Who do you say the sons of God in Genesis 64 were

[oneway]

I would like to see what other believers in here have to say. I apologize if this topic has already been debated. Factnet has a lot of topics and threads and I am not aware of every one of them.
If this topic is too boring or has been debated to death already, then just ignore it, and we'll leave it that.

[bluewater2]

"There were giants [nephilim] 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." If I might weigh in here. I see Genesis 6:4 as one of the many passages that shows the bible as an ancient book of fables that used story telling and a blending of fable and truth to spread universal truths. The story of giants is obviously one of the fables.

[fatherofaking]

i am not certain of what these people are teaching so i will say it this way.

if they think that the jewish race is some evil spawn of satan then hitler's final solution was justified.

since we all know that they are just people like the rest of us then we can see that hitler and anyone else that condemn the jewish race are the evil ones.

[bluewater2]

Who are "these people"?

[bluewater2]

Who are "these people"?

[fatherofaking]

2ti 2:14
Of these things put them in remembrance, charging [them] in the sight of the Lord, that they strive not about words, to no profit, to the subverting of them that hear.

[trainedobserver]

I agree with bluewater2. The giants mentioned are fantasy along with the unicorns, fiery serpents, cockatrices, dragons, and satyrs.

[fatherofaking]

hey TO,

pardon my arrogance in asking such a question but do you really know that these things don't exist?

belief is a powerful thing.
it is belief that can change a person's life.

the thing that is believed does not necessarily have to exist or be true.

the placebo effect is a good example of this.

[trainedobserver]

"pardon my arrogance in asking such a question but do you really know that these things don't exist? "

Well foak, there is no evidence that these mythical creatures have ever existed instead there is evidence that they are contrived stories told to scare children, misunderstandings, and exaggerations of unfamiliar animals.

[fatherofaking]

instead there is evidence that they are contrived stories told to scare children, misunderstandings, and exaggerations of unfamiliar animals.


most would concur that they don't exist.
the question is what evidence is there for one or the other?

created to scare children TO?

[bluewater2]

"the thing that is believed does not necessarily have to exist or be true" To me, that is a scary thought. What would be the purpose of believing in something that does not exist? The "placebo effect" is essentially, lying to the mind. I do not like the idea of that, especially where god and the supernatural are concerned.

Most religious dogma, hell, fire and damnation, satan, evil, pit of hell, are concieved by man to "scare someone into behaving." Is this really necessary or helpful?

[ba2]

I would imagine that from time to time, the fossilized remains of some of the biggest animals ever to walk the earth, the giant dinosaurs, would have occasionally been uncovered during excavations or other natural events, such as earthquakes. Seeing these giant bones of animals that roamed the earth millions of years ago would certainly stir the imagination. Why wouldn’t they think that giants once roamed the earth?

[ezekiel_37]

Maybe giants DID roam the earth, the seed of the fallen angels (who are the sons of God - see Jude).

According to the Word of God, giants did exist, both before the flood and after. That is the reason for the flood in the first place....and is the reason for the sword of Israel to be manifest in the promised land.

Anyway, Satan is named with the sons of God in the book of Job. Two people are called 'the son of God', both being created without a earthly father....

The first Adam and the last, who is Christ Messiah.

We are all sons of God when we accept and follow Christ

Peace in Christ
c

(Message edited by ezekiel_37 on February 12, 2007)

[bluewater2]

"Maybe giants DID roam the earth, the seed of the fallen angels (who are the sons of God - see Jude).

According to the Word of God, giants did exist, both before the flood and after." No offense intended, but when one believes the bible is the word of god, I guess it is possible to believe all kinds of things that defy reason.

With that in mind, I tend to see these claims of giants, at least as desribed as giant "people" as being silly.

Like BA says, maybe they fell upon some dinosaur bones.

[termin8d]

Bluewater, why does the notion of giants defy reason? Is it because you haven't observed them personally?

[bluewater2]

Term, are you talking about giant people or very large animals, like dinosaurs or even elephants?

[termin8d]

Giant people.I believe that was the notion you had trouble with.

[bluewater2]

History and science show us that people can get pretty darn tall. How tall must one be to be a giant?

[fatherofaking]

The "placebo effect" is essentially, lying to the mind.

regardless of how you feel about it there is plenty of documentation that shows it's effectivness.

[termin8d]

bluewater2: good question. I have no idea http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[fatherofaking]

so if you believe giants exist then they do for you.
no proof needed.

the mind will comply with what you tell it.

just look at all of the sincere and quite different beliefs on this board.

they are all true on an individual level.

[fatherofaking]

How tall must one be to be a giant?

i guess it is a matter of opinion.


Main Entry: 1gi·ant
Pronunciation: 'jI-&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English giaunt, from Anglo-French geant, from Latin gigant-, gigas, from Greek
1 : a legendary humanlike being of great stature and strength
2 a : a living being of great size b : a person of extraordinary powers
3 : something unusually large or powerful
- gi·ant·like /-"lIk/ adjective

who knows what the israelites thought.

[bluewater2]

If one looks further into the word Nephilim, as used in the king james butchery of the Jewish Bible, it is written as giant, yet the Hebrew word Nephilim most closely means "lost ones", or "fallen ones". Certain, for me, if one stays closer to the Hebrew meaning of the word Nephilim and does not use the word giant, it makes more sense.

Did the KJV really mean giants, as in large person or animal, or is this just another case of the authors taking liberties with Hebrew Scripture?

[fatherofaking]

Did the KJV really mean giants, as in large person or animal, or is this just another case of the authors taking liberties with Hebrew Scripture?

i am not sure of the answer to that blue.

i know that there are many that think giant is a bad interpretation.

i feel the same way.

once you have made that choice the meaning of the text becomes much mre interesting.

[bluewater2]

I would say the use of the word giant does not make it more interesting, but actually more unbelievable and thereby even more inaccessible to others who are more pragmatic. There are many ways that the re-interpretation of the Jewish Bible has made it more inaccessible for people and I find that a shame.

[skooter942000]

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm

http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/index2.html

[fatherofaking]

sorry blue i think you misunderstood me.

i do not accept the giant interpretation.

[oneway]

ezekiel_37,


You stated: According to the Word of God, giants did exist, both before the flood and after. That is the reason for the flood in the first place....and is the reason for the sword of Israel to be manifest in the promised land.

Anyway, Satan is named with the sons of God in the book of Job. Two people are called 'the son of God', both being created without a earthly father....

The first Adam and the last, who is Christ Messiah.

We are all sons of God when we accept and follow Christ


What you have stated is pretty much the conclusions that I have come to also. That said, the only logical description that fits sons of God, would be angels. Does anyone think the sons of God weren't angels, and why? So the next question is, if these were fallen angels, did these angels physically materialize in their own bodies or did they possess(as in demon possession) the bodies of earthly men?

[bluewater2]

I checked out the sites and they are completely bogus. The links to worldwide giant evidence on the quayle site is nothing but links to tall people, drawings in the sand, etc. No-one approaching the 36' tall giants as pictured. It is obvious to me that the Jewish interpretation of the word Nephilim is the correct one: fallen ones or evil doers. No giants as mentioned in the corrupt xtian version of the Jewish Bible.

[bluewater2]

The fallen ones are simply people who are not doing right. That is all. There is no mention of angels.

[fatherofaking]

blue,

that does'nt seem to fit with the response of the people when they found out that these fallen ones were in the land.

they did not enter the land at that time because of fear.

not until 40yrs later when lead by joshua.

what would have caused them such fear?

[oneway]

I would like to make it perfectly clear to everyone, that I, personally, have not come to any final conclusions of who the sons of God were. Angels seem the logical choice but that doesn't mean that I believe this. This is why I also hope to hear from anyone who doen't think the sons of God were angels. It's not much of a debate if it's one sided.

[fatherofaking]

i guess the next question would then be.

what do we know about goliath.

where did he come from and was he one of the decendants of those spoken of in genesis?

[termin8d]

bluewater2: good question. I have no idea http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[yaakov2]

Bluewater

<font color="0000ff">It is obvious to me that the Jewish interpretation of the word Nephilim is the correct one: fallen ones or evil doers. No giants as mentioned in the corrupt xtian version of the Jewish Bible.</font>

Gen 6:4. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of the nobles would come to the daughters of man, and they would bear for them; they are the mighty men, who were of old, the men of renown.

This is a difficult passage to interpret since the Hebrew word Nun-Fay-Yud-Lamed-Yud-Mem Sofit (Nephilim) has fallen into disuse. The root word is Nun-Fay-Lamed (Nephal) which means “fallen”. There are many midrashic tales to try to wrestle with this, because there is no Hebrew context that will derive a singular meaning for "fallen ones".

Bluewater, the word “giant” does appear twice in my English Torah translation, once at Genesis 6:4 and again at Numbers 13:33. While the literal word (Nephilim) does mean “fallen ones”, our sages teach us that these were people of giant stature. It isn’t clear exactly how large they were, but they were large enough to scare other people.

The Targum Yerushalmi (not literal, a lesson) explains that they were angels who descended to the Earth. They are called “fallen ones” because they lost (or gave up?) their heavenly stature.

The Ramban explains otherwise and says that they were the other children of Adam. Because Adam, the First Man, was the handiwork of G-d, his children were of greater physical stature than their descendants. Because these people were so close to the Creator, they knew that they had no grandfather, they should have been spiritually elevated. Because they didn't live up to their potential they were considered "fallen ones."

Also, the later phrase in Gen 6:4 is not sons of G-d. It is actually sons of elohim. The word elohim can refer to humans and to angels as well as to G-d. In the context of Genesis 6, it should be translated as "the sons of powerful rulers” or “the sons of princes”.

[fatherofaking]

hey yaakov,

thanks for the info.

i appreciate the things you bring to this forum.
it is a much needed perspective.

[fatherofaking]

The Targum Yerushalmi (not literal, a lesson) explains that they were angels who descended to the Earth. They are called “fallen ones” because they lost (or gave up?) their heavenly stature.

i want to see if i understand you correctly.

this is saying that it should be taken as a lesson and nephilim should be interpreted as fallen angels?

[yaakov2]

No. The Targum is a midrash. I provided a short definition of midrash in parenthesis. A midrash is an interpretation that is used to teach a lesson. Midrash is NEVER to be read literally.

In gathering material for my post, I came across a midrash that relates a hypothetical conversation between two angels and G-d. The two angels were complaining to G-d that man had no purpose. That if the angels were placed on Earth, that they wouldn't be tempted by the things that tempt man. According to this homily, G-d took them up on their challange and put them on earth. These angels failed their boasts and were tempted by the first beautiful females they came across. So, the Targum relates this midrash (interpretation) that the angels were "fallen".

Now that is meant to convey a lessons, such as temptations are difficult to master, that man and angels have separate functions, etc. It does NOT mean that such an event literally happened.

I was a little hesitant to place the midrash on my post because I knew some people read so literally. My apologies. In Judaism, there are no such things as literal "fallen angels".

[yaakov2]

I just thought of a comparison to Christianity concerning midrash.

Midrash can be compared to sermons. It's as if a collection of sermons have been bundled together into a book. Now preachers make all sorts of liberties when making sermons, not everything said it meant to be taken literally. So, the same with midrash.

[fatherofaking]

thanks yaakov.

i think i will do a little study on midrash.

[trainedobserver]

Asking the question "Who do you say the sons of God in Genesis 6:4 were?" is a bit like saying "What/who was Sauron in Lord of the Rings?" isn't it? Was he a man or one of the other many species that populate Tolkien's books?

The reason I say this is the Bible is not a history book. It may contain some factual information about the activities of the Israelites in the Bronze and Iron-Ages but unless one assumes it is the "inerrant word" or something, you can't say that it is historically correct.

As far as giants go human beings vary greatly in height and weight. I'm sure Magic Johnson and those guys would have caused quite a stir back then. Adult height is governed by your state of nutrition as a child. As I said, these boogie-men were exaggerations or misinterpretations of natural events.

There is an entire cottage industry that has sprung up around this whole issue. It's amazing, some folks are waiting for Planet X and the return of these creatures who some believe genetically mucked around with us. I for one don't buy into it.

[fatherofaking]

jeesh TO your a real stick in the mud.

[daikon]

From trainedobserver's post:

"Adult height is governed by your state of nutrition as a child."

This denotes nurture and (as that longstanding debate continues...) we still must consider nature. That would include the genetics of an individual.
And, we can be certain genetics follows an often (for lack of a better expression)fragmented path -- meaning a person may have more in common with a grandparent in some respects (and in some cases, even with a more distant ancestor) than with a parent.

two cents

[oneway]

I stated that angels seemed the logical choice but I don't believe that's the correct choice. These sons of God were earthly men. Because sin has gone rampant, God decides that he is going to destroy man off the face of the earth. He didn't say anything about destroying fallen angels off the face of the earth. His judgement was against man not fallen angels. Even tho the devil and demons are real, they can only influence you, they can't make you do anything. If you do evil, it's because you chose to do it. Not because the devil and demons made you do it. How can fallen angels marry and produce children? There's obviously demons in this world today. When was the last time you've heard of a demon marrying an earthly woman and producing children? If they could do it back then, they could do it now, don't you think?

[ba2]

There are no demons there is no occult. No one has supernatural powers over you unless you give them that power! When Jesus told everyone to stay away from those things, it wasn’t because they were real, it was because you can psychologically get sucked into a dangerous cult if you were not careful. It was a warning to stay away from cults, but not because they were real.

<font color="0000ff">“When was the last time you've heard of a demon marrying an earthly woman and producing children? If they could do it back then, they could do it now, don't you think?”</font> Exactly, they would be doing it now and it would be all over the mainstream news, not just the supermarket tabloid. “Ghostbusters” would not have been a comedy, it would have been a true to life drama about real events!

[trainedobserver]

"as that longstanding debate continues"

You've confused psychological development with physical development. There is no debate over the nutrition of child determining the physical characteristics of the adult. Of course genetics has something to do with it. However, if you don't provide the basic materials to build from the body has a difficult time living up to its DNA.

"...stick in the mud..."

Ok, I'll play. Obviously, they are angels of some type as they are called "sons of god." Although Angels in Heaven don't have sex these beings are on Earth and could be just another of the angelic races Seraphim, Cherubim, etc., etc.

Good, Evil, or Indifferent it seems they loved Rocking and Rolling with the local babes. They were Party Angels!

[arron]

the sons of GOD WERE TRULY earthly men they began to marry ungodly women of cains decendants. any time the church mixes with the world there is trouble.

[ba2]

termin8d
First, understand that I am not a literalist. I definitely am a Christian believer but I also am a believer in the scientific process and logical thinking. This is very problematic for me in that I attend an independent fundamentalist church which believes scripture very literally. I will give you my take on your question.

In Matt 17:18 Jesus cures an epileptic "lunatic" by "rebuking the devil." I think that Jesus often played on the beliefs of the masses. He knew that by utilizing some of the beliefs and practices of the culture, he could bring in many more into the faith. People in those days, like now, believed in silly things, like sickness being caused by a lack of faith. So we have those religious nuts going around praying instead of getting medical care. Dangerous thinking, I would say.

In Matt 8:31 we have the same sort of thing. Jesus supposedly removing the devils from some humans and placing those devils into a heard of pigs. Then chasing the pigs over the cliffs to die. This is absurd thinking. Why would Jesus kill off the livestock of some farmers? If this is literally correct, then it can be considered evidence of a defective moral character of Jesus. Why wouldn’t he have found a kinder way to dispense with the devils, like maybe just making them go away. This I believe is a misunderstanding and embellishment as to what actually happened. Besides, I never knew that anyone thought the devil was capable of drowning. If he was, how did he supposedly survive the big flood? If Jesus could kill the devil so easily, then why does he allow him to exist at all? Instead he continues to allow the devil to lead us astray??? No, I think the story is an embellishment as to what really happened. Obviously, those farmers were very upset that Jesus supposedly did this for in line 34, they told Jesus to leave. If the local folks would have seen such a miracle, they certainly wouldn’t chase away the miracle worker.

To understand Luke 4:41 we have to go to the preceding line 4:40, <font color="0000ff">“Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.”</font> Then in 4:41, <font color="0000ff">“And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.”</font> Divers disease is what we now know as decompression sickness, also called the bends, is caused by nitrogen bubbles forming in the blood stream and tissues of the body. The bubbles occur if you move from deep water towards the surface, where the surrounding pressure is lower, in too short a space of time. It has nothing to do with the devil. Now, I suggest that Jesus did indeed heal them, because many people die from the bends and they did not have access to decompression chambers in those days. But the additional text saying it was the devil, I believe is an embellishment based on what so many people believed about sickness before modern day medicine evolved.

In James 2:19 <font color="0000ff">“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”</font> James is making a point which really has nothing to do with the devil. The term devil is a metaphor for bad people. Go to the next line: James 2:20, <font color="0000ff">“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?”</font> James is saying it takes more than faith, you have to follow the law too. In my opinion, there is one law given by God, it has to do with the <font color="0000ff">law of love.</font> But, there are many other laws we will be judged on, and we create these for ourselves, <font color="0000ff">“Judge not lest we be judged.”</font> James 2:20 is one of the key verses for those Christians who do not follow the “Grace by Faith Alone” adage.

[ba2]

termin8d,
To make it clear. No, I do not believe in demons or the occult. It simply does not make any sense and there is absolutely no credible evidence to support that view. Houdini spent a lifetime trying to find some proof, but every time, he found them to be a hoax.

[termin8d]

ba2: <font color="ff0000">
First, understand that I am not a literalist. I definitely am a Christian believer but I also am a believer in the scientific process and logical thinking. This is very problematic for me in that I attend an independent fundamentalist church which believes scripture very literally. I will give you my take on your question.
</font>
I understand and respect your position. However, I would just say do not depend on science as your final arbiter of the truth, because science concerns the observable, physical world and does not take into account that which is spiritual. If you do not believe in demons because it's not scientifically logical, then I think you ought to reexamine your position in light of what the bible teaches. Do scientists observe God? No. Do scientists observe angels? No. Are you going to drop your beliefs in God and angels for that same reason?

<font color="ff0000">In Matt 17:18 Jesus cures an epileptic "lunatic" by "rebuking the devil." I think that Jesus often played on the beliefs of the masses. He knew that by utilizing some of the beliefs and practices of the culture, he could bring in many more into the faith. People in those days, like now, believed in silly things, like sickness being caused by a lack of faith. So we have those religious nuts going around praying instead of getting medical care. Dangerous thinking, I would say.</font>

Are you telling me then that Jesus never healed people? Are you saying that when He said "Your faith has healed you" it meant something else? What exactly did Jesus do?

<font color="ff0000">In Matt 8:31 we have the same sort of thing. Jesus supposedly removing the devils from some humans and placing those devils into a heard of pigs. Then chasing the pigs over the cliffs to die. This is absurd thinking. Why would Jesus kill off the livestock of some farmers? If this is literally correct, then it can be considered evidence of a defective moral character of Jesus. Why wouldn&amp;#8217;t he have found a kinder way to dispense with the devils, like maybe just making them go away. This I believe is a misunderstanding and embellishment as to what actually happened. Besides, I never knew that anyone thought the devil was capable of drowning. If he was, how did he supposedly survive the big flood? If Jesus could kill the devil so easily, then why does he allow him to exist at all? Instead he continues to allow the devil to lead us astray??? No, I think the story is an embellishment as to what really happened. Obviously, those farmers were very upset that Jesus supposedly did this for in line 34, they told Jesus to leave. If the local folks would have seen such a miracle, they certainly wouldn&amp;#8217;t chase away the miracle worker.</font>

First of all, I think you need to be clear. Satan is the devil. What went into the pigs were not devils but demons. The Devil is not a demon, He is a fallen angel which is something different.

Secondly, Jesus is God. He can do what He wants with pigs or any other animal. To object to Jesus sending the demons out of a person into a herd of pigs is like the pharisees criticising the Lord for healing people on the Sabbath. He's the creator of the universe.

Thirdly, you suggested that Jesus just send them away. Well that sounds nice, let them go and possess some other person.

Fourthly, regarding drowing, if you actually read the text, it says that the pigs drowned, not the demons. Again please don't say devils. It's demons. Demons don't drown, they occupy places of water, or living beings. So no, the demons don't drown, nor does Satan the devil. He'll be at a bbq, not at a pool party.

I could go on to address the other points you were making, but I think that it comes down to whether you believe the verses are corrupted or they reflect what truly happened.

[ba2]

termin8d
You said, <font color="0000ff">“I would just say do not depend on science as your final arbiter of the truth, because science concerns the observable, physical world and does not take into account that which is spiritual. If you do not believe in demons because it's not scientifically logical, then I think you ought to reexamine your position in light of what the bible teaches.”</font> The bible contains God’s word but is written by man in human terms. The bible is not a science book nor is it a history book. It is more of a philosophy book with a little metaphoric history thrown in. For science I look to science. If one reads the bible literally, many, if not all science statements are dead wrong. If read metaphorically, they are astonishingly accurate. As far as demons go, there has never been any proof of their existence, only proof of hoaxes.

You asked, <font color="0000ff">“Are you telling me then that Jesus never healed people?”</font> No, I never said that at all, I said just the opposite. Jesus healed a few because they had faith. But it was not their faith that healed them. Jesus is not physically present now, so we must use science to help healing. No human has the ability to place their hand on us and heal. Those who say they have that power are the flim-flam artists and hucksters.

When responding to my response in Matt 8:31 you said, <font color="0000ff">“First of all, I think you need to be clear. Satan is the devil. What went into the pigs were not devils but demons.”</font> Well exactly what does the word “devil” my KJV mean in Matt 8:31? “So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.”

You commented to me by saying, <font color="0000ff">“you suggested that Jesus just send them away. Well that sounds nice, let them go and possess some other person.”</font> Well, you said they these demons/devils or whatever didn’t drown, so what was the point of causing the pigs to drown. No point at all. If they couldn’t drown, he may as well have just sent them away.

You commented, <font color="0000ff">“… regarding drowing, if you actually read the text, it says that the pigs drowned, not the demons. …Again please don't say devils. It's demons. Demons don't drown, they occupy places of water, or living beings.”</font> Well my kjv says “devil”, but either way, there was no need to place them in the pigs, and then send the pigs to drown. This would have been mean spirited and costly to the farmers who lost their livestock. Could he do it? Sure, but other than making the local farmers angry, what possible purpose would that serve? I believe this is one of those embellishments in the scripture. Jesus healed these pour folks and for whatever reason, maybe they somehow spooked the pigs, and the pigs ran over the cliff in a panic. The local farmers got angry with Jesus for causing a commotion which probably scared their pigs. With the superstitious thinking, the stories became embellished.

You said, <font color="0000ff">“I could go on to address the other points you were making, but I think that it comes down to whether you believe the verses are corrupted or they reflect what truly happened.”</font> True, I read the scripture with some common sense. The potential for corruption started the moment humans put it down on paper. Read it literally and one will eventually get themselves in a corner they can’t back out of. Read it metaphorically and the stories can always be alive.

[angie0401]

ba2,
I just had to comment on this:

<font color="ff0000">Luke 4:40:“Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.”</font>
Divers disease is what we now know as decompression sickness, also called the bends, is caused by nitrogen bubbles forming in the blood stream and tissues of the body.

I think you are confused. The word "divers" doesn't have anything to do with someone who goes diving - it means "diverse, many different kinds, etc":

Strong's 4164
poikilos (poy-kee'-los)
1) a various colours, variegated
2) of various sorts

[still_small_voice]

Yes, I was wondering if there was an epidemic of "diving disease" at the time. As we all know scuba diving was a popular and common recreational activity in the 1st century.

[still_small_voice]

YLT: And at the setting of the sun, all, as many as had any ailing with <u>manifold sicknesses</u>, brought them unto him, and he on each one of them his hands having put, did heal them.

(YLT=very accurate translation)

NASB: While the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with <u>various diseases</u> brought them to Him; and laying His hands on each one of them, He was healing them.

[yaakov2]

<font color="119911">In Matt 8:31 we have the same sort of thing. Jesus supposedly removing the devils from some humans and placing those devils into a heard of pigs. Then chasing the pigs over the cliffs to die. This is absurd thinking. Why would Jesus kill off the livestock of some farmers? If this is literally correct, then it can be considered evidence of a defective moral character of Jesus.</font>

<font color="0000ff">Secondly, Jesus is God. He can do what He wants with pigs or any other animal.</font>

Someone once told me this story about jesus stealing the pigs, and I thought no way could that be right. Christians are always saying their guy didn’t commit any sins. Now I see that the story is true, he really did steal those pigs.

I find it interesting that the defense isn’t that the pigs were a metaphor for something else, but that jesus can do whatever he wants to do, sin or not.

[ba2]

The origins and development of Hyperbaric Medicine are closely tied to the history of diving medicine. The actual origins of diving are not known, however it was recognized as a distinct occupation as far back as 4500 BC. Sponge diving has been an industry in the Mediterranean for thousands of years with references to the “divers disease”. So, as silly as it sounds, it certainly could have been diving that was referred to when they spoke of “divers disease.” I personally had no reason to question that interpretation. But, since I don’t think much of this is literal anyway, why not change the meaning of the English text in the KJV to something else. We know the English authors of the KJV did just that in a number of instances and sometimes you could figure out the political reason for the change. But I wonder what reason they would write in English “divers disease” instead of just saying something like “various disease?” I agree, there are a number of better translations than the kjv, but my church pretty much idolized the kjv, so I mostly use that version.

yaakov made an excellent point. Strange that the defense isn’t that the pigs were a metaphor for something else. That certainly would have put Jesus in a better light.

[angie0401]

But I wonder what reason they would write in English “divers disease” instead of just saying something like “various disease?”
Maybe because it wasn't translated in modern English and in the time it was translated, divers meant the same to them as various does to us???
I gave the Greek word - poikilos (poy-kee'-los) - which has absolutely nothing to do with diving. It means various.

[still_small_voice]

“divers disease”

In Ye Olde English 'divers' is equal to 'diverse'... at some point an 'e' was added in our modern tongue, that is all.

diverse means 'various' or 'many different', no complication at all in this verse.

[ba2]

After a little research, I think many of you are correct about the word "divers" but let me divest a little.

The origins and development of Hyperbaric Medicine are closely tied to the history of diving medicine. The actual origins of diving are not known, however it was recognized as a distinct occupation as far back as 4500 BC. Sponge diving has been an industry in the Mediterranean for thousands of years with references to the “divers disease”. So, as silly as it sounds, it certainly could have been diving that was referred to when they spoke of “divers disease.” I personally had no reason to question that interpretation. But, since I don’t think much of this is literal anyway, why not change the meaning of the English text in the KJV to something else. We know the English authors of the KJV did just that in a number of instances and sometimes you could figure out the political reason for the change. But I wonder what reason they would write in English “divers disease” instead of just saying something like “various disease?” I agree, there are a number of better translations than the kjv, but my church pretty much idolized the kjv, so I mostly use that version. I would say that the kjv advocates should be demanding a newer version to more properly fit into today’s language, just as was suggested in the margin notes by the original translators, who themselves never thought of their translation as being inspired.

angie,
I did research the word “diver” and its usage in Middle English and found it is from the Latin “diuersum” which can be somewhat defined in Modern English as, opposite; separate, apart; diverse, unlike, different; or hostile. So angie, you are pretty much correct.

yaakov made an excellent point. Strange that the defense isn’t that the pigs were a metaphor for something else. That certainly would have put Jesus in a better light.

[watchman_2]

The sons of God are those that God divinely wrought. Includes the angels, Adam and Eve, and Christ..see Bullinger's explanation in Appendix 23 of the Companion Bible.

www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBranch/list.html (http://www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBranch/list.html)

[fatherofaking]

Ge 10:8
And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

this seems to be the return of the giants.

the kenites emerge as being related to nimrod through cham.

they are in some cases seprated from the giants when named.


Ge 15:19
The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
Ge 15:20
And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
Ge 15:21
And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girga****es, and the Jebusites.


apr Rapha' (raw-faw'); Proper Name, Strong #: 7497


giants, Rephaim
old tribe of giants

then there is balaam's prophecy for amelak and the kenites.

Nu 24:20
And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable, and said, Amalek was the first of the nations; but his latter end shall be that he perish for ever.
Nu 24:21
And he looked on the Kenites, and took up his parable, and said, Strong is thy dwellingplace, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock.
Nu 24:22
Nevertheless the Kenite shall be wasted, until Asshur shall carry thee away captive.

i would also like to piont out the difference between kenite and cain.

kenite means copper worker.
cain means metal worker.

although i think that all of these people have something in common i do not think it is because the kenites are cains offspring and survived the flood.

clearly there was a connection with cain but i do not believe it is physical.

i think that all flesh was destroyed in the flood.

what was not destroyed were two things.

1. satan and the fallen angels.

2. the knowledge that cain and the nephalim had.

this is how i believe that the legacy of the giants and cain lived on

[watchman_2]

fatherofaking,

You are clearly wrong about the Kenites. They are the offspring of Cain.

<font color="119911">H7017

kay-nee', kee-nee'
Patronymic from H7014; a Kenite or member of the tribe of Kajin: - Kenite.
</font>
Kajin is the Hebrew word for Cain.

The Kenites clearly survived the flood.

Also, the 6th day creation also survived the flood [Gen. 10:5].

These are really simple Biblical facts -- I really don't see why people struggle so much with them.

[fatherofaking]

Nu 24:21
And he looked on the Kenites, and took up his parable, and said, Strong is thy dwellingplace, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock.


ynyq Qeyniy (kay-nee'); Adjective, Strong #: 7017

Kenite = "smiths"
the tribe from which the father-in-law of Moses was a member and which lived in the area between southern Palestine and the mountains of Sinai


Nu 24:22
Nevertheless the Kenite shall be wasted, until Asshur shall carry thee away captive.

!yq Qayin (kah'-yin); , Strong #: 7014

n pr m Cain = "possession"
eldest son of Adam and Eve and the first murderer having murdered his brother Abel n pr gent Kenite = "smiths"


you see there are two ways in which this word is used.

the first is to describe a tribe of actual physical people.
the second uses the word in a different manner.

this is true in all instances that it is used.
pardon me for not posting them all.
i didn't see it as necessary.

such as calling somone who is born and raised in america a creatan.
you are not saying they are related by blood but rather by there behavior.
in this case it may have been belief as well.

i do not think it is terribly important to the point.
which as i see it is that someone carried on cain's legacy not posterity.
we know the fallen angels didn't die in the flood.
all you need from there is a willing human being.
i think cham qualified.

[ezekiel_37]

Moses was an ADAMIC person, not a kenite, but his father did live among them.

This is quite easily provable if you care to know!

Now, you should be able yourself to trace the history of Moses, and you yourself can learn that Jethro and Moses were Levites and not Kenites.

Your concordance is flawed.

Peace in Christ
c

[oneway]

ezekiel_37,


You stated: "Your concordance is flawed.'


So which concordance isn't flawed then? I myself only have access to online concordances, so can you point out to an online concordance that is not flawed? I currently use the one at blueletterbible org. The one at blueletter comes up with the same meanings that the f man provided in Post Number: 1676

[fatherofaking]

hey ezekiel,
does watchman believe that moses was a kenite?

hey watchman,
do you believe that moses was a kenite?

[ezekiel_37]

one_way

if the concordance does not correctly identify Moses and Jethro as Levites, then it is flawed

I have heard that 'smiths' before and discount it. I know that Jethro lived among them, but was not one of them (he was a Levite).

As you can understand, the Hebrews who dwelt in Canaan before the Exodus lived among and with the non-hebrews. They followed their laws (unless God's law was contradictory), and many even married their daughters. The story of the patriarchs in Genesis should provide you with the proof. I love genesis.


But I degress....

Read Exodus 2

1 And there went a man of the house of Levi, and <font color="ff0000">took to wife a daughter of Levi.</font>

2 And the woman conceived, and bare a <font color="ff0000">son</font>: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months.

3 And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink.

4 And his sister stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him.

5 And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river; and her maidens walked along by the river's side; and when she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her maid to fetch it.

6 And when she had opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she had compassion on him, and said, <font color="ff0000">This is one of the Hebrews' children.</font>

7 Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter, Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the <font color="ff0000">Hebrew women</font>, that she may nurse the child for thee?

8 And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child's mother.

9 And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the women took the child, and nursed it.

10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. <font color="ff0000">And she called his name Moses</font>: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.

11 And it came to pass in those days, when <font color="ff0000">Moses</font> was grown, that he went out <font color="ff0000">unto his brethren</font>, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting <font color="ff0000">an Hebrew, one of his brethren. </font>

As for the concordance question, I use and trust Dr. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, which is also available on line. I believe there is/was a free downloadable copy from somewhere. I have reformatted my hard drive and no longer have the free downloadable on line version or the needed address for you....

however I am absolutely positive that some nice Shepherd's Chapel student could point you in the right direction. I believe that it was a non-SC member...godchild... that was actually the first one to promote the free Strong's concordance here in these circles.

I am sure that the Strong's for Kenite has been shown to you by now. If not, only ask and you shall receive.


fof

If I may speak for him....NO, watchman2 does not. Moses was Adamic, a Hebrew, of the tribe of Levi...as was his father Jethro. Easily provable.


Find Peace in Christ
c

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">HI Zeke and oneway,

Here is the link to the free download of e-sword:
http://www.e-sword.net/

Ezekiel is right. Moses was of the hebrew tribe Levi and Jethro was a descendent of Abraham and his second wife Keturah.


About Jethro:</font>
Gen 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
Gen 25:2 And she bore him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
Gen 25:3 And Jokshan begot Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.
Gen 25:4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.

<font color="0000ff">Jethro was a midianite priest:</font>
Exo 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.

<font color="0000ff">Midian in the Hebrew:</font>
<font color="119911">H4080
midyan
mid-yawn'
The same as H4079; Midjan, a son of Abraham; also his country and (collectively) his descendants: - Midian, Midianite.</font>

[ezekiel_37]

Thanks Ter