|
| |
HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Because in the Jewish genealogy, the "mother side" is used to trace back the validity of citizenship and thus if a person is considered a true Jew or not. Since Mary was a true descendant of David, her son, Jesus as well as his brothers and sisters were true descendants of David. |
| |
Is this the first time John saw Jesus? |
|
|
|
John 1:29
|
| |
There's no Biblical account of this being the first time that John and Jesus met, but they were cousins (both of their mothers were sisters) and I think thay might have grown up with each other. Remember that John leaped in his mother's womb (Luke 1:41) when Mary met Elizabeth (Mary's sister), so being filled with the Holy Spirit John knew that the baby in Mary's womb was the Christ. |
| |
Can anyone give me more reasons? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
More Reasons .. ok
1.Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is only in Latin.
2.None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3.The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4.The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church.
5.The Apocrypha contains statements which not only contradict
the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6.The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
(2Maccabees 12:43-45), 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Salvation by works:
(Ecclesiasticus 3:30), Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
(Tobit 12:8-9, 17), It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.
Magic:
(Tobit 6:5-8), If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
(Wisdom 8:19-20), And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.
|
| |
what was Mary's geneology |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Since Joseph was not Jesus' natural father--Jesus' humanity came through his mother, Mary,--how do the geneologies in Matthew and Luke support that Jesus was a descendant of David? |
| |
what was Mary's geneology |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I think your question was answered by amor65 in his answer to the question HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID? I have pasted his answer for you...Because in the Jewish genealogy, the "mother side" is used to trace back the validity of citizenship and thus if a person is considered a true Jew or not. Since Mary was a true descendant of David, her son, Jesus as well as his brothers and sisters were true descendants of David |
| |
HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Jesus, the Messiah, Deliverer, Son of God and King of Kings, was concieved by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Jesus while he was in every way a human being. Jesus was not fathered by any man, since no man had been with Mary (Luke 1:34). And Joseph, Mary's betrothed husband, at first struggled to accept this fact but later accepted it (Matthew 1:19-25). But Jesus had to be 'brought up' or 'brought forth' from the line of David; he Himself had to find his earthly beginnings and achieve his earthly ministry while being of the Kingly heritage of David. God's promise to David is ultimately fulfilled by Jesus as David's 'descendant' of whom it was promised in 2 Samuel 7:16, and in the line of Judah in Genesis 49:10: both fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ! And Luke 3:23-38 shows the 'direct line' genealogy from Mary, the vessel in which God used to deliver His only Son into this world, all the way down to David, and it even goes from David to Adam! And if you look in Matthew 1:1-17, you can see how Joseph, who was the step-father of Jesus, was also in the Kingly heritage, being a descendant of King David. So Jesus was in fact a descendant of David as well as being part of the royal heritage as promised by God. Now you ask: "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" (Matthew 22:41-46) They said to Him, "The son of David." Jesus said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call him 'Lord', saying, "THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, 'SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET' '? If David then calls him 'Lord', how is He his son?" Very good question! Here is the answer: Jesus was a descendant of David while he dwelt upon this earth, but He has always been and has always existed as God. He was never created by God but has always existed as part of the Godhead with His Father and the Holy Spirit. In this passage (Matthew 22:41-46), David called upon the Lord during his life, even the Lord Jesus! Now he says, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD'.. This is God the Father in heaven saying to God the Son, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET." So God the Son ascended into heaven to assume His Lordship at God the Father's right hand until the time when Jesus will return to earth in the Second Coming of Christ. So this is how the Lord Jesus is David's Lord (whom David called upon) and also David's son, or descendant, at the same time. I hope that this explanation helps. I use the New American Standard Bible ('95), which is my very favorite translation! |
| |
HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Jesus was the one who created the heavens and the earth,A.K.A Jehovah the Lord.when He became flesh, He was born of the virgin Mary who is a decendant of David.Hence; The Lord said unto my Lord sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. If david called Him Lord then how is He his son? |
| |
what was Mary's geneology |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I'm not an expert on this, but I did some research and looked at the verses. If you look at the two geneologies listed in Matt 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38, you will see that the two geneologies diverge after David. It is not assured but it is assumed by scholars (namely, Norman Geisler) that the Luke geneology traces Jesus' lineage through Mary to David. |
| |
Mary isn't mentioned |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
1) If it is true that Jewish genealogy traces the Mothers side, then why is the focus on Joseph rather than Mary in the Matthew and Luke genealogies? 2) Where do you find evidence that Mary was a decendant of David? |
| |
Why did Jesus have to beborn of a virgin |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
This is an excellent though-provoking question. I would advocate that God's plan as to how the baby would be born came prior to the prophecy -- not the other way around. Of course, the Son of God would need to have God as a parent in order to be God (maintain his God-hood as a person) genetically. However, I don't see that a faithful and consistent wife or a widow would contribute any more "sinful" of a nature than a virgin. (In fact, this concept in an extreme form could lead to wives witholding relations in a way that could hinder the marriage relationship.) There is a connection of virginity with ceremonial purity, however, that could be significant. In addition, female virginity is typically verifiable by physical means for the majority of women. In this way, Mary's virginity right up to the point of birth would most likely have been verifiable by Joseph, a midwife or anyone else who was allowed to investigate fully; her virginity would act as a testimony, therefore, that the "male seed" was placed there by the Holy Spirit rather than through sexual intercourse. With a non-virgin, there would always be more room for question and accusation. |
| |
what was Mary's geneology |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
This argument, that Luke gives the genealogy through Mary and that Matthew gives the genealogy through Joseph, would seem the most logical. The contextual perspective also supports this. The entire story surrounding Jesus birth in Luke focuses around Mary -- her revelation, visit to Elizabeth, etc. -- as she "treasured these things in her heart" and probably reported them to Luke along with her genealogy. Matthew, on the other hand, talks about Joseph -- his reaction to Mary's pregnancy, his 2 dreams from God, etc. Luke's genealogy of Jesus could also be logically read as "being only supposedly the son of Joseph but actually the son of Eli" -- with Eli being presumably Mary's father. The kingship came through David via Solomon through Joseph by adoption -- just as we are adopted as heirs of God. However, there was also a direct physical descent through Mary, since there could be no physical descent through Joseph. |
| |
HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Jesus inherited the throne of David through adoption by Joseph, who was of the kingly descent that passed through each the kings of Judah (as in Matthew's genealogy) -- just as we inherit the kingdom of God through adoption as his children (his princes and princesses, if you like). His physical descent was through Mary (as in Luke's genealogy). |
| |
Mary isn't mentioned |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Many conservative scholars understand the geneology in Luke to trace Mary's geneology. In Luke 3:23, the geneology begins "being supposedly the son of Joseph" indicating that Joseph is not actually in the geneology. |
| |
How do you then interpret the verses... |
|
|
|
Luke 8:13
|
| |
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ABOUT ELECTION? (continued from previous message)
Occasionally someone will suggest that God's election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events. This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses those whom He sees choosing Him. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," and Romans 8:29 says, "whom He foreknew, He also predestined." And if divine foreknowledge simply means God's knowledge of what will happen in advance, then these arguments may appear to have some weight behind them.
But that is not the biblical meaning of "foreknowledge." When the Bible speaks of God's foreknowledge, it refers to God's establishment of a love relationship with that person. The word "know," in both the Old and New Testament, refers to much more than mere cognitive knowledge of a person. Such passages as Hosea 13:4-5; Amos 3:2 (KJV); and Romans 11:2 clearly indicate this. For example, 1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was "foreknown before the foundation of the world." Surely this means more than that God the Father looked into the future to behold Christ! It means He had an eternal, loving relationship with Him. The same is true of the elect, whom we are told God "foreknew" (Romans 8:29). That means He knew them--he loved them--before the foundation of the world.
If God's choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Paul asks and answers that very question in Romans 9:19-20. He says God's choice of the elect is an act of mercy. Left to themselves, even the elect would persist in sin and be lost, because they are taken from the same fallen lump of clay as the rest of humanity. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not eradicate the responsibility of those who persist in sin and are lost--because they do it willfully, and not under compulsion. They are responsible for their sin, not God.
The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Moreover, the offer of mercy in the gospel is extended to all alike. Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17 call "whosoever will" to be saved. Isaiah 45:22 and Acts 17:30 command all men to turn to God, repent and be saved. First Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 tell us that God is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all should be saved. Finally, the Lord Jesus said that, "the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37).
In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. We do know that God's attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God's sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice.
For further study:
John MacArthur, The Love of God (Dallas: Word, 1996).
J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1961).
© 2000 Grace to You
. . . (article by John MacArthur at www.gty.org - listed in Issues and Answers archives) |
| |
Mary did not know Jesus at the tome |
|
|
|
1 Cor 13:12
|
| |
Why did not Mary know Jesus after three days away from him. AND the Two did not know Him while He walked and talked with them. Untill He opened their eyes |
| |
Who are the sons and daughters? |
|
|
|
Gen 6:4
|
| |
Fellows, can spiritual beings procreate with humans? Then 'Rosemary's Baby' is possible? Please be more careful of what you read in the supermarket checkout line. There is no scriptural reference to angels (or demons, or cherubim, etc.) mating with humans. |
| |
Do all Christians agree on the rapture? |
|
|
|
1 Thessalonians
|
| |
There is more than one interpretation of the doctrine of the rapture, as is the case with many Bible doctrines, especially when it comes to the doctrine of future things (prophecy).
. . . The main differences of opinion concern the time of the rapture. The primary theories are: 1) Pretribulation rapture; 2) Midtribulation rapture; 3) Posttribulation rapture; 3) Partial rapture, which is sort of a Marine Corps rapture where only the perfect, only the brave, only the few are worthy to be raptured before the wrath of God is poured out; 5) Postmillenial rapture; and 6) Amillenialist rapture. Take your pick.
(. . . There is also the new theory of No Rapture.)
. . . For detailed explanations of the above views of the rapture, see the Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, in Ryrie's article A SYNOPSIS OF BIBLE DOCTRINE, The Doctrine of Future Things. |
| |
What does Bible teach on election? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
First, thanks for the excellent idea of setting up a temporary hotmail email account to communicate with other members of this website. Good work!
. . . Second, please note: what people usually call predestination is actually the doctrine of election. The two terms are not synonymous. "Divine predestination means that God has a purpose that is determined long before it is brought to pass. It implies that God is infinitely capable of planning and then bringing about what he has planned, and Scripture speaks of him as doing this" (p. 628, Baker's Theological Dictionary of the Bible, Edited by Walter A. Elwell, Baker Books). For example, Rom 8:29 (NASB) "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;"
. . . On the other hand, "Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. Election is unconditional, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen faith (Romans 9:16). This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our knowledge of God. . . .
. . . "In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, "God has chosen (elected) you from the beginning for salvation."
. . . "In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. We do know that God's attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God's sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice." (John MacArthur at www.gty.org, under Issues and Answers, "What Does the Bible Teach About Election?")
(. . . For further study: John MacArthur, The Love of God (Dallas: Word, 1996); J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1961). © 2000 Grace to You)
. . . Third, while all Christians do believe in election, not all Christians define election in the same way.
|
| |
How long did Adam and Eve live in Eden |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
This is a long posting. I'm not sure that you read my posting, Seven, except for a few words here and there that seem to have offended you and hindered (or colored) your reading of the remainder. The question that I was answering dealt with how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. I said that we don't know for sure. My impression is that you automatically assume that virtually no time transpired simply because events are not described. This is possible but speculative.
I agree with your (possible) underlying concern that speculation about what is not there should never be used as a basis for doctrine or exposition; I noted this in my earlier posting. However, you seem to have gone beyond this in assuming that ONLY that which is explicitly stated could possibly have happened; in this you go too far. For reasons within God's all-knowing and sovereign nature, God has chosen to include some events while excluding the vast majority of human (and heavenly) events that happened from the beginning of creation until the completion of the canon (i.e. the Revelation of John). This is affirmed at the end of John's gospel (John 20:30-31; 21:25); there is much that has been left out. The events and timeframe of Adam and Eve's life together in the garden prior to Satan's possession of the serpent are left out of the Biblical account.
There is no benefit in defending my suggestions about possible (but completely speculative) children born BEFORE Adam ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and what would have happened to them. Although I believe the ideas are easily defensible, they are irrelevant to the study of Scripture, since they are merely speculation. However, I do feel that I should address your apparent underlying assumptions that what is not there does -- by default -- not exist. For example, the vast majority of Bible scholars recognize Luke's and Matthew's genealogies to trace Jesus's lineage separately through Mary and Joseph, although Mary is not mentioned in either genealogy. The two genealogies trace Jesus through separate sons of King David all the way down to Jesus himself but agree prior to David; they are obviously not the same genealogy, so there is a question created. Furthermore, Matthew deliberately skips all generations prior to Abraham and many generations after that; yet we know that those generations really existed on both sides of Jesus's genealogy. Questions can make us feel pressed for answers, but not all of them have simple pat answers. The questions of 1) how long Adam and Eve were in the garden prior to the fall, and 2) what their lives and relationship(s) were like prior to the fall are left unanswered in the Scriptures. Any answers (either way) are fantasy and speculation and should be processed in this light. Opting for rejection of the possibility of anything not there is no less speculative than opting for the possibility of something more; it is simply tidier in that it generates less unanswered questions. |
| |
Have you ever looked at Urantia Book? |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
Charis, I agree with you completely on this subject. To the curious I would point out: The canon of the Bible is complete. It has been completed since before the end of the first century A.D. BEWARE of any alleged new revelation -- that which is not found in the complete and unchanging Word of God. There is not nor will there ever be a 67th book of the Bible. Neither the Book of Mormon, the writings of Russel or Rutherford (Jehovah's Witnesses), Mary Baker Eddy, nor the Brownsville revival constitute the 67th book of the Bible.
. . . I too have "been there, done that." And I aint NEVER goin back. |
| |
Where Mary and Elizabeth sisters? |
|
|
|
Not Specified
|
| |
Where Mary and Elizabeth sisters? |
| |
Where Mary and Elizabeth sisters? |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
Where Mary and Elizabeth sisters? |
| |
Where Mary and Elizabeth sisters? |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
Elizabeth is Mary's older cousin. |
| |
do we have any free will? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
yes due to lack off time and space these things are surface explainations God is not about control.if you feel that way i am not one to say how or what you should feel, the Bible is clear in many areas . My God is a BIG loving father who keeps his promises .How we see the Lord determines how we recieve from him just as Mary and Martha recieved from Jesus.my answers are sometimes cryptic for the reason of thought provocation and i believe reveration does follow as the Holy Spirit reveals Jesus. thankyou for your blessing. My God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. |
| |
Predestination vs free will--a thought.. |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Romans 8:29ff gives a clear sequence of conditions and actions on God's behalf toward those who love him (see Romans 8:28). This sequence begins clearly with some kind of foreknowledge and then progresses through predestination (that we be conformed to Christ), calling, justification and finally glorification. I have never known of anyone to question the sequence here of all the others (predestination then calling then justification then glorification). However, some force foreknowledge to somehow be assigned a secondary sequence to predestination (something like "He simply knew that he had predestined us.") This seems a very forced reading of the text, as opposed to the clear natural reading of sequence from start to finish.
Nevertheless, this passage does NOT indicate exactly what he foreknew about us (just as the passages on predestination do NOT mention faith), and Ephesians 1 (along with various other passages) clearly indicates that predestination (to various things, but not necessarily to belief itself) happened "before the foundation of the world". Therefore, all of this (along with the decision for the Son to sacrifice himself for us) took place in the mind of the Father prior to Adam's existence.
One view, attributed to Jacob Arminius (whether this is fully accurate or not) in his questioning of the full accuracy of Calvin's (and moreso Beza's) statements that "there was nothing foreknown prior to predestinating us" is that God foreknew OUR RESPONSE OF FAITH. This is a possible explanation, but seems at odds with the most obvious reading of Ephesians 2:8-9 -- that faith itself is a gift of God (one way of interpreting Ephesians 2:8-9). I lean somewhat toward this view, but I'm not clear whether the gift of the salvation process (of Ephesians 2:8-9) INCLUDES the gift of faith or simply uses faith as the avenue "through" which salvation is given.
On the basis of the unforgiveable sin being "blasphemy against the Spirit" -- I would question whether the Spirit chooses to act in an irrestible manner, as the Council of Dort (perhaps more accurately rendered the "Inquisition" of Dort?) suggested.
I would argue that there is a point at which a person's heart must be broken by the persistent conviction of the Holy Spirit, and that God works faith in the heart of the one who is thus broken. God knows whether a person's heart is so deeply arrogant (I can't say rebellious, as all of us were at one time completely rebellious against God until after he broke our hearts through his loving conviction) that he or she will finally reject him from any further conviction and completely by his persisten initiation -- veritably slamming the door in the Spirit's face once and for all.
I would welcome any input on this, as any understanding must be tested against the Scripture and God's Word (rather than current understanding) be given precedence.
This is already long, but I feel the need for a little more elaboration, so that responders and reactors can understand me as fully as possible before offering questions or challenges. I believe the primary sacrifice that we can offer to God at any time is a kind of imperfect "humility" or "poverty of Spirit" (for lack of other Scriptural phrases that immediately come to mind) -- without which no one will ever see the kingdom of heaven. Even grace, it seems, can be affected by humility versus pride. "For God is opposed to the proud but gives GRACE to the humble [emphasis mine]." |
| |
SECOND CHANCE |
|
|
|
Rev 7:1
|
| |
Dear Prayon: Thanks for a very informative answer. To supplement (not to dispute nor question) your excellent answer, I respectfully submit the following:
. . . There is more than one interpretation of the doctrine of the rapture, as is the case with many Bible doctrines, especially when it comes to the doctrine of future things (prophecy). . . . The main differences of opinion concern the time of the rapture. The primary theories are: 1) Pretribulation rapture; 2) Midtribulation rapture; 3) Posttribulation rapture; 4) Partial rapture, which is sort of a Marine Corps rapture where only the perfect, only the brave, only the few are worthy to be raptured before the wrath of God is poured out; 5) Postmillenial rapture; and 6) Amillenialist rapture. Take your pick. (. . . There is also the new theory of No Rapture.) . . . For detailed explanations of the above views of the rapture, see the Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, in Ryrie's article A SYNOPSIS OF BIBLE DOCTRINE, The Doctrine of Future Things.
|
| |
Spiritual beings procreate? |
|
|
|
Gen 6:4
|
| |
Forum Fellows, Can spiritual beings procreate with fleshly beings? I can think of only one instance in the Bible where this took place, and that was the conception of Christ Jesus in Mary by the Holy Spirit. Yet, the 'common interpretation' of this scripture is that the sons of God are angels. If we believe the angels can procreate with humans, then it follows that demons can, too. Or is this another thing that is 'for a limited time only?'
Blessings in Christ Jesus. charis |
| |
Nephilim Humans? |
|
|
|
Gen 6:4
|
| |
Dear Brent Douglass (not your name :-), Actually, I don't believe that the Nephilim were angels. Before I go into that, though, why is it bad hermeneutics, to say that if one 'created spiritual being' (angel) can procreate with humans, then another 'created spiritual being' of the same type (demon, fallen angel) can, too? This is all based an a theory I don't believe anyway, but as a hypothetical, both should have the same basic capabilities. After all, we are not told that the demons were neutered before they were cast down. In fact, this is the point of my question: Many Christians ascribe to Satan and his minions power they do not have! Satan is the 'prince of lies,' and many good Christians believe those lies. In addition, we have 'Rosemary's Baby' and 'Omen'-type movies that are accepted as the way things are. (Sadly, many uninformed or misinformed Christians believe in Hollywood) Well, the Bible does not say that that is the way things are.
Friend, you are absulutely correct, the most logical idea is that they were 'big guys,' but human. Often, however, logic is chucked in favor of the sensational.
In the area of speculation, how about that the Nephilim were the 'sons of God' in the sense that they were of Adam and Eve, as compared to 'daughters of men' who were not of Adam and Eve? The idea has some merit, but would be heretical to 'absolutists' that say that all mankind had to come from Adam and Eve. 'Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."' Genesis 1:26 NASB tells of the creation of man, human beings, but not God's chosen race. Then "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
Genesis 2:7 NASB could speak of a spiritually 'living being' that was 'special,' God's chosen race. This would explain many of the 'complications' involved inexplaining the various races and who Adam's children married, etc. This speculation is at least as good as some of the other theories portrayed as 'absolute truth.'
In any case, my friend, it is speculation, just as you said.
Thanks for a good, insightful answer. Blessings to you in Christ Jesus. charis |
| |
Is church attendance important? |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
Thanks, RC, for quoting some appropriate Scriptures that in themselves provide a good answer to my question. Thanks also for your own summary, that we need the church for fellowship, teaching, and working together to evangelize. |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
