Hellbinder wrote:Elohim have nothing to do with the earth being destroyed with the Flood. [...] The Sons of God refers to the Angels, Not to God himself. Some Angels came down and mated with Human women, which resulted in Nephilim. Which resulted in the destruction of the earth by water.
Well, the premise (correct or incorrect) is that the text (or a version of the text) says "Sons of Elohim" and not "Sons of God", which would be the connection.
And another premise (correct or incorrect) is that Donaldson would be aware of this [correct or incorrect] premise.
Heck, I would think that considering Angels to be "Sons of God" would be just as controversial to a lot of folks, since the big He is only supposed to have the one He Jr.
But if Angels are Sons, and they can bear children with us humans, and if Jesus is one of those Sons, well... there's the whole DaVinci Code again.
Frankly, I wonder if "Sons of Elohim" doesn't refer to clergy, in a loose sense - holy men, proto-rabbis if you will. If they were supposed to live lives of abstinence or at least remain unmarried, then the biblical flood could be credited to these holy men becoming loose in their ways, and consorting with women. This is the idea I most favor. Except it doesn't seem to be in keeping with later Judaism, in which the clergy is allowed to, and expected to, marry, even in Jesus' timeframe. Then again, if you believe the Bible was editted to reflect the mores of the early Church c. 300 AD, Council of Nicea etc., then this whole passage could have been fashioned at that time... but there's the DiVinci Code again.
But that doesn't really explain the Nephilim, tho.
Wasn't this just on the History Channel? The "Fallen" angels were the ones that did the nasty with mortals. Their offspring being the giants of the day.
I was playing video games and I wasn't really watching it while it was on but that's what I heard.
Wayfriend wrote:Then again, if you believe the Bible was editted to reflect the mores of the early Church c. 300 AD, Council of Nicea etc., then this whole passage could have been fashioned at that time...
An untenable belief. The Nephilim are mentioned in the Old Testament, which is the Hebrew Bible; and the Jews did not edit one jot or tittle of the Torah at the behest of any Christian council. Even the New Testament exists in hundreds of partial manuscripts dating up to 200 years before the Council of Nicaea, which are not different from the accepted Greek text in any significant way.
I know this is well off topic, but it annoys me to see people keep suggesting that the Church tampered with the Bible when the archaeological evidence conclusively proves that this did not happen.
Variol Farseer wrote:An untenable belief. The Nephilim are mentioned in the Old Testament, which is the Hebrew Bible; and the Jews did not edit one jot or tittle of the Torah at the behest of any Christian council.
Yes, thinking about it more, I see you're point. I was just speculating randomly.
Variol Farseer wrote:I know this is well off topic, but it annoys me to see people keep suggesting that the Church tampered with the Bible when the archaeological evidence conclusively proves that this did not happen.
Not the Old Testament. But there is a lot of evidence for their having a hand in the New Testament. Tampering is never a word I would use, as they were the "editors", so to speak, so they owned the right to choose what went into it. However, there is supporting evidence that there were historical writings which were at odds with what they chose to include, which was supressed. In addition, what most Christians believe is in the Bible isn't actually in the bible, it's just canon, and that's rather glossed over as well.
I did research and found that most of what hellbinder said was true- about the plural nouns not ever being with singular verbs. I also found out that the royal ''we'' and the ''plural of 'majesty' '' didn't exist as a literary usage in those cultures and languages- it developed in midievel Europe. The books of the New Testament weren't altered either- it WAS a matter of controversy which books were authentic and the simple crtieria was that they had to written by Jesus' actual Apostles and thats why- more than content-why a book was rejected- like an epistle by Clement which was in complete agreement with the apostles. Other books(I saw them myself) had such absurd content I would have tossed them too. A few others dissagreed with with beliefs long established before the council existed that compiled the New Testament( and stated in those accepted books they did receive as true). That they took the books of the actual Apostles as more authoritative over later works is only common sense. If you burned every copy of the New Testament you could completely recreate it(except for 11 verses in the book of Revelation) from the writings of early church leaders from 20 to 90 years after the last book in the New Testament. They quote different parts of the New Testament well before the council that officially compiled the New Testament existed in the mid 300's. The claims of the Da Vinci code are patently untrue at face value. The church always believed Jesus was/is God- it was the ones that believed he was an angel/ first creation/emanation that were the newcomers. It even says Jesus is God implicitly but definitely in the Old Testament- Elohim is a plurality for the word God of MORE than two(like THREE mabey?) and only God has never had a beginning and was always there. The Bible says only God is FROM EVERLASTING-''even from everlasting to everlasing, you are God''. '' To everlasting'' means into eternity future, from everlasting means from eternity past. Our souls might exist forever into the future but they (and all things EXCEPT God) began existing at one point/had some sort of beginning point where if you go back before that point they did not exist. And yet, it states in the Old Testament in Micah 5:2 that the Messiah(Savior) was going to be born in Behtlehem(gee, WHO was born there?) and, AND, his existence was from everlasting! If only GOD never had a beginning(was from everlasting) and a man was going to be born whose birth/conception was NOT his beginning but HE also had no beginning then he must be God himself come down to be born as a man. It also says in Isaiah chapters 7,9 and other chapters that God himself was going to be born a man. Not just ''the Son of God'', but GOD, the Son, the second Person of the TRINITY- God, the Father; God, the Son; and God, the Holy Spirit- ONE God. The only thing I couldn't find much evidence for was the angels marrying humans thing- most evidence and most people believe sons of God meant God's followers and daughters of men meant ungodly people.TDO
