Conscience of Man Gen. 3:22-8:14 1:3-8:14

[BanjoPicker]

Seth's line is singled out in Gen. 5 to show the particular branch of the race that the seed of the woman descended through. The purpose is not to show a godly line for over sixteen hundred years. There could not be any such thing as one generation after another with all their offspring being godly for such a length of time. This is contrary to all history and Scripture. This will never be until the New Heavens and the New Earth when all human and spirit rebels are confined to the lake of fire forever. There never has been and there never will be until the final restitution of all things, such a as godly men reproducing godly men by nature. So, the belief that there were many generations of godly and women just because they descended from Seth is ridiculous.

 

[gordon 2]

THE FAILURE OF SETH'S DESCENDANTS Gen. 4:25-5:32. In this passage we have the failure of the descendants of Seth and the line of ten generations from Adam to Noah. It is believed by some there were two distinct lines of the human family in their period--the ungodly line of Cain and the godly line of Seth, but this is not taught in Scripture.
Such and idea is not once mentioned in Scripture, Seth's descendants as a whole may not have been as ungodly as Cain's but it is very clear that there were more than just two lines, or branches of the human family coming from just two men. Adam begat "sons and daughters" Gen. 5:4. Every son of Adam started a branch of the race for himself as has been generally the case all through history. Not all the sons and daughters of Adam are mentioned in Scripture, nor are the multitudes of other families through this whole 1,656-year period. Then too, there were races of giants in the Earth that were not of the sons of Cain or Seth.

There were many people on Earth at the time Cain killed Able, or God would not have protected Cain from others who might desire to kill Cain Gen. 4:14, 15. Cain was evidently married by the time he slew Able, for immediately afterward he went into the land of Nob with his wife, and there he knew her and she had a son Gen. 4:16, 17. The curse upon the woman was to multiply greatly, and this was true of the early women, for when had his first child there were enough people even in Cain's land of exile to build a city Gen. 4:17. It could not be that Cain could build a city for one wife and one child.

Isn't it interesting how Adam's son Seth has the same name as the Egyptian God Seth, Seth the Egyptian god of confusion.

All the generations out of Cain intermingle and with the generation of Seth and so everything gets confusing: The sons of God end up taking for wives the daughters of wicked men. It gets so confusion that even the animals get confused. It gets so bad that God regrets all his creation on the earth--- except there is this one Noah a descendent of Seth, who " still is able to walk with God"! Do you think the "walk" was physical for both God and Noah? Do yo think that the author of the book of Genesis was a bit of a poet? Someone experienced and fluent in Egyptian spirituality?

BanjoPicker have you ever studied the doctrines of Finis Jennings Dake? If not you might find them very interesting because they seem for me to line up with what your driving at. In fact you are near to each other in language use as to be genetically related.

 

[BanjoPicker]

The first born of Seth was ungodly, and he was the one that started idolatry in the Earth, according to Gen. 4:26, which says, "Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord." This statement according to ancient versions reads, "Then began men to call themselves by the name of Jehovah" and to call their gods by the name Jehovah." Men began to worship stars and make idols like all kinds of animals, as stated in Rom. 1:21-32. The Targum of Onkelos reads "Then in his days the sons of men desisted from praying in the name of the Lord" and the Targum of Jonathan says, "That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make to themselves idols and surnamed their idols by the name of the Lord." In the Scofield Bible we read, "Then began men to call themselves by the name of Jehovah."

 

[gordon 2]

The first born of Seth was ungodly, and he was the one that started idolatry in the Earth, according to Gen. 4:26, which says, "Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord." This statement according to ancient versions reads, "Then began men to call themselves by the name of Jehovah" and to call their gods by the name Jehovah." Men began to worship stars and make idols like all kinds of animals, as stated in Rom. 1:21-32. The Targum of Onkelos reads "Then in his days the sons of men desisted from praying in the name of the Lord" and the Targum of Jonathan says, "That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make to themselves idols and surnamed their idols by the name of the Lord." In the Scofield Bible we read, "Then began men to call themselves by the name of Jehovah."

"That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make to themselves idols and surnamed their idols by the name of the Lord."

You have to wonder if the Tower of Babel was not a well intentioned project out of desiring to joint all the "surnamed idols" of those now living in a small city of that time so to reach to the heavens itself and return to the original and single divinity of the fathers. And perhaps similarly something I am personally guilty of.

What I have just stated is somewhat how Onkelos would have translated from the account of the Tower of Babel. He would add to it and even often turn it around from the commonly written account. In some ways he was a natural spinner in that he would return an account to some opposite and additional detail as if it was default to his personality, somewhat like political talking head agents know to do as a near disciplined profession today.

Also it is said Onkelos removed with his translations the human physicality of God from the books of Moses. Which he did very well.

All this because you reference the Targum of Onkelos, yet Onkelos is a master of dehumanizing ( removing human physical references from ) God in his translations of scripture ( first books of Moses). That is all references that God has body parts is removed from the books of Moses by Onkelos and yet you promote the very opposite even adding that by the use of physical descriptions common to man are proofs that three gods, the trinity, not unlike those of Dake above, have body parts and souls common to man?

What gives?

Dake's Dangerous Doctrine - Christian Research Institute

Click here to listen to the audio version of this article. This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 27, number 5 (2004). For further information on the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org SYNOPSIS The teachings of Finis Jennings Dake, author of...

www.equip.org

 

[BanjoPicker]

True worship did not begin with Enos, for Abel and others had already worshipped God in the true way many years before this. Enos was not born until 235 years after man's creation. We read of true worship during this time Gen. 3:21; 4:1-16; Heb. 11:4; so Enos did not start true worship, but the false. If Seth did not worship the true God and if the true worship began with Enos, then Seth was ungodly, and this automatically destroys the theory of Seth and all his sons being godly men. If idolatry started with Enos, then he was ungodly, so this also destroys the theory of the godly line of Seth. This proves that Seth's line was not all godly, and that the sons of God of Gen. 6 were not godly men of his line. If there had been thousands of godly seed from Seth, they certainly would have been mentioned somewhere in Scripture, especially when only three godly men of this period are mentioned thirteen times as seen in Scriptures.

 

[gordon 2]

Set (/sɛt/; Egyptological: Sutekh - swtẖ ~ stẖ[a] or Greek: Seth /sɛθ/) is a god of deserts, storms, disorder, violence, and foreigners in ancient Egyptian religion.[6]: 269  In Ancient Greek, the god's name is given as Sēth (Σήθ). Set had a positive role where he accompanies Ra on his barque to repel Apep, the serpent of Chaos.[6]: 269  Set had a vital role as a reconciled combatant.[6]: 269  He was lord of the Red Land (desert), where he was the balance to Horus' role as lord of the Black Land (fertile land).

In the Osiris myth, the most important Egyptian myth, Set is portrayed as the usurper who murdered and mutilated his own brother, Osiris. Osiris's sister-wife, Isis, reassembled his corpse and resurrected her dead brother-husband with the help of the goddess Nephthys. The resurrection lasted long enough to conceive his son and heir, Horus. Horus sought revenge upon Set and many of the ancient Egyptian myths describe their conflicts.[7]

( Source Wiki)

Note that Moses was an Egyptian and some say Moses is the cause of the books of creation. It is therefore not impossible that Moses would lay down the cause of conflict, as he understood it spiritually, under the name Seth.

 

[BanjoPicker]

FAILURE OF ALL MEN IN GENERAL Gen. 6:1-7,11-13. The ungodliness of all men in this age is stated in many Scriptures Gen. 4:1-26; 6:1-13; 7:1; Matt. 24:37-39; Lk. 17:26, 27; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:4, 5. The fact that only three men are mentioned as being godly in all this period proves the ungodliness of men in general. God will judge sin wherever it is found, whether it delays His original purpose or not. If there had not been one godly man on Earth at the time of the flood, the present social order on Earth would have been totally destroyed, as was that under Lucifer. God would have had to make a new social order as He did in Adam's day, for He created the Earth "to be inhabited" Isa. 45:18, and His original purpose will be finally carried out if He has to destroy and remake several social systems on Earth. Failure on the part of any one social system merely delays the original purpose.
At the time Moses, God thought to destroy all Israel because of sin. He planned to raise up a new nation under Moses, but Moses interceded, and the nation was spared, and God's original purpose continued Ex. 32:7-14. If he had destroyed all Israel and made a new nation of Moses, His plan would have been merely delayed, not defeated.

 

[BanjoPicker]

The failure of men in general in the Conscience may be summed up as follows:

A tendency to worship God merely as Creator and Benefactor, not as Saviour or as the Covenant of God Gen. 4:1-7; Rom. 1:17-32.

Undue prominence of the female sex and a disregard of the primal law of marriage Gen. 4:19; Matt. 24:37-39; Lk. 17:26-30.

Rapid progress of mechanical arts and inventions to make the curse easier Gen. 4:17-24; Rom. 1:30.

An alliance between nominal worshippers of God and the world Matt. 24:37-39; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:4, 5.

Rejection of preaching of righteousness 2 Pet. 2:5; Matt. 24:37-39.

Appearance on Earth of spirit beings in unlawful intercourse with the human race Gen. 6:1-7; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6, 7.

Murders and violence of all kinds Gen. 6:1-7, 11-13; Rom. 1:17-32.

Disregard for restraint of conscience Gen. 4:17-24; 6:1-7, 11-13; Matt. 24:37-39; 2 Pet. 2:4, 5.

Sins and pleasures of all kinds to satisfy every lust Gen. 4:17-24; 6:1-7, 11-13; Matt. 24:37-39; Rom. 17-32. Compare 1 Tim. 4; 2 Tim. 3; 2 Pet. 2; Jude 3-19.

 

[BanjoPicker]

The appearance on Earth of ungodly and inhuman giants as seen below.

THE FAILURE OF THE SONS OF GOD Gen. 6:1-7, 11-13. The subject of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men is much misunderstood, and for this reason one should be fair and opened-minded to everything in Scripture, letting the Word of God itself settle every question. Some hold that the sons of God were the sons of Seth, and that they married the daughters of Cain, which intermarriage was the breaking down of the godly line of Seth. There was no such thing as a godly line producing sons of God for 1,656 years, as been proved above,
so sons of God could not have been sons of Seth.

 

[gordon 2]

"and for this reason one should be fair and opened-minded to everything in Scripture, letting the Word of God itself settle every question."

I'm waiting. I've always been interested on how every one uses scripture on the subject of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men. It is a good way to find out what is the condition or conditioning of a pilgrim's or the preacher's soul and so to discern the place which his disciples occupy if a pastor.

It is my case and you can judge for yourself the condition of my soul that in the cause of the Sons of God vs the Daughters of Men that the everything in scripture can best be most captured by Occam's Razor. That is that with open-mind and the simple witness in scripture that is most consistent that the issue of the sons of God and the daughters of men is a constant irritant issue for God and demonstrated in the way man proceeds as related by scripture from Genesis to the Apocalypse.

And so there is no need to hunt down chapter and verses. I use Occam's Razor.

One of the most striking cases in scripture that has prompted man to make out of ancient man to be ancient "inhuman giants" is this one case here. Simply the struggle that our jealous God has always had with man is that his sons go off and marry the daughters of men who ARE NOT HIS SONS. And not being his sons they are the sons of man.

This resounds through out scripture that God fearing men who marry the daughters of men who do not fear God end up down the road being the parents of pagans or worse. And so the Godly project of gathering Jerusalem uniquely to Himself gets frustrated by God fearing men marrying the daughters of Idol worshipers simply because they are "hot" and treasure. A simpleton can see that God is this way jealous.

So Occam me voila: With scripture sometimes it is not eyes you need, excited yes that would strain to see and seeing everywhere don't see what is in front of the nose, rather than just hearing what God has ever said. It is by hearing in this case, I say, and this is what I hear: God fearing men marry the daughters of pagans because they are beautiful treasure and end up watering down God's project for man.




“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."

 

[BanjoPicker]

2 Tim. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lust shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.
4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF THE SONS OF GOD DISPROVES THIS THEORY. If the sons of God were the sons of Seth, these marriages could not have been during the last 600 years of this age, for Noah was the only godly man in this period: "for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. . . . Noah was a just man and prefect in his generations., and Noah walked with God" Gen. 6:9; 7:1; 2 Pet. 2:4, 5. There were no godly men to be called sons of God during the lifetime of Noah, so the marriages of the sons of God, if they ordinary men, had to be during the first 1,000 years of this period, but in Gen. 6:4 we have the fact that such marriages continued to "those days," which are agreed by everybody to include the days of Noah up to the flood.

In Gen. 6:1, 2 we have the fact that the sons of God began to marry the daughters of men from the very beginning when daughters were born to men. Adam had the first daughters Gen. 3:20; 5:1-5, and it must have been some of these that the sons of God began to marry. This was before the birth of Seth, or at least, before Seth had any sons of marriageable age. Seth had no children until he was 105 years of age, or until 235 years after man's creation Gen. 5:1-6 Enos had his first son 325 years after creation Gen. 5:1-9. If the sons of God married the daughters of men "when men began to multiply on the face of the earth," as stated in Gen. 6:1, then they could not be sons of Seth, for he had no sons at that time.

Again in Gen. 6:4 we read of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men "also after that," that is, after the flood the sons of God married the daughters of men. If the daughters of men were the ungodly daughters of Cain, then how did these ungodly women live after the flood, since only Noah's family was saved by the ark? 1 Pet 3:20; Gen. 6:18.

"a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" 2 Tim. 2:15.

 

[BanjoPicker]

THE EXPRESSIONS "SONS OF GOD" AND 'DAUGHTERS OF MEN" PROVE THAT ONE IS THE PRODUCT OF GOD AND THE OTHER IS THE PRODUCT OF MEN. The facts above prove that Seth's sons were just as ungodly as were those of Cain, so they could not be called the sons of God in the godly sense any more than could the sons of Cain. Only two of Seh's sons were godly, as one can see, hence the sons of Seth could not be godly sons of God. We have just as much authority in Scripture to teach that Cain's sons were godly as to teach that the sons of Seth were. One can also see that there were not two distinct lines of the race-one the line of Cain and the other the line of Seth. Hence, to teach that the marriage of the sons of God and the daughters of men was the breaking down of the line of separation between the godly and the ungodly lines is unspiritual. It is specifically stated that "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth Gen. 6:1-7, 11-13, and this is why only one family was saved in the ark.
It would not have been just of God to kill off all the godly men with the sinners. If the sons of God were godly men getting married to ungodly women, this would not in itself make them backslidden and lost. Many saved men and women today are married to unsaved companions, and they still remain godly. So we have to conclude that this theory of the sons of God being godly men is unscriptural.

 

[gordon 2]

THE EXPRESSIONS "SONS OF GOD" AND 'DAUGHTERS OF MEN" PROVE THAT ONE IS THE PRODUCT OF GOD AND THE OTHER IS THE PRODUCT OF MEN. The facts above prove that Seth's sons were just as ungodly as were those of Cain, so they could not be called the sons of God in the godly sense any more than could the sons of Cain. Only two of Seh's sons were godly, as one can see, hence the sons of Seth could not be godly sons of God. We have just as much authority in Scripture to teach that Cain's sons were godly as to teach that the sons of Seth were. One can also see that there were not two distinct lines of the race-one the line of Cain and the other the line of Seth. Hence, to teach that the marriage of the sons of God and the daughters of men was the breaking down of the line of separation between the godly and the ungodly lines is unspiritual. It is specifically stated that "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth Gen. 6:1-7, 11-13, and this is why only one family was saved in the ark.
It would not have been just of God to kill off all the godly men with the sinners. If the sons of God were godly men getting married to ungodly women, this would not in itself make them backslidden and lost. Many saved men and women today are married to unsaved companions, and they still remain godly. So we have to conclude that this theory of the sons of God being godly men is unscriptural.

Quote: It would not have been just of God to kill off all the godly men with the sinners. If the sons of God were godly men getting married to ungodly women, this would not in itself make them backslidden and lost. Many saved men and women today are married to unsaved companions, and they still remain godly. So we have to conclude that this theory of the sons of God being godly men is unscriptural. Unquote

Read this again when you are not tired.

 

[gordon 2]

It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

 

[BanjoPicker]

IT IS ONLT THROUGH A DIVINE SPECIFIC ACT OF CREATION THAT ANY BEING CAN BECOME A SON OF GOD.
Adam was a direct product of creation and was called a "son of God: Lk. 3:38. Adam's sons are not and could not be called the sons of God by natural generation. His sons could only be sons of God in a godly sense by being born again and by being created anew in Christ Jn. 3:1-5; Eph. 4:22-24; 2 Cor. 5:17. Since Seth's sons were not godly by the new birth they could never be called the sons of God.

 

[gordon 2]

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: and I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

 

[BanjoPicker]

It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

Christ said to them. "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken" Lk. 24:25-27.

 

[BanjoPicker]

THE EXPRESSION "SONS OF GOD" IS USED ONLY FIVE TIMES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND EVERY TIME IT IS USED OF ANGELS, UNLESS IT BE IN GEN. 6. It is used of Job 1:6; 2:1 of angels in Heaven presenting themselves before the Lord. Satan came also with them to present himself before the Lord. The scene was in Heaven in both cases, as proved by the fact that Satan had come FROM the Earth. These sons of God presenting themselves before the Lord at least could not have been the sons of Seth., for godly men did not go to Heaven before Christ conquered death and He11. The righteous before this went into the lower parts of the Earth instead of Heaven. Mt. 12:40; Eph. 4:7-11; Heb. 2:14, 15. Now since Christ conquered death, He11, and the grave, the saved souls go immediately to Heaven after death 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:21-23. Hence, Seth's sons could not have been in Heaven in Job's day.
That the sons of God in Heaven in Job's day were angels is further proved by the fact that they were present with God and were shouting when God laid the foundations of the Earth Job. 38:4-7. Certainly, Seth's sons were not the sons of God shouting for joy when God created the Earth. They were not yet existence and were not until hundreds of years after Adam was. Could not angels be referred to in Gen. 6? There is no logical or scriptural explanation of Gen. 6:1-4 unless one understands these sons of God to be angels.

 

[gordon 2]

THE EXPRESSION "SONS OF GOD" IS USED ONLY FIVE TIMES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND EVERY TIME IT IS USED OF ANGELS, UNLESS IT BE IN GEN. 6. It is used of Job 1:6; 2:1 of angels in Heaven presenting themselves before the Lord. Satan came also with them to present himself before the Lord. The scene was in Heaven in both cases, as proved by the fact that Satan had come FROM the Earth. These sons of God presenting themselves before the Lord at least could not have been the sons of Seth., for godly men did not go to Heaven before Christ conquered death and He11. The righteous before this went into the lower parts of the Earth instead of Heaven. Mt. 12:40; Eph. 4:7-11; Heb. 2:14, 15. Now since Christ conquered death, He11, and the grave, the saved souls go immediately to Heaven after death 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:21-23. Hence, Seth's sons could not have been in Heaven in Job's day.
That the sons of God in Heaven in Job's day were angels is further proved by the fact that they were present with God and were shouting when God laid the foundations of the Earth Job. 38:4-7. Certainly, Seth's sons were not the sons of God shouting for joy when God created the Earth. They were not yet existence and were not until hundreds of years after Adam was. Could not angels be referred to in Gen. 6? There is no logical or scriptural explanation of Gen. 6:1-4 unless one understands these sons of God to be angels.

Very interesting. What would the angels and Christians ( humans) have in common with each other that they are both sons of God? Ideas? Surely they have something in common to be known as such and by what justice would God call Israel his son? What do these three things have in common? Ideas? Scripture?

Could we make the case that the prophets of Yahve, all of them, were the sons of God or Yahve's sons and if not why not? Those who walked with God, what about them? Does the fact that they are spiritual Israel and cultural Israel make them the sons of God? If not why not? And if so, were the men and women that walked with God before the time of the chosen people also sons of God? If not why not?


Why would some angels and Christians or those Christians who are spiritually born again be the children of God and no one else? Because it is not in the bible? The bible is the only store by which God is living? It is the only valid manifestation of the truth, and even greater teacher than God the Holy Spirit?

Only Angels and Christians are the sons of God because the bible does not state so to include to the list anyone else exception perhaps Israel all which is Israel itself?

What would the bible say on all this. Would it point that I'm simply possessed of a legion as some accused Christ perhaps. That for His consciousness that would speak and give voice as if out of time with the sounds of the letter of scripture to many, I might also deserve no mercies? I cannot discern from my Father's heart which is in me and not from scripture that the sons of God were men and women who walked by faith? I cannot see and know things from the Father's heart and it be justly seen and understood?

Is my heart cursed that I would meet King Melchizedec someday as my brother and I said I was brother to a priest by supposing that I recognize my kinship to Mel for our common Father and how we would know each other by the way we both broke bread with Him? Is my bond to Mel scripture or/and more some things else spiritually? Am I too familiar with what is sacred. Is my love disrespectful?

What is this spirit of God that he would favor some, the angels to be his sons and only those who since the Reformation cast their faith into the bible alone and in many cases builded themselves towers to catch the narrow doors into heaven just right? All of them in between who could not read were but drunk by other things and Job's faith, for that is all they had, was just a lucky accident? Is God an autistic savant and only the autistic savant angels and the rare and gifted autistic savants bible students are able to collate scripture out of the ordinary and making most of us unnatural and unfit on intelligence and so to be the elect except through the divines who make scripture their crystal ball?

Or let me calm myself down, I need a veil between God and myself other than time--- I need the fellowship with man to teach me that the god in my heart is no god at all, I cleave to an idol and not the God of the promise, because and despite my baptism in Christ, all their bibles that they raise tell them so. They are raised against me.

It just don't add up for me.

 

[BanjoPicker]

The Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, reads "the angels of God. . . .took them wives of all they chose." This version of Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament was translated about 285 B. C. It was the Bible used by Christ and the apostles. The fact of angels marrying daughters of men is confirmed by Josephus and many ancient Jewish historians.

The Moffatt translation reads, "the angels of God," and so do other versions. some claim that the book of Job was written by Moses. If this is true, then the expression "sons of God" as applied to angels would be a familiar one to Moses, as he wrote the book of Genesis. At any rate, if angels did marry the daughters of men then this really happened and there would be no sin in believing it. There is nothing to gain in rejecting this historical fact if it really happen.