Genesis 6:1-4

[Kyoki]

http://www.thebricktestament.com/gen...n06_01-02.html
for those who have never read it (this version has purty pictures).

I read this about 18 months ago at schoolies (end of high school celebration/week long party at the gold coast). I like to read before going to sleep and the only book I could find was a Gideon Bible. My friend came out one morning to find me curled up with the neck of a mostly empty vodka bottle keeping my place in Revelation.

Is there a plausible interpretation of this that doesn't involve multiple sons of god (not just Jesus)? I saw something about the line of Cain etc, but it seemed like a bit of a stretch.

As I was about to hit the submit button I got the feeling that this one might be a seriously noob question... what the hell, "those left unasked" and so on.

[ArmsMerchant]

Myths are not meant to be taken literally.

[mvpena]

I believe the "official" explanation for this, based on earlier Apocrypha (Book of Enoch), was that the Sons of God were a type of Angel. They were called Nephilim (bnai elohim) (sp?). They were Angels that came down and, supposedly, had sex with women. Even though Angels "officially" have no genitalia.

The reasoning behind this story supposedly is about when the Nomadic Jews were traveling, they came upon a civilization that built towering statues of their leaders or whatever. To take the size of these statues literally, they believed that the actual people from that civilization were that size. So to justify people being that size, they said that their ancestry goes back to Angels fucking people.

The other reasoning I heard for this story, was that they were trying to justify stories from the west about western mythology. You know... stories about Titans and Giants and Cyclops. Poo poo of that nature.

Modern reasoning to this passage was that the Angels were actually aliens, which would justify the so called "Alien Gene" that we all have. A certain scientist has recently found a unique gene within our genetics that is unlike any other gene found in our genome databases. He thusly named the gene, the Alien Gene.

If anyone else has heard anything else about this, please contribute. I was once really interested in this passage also.

[Savin_Jesus]

History was written by winners, so was the bible, it is filled with wars in which the people "god" suppourted win. And the ones that were defeated got revenge.

[Prometheum]

Well, god doesn't exist, so he/she has no sons.

[SafeAsMilk]

Originally Posted by ArmsMerchant

Myths are not meant to be taken literally.

True. The Bible is full of conflicting stories just like that.

[ArgonPlasma2000]

Originally Posted by SafeAsMilk

True. The Bible is full of conflicting stories just like that.

I suppose you can back that up, huh?

From what I can recall, the passage refers to devout people like Noah that were swayed by women of no heed to God. You should look up the passage in a TNK.

[SafeAsMilk]

Originally Posted by ArgonPlasma2000

I suppose you can back that up, huh?

From what I can recall, the passage refers to devout people like Noah that were swayed by women of no heed to God. You should look up the passage in a TNK.

Well, I don't read Hebrew, if that is what you are getting at. The KJV speaks of the “sons of God” taking up daughters of men and making them their wives. I suppose the meaning of the phrase “the sons of God” could be open to discussion. My old parochial school taught that that phrase meant angels. I guess some people still believe that it could refer to men, but the use of the phrase “daughters of men” should lead some to believe that the Bible isn’t actually referring to men, or else the translations would make a lot more sense (i.e. not use the phrase sons of God, but rather something that makes it a little clearer that it is talking about men, or devout people like Noah).

More contradictions? Okay, Gen. 1:27 says man and woman are created, apparently simultaneously and after the animals, while Gen. 2:7 & 2:18-22, say that Adam is created from dust first, then the animals are made, and then Eve is created from Adam's rib. Was Adam not the first man to be created, or Eve not the first woman to be created? When exactly were the animals created?

Noah is told once to choose one pair of each living creature for the ark, but another time to choose one pair of unclean creatures and sevens of each clean creature.

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."
Acts 22:9 "My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me." Which one is it, Luke? If this is the Luke who knew Paul actually writing, he would have been able to talk with Paul and decide which version is correct, and certainly if it is truly the "word of God", the correct answer would be clear.

According to Matthew, the father of Joseph is named James, while in Luke, he is called Eli.

Matthew 12.30: "He who is not with me is against me." Luke 9.50: "He that is not against you is for you." These are both transcriptions of what Jesus supposedly said, but Matthew’s account is the exact opposite of Luke’s.

This is only a random handful of things; don’t think that these are the only contradictions in the whole thing. If the Bible wasn’t considered inspired by God, then these contradictions wouldn’t make any difference, but since the Bible itself says that it is the inspired word of God one has to assume that there would be no mistakes or contradictions, seeing as God is perfect and powerful in every way.

[ArgonPlasma2000]

More contradictions? Okay, Gen. 1:27 says man and woman are created, apparently simultaneously and after the animals, while Gen. 2:7 & 2:18-22, say that Adam is created from dust first, then the animals are made, and then Eve is created from Adam's rib. Was Adam not the first man to be created, or Eve not the first woman to be created? When exactly were the animals created?

Context. It is the same as saying "yea, Adam and Eve et al were created on the same day", while in the same breath saying "Adam was created first and then Eve."

Noah is told once to choose one pair of each living creature for the ark, but another time to choose one pair of unclean creatures and sevens of each clean creature.

Obviously you are pulling shit out of a hat on this one. If you dont care to even read the Bible, dont start shit by saying its flawed.

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."
Acts 22:9 "My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me." Which one is it, Luke? If this is the Luke who knew Paul actually writing, he would have been able to talk with Paul and decide which version is correct, and certainly if it is truly the "word of God", the correct answer would be clear.

. . . In the original Greek, however, there is no real contradiction between these two statements. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative). Therefore, as we put the two statements together, we find that Paul's companions heard the Voice as a sound (somewhat like the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28, but perceived it only as thunder); but they did not (like Paul) hear the message that it articulated. Paul alone heard it inteligibly (Acts 9:4 says Paul ekousen phonen--accusative case); though he, of course, perceived it also as a startling sound at first (Acts 22:7: "I fell to the ground and heard a voice [ekousa phones] saying to me," NASB). But in neither account is it stated that his companions ever heard that Voice in the accusative case.

-- http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/acts97.htm

According to Matthew, the father of Joseph is named James, while in Luke, he is called Eli.

Cite verses.

you know, I am called by two names as well. OMG LYKE CONTRADICTSHUN!

Matthew 12.30: "He who is not with me is against me." Luke 9.50: "He that is not against you is for you." These are both transcriptions of what Jesus supposedly said, but Matthew’s account is the exact opposite of Luke’s.

If you were to read the verses surrounding these passages, you know that Matthew's account is about personal faith in your life and how you live. However, Luke's account is about another man casting out demons in the name of Jesus: two completely different situations.

[ArmsMerchant]

Originally Posted by ArgonPlasma2000

I suppose you can back that up, huh?

From what I can recall, the passage refers to devout people like Noah that were swayed by women of no heed to God. You should look up the passage in a TNK.

It's been done. Some time ago, someone posted page upon page of Biblical contradictions.

Like how Judas died, for one thing.