 |
| Sons of God - the godly line of Seth? |
 |
| Daughters of men - the ungodly line of Cain? |
God has His elect people in BOTH the genealogical lines
represented by Seth and Cain.
Adam had many other sons (and daughters) Gen 5:4.
Which line does each of those sons represent?
Adam had many other sons (and daughters) Gen 5:4.
Which line does each of those sons represent?
Seth's line is called the 'godly' ONLY in the sense
that it was in that line that the promised Messiah,
that it was in that line that the promised Messiah,
the seed of the woman, would come.
It DOES NOT mean that all of that line are godly.
That's just pure fiction! A fable.
"The uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation have been that verse Genesis 6:2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain, and so the failure of the testimony to Jehovah committed to the line of Seth Genesis 4:26."
- C. I. Scofield Reference Study Bible notes. July 9 at 5:25am
Charles
"This is what most everybody believes" However I don't attempt to believe what everybody believes. Most everybody can be wrong!
Several problems exist in this. It is a denial of the original sin of Adam. There was a breakdown before this! Both Seth and Cain are part of the sinful Adamic race. Not just Cain.
It implies that godly men related genuinely to God are that way by choice. Seth in NT meaning is regenerate and Cain is unregenerate and that by behavior. It is a denial of the election.
To say Cain is ungodly by behavior is implying he is ungodly because God has not chosen to regenerate him. To say Abel was regenerate and that Cain was unregenerate seems to be a slap in the face of God himself as well as an insult to Cain's parents. They instructed their sons in the means of worshipping God by precept and example I am certain.
If Cain was not elect and regenerate why the big fuss over the murder of Abel? If you are not part of the covenant what is the problem with killing your brother?
Sing F Lau
Charles, God has His elect people in EVERY "kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;"Adam had a lot more sons than Cain and Seth.
Re 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.
God has His elect people in BOTH the genealogical line represented by Seth and Cain. Seth's line is called the 'godly' ONLY in the sense that it was in that line that the promised Messiah, the seed of the woman would come. It DOES NOT mean that all of that line are godly. That's just pure fiction! A fable.
Sing F Lau
The 'sons of God' in Gen 6 are REMOTELY the godly Sethites. Supposing they were INDEED godly Sethites, godly men marry ungodly daughters of men WILL NEVER, CAN NEVER, HAS NEVER produced what is documented in Gen 6.Sons of God were NOT godly Sethites. And the puerile 'fallen angelic marriages' is a misleading term. The 'sons of God' are no mere fallen angels. Angels do not marry! Everyone knows that, even the idiots!
So get it right!!! Sons of God DO NOT EQUAL to fallen angels.
The sons of God WERE FALLEN ANGELS who "kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation"... i.e. FALLEN angels who left their own first, native habitation, in the SPIRIT REALM, and TRESPASSED into the HUMAN REALM (i.e. taking upon themselves humanity, AND THEN multiplied themselves with the finest daughters of men, the female offspring of men, NOT the women of the ungodly line, with the horrendous result recorded in Gen 6. Nothing else is an adequate explanation of the plain facts stated in Gen 6.
It was Satan's serious attempt to circumvent the appearance of the Seed of the woman, the One appointed of God to CRUSH Satan head!!! Had God not spared Noah...the whole human race would have been destroyed... then there would have been no redemption. Satan would have triumphed.
But divine grace triumphed, and reigns supreme!
Charles
Sing, Is it possible that the original meaning of Gen 6:1-4 has been lost to us today? It seems there is a clear meaning held by the apostolic authors but a lot of muddy interpretations veil our understanding.
Sing F Lau
The common and popular idea is that of 'mixed marriage' between the godly Sethites and the ungodly Cainites. This is the most atrocious example of anachronism in biblical interpretation. The mixed marriage was a MUCH MUCH later issue imported into Gen 6. And they think that naive and simplistic and anachronistic view is able to explain what actually happened!
Charles
Politically motivated anachronism!Sing, I am personally struggling with this racial purity concept and it is a painful struggle. Breaking free from entanglements. Experientially God is providentially leading me in this process. Christ Himself suffered through this struggle with the Jewish perplexities. "How am I straightened till it be accomplished"
I see the election of God so real in the faces of the young black kids (not all of them are black but the majority are) I work with. They are so precious and I am joined with them in their struggle and such unfair treatment, subtle mistreatment. I am coming to loathe Amerikanism and what it represents. Yesterday the church's security came out to check on me. He is black and a deputy sheriff who doubles as a security officer over the church's security staff. I have beat them at their city code enforcement and he came out to question the wording of my protest sign "pickles have souls" I let my loathsomeness lose on him. A deputy sheriff trying to be a theologian as though it was his job to correct me theologically. Can you imagine??? I said you stick to code enforcement and leave the theology to others. He said I needed to be locked up in a psyche ward and not free to roam the streets.
Our youth faces this law enforcement daily on the streets even from their own black cops.
Charles
White Europeans just have things out of place. Like oranges being on the table in the Last Supper painting!!!Seems many shy away from calling Cain regenerate choosing to think of him as "not a child of God"! They are afraid of this. Why? Isn't it just as risky or maybe even destructive to label him unregenerate, non-elect and Godless? God don't own children who do bad things, no, no!!!
Charles
"God has His elect people in EVERY "kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;"Re 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to Go...d by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.
God has His elect people in BOTH the genealogical line represented by Seth and Cain. Seth's line is called the 'godly' ONLY in the sense that it was in that line that the promised Messiah, the seed of the woman would come." - Sing F Lau
Sing F Lau
The simple fact is - there is very little 'godliness' recorded in the so-called 'godly' line of Seth.
Charles
Indeed, how were David and Solomon different from the 'sons of God' in Gen 6:2. For that matter how am I different!!!Sing F Lau
'Sons of God" CAN'T possibly be godly Sethites.
Godly men simply don't marry ungodly women... men who do marry ungodly women wouldn't be called 'sons of God' in the Scriptures. Scriptures is consistent, men are not.
Charles
Did David and Solomon marry godly women?Sing F Lau
Gen 6 is not about individual men... it is speaking of men collectively.
Collectively speaking, 'sons of God' (supposing the term refers to godly men) can't possibly be marrying 'ungodly women.' That's just contradiction of terms.
Pj Walt
I think it was godly sons from BOTH lineages marrying ungodly women from both lines!
Sing F Lau
It doesn't say godly sons of men marrying the ungodly daughters of men.It says, "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
The idea of 'godly' and 'ungodly' is read into the text.
Look at the text:
6:1 ¶ And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
If you insist that 'daughters of men' refer to ungodly women, then you are saying that verse 1 is speaking of ungodly men multiplying and producing ungodly women.
But verse 1 is PLAINLY a general statement of the human race multiplying as per God's command to them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
Pj Walt
I meant (and should have said!) regenerates marrying unregenerates!
Sing F Lau
The change does not help one iota! Instead MORE problems.Regenerates include BOTH MEN and WOMEN.
Now, your regenerates are completely men , and the unregenerates are completely women!
And you believe that the regenerate men marrying unregenerate women can produce such devastating consequences.... thousands of years (after the flood) of godless UN-regenerate marrying godless UN-regenerate has produced NOTHING close to what we read in Gen 6!
So the idea that the regenerate marrying the unregenerate can produce such effects is just PURE fiction!
Pj Walt
You are missing the point I'm getting at.The regenerates went after the unregenerates, and this yielded much wanton wickedness as every man went after the lusts of his own heart because mixing with those who knew not God facilitated wickedness even further. (All, except for Noah, followed this pattern.)
The flood stands as a testimony that God will reserve the ungodly unto destruction, but will deliver the godly from it.
Sing F Lau
You are the one missing the point...It is all a fictional imagination: calling some men with lofty title "sons of God"... and then these 'sons of God' go a whoring after the ungodly women... these "sons of God" went after the lusts of their own hearts.
And it is biblical testimony that a believing partner always has a 'sanctifying' influence upon the unbelieving spouse and children. Read 1Cor 7:14... your notion (...with those who knew not God facilitated wickedness even further) is a fiction contrary to Scriptures. Haven't I said that even the union of UN-regenerates with UN-regenerates for the last thousands of years was INCAPABLE of producing the devastating effects we read in Gen 6... and you still go blah blah blah with the fable!
Why are people so oblivious to the direct hand of Satan in Gen 6???
You are quite mistaken about Noah. Noah was no exception. Noah was included in the description in Gen 6:5-7. BUT... BUT ... BUT ... God showed grace to him. Had God not shown grace to Noah, he would have been swept away by destruction too. It is the divine grace triumphing over Satan's effort to prevent the Seed of the Woman from appearing!
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 ¶ And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 ¶ But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Charles
I found this interesting footnote: "John Gill notes that the Targum of Jonathan calls two of these angels by name: Schanchazai and Uziel. According to James Boice, the book of Enoch has much to say about (what it thinks is) God’s judgment ...upon fallen angels (James M. Boice, Genesis Vol. 1, pg. 308). Boice also wonders aloud how Jude 6 is not echoing the book of Enoch. His treatment in Genesis 6:14 is worth reading, since few Reformed people are willing to even consider this view as an option. http://rbcnc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Giants.pdf
