Conquer Club

The Book of Genesis
Old Testament

God had children? And they were giants? They took human wives, and their children became supermen??? Is this supposed to mean exactly what it is saying? I am confused.

Dinasaurs.

Juan_Bottom wrote:The Book of Genesis
Old Testament

God had children? And they were giants? They took human wives, and their children became supermen??? Is this supposed to mean exactly what it is saying? I am confused.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but it is my understanding that the giants were fallen angels.

Juan_Bottom wrote:The Book of Genesis
Old Testament

God had children? And they were giants? They took human wives, and their children became supermen??? Is this supposed to mean exactly what it is saying? I am confused.

Not necessarily God, could be god or gods. Elohim translates plurally as well as singularly.

This is one of my favorite sources that deals with this subject.

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

very informative.

jay_a2j wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:The Book of Genesis
Old Testament

God had children? And they were giants? They took human wives, and their children became supermen??? Is this supposed to mean exactly what it is saying? I am confused.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but it is my understanding that the giants were fallen angels.

No, that's not what the Bible says. The Bible says that the sons of God took the daughters of man and they gave birth to the heroes of old, the giants.

demonfork wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:The Book of Genesis
Old Testament

God had children? And they were giants? They took human wives, and their children became supermen??? Is this supposed to mean exactly what it is saying? I am confused.

Not necessarily God, could be god or gods. Elohim translates plurally as well as singularly.

This is one of my favorite sources that deals with this subject.

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

very informative.

It is definitely interesting, but an interpretation with which most Christians would take issue. It is certainly possible that this is a case of "most Christians" misunderstanding, putting our own understanding upon this. (sort of what the articles you cite infer)

However, I believe the more standard interpretation is that this refers to something like angels, though not, as Jay says "fallen angels".

Myself -- I leave this in the realm of "its not a scientific text", its not central to the theology, the faith and eventually, the real truth will be known. For now, since it is not central, while it should not be completely ignored, it can remain a "puzzle".

Wish BK Barunt were here to comment. I am sure he would have some interesting information to add.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

demonfork wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:The Book of Genesis
Old Testament

God had children? And they were giants? They took human wives, and their children became supermen??? Is this supposed to mean exactly what it is saying? I am confused.

Not necessarily God, could be god or gods. Elohim translates plurally as well as singularly.

This is one of my favorite sources that deals with this subject.

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

very informative.

It is definitely interesting, but an interpretation with which most Christians would take issue. It is certainly possible that this is a case of "most Christians" misunderstanding, putting our own understanding upon this. (sort of what the articles you cite infer)

However, I believe the more standard interpretation is that this refers to something like angels, though not, as Jay says "fallen angels".

Myself -- I leave this in the realm of "its not a scientific text", its not central to the theology, the faith and eventually, the real truth will be known. For now, since it is not central, while it should not be completely ignored, it can remain a "puzzle".

Wish BK Barunt were here to comment. I am sure he would have some interesting information to add.

Most "Christians" are severely mislead.

demonfork wrote:Most "Christians" are severely mislead.

Could be. I still find more in my faith than any other.

Anyway, I appreciate the post. I don't agree, but I do find the perspective interesting and worth thinking about. I am not one who limits my reading to things with which I agree. I find it limits my learning too much.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

demonfork wrote:Most "Christians" are severely mislead.

Could be. I still find more in my faith than any other.

Anyway, I appreciate the post. I don't agree, but I do find the perspective interesting and worth thinking about. I am not one who limits my reading to things with which I agree. I find it limits my learning too much.

Don't agree with the statement about Christians or about the gods?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:The Book of Genesis
Old Testament

God had children? And they were giants? They took human wives, and their children became supermen??? Is this supposed to mean exactly what it is saying? I am confused.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but it is my understanding that the giants were fallen angels.

No, that's not what the Bible says. The Bible says that the sons of God took the daughters of man and they gave birth to the heroes of old, the giants.

Yes, it does. But what does it mean?


Expanation of "the giants".


This is not the only time I have heard this teaching. But it really gets into who these giants are starting at the 6 minute point in the video.

The Creation, by N. Dread

First god set out to create everything, but in the middle of it he got bored and said "ah, screw this crap, I'm going to have a divine beer and watch ganesha's and allah's kickboxing match" so the universe was left a bit unfinished. Thus we live in such a crappy world full of idiots and everyone is unhappy.

the end

I knew you were a btard. That is the only explanation of the Boxxy.

jay_a2j wrote:
Expanation of "the giants".

I'm having a hard time waiting for this vid but it's buffering.


This thread skyrocketed, didn't it?

Then the trolls invade the thread.


We really need an option to be able to click an option on a post as "spam" and it would not be seen by anyone who clicks "spam" button. Yeah I know we have the "block user" in out profile but we need something quicker and that just pertains to specific posts. (Youtube has this option)

demonfork wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

demonfork wrote:Most "Christians" are severely mislead.

Could be. I still find more in my faith than any other.

Anyway, I appreciate the post. I don't agree, but I do find the perspective interesting and worth thinking about. I am not one who limits my reading to things with which I agree. I find it limits my learning too much.

Don't agree with the statement about Christians or about the gods?

I don't agree with the positions put forward in the articles you cited, at least not entirely. However, I admit I cannot necessarily refute them on my own. It is more that what he says goes against sources I trust. Also, just the fact that he is not taking a particularly Christian (or Jewish) view is enough to give me pause on such an issue.

its a mistranslation

the original meaning of the verse was speaking of men who were faithful to God. "sons of God" means followers of God. daughters of men is speaking of people not faithful to God.

its quite simple but certain people want to create this thing about aliens or half man/ half demon nonsense

jay_a2j wrote:Then the trolls invade the thread.


We really need an option to be able to click an option on a post as "spam" and it would not be seen by anyone who clicks "spam" button. Yeah I know we have the "block user" in out profile but we need something quicker and that just pertains to specific posts. (Youtube has this option)

Jay, your posts would get bombarded. Seriously. Not just new posts, some vindictive sod would go through old threads marking all your posts.

The book of Enoch has some very interesting reading about this exact topic. There is a lenghty intro, followed by the text with commentary starting on page 40. Page 42 which is Section II Chapter 6 is particularly interesting.

http://christianelibrary.googlepages.co ... _enoch.pdf

demonfork wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:The Book of Genesis
Old Testament

God had children? And they were giants? They took human wives, and their children became supermen??? Is this supposed to mean exactly what it is saying? I am confused.

Not necessarily God, could be god or gods. Elohim translates plurally as well as singularly.

This is one of my favorite sources that deals with this subject.

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

very informative.

Interestingly Elohim is also a possible feminine when used in later P tradition texts and midrashs but not in the earlier EP tradition. However it not relevant here as the bit your looking at is almost certainly from the J source, or Yahwehist source, which use the Yahweh as the name for God. The J source is hallmarked by use of anthropomorphic myth and God's direct personal communication to the human, "God walked in the garden" and that kind of thing. Where as the P (priestly) source is much higher, me centered on power, creation and the covenant between the Ancient Israelites and God. The Source criticism of the old testament is called the "documentary hypothesis" and the New Testament; "The synoptic problem" Useful introductions can be found in "Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel" J Wellhausen and Mark Goodacres "The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze"
Don't read Wikipedia on the subject as it claims SO much more surety than is remotely possible to know.

F

ser stiefel wrote:The book of Enoch has some very interesting reading about this exact topic. There is a lenghty intro, followed by the text with commentary starting on page 40. Page 42 which is Section II Chapter 6 is particularly interesting.

http://christianelibrary.googlepages.co ... _enoch.pdf

Also, here is an HTML version of Enoch (and some other stuff too)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/

gannable wrote:its a mistranslation

the original meaning of the verse was speaking of men who were faithful to God. "sons of God" means followers of God. daughters of men is speaking of people not faithful to God.

its quite simple but certain people want to create this thing about aliens or half man/ half demon nonsense

The problem with this idea is the specific reference to "heroes of old" and "giants". That said, I tend to think the references are often misrepresented.

Juan_Bottom wrote:The Book of Genesis
Old Testament

God had children? And they were giants? They took human wives, and their children became supermen??? Is this supposed to mean exactly what it is saying? I am confused.

well, #1 , you are having a hard time with genesis, not the entire bible, and at that, the very beginning of Genesis. #2 as you atheists know, there is no god anyways......so I don't see why you are confused, and I am certain you are just an anti-christian

Phatscotty wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:The Book of Genesis
Old Testament

God had children? And they were giants? They took human wives, and their children became supermen??? Is this supposed to mean exactly what it is saying? I am confused.

well, #1 , you are having a hard time with genesis, not the entire bible, and at that, the very beginning of Genesis. #2 as you atheists know, there is no god anyways......so I don't see why you are confused, and I am certain you are just an anti-christian

He's interested in knowing how Christians feel about an odd passage in the Old Testament, so he's anti-Christian?

Frigidus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:The Book of Genesis
Old Testament

God had children? And they were giants? They took human wives, and their children became supermen??? Is this supposed to mean exactly what it is saying? I am confused.

well, #1 , you are having a hard time with genesis, not the entire bible, and at that, the very beginning of Genesis. #2 as you atheists know, there is no god anyways......so I don't see why you are confused, and I am certain you are just an anti-christian

He's interested in knowing how Christians feel about an odd passage in the Old Testament, so he's anti-Christian?

well, 3# this isnt the first time ive heard juan degrade christianity and I don't believe it's genuine. #4 hes pointing out the oldest shit that the "ancients" passed down, which is also always the first things anti-christians point to. The simple fact that he TITLES "the bible" and the real topic matter is page 1 of Genesis, or 1 of over at least 1,300 pages tells me his intentions. I dont pussy foot and call them as I see them. For the record I'm not the biggest believer by any means, Yet am able to recognize a venomous assault on a religeon that millions of people depend on just to get thru the day, not to mention dealing with death

Aradhus wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Then the trolls invade the thread.


We really need an option to be able to click an option on a post as "spam" and it would not be seen by anyone who clicks "spam" button. Yeah I know we have the "block user" in out profile but we need something quicker and that just pertains to specific posts. (Youtube has this option)

Jay, your posts would get bombarded. Seriously. Not just new posts, some vindictive sod would go through old threads marking all your posts.

Do you think I would care if a person marks my posts as spam so that HE/SHE can't see it? Anyone who doesn't mark it as spam can still read it. You have someone here asking a question and then some half-wits come in and post, nothing to add to the discussion, they just want to slam the topic he brought up. SPAM.