I have a different thought about Samuel. When he died Hades was divided in two parts. Paradise for the followers of God (their ransom had not yet been paid) and Hell for the rest. When Christ paid the ransom He went to Hades and remove those in Paradise and take them to heaven in His train. It also says that then Hell increased it's borders. Probably taking up all of Hades. Before the ransom was paid satan still had some control over the spirits of men so the witch may have had some power in the spiritual realm that is not available now. Just a thought.
Giants in Genesis 6
Sort:
wsswan wrote:
I have a different thought about Samuel. When he died Hades was divided in two parts. Paradise for the followers of God (their ransom had not yet been paid) and Hell for the rest. When Christ paid the ransom He went to Hades and remove those in Paradise and take them to heaven in His train. It also says that then Hell increased it's borders. Probably taking up all of Hades. Before the ransom was paid satan still had some control over the spirits of men so the witch may have had some power in the spiritual realm that is not available now. Just a thought.
What is the Biblical evidence for these views? I do accept an Intermediate State prior to Jesus’ return.
Aug 13, 2020
0
#104
The Rich Man and Lazarus
Luke 16:19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Luke23"38 There was a written notice above him, which read: this is the king of the jews.
39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”
43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
Oh hey Steve 
Hey!👋😀
When teaching controversial passages like Genesis 6:1-4, I recommend that we first teach people the options, then either leave the question open or explain why we support a particular view. There are 3 main interpretations for the "sons of God":
(1) Angels: They are godlike, non-human, spirit beings (e.g., angels, demons, etc.). Fallen angels is the most common suggestion in this category.
(2) Royal: They are superior men like kings or rulers.
(3) Sethite: They are godly men, the descendents of Seth. This view has the least supporters.
The angel interpretation has the most supporters and is also the view that was accepted by the early apostolic church and church fathers. The book of Jude also supports this interpretation as does the non-canonical book of 1 Enoch (which was canonical at one time and which Jude directly quotes from in v. 14-15 and uses in support of his arguments).
Usually, the only arguments given against this view are modern objections based on DNA, genetics, and such. These objections raise valid questions, but they can also be raised (and have been) with the virgin birth as well. I also see no way to answer these objections (just as I have no way to explain the virgin conception w/o appealing to the spiritual, supernatural realm).
However, even for sake of argument if we accept these objections, I still don't see how that would change the weight of the evidence with regard to the interpretation. That is, even given these objections, that still would not change the fact that "sons of God" is still most likely a reference to fallen angels. This interpretation is still the oldest, longest-running interpretation that most commentators support and that the early church and church fathers adopted and believed.
Nov 18, 2020
0
#109
Before the flood.
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. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
After the flood.
We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
Looks like we need some more thoughts on this subject.
Nov 18, 2020
0
#110
tbwp10 wrote:
When teaching controversial passages like Genesis 6:1-4, I recommend that we first teach people the options, then either leave the question open or explain why we support a particular view. There are 3 main interpretations for the "sons of God":
(1) Angels: They are godlike, non-human, spirit beings (e.g., angels, demons, etc.). Fallen angels is the most common suggestion in this category.
(2) Royal: They are superior men like kings or rulers.
(3) Sethite: They are godly men, the descendents of Seth. This view has the least supporters.
The angel interpretation has the most supporters and is also the view that was accepted by the early apostolic church and church fathers. The book of Jude also supports this interpretation as does the non-canonical book of 1 Enoch (which was canonical at one time and which Jude directly quotes from in v. 14-15 and uses in support of his arguments).
Usually, the only arguments given against this view are modern objections based on DNA, genetics, and such. These objections raise valid questions, but they can also be raised (and have been) with the virgin birth as well. I also see no way to answer these objections (just as I have no way to explain the virgin conception w/o appealing to the spiritual, supernatural realm).
However, even for sake of argument if we accept these objections, I still don't see how that would change the weight of the evidence with regard to the interpretation. That is, even given these objections, that still would not change the fact that "sons of God" is still most likely a reference to fallen angels. This interpretation is still the oldest, longest-running interpretation that most commentators support and that the early church and church fathers adopted and believed.
I agree with what you said here... what is your source for your comments about the early church belief about this?
Nov 18, 2020
0
#111
By the way, Ham is in the “godly line of Seth”. Why does the “godly line of Seth” end at the flood? It was his descendants on the ark? The “godly line of Seth” appears nowhere but commentaries, it’s not in Scripture.
We all would acknowledgment that there is no such thing as a “godly line” when we are talking about the Jews beliefs about themselves and read about the repudiation of the idea of a “godly line” in John 1, but somehow we need a “godly line of Seth” to explain Genesis 6.
The book of Jude itself, for one. Don't recall off-hand the specific references for the 2nd-3rd century church fathers. Would have to look that up. But I imagine any good commentary would provide a summary of references. Let me see what I can find.
Here's a good summary. This is from the Word commentary on Genesis by Gordon Wenham.
Kjvav wrote:
By the way, Ham is in the “godly line of Seth”. Why does the “godly line of Seth” end at the flood? It was his descendants on the ark? The “godly line of Seth” appears nowhere but commentaries, it’s not in Scripture.
We all would acknowledgment that there is no such thing as a “godly line” when we are talking about the Jews beliefs about themselves and read about the repudiation of the idea of a “godly line” in John 1, but somehow we need a “godly line of Seth” to explain Genesis 6.
Not sure I follow. If you're speaking in reference to interpretation (3) Sethite, well that's simply one of the three main interpretations that people have suggested when trying to identify who the "sons of God" are. To be precise, it's not the "godly line of Seth," but "godly men" in the line of Seth, as opposed to godless men descended from Cain. The "godly" part comes from "God" in the "sons of God," and the connection with the line of Seth comes from this being the chosen line leading to Noah and eventually the elect nation of Israel which in turn is called God's son in other OT passages. That's the argument at least, but I don't buy it and, in fact, few do.
Nov 18, 2020
0
#115
I mention the “godly line of Seth” because that is what I’ve often heard in attempts to explain away the giants.
OK, got it. Thanks for clarifying. Well, whoever you heard that from those people seem to be confused about the actual claim, because it was never a "godly line of Seth," but godly men IN the line of Seth (and there are variations; some argue that it's the descendents of Cain and the "sons of God" are thus wicked). I don't buy either, and I agree with you that the confused view that mistakenly renders "godly men in the line" as "godly line of Seth" doesn't make sense either and is even worse, lol.
As far as the "giants"/Nephilim, well, that's a whole 'nother issue for another day with it's own set of different interpretations.
Nov 18, 2020
0
#117
Before the flood.
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. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
After the flood.
We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
Looks like we need some more thoughts on this subject.
wsswan wrote:
Before the flood.
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. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
After the flood.
We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
Looks like we need some more thoughts on this subject.
@Kjvav and I were only discussing who the "sons of God" are in Genesis 6. We hadn't got to the Nephilim yet, lol.
As far as the "sons of God," kjvav and I both agree that fallen angels is the most likely interpretation, and, in fact, is the interpretation supported by 2 Peter and Jude.
What are your thoughts? Agree? Disagree?
Nov 18, 2020
0
#119
There are a lot of things I don't know. This is one of those things. I have several theories but none of them have convinced me 100%. Jude 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. This seems to put fallen angels in chains leaving only nonfallen angels to breed if indeed angels (spiritual beings) can breed with humans (spiritual and physical beings). So in short I don't know.
Spiritual beings are not merely physical beings in another dimension. While they do sometimes appear in physical form (whether on their own volition or by an act of God we are not told), that is not the norm. When Christ became human, it wasn't just a case of appearing in a different dimension from normal; it was an unprecedented miracle.
As for Saul, Samuel, and the witch at Endor, it's pretty clear that God brought Samuel back, and that the witch was not actually expecting this to happen. Samuel was actually physically present.