natural beings rather than fleshly.

The PERSONS are only referred to as children of God ... therefore, if sons happened to be born before the Fall they certainly would have been considered SONS OF GOD.

Where any sons and daughters born to Adam and Eve after the Fall would be considered needy and fatherless.


Now, to finish the Ps 82 event with my take: God sentences Satan with this judgement, "But YE [Satan] shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." If people look at other scripture they can see PERSONS are called princes [KJV], especially among the tribes of Israel. Therefore, dying like one of the princes and dying like men can only be saying that Satan an angel will meet the same fate as humanity...

Of course most Bible students know that the second death for mankind and the first death for Satan will be The Lake of Fire.

But God, the fair Judge, also announces his plan of salvation for humanity.
Vs. 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Amen, thank you LORD for providing our Way to return to you through our Savior Jesus Christ.

BTW, Derf, if I am all over the place it probably has more to do with people asking me questions which I have to explain and that often leads me back to Ps82 for it was what opened my eyes to some things.

Especially to the difference between "gods" and "children of God" and "sons of God" Men are not called gods in scripture ... but angels are and they can be called children and sons as well. One MUST LOOK AT THE CONTEXT of the event to see if the sons of God are angels or men.
But, the content of Gen. 6, continually only references sons who are MEN who have son who become men of renown.
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
I believe the narrative in Ps 82 makes these points clear:
God is the judge.
Satan is standing before God pleading his own defense at this own trial.
His defense is this: God you are an unjust judge ... the reason being that you accept "these persons" who are needy, poor, fatherless, in physical danger of evil ones but yet you rescue them repeatedly. Also, they are the real reason the whole earth is out of sorts. They are simply clueless to boot.
At this point God interrupts Satan and says this regarding everyone involved in causing the world to be out of sorts, "I have said YE [Satan and your rebellious kind] are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Now, my conclusion regarding the "ALL OF YOU"who are called children includes all angels and all persons.
Only the angels are referred to as children and gods.
After all they are super-natural beings rather than fleshly.

The PERSONS are only referred to as children of God ... therefore, if sons happened to be born before the Fall they certainly would have been considered SONS OF GOD.

Where any sons and daughters born to Adam and Eve after the Fall would be considered needy and fatherless.


Now, to finish the Ps 82 event with my take: God sentences Satan with this judgement, "But YE [Satan] shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." If people look at other scripture they can see PERSONS are called princes [KJV], especially among the tribes of Israel. Therefore, dying like one of the princes and dying like men can only be saying that Satan an angel will meet the same fate as humanity...

Of course most Bible students know that the second death for mankind and the first death for Satan will be The Lake of Fire.

But God, the fair Judge, also announces his plan of salvation for humanity.
Vs. 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Amen, thank you LORD for providing our Way to return to you through our Savior Jesus Christ.

BTW, Derf, if I am all over the place it probably has more to do with people asking me questions which I have to explain and that often leads me back to Ps82 for it was what opened my eyes to some things.

Especially to the difference between "gods" and "children of God" and "sons of God" Men are not called gods in scripture ... but angels are and they can be called children and sons as well. One MUST LOOK AT THE CONTEXT of the event to see if the sons of God are angels or men.
But, the content of Gen. 6, continually only references sons who are MEN who have son who become men of renown.
The problem with all of this is that you are arguing against Jesus. He gave us an exact interpretation of Ps 82, and it doesn't fit what you are saying.
John 10:33-36 KJV — The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (in other words, they are not "gods" in the divine sense, but they are men who received the word of God, i.e., the Israelite leaders), and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jesus is claiming, among other things, that the very people who are accusing Him of blasphemy are in the same category that Ps 82 is addressing. In effect, then, He's saying "If God called YOU gods, then why is it blasphemy to call myself the Son of God?" If those words are somehow aimed at the leaders of Israel, both ancient and in Jesus day, then they can't be used to discover something about Satan and demons and some odd race of man-gods you imagine.
 

Ps82

Well-known member
Guess I should have said: IT/Adam's words were quoted as if Adam was making the statement exactly when things were happening.

Of course, I know Moses wrote and informed us about what Adam had said long ago, but it was quoted as I've stated above.

Here is a simple example. True Moses was explaining what happened long ago ... but:

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept... 22 and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man ... He made a woman... and brought her unto man.

Then: And Adam said, "This IS NOW bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she SHALL BE called Woman... "

IOWs, Moses quoted what Adam would have said AT THE MOMENT it occurred. As the words would have been spoken IN THE PRESENT.

Also another issue. You are obviously very upset with me about something I did. Please give me the thread name and number of the post so I can go back and see exactly what I did which caused you to scold me so. Then I'll try not to do it again.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Guess I should have said: IT/Adam's words were quoted as if Adam was making the statement exactly when things were happening.

Of course, I know Moses wrote and informed us about what Adam had said long ago, but it was quoted as I've stated above.

Here is a simple example. True Moses was explaining what happened long ago ... but:

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept... 22 and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man ... He made a woman... and brought her unto man.

Then: And Adam said, "This IS NOW bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she SHALL BE called Woman... "

IOWs, Moses quoted what Adam would have said AT THE MOMENT it occurred. As the words would have been spoken IN THE PRESENT.

Also another issue. You are obviously very upset with me about something I did. Please give me the thread name and number of the post so I can go back and see exactly what I did which caused you to scold me so. Then I'll try not to do it again.

Not sure how you got confused on the matter, but we're talking about Genesis 3:20.

Genesis 3:20 is NOT a quotation of anything Adam said, verbatim.

It is simply narrative, describing what happened, and why.
 

Ps82

Well-known member
Not sure how you got confused on the matter, but we're talking about Genesis 3:20.

Genesis 3:20 is NOT a quotation of anything Adam said, verbatim.

It is simply narrative, describing what happened, and why.
I totally rewrote this post ... got way off topic... sorry. Rushing


Yes, JudgeRightly, I thought I remembered you questioning whether what Adam said was present tense or not. I do understand when something is quoted as if it was spoken at the moment it took place versus when Moses relates things that happened long before his day

Now I think you want me to compare the difference between Gen. 2:21-23 and Gen. 3:20. You may have to show me what you think is the difference. I'll just mention what I think about the two selections.


Gen 2:21-23 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead therof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Now verses 21-22 has Moses speaking of things which occurred in the past.

Yet verse 23 had Moses telling us exactly what Adam said in his day at the specific time the event occurred:

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

WHAT I SEE: At the time female was brought forth into the visible realm ... he named her and proclaimed the reason why: She had just come out of Mankind.

Later Moses again relates that at the time Adam and Woman were about to leave the Garden that Adam gave Woman another name.
Gen. 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she WAS THE MOTHER OF ALL LIVING.

Moses reveals how Adam gave the name of Eve to Woman right before they left and tells us why Adam changed her name at that exact time: She WAS the mother of all the living.

Personally, I can only conclude that she was already the mother of all the living and would and did continue to produce more of humanity after they left the Garden. That was when they started having daughters.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I totally rewrote this post ... got way off topic... sorry. Rushing

Maybe you should stop rushing, then.

Yes, JudgeRightly, I thought I remembered you questioning whether what Adam said was present tense or not. I do understand when something is quoted as if it was spoken at the moment it took place versus when Moses relates things that happened long before his day

The latter is the case in Genesis 3:20.

Moses is relating something that happened long before his day, namely that, "Adam called his wife's name Eve," why? "Because she was" [past tense] (using past tense is completely normal when referring to someone who has died) "the mother of all living."

Meaning, you have to force the text to say what you are trying to make it say, which is that there were other humans living at the time "Adam called his wife's name Eve."

In other words, you're reading your belief into the text, rather than letting the truth flow from the text.

You're eisegeting. Don't do that.

Now I think you want me to compare the difference between Gen. 2:21-23 and Gen. 3:20. You may have to show me what you think is the difference. I'll just mention what I think about the two selections.

The difference is what you said above, here:

I do understand when something is quoted as if it was spoken at the moment it took place versus when Moses relates things that happened long before his day

Genesis 3:20 is the latter.

Genesis 2:23 is the former.

This isn't hard to understand.

Later Moses again relates that at the time Adam and Woman were about to leave the Garden that Adam gave Woman another name.
Gen. 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she WAS THE MOTHER OF ALL LIVING.

Moses reveals how Adam gave the name of Eve to Woman right before they left and tells us why Adam changed her name at that exact time: She WAS the mother of all the living.

WRONG.

Moses is simply telling us what happened after God cursed Adam and Eve.

You're trying to claim that Genesis 3:20 is Adam speaking the words "You are Eve, because you are the mother of all living."

But that's not what Scripture says.

It is MOSES saying "Adam called his wife Eve," and then giving the reason she was called Eve: "because she was (past tense, she had died long before Moses lived) the mother of all living."

In other words, if we were to rephrase what Scripture ACTUALLY says, in the form you want it to be in, it would say, something along the lines of, "And Adam said, 'Your name is now Eve, because you WILL BE the mother of all who will ever live."

"Eve" does not mean "the mother of all living."

In fact, "Eve" is simply the English name she was given for English speakers.

Her Hebrew name is "חַוָּה" ("Chavvah"; khav-vaw).

Her name means "life," "the first woman," and "life-giver."


Strong's h2332

- Lexical: חַוָּה
- Transliteration: Chavvah
- Part of Speech: Proper Name Feminine
- Phonetic Spelling: khav-vaw'
- Definition: "life", the first woman.
- Origin: Causatively from chavah; life-giver; Chavvah (or Eve), the first woman.
- Usage: Eve.
- Translated as (count): Eve (2).



She was named "Eve" by Adam, because she was the life giver, and, by the time Moses wrote Genesis 3:20, WAS indeed "the mother of all living."

Personally, I can only conclude that she was already the mother of all the living

Except that she wasn't, therefore your conclusion that she was is wrong.

and would and did continue to produce more of humanity after they left the Garden. That was when they started having daughters.

Your position is flawed for the following reasons:

  1. Adam and Eve did not conceive any children prior to the Fall
  2. Eve would likely have become pregnant during her first menstrual cycle
  3. Lucifer also would have rebelled in the short time between Creation and the Fall
  4. No sinless human offspring were born to Adam and Eve
  5. At his Fall, Lucifer was "in Eden, the garden of God" Ezekiel 28:13
  6. ‘I will ascend into heaven… I will ascend above the clouds…" Isaiah 14:13-14
  7. So Lucifer has "fallen from [the kingdom of] heaven" Isa. 14:12
  8. God didn't curse Lucifer until the Fall in the Garden, "Because you have done this, you are cursed" Gen. 3:14
  9. "Because you have done this [tempted Eve, there is] enmity between you and... her Seed [the Christ]; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel." Gen. 3:15
  10. The Apostle Paul implies that Lucifer was "a novice", i.e., young (2 weeks old) when he fell 1 Timothy 3:6
  11. If Eve became pregnant during her first menstrual cycle, the ovum that became Cain ovulated on Eve's 14th day
  12. Like with Adam, a man's sperm can live in the woman's uterus and fallopian tubes for seven days
  13. Adam and Eve likely fell seven days after they were created, that is, on the very first Friday the 13th.

(The reasoning behind these points can be found at https://kgov.com/13.)
 
Top