KFC Kickin For Christ KFC Kickin For Christ

The Very First Lady-Eve

▼

The Very First Lady-Eve

A Marriage Made In Paradise

from JoeUser Forums

Last weekend I was asked to speak at a woman's luncheon for Mother's Day.  When I inquired as to what they wished for a subject matter they left it up to me.  So I thought about it for a day or so.  Then I came up with Eve.  Why not?  Afterall she was the mother of us all.  Since I've never heard a Mother's Day Sermon on this topic I decided I'd tackle it myself.   

Woman are important to God and He makes that very clear thru His written Word.  Even so, the message gets clouded by the cultures.  In the Eastern culture we know that women are surpressed.  In the Western culture women are aggressive and domineering more than ever.  During the days of Christ the Jews kept their women as subservient.  I heard that that it's written about the Torah that it would be better to burn it than to teach it to women! 

But what does the bible say about woman's role in society?  What is their purpose?  Jesus did much to elevate women during His time on earth and they loved Him.  It was to a woman He first announced He was the Messiah.  It was to women He first revealed Himself as risen from the dead.  He delivered at least one woman from unjust justice. 

Women were used mightily by God.  I think of Rahab who God used to save two spies facing sure death as a result if caught.  I think of Miriam who was a prophetess and ministered alongside her brother Moses.  Deborah was a judge and leader who was chosen to deliver God's people during the terrible days of the Judges.  Esther helped save her people, the Jews, from sure extermination and Lydia was a business woman who was instrumental in starting a first century church out of her home. 

So we come to Eve.  We know very little of this first lady.  We do know she was God's final creative work in the first week.  She was also a companion for Adam.  But there's more. 

Everything started out well in the garden although it didn't end that way thanks to Eve and her husband.  Eve led her husband into direct violation of God's revealed will to them.  So they were banished from Paradise.  She is a very human portraid of falling into sin but also of picking up the faith afterwards. 

She was created for a unique role in creation.  She was to minister to Adam and with Adam being his help-mate.  She was designed to complete him as well as assist him.  We read this in Genesis 1:26-28:

"And God said Let us make man in our image after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.  So God created man in his own image in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.  And God blessed them and God said 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 moves upon the earth." 

Did you see the word "them?"  This was for both of them. A job for two.  These things were too great for them to do alone.  We see a few things about God's purposes for mankind here. 

1.  To be like Him; to reflect God's image in creation.  It took both of them to do this.  We think of God as a He and that pronoun is used but it takes both man and woman to accurately reflect God's image.  We think of God as mighty, powerful, just, logical, strong, etc. but He's also depicted in scripture as loving, tenderhearted, merciful, gracious etc.  We see both male and female characteristics in Him. 

2.  They were to rule over creation.  They were given authority over all the earth.  Together.

3.  They were to reproduce; be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.  Together.

So zooming in on Eve let's look at why she was created.  What is her purpose for being created?  Gen 2:18-22:

"And the Lord said It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper for him.  And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them and whatsoever Adam called every living creature that was the name.  And Adam gave names to all cattle and to the fowl of the air and to every beast of the field but for Adam there was not found a helper for him.  And the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept and he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh.  And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman and brought her to the man." 

1.  Adam was not complete by himself.

2.  It was not good.  Even in Paradise something was not good.  Seven times, it was mentioned in the first chapter after God created, God said that "it was good" until we get here to 2:18 which says "it was not good." 

3.  Man was completed with need.  He was created incomplete.  He was made complete with Eve. 

4.  She was to be a helper suitable for him. 

Looking a bit further we can see some principles for the marriage relationship right here that brought this first couple together in Holy Matrimony. 

Genesis 2:23-24

"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.  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh."

We see that God brought Eve to Adam.  It wasn't Adam's job to find a mate which makes me wonder looking around today at all the broken marriages.  How many consulted God in the choosing of their mate?   What would it have been like if they did?  God know more than we do so why don't we ask Him first?  

Unlike the animals she was like him.  She was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.  She was perfect for him.  The relationship necessitated him to leave his mother and father.  Obviously this was meant for future generations because these two were a special first couple with no parents.  This marriage required cleaving and the Hebrew word implies "to be joined by commitment."   Marriage is a commitment not a feeling or an emotion.  We need to stick it out, stay together and work things out as much as possible with us. 

Marriage results in being one together.  This one flesh points to the physical body but in principle also includes all that a person is; mind, emotions, will etc.  One cares for the other as one would care for oneself. 

And marriage results in nakedness without shame.  They had no shame.  They were naked and it was good.  This, again, goes beyond the physical.  We need to be open and up front with each other.  There should be no hiding, no secrets from each other. 

So everything started out well.  Until Eve was tempted.  Then everything changed.  She entered into a discussion with a serpent.  Is it no wonder women and snakes don't get along today?  We'll start there next time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

religion
41,983 views 189 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top

Whisper2 posts:

What makes you think that you are so correct? What makes you think that Lulapilgrim is so wrong? .

kfc posts:

Because of the exposition of scripture. Quite often Lula goes to tradition. I don't. I stick to the clear meaning of the text and when in doubt go to another scripture that sheds light on a particular scripture.

 You talk, talk, talk but truth is you don't even follow your own prescriptions for interpretation..that is, other Scriptural passages  often shed light on the meaning of the one in question. To understand the correct meaning of Isaias 35:4, I prompted you to read the rest of chapter so that you might realize that like 9:5, and 7:14, Isaias 35 found fulfillment in Christ's First Coming.

KFC posts:

It is Elohim who would save. This whole passage is not about Jesus at all. It's about the God of the OT saving Israel.

Then your exposition of Scripture is incorrect. Sorry about that...take your own rules of interpretation and read the rest of Isaias 35....you'll find it prophesied Christ's miracles curing the blind, deaf and lame and even references Christ as the stream of living water and being the Way.

 

You insist

The "God" you're reading in 35:4 is Elohim. Not Jesus.

In Hebrew, Elohim is plural and you must have also missed the true and correct exposition of Isaias 9, in which " a child (foretold to be) born to US." He is therein prophesied to be who Jesus is, "Wonderful" the "Prince of Peace", the "Mighty God". 

Whisper2 posts:

Excuse me for interrupting this debate on what one passage means, but I would like to ask a question of both of you. Where did you find in scripture anything that states that the Elohim were God?

"And God said " Let us make man in our image after our likeness"

Now that's an interesting bit of scripture. Care to explain KFC, just who God was speaking to when God said "let US make man in OUR image after OUR likeness"?

Actually your questions fit perfectly here.

"Us" and "Our" certainly speak of a plurality. But how do we reconcile this with there being only one true Almighty God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

Catholics explain this by saying there is a plurality of persons in One God. We believe in but one God but that He functions as three distinct Persons, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. 

KFC answers your question saying

"In the beginning God" (Elohim) is the first occurrance.

And I agree. This brings us full circle...Elohim here means God and yet since it's plural, the Son and Holy Spirit is here"in the beginning" too.

Same thing with Isaias 35 KFC. Elohim translated from the Hebrew warrants the Catholic understanding that the God of Israel is a Triune God.

Elohim appears 32 times in Genesis. It warrants the conclusion that the plurality of Persons in God must have been in the mind of Moses as well as in the mind of Isaias 35.

You read Isaias 35 and insist it has nothing to do with Christ or His First Coming...I read Isaias and insist it does and have more than adequately made my point using mostly Scripture and just a little bit of Traditon (by explaining the Blessed Trinity)! ;)

 

 

Reply #77 from JoeUser Forums Top

The "God" you're reading in 35:4 is Elohim. Not Jesus.

Do you see what you're saying?

Yes, KFC, I do. When you insist the word Isaias used for God was Elohim made it all very clear. I didn't know that until you said it.

This is why I so enjoy talking Scripture with you. Sure we disagree but learn along the way. 

So that means everywhere we read of the first person of the Trinity in the OT it's also the second person of the Trinity?

Only when the word for God is used in the plural. That then would have to be our understanding because we Christians believe in the Blessed Trinity something very difficult to explain to non-Christians. So, yes, the plural declarations of God Himself in the OT does warrant belief in the Triune God...as the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.

For example, take Deuteronmy 6:4...There ADONAI is His name, Elohim or Elohenu is His plural existence and the singular is Eloah or El. 

 

 

Siege of Centauri
Reply #78 from JoeUser Forums Top

Dear KFC, God does not want our possessions.  God created the heavens and the earth and all inbetween, our paltry possessions are nothing compared to them.  What God wants is our total obedience and our total love and nothing before this, not our possessions or our need to care for our own lives.

It's true Jesus did not specifically say that a rich man could not enter heaven, he did say however, that it would be easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than it would be for a rich man to enter heaven.  Have you ever seen a camel do such a feat?  It is by no stretch of the imagination, possible.  If it is impossible for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle it is also impossible for a rich man to enter heaven.  I can't believe that all this is lost on you.  Surely you can see the comparison and understand it's meaning.

The only Elohim that I've seen mentioned are the "sons of God" in Genesis.  If they are God then please tell me why God commanded them to not go unto earthly women, and then God turns around and  break God's  own commandment.  That makes no sense what so ever.   However if there are other passages that say that God is the Elohim, please if you can, tell  me where to find them.

I question everything KFC, I take nothing on faith.  I make the effort find the answers for myself.  As Jesus said, ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened.  I've always taken that advice literally, and  have never been disappointed or left wondering.

Reply #80 from Stardock Forums Top

If it is impossible for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle it is also impossible for a rich man to enter heaven.

he's not talking about sewing needles Whisper as we know them today.    Here's a link to look at from a Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic lingquistic that may help you understand the passage a bit better especially take a close look at the aramaic.   It ends with this statement:

But the verdict is that even the rich, not only the rich, will find it impossible to save themselves – but with God all things are possible.

 even the camel going thru the eye of the needle is possible with God.  Remember what the rich young ruler asked?  What MUST I DO to be saved?  I think he thought his riches would help buy his way in somehow.   I think you're on the right track when you said it's impossible.  It is.  Man CANNOT save himself.   This Rich Young Ruler asked the wrong question.  He should have had his face to the ground like some of the others and said "Lord will you save me?"   

http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm

I agree with your first paragraph Whisper but I do believe we are under Grace not the law.  Are you still thinking we are under the law?  I never said God wanted our possessions.  He wants our hearts.  We must be willing to let everything go and not hold too tightly to anything.  But that's a far cry from just dumping everything trying to prove something. 

The only Elohim that I've seen mentioned are the "sons of God" in Genesis.

if you can read Hebrew you can see Elohim in many passages in scripture.  In some English versions like the KJV for instance it is written out God and gods for pagan gods.  Elohim means God.  It's a generic term for God.  When Moses went to the burning bush he had the mindset of Egypt with their many gods (Elohim).  That's why he asked "who should I say sends me?"  Basically he's asking "which god are you?"  Egypt had a god for everything.  Frogs, lice, water, etc. 

The sons of God you mention is the Godly line of Seth.  Some believe they are angels because in Job we see angels called the "sons of God."  But they are not God, only "sons" of God. 

I question everything KFC, I take nothing on faith

you may want to read Hebrews 11 sometime on the heroes of the faith.  I use the acronym FAITH for Forsaking All I trust Him.  That's what faith is all about.   I would think you'd agree with this Whisper.

Nothing wrong with questioning, we should and not be afraid to, but there are times when faith is all we have. 

We must always do what is right even though we do not know if God will allow the consequences of our actions to be pleasureable for us.  Take Esther for instance.  She had to go on faith to approach the king even though there was no clear word from God she would survive.  That took faith and trust on her part.   Same with the mid-wives who allowed the boy babies to live.  Faith is what it took for them to act even thou their lives were in danger. 

 

 

 

Reply #81 from JoeUser Forums Top

A needle that is something else?  KFC, the meaning of "needle" has not ever changed, not even from olden times.  Even then it was defined as a tool used for sewing.  Even if it were a tool used to sew leather, it still wouldn't be big enough to let a camel through.

Yes, all things are possible with God, including letting God take care of one.  It is not the love of riches that is the problem.  It is the lack of faith in God to care for us, and the clinging to things of this world in order to save our lives.  We think that we must have concern for our bodies, and that includes in this day anyhow, having a job so one can eat, and having a home so that one can have a place to live, and in doing so we are saying quite clearly that we don't trust God with our lives.  We don't consider the parable of the lilies of the feild as pertaining to us personally, but it does.  The apostles will see life everlasting  because of what they were willing to give.  If we aren't willing to give in equal measure we will not see life everlasting.  Jesus was most specific about these things, they are not subject to our interpretation as to what they mean.  They mean exactly what they say.  It is indeed a proof, proof of trusting in God to take care of us.  It doesn't matter what  we feel in our hearts, what matters is our actions, that is where the proof lies, and always will  Feeling it is much like saying it and saying it is no proof that we will.  

 

I don't see where you get that the Elohim mentioned in Genesis is the line of Seth.  Was not Seth the son of Noah?  The disobedience of the Elohim came before the flood, did it not?  Please explain if you can. 

Reply #82 from JoeUser Forums Top

Whisper posts: 66

An example of it, is what I said about Jesus being specific about wealth, and also about how one must depend totally upon God for their own well being.

KFC posts:

We all are called to different walks and ministries God has ordained for us. Some marry and some don't. Some sell all they have and go into the missionary field. Not everybody does this, nor are we all called to do so. Some are put into Palaces (like Esther) to do the work of God. Some are put in the fields to eat (Ruth). Some are put in prision (Paul) to do his work. Some are called to be Doctors (Luke) others are called to be in business (Lydia), some are called to be shepherds and work in the field (David) and some are wealthy landowners (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and had many material possessions. The point is God says "walk in my ways" no matter where he puts us.

Yes, this is the main point of the call of the rich man to follow Jesus as recounted in St.Matt. 19:16-30; St.Mark 10:17-31 and St.Luke 18:18-30.

Whisper2

What did Jesus tell the wealthy man who wanted to follow him, even though he was a "righteous and just man" in his heart and kept all the commandments that were given to the hebrew nation? Do you remember? Let me refresh your memeory. St. Matthew chapter 19 verse 20- 21 "The young man said to him, All these I have kept; what is yet wanting to me?" Jesus said to him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." This does not sound like Jesus is saying keep your job, and your home, and the few possessions that will stave off starvation and keep you from being homeless. He tells him to sell everything, as in "go, sell what you have". He doesn't give exceptions to what the young man shall save, nor does he tell him what he can keep.

Whisper2,

Just as Almighty God directly called Abraham, Our Lord Jesus directly called this particular wealthy man. Abraham obediently responded in perfect dedication, faith, and sacrificial love of God and the wealthy man did not. 

Let's go over the particulars.

First, Jesus was always the Master Teacher. Taking the entire episode in full context, verse 23 tells us Jesus' call to the rich man ends up being a lesson to the other disciples of the danger of riches and the reward of voluntary sacrifice (poverty in this case) if that's what one is called to do in his particular vocation.  

Next, the wealthy man asked Jesus, "What good must I do to have eternal life?" Jesus answered, if you would enter into life, keep the commandments. The rich man says he has observed the commandments since his youth but for him, there is obviously more because he asks, "What do I still lack?" (meaning he yearned for higher perfection.) Our lord knew this to be true and that's why at this moment, Our Lord tenderly offers him grace by giving him a personal calling, "come follow Me." In other words, Jesus tells him to sell his possessions, give away the money and then follow Him. This is to be understood as a personal call only addressed to this particular man in this particular situation even though it will become a lesson to the other disciples and us as well. 

When Jesus calls him personally, Come follow Me, He's showing He wants him to follow Him more closely and therefore requires him as He does others (St.Matt. 4:19-22) to give up anything that might hinder his full dedication to building up the Kingdom of God.  

The last scene is this wealthy man has many possessions and his heart is given to them.  Unlike Abraham who was freely willing to sacrifice his most favored possession of all, his only son, this wealthy man is not therefore, "perfect" becasue his heart is not undividedly God's. The man's heart too set on his riches to give them up and obey in faith the call of grace and become a poor disciple of Jesus and lay up treasure in Heaven goes away sorrowful.

So, that was the story of a personal call to a particular man in a particular situation...but it is also an exemplary case in which all disciples of Jesus can recognize what is really at stake when it comes to their personal vocation. They first hear the call to perfection, but this call may contain for them a different demand than that of abandoning their possessions. What is at stake is not freedom from possessions, but freedom for God and today, this is to be had only in following Jesus. 

So, again, the principle is become perfect in your particular vocation can only be preserved by following Jesus. God first and always. The disciples knew that in the Gospel "following" means readiness to suffer and sharing in the Passion of Jesus.  

.........................

It's true Jesus did not specifically say that a rich man could not enter heaven, he did say however, that it would be easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than it would be for a rich man to enter heaven. Have you ever seen a camel do such a feat? It is by no stretch of the imagination, possible. If it is impossible for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle it is also impossible for a rich man to enter heaven. I can't believe that all this is lost on you. Surely you can see the comparison and understand it's meaning.

I think this metaphor of the camel and the needle is meant to shock us into the seriousness and dangers of the case of treasuring wealth on earth.

Rich men can enter heaven if he uses his riches in the service of loving God and his neighbors for God's sake but Scripture affirms the chances are very slight. We are warned it's very difficult becasue rich men easily grow proud and end up using his wealth as a means of grafifying his evil inclinations, having no desire for grace and building up the treasures of heaven.

Wealth has a seductive power which seeks to enslave us. Jesus brings a new decisiveness "You cannot serve God and mammon."

 

 

 

Reply #83 from JoeUser Forums Top

Whisper2 posts:

The only Elohim that I've seen mentioned are the "sons of God" in Genesis. If they are God then please tell me why God commanded them to not go unto earthly women, and then God turns around and break God's own commandment. That makes no sense what so ever. However if there are other passages that say that God is the Elohim, please if you can, tell me where to find them.

I don't see where you get that the Elohim mentioned in Genesis is the line of Seth. Was not Seth the son of Noah? The disobedience of the Elohim came before the flood, did it not? Please explain if you can.

The "Sons of God" is found in Genesis 6:1-4. 

Here, the descendents of Seth and Enos are called the Sons of God from their religion and piety. In contrast, the ungodly race of Cain, who by the unhappy consequences of bad marriages are called 'the children of men" .

In other words, the sons of God had virtually lost their faith in their decision to marry the pagan daughters of apostate men and consequently the children of these marriages  were virtually devoid of God-fearing children.

Reply #84 from JoeUser Forums Top

It is indeed true that wealth has a power to seduce.  Any person who is wealthy however has already been seduced.  To accumulate and keep wealth one must desire it and be totally focused upon the process of gaining and maintaining  it.  That means that attention and desire has now become divided.   As Jesus said one can not serve both God and Mammon.  It is not a matter of one's calling but a matter of one's desire.

I read the passages you cited above Lulapilgrim.  I do not see any evidence what so ever, that can allow you make this fantastic leap of assumption.  No where does it say or is even indicated that the sons of God were the descendents of Seth and Enos.  How could human cohabitating with human produce giants?  The gene pool of both Cain and Enos and Seth were exactly the same gene pool , unless of course you are saying that there were humans on the earth that were not created by God.   (However it is written that God sent cain into the earth, not upon it.)   If this did not occur. the gene pool would have therefore been extremely limited and in that could not have produced  giants without the necessary gene that causes giantism and no where does it state that the prior humans made by God  were giants.  I think that you are reading more into what is written than what is really written, or something has been eliminated from the text Genesis.

Reply #85 from JoeUser Forums Top

I read the passages you cited above Lulapilgrim. I do not see any evidence what so ever, that can allow you make this fantastic leap of assumption. No where does it say or is even indicated that the sons of God were the descendents of Seth and Enos.

You do not see becasue you aren't looking at the big picture which is detailed in the chpaters before Genesis 6 where the actual term "Sons of God' is mentioned.

Adam and Eve disobeyed and as a consequence of their sin, life is a battle between good and evil and all must choose.

Well, Adam and Eves' children chose...Cain chose evil and killed Abel who was good....later, Seth was born to Eve and Seth had a son Enos. (Enosh) In 4:26 we learn he was good calling upon the name of the LOrd God.

Next chapter 5, we learn who Seth and Enos' descendents are, all the way down to Noah and his 3 sons...

These are the "sons of God".....good, religious and pious in the sense they were God-fearing and called upon His name.

From Enos to Noah was about 1400 years....as this time goes on, mankind becomes more sinful and eventually causes the Great Flood of Noah.

Chapter 6 gives us some details....verse 2 the "sons (children) of God" marry the ungodly "daughters of men" and have children.

Now, how do we relate these Scriptures to our lives today? The opposition and epic battle between sons of God and sons of men continues to this day and will continue until the end of the world.  The children of men are those who either have no faith or who do not live up to their faith but follow the desire of their own corrupt hearts and without shame break God's commandments.

In short, they love the world as if it were their God. They struggle after its honors, pleasures and riches and never think about eternal life.

But who are the Sons (children) of God?  They are those who do their best to do God's will who live in the grace and love of God and who strive after heavenly things. As baptized Christians, we are all children of God.  And as Children of God we choose to live as such or not.

 

 

 

 

Reply #86 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't see where you get that the Elohim mentioned in Genesis is the line of Seth. Was not Seth the son of Noah? The disobedience of the Elohim came before the flood, did it not? Please explain if you can.

Sorry, I've been quite busy. 

Here's the passage in question 6:1-4:

"When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and they married any of them they chose.  Then the Lord said "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.  They were the heroes of old men of renown." 

This is a summary of the state of affaris of Adam's descendants before the account of the Flood.  This small passage has had many diverse interpretations.  Historically there are three primary ones;

1.  The "sons of God" are angels are the oldest view. 

2.  The "sons of God" are royalty, another old view.

3.  The "sons of God" are pious men from the "line of Seth".

The most commonly accepted view is #3 although I've heard many good preachers take the #1 view.  I don't have a strong opinon either way but if push came to shove I'd probably go with Seth. 

The "sons" of God" is used in the OT almost exclusively of angels.  The identity of "sons of God" and "daughters of men" (lit man) could be a denoting their origin from God.  Man was created by the breath of God and woman was created from the side of man.  That's why men are called the "sons" of God"-denoting their origin from God and the women are called the "daughters of man" denoting their origin from man.   

Nephilim comes from a root meaning "to fall".  Evidently they were in the earth before the marriages of 6:2 and were not the offspring of those marriages from which the mighty men (military men) and men of renown (wealth or power). 

 

 

 

Reply #87 from JoeUser Forums Top

How could human cohabitating with human produce giants? The gene pool of both Cain and Enos and Seth were exactly the same gene pool , unless of course you are saying that there were humans on the earth that were not created by God. (However it is written that God sent cain into the earth, not upon it.) If this did not occur. the gene pool would have therefore been extremely limited and in that could not have produced giants without the necessary gene that causes giantism and no where does it state that the prior humans made by God were giants. I think that you are reading more into what is written than what is really written, or something has been eliminated from the text Genesis.

By your question I assume you are referring to Geneis 6:4. "Now giants were upon the earth in those days. ....."

And what does verse 4 mean to you?

Have you ever read the story of David and Goliath? Goliath was a giant considered to be a descendant of these giants of verse 4.

 

Reply #88 from JoeUser Forums Top

For all your explanation of the scriptural texts from Genesis, neither of you have yet answered the question.  Where did the giants come from?  Where did Cain's wife come from?  No where does it say that Cain took his sister to wife.  So where did she come from?  If indeed the existing gene pool came from the descendents of the first man and woman, where did the giantism gene come from?  None of them were described as "giants".   Nor were they described as "men of reknown".  Being men of reknown does not necessarily indicate men of wealth, that is an assumption.  No man was ever known specifically for his wealth in the bible, but for his actions.   Either he obeyed God or he defied him.  As for military prowess there are no descriptions of battles in early Genesis, so where are you getting that information?  

I don't see where man would have been the "sons of God" either.  He was God's creation, made of the slime of the earth, dust or whatever one would wish to call it, made in God's image and God's likeness but without God's attributes, knowledge or longevity,  and was never described as God's son in any text.  Jesus was, but he was the only one to ever be described as such.

Reply #89 from JoeUser Forums Top

Where did the giants come from?

The word Nephilim occurs only here and in Numbers 13:33 where it refers to the Anakim who were people of great stature.  The root meaning as I said before is "to fall."   In Genesis 6:4 the Nephilim is associated with the term "gibborim" and that comes from "gibbor" meaning "a mighty man of valour, strength, wealth or power."  Nimrod in Genesis 10 was such a gibbor.  He also was clearly a king in the land of Shinar.  Hence the meaning of nephilim/gibborim is not "giants" but something more like "princes" "aristocrats" or "great ment." 

That's why the flood had to come to judge mankind for the perversion of authority, the state, justice and human sexuality. 

I don't see where man would have been the "sons of God" either

my husband takes the view that the "sons of God" spoke of royalty which is an early, but typical reference to the titularies for kings, nobles and aristocrats in the ancient Near Eastern setting.  They pwere power hungry not only lusting after power but were also powerfully driven to become "men of a name" or men of renown. 

I can actually give you the evidence for this when I have more time.  But again few texts in the history of interpretation have aroused more curiosity and difference of opinion than Gen 6:1-4.  It's a very puzzling passage. 

Where did Cain's wife come from? No where does it say that Cain took his sister to wife.

no where does it say he didn't.   But it does say that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters.  So a reasonable conclusion would be either he took a sister or neice to wife. 

 

 

Reply #90 from JoeUser Forums Top

For all your explanation of the scriptural texts from Genesis, neither of you have yet answered the question. Where did the giants come from?

Scripture tells us giants (people with large and tall statures) existed in that day...as they do today. Don't get carried away "thinking Hollywood" concerning these giants as mentioned in Genesis.

 

Have you ever read the story of David and Goliath? Goliath was a giant considered to be a descendant of these giants of verse 4.

Have you read the story of David and Goliath? If not, do so for it will help give you an idea of who these people with gigantic statures were. Turns out these people spoken of as "giants" were not only tall and large in stature, but they were violent and savage in their dispositions. 

For the Jews, the Hebrew term "Raphaim" was practically synonymous iwth "giant". The Raphaim were an aboriginal race inhabitating Palestine in pre-Israelitic times.

They were huge Philistine warriors with whom David and his men fought near Jerusalem. They were called the "sons of Rapha". 2 Sam. 21:16, 18, 20, 22.

The defeat of the Raphaim by the 4 kings is found in Genesis 14:5. The country east of the Sea of Galilee was the home of the Raphaim as found in Jos. 12:4. Og, the King of bashan and a survivor of the Raphaim 13:12 is defeated by the invading Israelites. His huge bed is described in Deut. 3:11.

According to some historians, because of the massive Canaanite city walls and also the dolmens and menhirs found in Palestine around 6,000-4,000 BC, the early semi-nomadic Israelites believed the original inhabitants had been "giants upon the earth". Numbers 13:27-33.

.............................

KFC posts:

Here's the passage in question 6:1-4:

"When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old men of renown."

I would just point out the Douay Rheims has Verse 4 as "Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went into the daughters of men and they brought forth children, these were the mighty men of old, men of renown." 

KFC posts:

Nephilim comes from a root meaning "to fall". Evidently they were in the earth before the marriages of 6:2 and were not the offspring of those marriages from which the mighty men (military men) and men of renown (wealth or power).

Some versions have Nephilim instead of "giants",  but this difference is the least of it.

Yes, Nephilim comes from the root "to fall" and it describes the general condition of "fallen" mankind at this time. The entire race of men, these "giants" included, (except Noah and his family) have fallen into sin and evil pervades the whole earth. The next verse 5 confirms that God sees this great evil and grieves over it is getting ready to destroy His Creation and would have had it not been for Noah who found grace in the eyes of the Lord God. And thus the Great Flood.

Although it was possible that there existed men of giant physical stature, Num. 13:33; Dt. 2:10, it is a secondary point.

Whisper2 posts:

Nor were they described as "men of reknown". Being men of reknown does not necessarily indicate men of wealth, that is an assumption.

Regarding the highlighted part of KFC's quoted passage...I think this version is way off and thus the interpretation of it's meaning is as well.

What do we know? The the sons of God lost their faith in God and married daughters of men. The families of these marriages  produced  "mighty men of old, men of renown". If we look at similar usages of "mighty men" that appear in the OT, we'll find the indication is that these apostate men stemmed from a long line of previous apostates..basically going all the way back to Cain.

"Men of renown" or "men of name" is not meant of being famous in the good sense but rather of being famous among their like-minded apostates...infamous in the eyes of God.

 

Reply #91 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't see where man would have been the "sons of God" either

Again, 

You do not see becasue you aren't looking at the big picture which is detailed in the chpaters before Genesis 6 where the actual term "Sons of God' is mentioned.

Adam and Eve disobeyed and as a consequence of their sin, life is a battle between good and evil and all must choose.

In Hebrew "sons of God" is beni Elohim. Becasue "men began to call on the name of the Lord" Gen. 4:26, and examples such as Enoch who "walked with God", 5:22-24, a marked line of Godly men inhabitated the ancient world at the same time an ungodly line, led by Cain and Lamech, also existed. It's not difficult...the phrase represents a Godly line of men as in Psalm 73:15's  when the Godly are called "the generation of your sons".

 In the New Covenant in the Blood of Jesus Christ, by Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost that gives our soul the new life of sanctifying grace we become children of God.

 

 

Reply #92 from JoeUser Forums Top

examples such as Enoch who "walked with God", 5:22-24, a marked line of Godly men inhabitated the ancient world at the same time an ungodly line, led by Cain and Lamech, also existed.

This is true Lula, but cannot be proven to be the "sons of God" therefore the controversy exists.  You seem to dismiss this as I said it that settles it.  It's not quite that easy.  This very debated passage is not an easy one to exegete. 

The Hebrews in the OT NEVER used the term "sons of God"  for the Godly heroes like Enoch.  Enoch was NEVER called the son of God.  Neither was Abraham, Isaac or Jacob.  Abraham was called "the friend of God."  They were servants of the most High and would never think they were sons of God.  So basically the description of a Godly person in the OT would be more "servant" than son. 

Jesus made that clear when he said this in John 15:14-15

"You are my friends if you do whatsoever I command you.  Henceforth I call you not servants for the servant knows not what his Lord does, but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known to you." 

Again like Leauki and I have been trying to tell you, you don't have a good grasp on the Jewish History or their scriptures.  You're taking what we know today or say today as truth for back then.  It isn't so.  You have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight now but it can't be applied back then to them.  Think about it...how much OT did you learn in RCC catechism? 

 

Reply #93 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is true Lula, but cannot be proven to be the "sons of God" therefore the controversy exists. You seem to dismiss this as I said it that settles it. It's not quite that easy. This very debated passage is not an easy one to exegete.

 

KFC,

There is no controversy as far as I am concerned. 

Whisper2 asked both of us some questions and we are both responding as we best can...you from your religious frame of mind and me from mine. It's as simple as that.

Hopefully, Whisper2 is learning along the way, I know I am and hope you are too.

 

 

 

 

 

Reply #94 from JoeUser Forums Top

There is no controversy as far as I am concerned.

so are you telling me you have blinders on?  Because that's in effect what it sounds like.  You're going to erase 2,000 years of a puzzling passage and tell everyone that you have the answer and that settles it? 

I've always thought Seth (as you seem to) but I'm more inclined really now after looking at this closer to go with the #2 view that I gave above.  That seems to fit the best by looking at the wording. 

So yes, I'm always learning.  I'm not so rigid that I feel that I know it all.  I feel I haven't even hit the tip of the iceburg yet and that's after almost 40 years of reading this book; with the last 15 years even more in depth.  It's a lifetime of study. 

 

 

Reply #95 from JoeUser Forums Top

The anakim according to deciphered Sumerian texts originally means the "gods that came from the sky or heavens".   Since the Sumerian language is the worlds oldest written language, older even than Hebrew, I would say that the root meaning for that word means "gods that came from the sky or heaven".  The nephillum are also spoken of in the Sumerian texts as well and are defined as the "sons of the god from the skies or heaven".  Not men of great valor wealth or reknown although they were said to be in the Sumerian texts men of such talents as you have mentioned.  Every word of the hebrew texts is based upon the Sumerian words, so is the Acadian language as well as many others.  As a matter of fact, many of the stories in the OT are based on much older Sumerian ones.  Since the Sumerian tests are older I must believe that they hold the original meanings of those words and they are not as you described above.  If you have other evidence to the contrary however, I would be more than glad to hear it.

Since Cain was banished into the earth before Adam and Eve concieived other children, (they only had two, Cain and Abel), I find it hard to believe that his wife was one of his sisters, so it doesn't make sense to me.  Are you telling me that one of his sisters was also banished into the earth?  If so, where's your evidence?

 

I dont think in "hollywood" Lulapilgrim.  I am thinking in genetics, which are confirmed and tested truths.  There must be a gene for giantism in order for it to exist whether it be in this modern world or the world of the bible.  If none of the existing people spoken of were described as "giants" then that gene had to come from someone since these were the only people, according to most deciphering of scripture, that  existed at that time and they are the orginal human beings from whom all are descended.

 

Considering that most people of middle eastern descent are small in stature, Goliath could have been of european descent.  Which is exactly what is being proposed by archeologists today who are searching for the beginings or roots of the Philistine peoples.  Europeans, although not tall in stature compared to people of today, were shown to be taller than those living in the middle east of that time period.   I don't think that one can use Goliath as an example of the "giants" spoken of in Genesis.   Nevertheless it still leaves the question of  giantism in Genesis open.  As to the godly men such as Isaac and Enoch being the "sons of God" KFC has made the point of why they can not be, extremely well.   I dont' think that it would prove anything if I belabored the point.

Reply #96 from JoeUser Forums Top

Since Cain was banished into the earth before Adam and Eve concieived other children, (they only had two, Cain and Abel), I find it hard to believe that it was one of his sisters, so it doesn't make sense to me. Are you telling me that one of his sisters was also banished into the earth? If so, where's your evidence?

It says in Gen 4:16-17 that Cain went out from God into the land of Nod and that Cain knew his wife and she conceived....

we also know from Chap 5 that Adam was 130 years old when he had Seth (the named 3rd son).  What we don't know is when Adam and Eve first conceived and how many children were between Cain and Seth. 

I guess because it's not important.  The only named children were the three boys because that's all that was important to the story.  They were perfect specimens with perfect reproduction systems so I'm sure many many children (no birth control) were born to Adam and Eve especially since Adam lived to be 930 years old.   It looks like from just the common sense reading of the text that when Cain left he took a wife to go with him.  So again, that could be a sister or niece especially since we see that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old. 

I don't htink that one can use Goliath as an example of the "giants" spoken of in Genesis.

I agree.  That's making a jump that scripture doesn't take. 

 

Reply #97 from JoeUser Forums Top

The anakim according to deciphered Sumerian texts originally means the "gods that came from the sky or heavens". Since the Sumerian language is the worlds oldest written language, older even than Hebrew, I would say that the root meaning for that word means "gods that came from the sky or heaven".

and that would fit nicely with #2 (Royalty) that I mentioned before.  Now it makes more sense to me Whisper.  So thanks for this bit of info.  This makes sense...think about it... Nephilim means "to fall."  It's like God is saying here in Genesis that the mighty will fall.   My husband has taken this view and I think now I'm leaning in that direction more and more. 

It goes well with the rest of scipture that says that God will exhalt the humble and take down the pride.  Pride goes before the fall!  Good stuff!! 

Here are the reasons (evidences) that I spoke of earlier that point to this theory. 

1.  The ancient Aramaic Targums render "sons of God" as "sons of nobles" and the Greek translation of Symmachus reads "the sons of the kings or lords." 

2.  The word gods is used in Scripture for men who served as magistrates or judges (Ex 21:6, 22:8, Ps 82:1,6).

3.  Structurally the account of the Cainite Lamech (Gen 4:10-24) and that of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 are very much alike.  In each there is the taking of wives the bearing of children and the dynastic exploits.  The former passage ends with a boast of judgment by Lamech, and the other ends with God's decree of judgment.  Lamech practiced bigamy and he enforced his policies by using tryanny.  The portraits are parallel and depict states of tryanny, corruption and polygamy.

4.  Near Eastern discoveries have validated the pagan use of all sorts of gods' and goddesses' names in order to give more clout and prestige to the governments of Egypt and Mesopotamia, hence the title "sons of God." 

5.  The word Nephilim occurs only here and in Numbers 13;33 (not Golith) where it refers to the Anakim who were people of great stature.  Like I said before nephilim/Gibborim is not "giants" but something more like "princes" "aristocrats" or "great men"  and goes nicely with what you said "gods coming from heaven." 

They really are not but the people thought they were.  It's like everywhere else, human nature makes it so that certain people make themselves gods lording it over the "lower people"  As long as their are humans walking the earth there will be those who want to be the king of the heap.   And they will fall, in a mighty way. 

 

Reply #98 from JoeUser Forums Top

Where did Cain's wife come from? No where does it say that Cain took his sister to wife. So where did she come from?

KFC posts:

no where does it say he didn't. But it does say that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. So a reasonable conclusion would be either he took a sister or neice to wife.

Yes, this is absolutely a most reasonable conclusion.

Whisper2 posts:

Since Cain was banished into the earth before Adam and Eve concieived other children, (they only had two, Cain and Abel),

No Whistper2...you have an incorrect understanding of Adam and Eve and their children.

Genesis names 3 sons, Cain, Abel, and Seth and then goes on to say that Adam "beget sons and daughters" 5:4.

Moses only recorded a few details regarding human creation. That God made man and from man He made woman and then gave them the power to increase and multiply. To answer your question, from here we must use reason and come to the most reasonable conclusion. As God made only one pair, and from that pair the earth was to be populated, then Cain must have married his sister.

Tradition has it that Adam had 33 sons and 27 daughters during the 930 years of his life. 

.......................

Whisper2,

You say, "Since Cain was banished into the earth....

What do you mean "into the earth"?

 

Reply #99 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't htink that one can use Goliath as an example of the "giants" spoken of in Genesis.

Why not? 

You asked about the giants and all I'm saying is Goliath, a Philistine of gigantic size from Gath was one of them most probably a descendent from those giants in verse 4.  

I agree. That's making a jump that scripture doesn't take.

Goliath as well as his family and descendants were most definitely "giants" and Scripture is quite clear on that point.

The story of David and the Giant Goliath is told in 1Sam. 17; more details are given in 2 Sam. 21:22; 1Chron. 20:8.  

Here are parts of the story.

The Philistine army had gathered for war against Israel. The two armies faced each other, camped for battle on opposite sides of a steep valley. A Philistine giant measuring over nine feet tall and wearing full armor came out each day for forty days, mocking and challenging the Israelites to fight. His name was Goliath. Saul, the King of Israel, and the whole army were terrified of Goliath.

So David volunteered to fight Goliath. It took some persuasion, but King Saul finally agreed to let David fight against the giant. Dressed in his simple tunic, carrying his shepherd's staff, slingshot and a pouch full of stones, David approached Goliath. The giant cursed at him, hurling threats and insults.

.................

From your own KJV.....2Samuel 21:15-22 recounts the story and more...

15Moreover the Philistines had yet war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines: and David waxed faint.

16And Ishbibenob, which [was] of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear [weighed] three hundred [shekels] of brass in weight, he being girded with a new [sword], thought to have slain David.

17But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him. Then the men of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel.

18And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which [was] of the sons of the giant.

19And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam.

20And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of [great] stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.

21And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea the brother of David slew him.

22These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.

 

Reply #100 from JoeUser Forums Top

Lula you're not understanding.  Did you read my last couple of postings? 

The Nephilim and the giant Goliath are two different things.  For one thing it is not even debated that Goliath was big; a giant if you will.  So that's NOT the debate.   But the Nephilim are not so cut and dry.  There are NO measurements given to them like Goliath.  Nephilim is mentioned ONLY in two spots.  Golith is not one of them.  He's NEVER called a Nephilim.   Giants can mean stature not necessarily height is what I'm trying to tell you and by what Whisper put down that makes the most sense here. 

So it's not giants as in height like Goliath and that's why Goliath was NEVER called a Nephilim. 

You're assuming that the word Nephilim is the same as the giant Goliath and I'm trying to tell you it doesn't look that way by looking at the word Nephilim/gibborim. 

It's like saying Oprah Winfrey,  Barbara Walters, Diane Sawyer are giants in their industry.   They are the nephilim of our day. 

One thing's for sure.  I'm glad I had this conversation with the both of you because it totally made me more sure of the passage than I was before.  In fact, it makes much more sense now.  Although we are not going to settle the controversy here by any stretch.