An Example

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by theway

Please... now it's just apparent that you can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong.
This is not a widely held belief amoung Mormons; in fact, every time I've heard it talked about in Church they go out of their way to make the point that it was not angels. The irony is that this is a widely help belief that they were angels amoung modern Christians. Just 2 months ago I got in an argument with an Evangelical that "Sons of God" only meant that they were righteous men, or God's choosen people. James, I think you need to spend time cleaning house first.

Okay, so they were not angels, so what does your church say they were?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Okay, so they were not angels, so what does your church say they were?

Looks like I was wrong.. The closest thing to an official statement I can find on this p***age from the LDS is this:

President Joseph
Fielding Smith wrote:
Because the daughters of Noah married the sons
of men contrary to the teachings of the Lord, his
anger was kindled, and this offense was one cause
that brought to p*** the universal flood. You will see
that the condition appears reversed in the Book of
Moses. It was the daughters of the sons of God who
were marrying the sons of men, which was displeasing
unto the Lord. The fact was, as we see it revealed, that
the daughters who had been born, evidently under
the covenant, and were the daughters of the sons of
God, that is to say of those who held the priesthood,
were transgressing the commandment of the Lord
and were marrying out of the Church. Thus they were
cutting themselves off from the blessings of the
priesthood contrary to the teachings of Noah and the
will of God. (Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:136–37.)

So what I was told by my LDS teachers was wrong. A LDS teaching teaching a lie now there is a shock! The President of the LDS church gave this "Simple" explanation.. I guess it's simple to those that understand gibberish. Suddenly the daughters of men have become the daughters of the sons of God and they were marrying the sons of men? Sons of men? Where is there anything is Gen 6:2 about the sons of men? There does it say that the daughters of the sons of God married these sons of men? Doesn't the p***age say that the sons of God saw the daughters of men? How did these become the daughters of the sons of God, that is to say of those who held the priesthood, were transgressing the commandment of the Lord and were marrying out of the Church? That is much more reasonable than even the false teaching I was told of the sons of God being angelic beings.. even though it's false that idea can at least be understood.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by theway

Sorry... not a clue as to what you are saying.

You want gibberish try reading what your prophet had to say about this in Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:136–37.. I can see that you guys were right according to this official statement that is if I am reading it correctly. I am not sure since the daughters of men have been changes into the daughters of the sons of God and the sons of God changed into the sons of men.. I case you can't find this text Here it is again:

Joseph
Fielding Smith wrote:
“Because the daughters of Noah married the sons
of men contrary to the teachings of the Lord, his
anger was kindled, and this offense was one cause
that brought to p*** the universal flood. You will see
that the condition appears reversed in the Book of
Moses. It was the daughters of the sons of God who
were marrying the sons of men, which was displeasing
unto the Lord. The fact was, as we see it revealed, that
the daughters who had been born, evidently under
the covenant, and were the daughters of the sons of
God, that is to say of those who held the priesthood,
were transgressing the commandment of the Lord
and were marrying out of the Church. Thus they were
cutting themselves off from the blessings of the
priesthood contrary to the teachings of Noah and the
will of God.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:136–37.)

IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

The "sons of God" are just normal people that have a relationship with their lord.....this in Genesis is found in the family tree of Seth.

"Daughters of men" are talking about people in the family tree of Cain, they do not have a relationship with God....

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Well, I am. James made a claim about LDS beliefs. I challenged him on it with my own personal beliefs. He said that my personal beliefs "mean nothing." Since he believes my beliefs "mean nothing" as to what the LDS believe then I showed him from LDS sources what the LDS believe. If you can't understand that then it is no use conversing with you.






Again, the use of the Book of Moses was to PROVE that James' ***ertion was in error. Nothing more, nothing less.




Can you please wake up to the object of a discussion board and understand that if someone makes a false claim about the others beliefs it is completely relevant to use official sources to prove their claim is false.

Look, Jim's secondary point is that Jesus taught in the Holy Scriptures that we will NOT be married after death because we will be like the angels and angels do not marry. Yet the lds wants us to believe that Jesus later taught that yes we will be married for eternity. This is NOT "new revelations". This is saying Jesus lied. This is what happens when you use writings that are not by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You have a complete conflict here that you are unable to resolve. So what does the lds do to try and fix this? They give a completely different meaning to what Jesus actually said in the Holy Bible.

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Okay, so they were not angels, so what does your church say they were?

Ar least we have enough humility to admit when we make a mistake. I have been on this forum for 2 years and I honestly cannot recall any lds ever admitting when they were wrong.

[TheSword99]

At a meeting of the school of the prophet, President Young said Adam was Michael, the Archangel and he was the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Dec. 16, 1867)



So here's my question:

If Adam was a god, why is his offspring fallen men?

BTW, 1 Cor. 15:47-48 tells us the first man Adam was taken from the earth he did not come from heaven.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

The "sons of God" are just normal people that have a relationship with their lord.....this in Genesis is found in the family tree of Seth.

"Daughters of men" are talking about people in the family tree of Cain, they do not have a relationship with God....

Is this what you were taught as a mormon? I was taught that this p***age was about angels that came to the earth and created a race of giants.. I guess those that taught me this were teaching false doctrine.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Is this what you were taught as a mormon? I was taught that this p***age was about angels that came to the earth and created a race of giants.. I guess those that taught me this were teaching false doctrine.. IHS jim

Well rather than calling it a "false doctrine" I would say that such teachings are a sign of poor bible scholarship and a human tendency to want to hype a invented story that is sexy over the need to seriously study the bible's text.


The context of that whole section of genesis is all about two very different family trees that split-off from Adam and Eve.

There is the family tree of Cain , we read all about each person and a little about what they did.

And we read about the godly line stemming from Seth.
We learn about Seth's kids, and how one is so close to God he walks with the Lord.

So the Genesis 6 verses are not any different in subject than what we were just reading about in the many verses before.
We are still only dealing with the two different branches of Adam's family tree.

You can see this if you simply read the whole story as a unit, and not try to jump in to the story and only read a verse out of it's context.

The "sons of god' and the "daughters of men" verse is completely in-line with the Genesis story that had led us up to these verses....

There is no way to get "angels" out of these verses....

The "giants" term is quickly defined by the bible in the very next wording = "men of renown".

Once again if you stick to the context to where the verse sits in the Text then you dont need to invent wild stories of Big Foot or horny angels.

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

W

The "giants" term is quickly defined by the bible in the very next wording = "men of renown".

Once again if you stick to the context to where the verse sits in the Text then you dont need to invent wild stories of Big Foot or horny angels.

Are you saying there weren't any giants? What was Goliath?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Are you saying there weren't any giants? What was Goliath?

Okay, so Goliath, was a giant Leprechaun.
For the record though, the average height for a man was about 5'8", so an NBA star of Jesus's day would be about 6'6" feet tall.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Are you saying there weren't any giants? What was Goliath?

Im saying that the correct understanding of "giants" in that verse is defined in that verse as "men of renown".....case-closed!

Im saying that you dont need to jump into that verse and read it out of the fuller context of the surrounding verses that led up to it..
You dont need to do that to yet understand it.


Im saying that when you back up and read the whole Genesis story that led up to this verse you see that the Text is in-fact talking about two different blanches of Adam's family tree.

One side of the tree is the family that came from Cain...and it's an evil and dark side of the family and it has stories of murder and marring more than one wife and all kinds of other stuff that was evil in the sight of God.

The other side of the family tree deals with the children of Seth and how they were good and walked with God.

Thus when the text tells us that the "sons of God" (Seth's side) intermarried with the "daughters of men" (Cain's side) we are still simply talking about some goings on between the two different branches of the human race at that point in history.
This is not a trick verse.
You can understand it by sticking to the context it appears connected within


no need to invent a story about Big foot

no need to invent a story about horny angels

[alanmolstad]

If you have any doubts about what im saying, look it up, ask anything you wish....check things out for yourself.

I think that if you can find a good website on this topic that it should teach you the same as im saying...

It should also inform you that the word we translated as "giants' is a bit minsunderstood, and that the correct understanding is to mean it in the 'men of renown" understanding....

Like saying that in the world of science Stephen Hawking is a "giant"...
But what do we mean when we call Stephen Hawking a giant?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

What was Goliath?

The fact that you ask this tells me that you are allowing something that is not in this verse to force you into a false conclusion about what this verse is saying.

When you read in Genesis about "giants" you automatically think of the story of David and Goliath, and how small david was and how big Goliath was....and this story of them two guys has colored the way you look at this genesis story.

This is a bad way to study the Genesis story.....


The Genesis 6 story stands on it's own, and does not need help from other stories...and you invite error if you twist things from one story into others...

This reminds me of the conversation i had here when i tried to get people who believe that the sun was created on the 4h day of genesis to answer my question : "What does the Bible say God created first "In the beginning"?"

They could not bring themselves to answer that question because they already had a time-line worked out for the events of day 4....and if they answered my question according to the text alone it screwed up their Young Earth time-line......

Thus they had taken a story that happens later in the Bible, and allowed it to twist their understanding of the opening of Genesis, to the point where what they believed about Genesis was not connected to the story as written in Genesis.

IN THE SAME WAY....People that teach that genesis 6 is talking about Big foot and horny angels only do so because they have allowed other later bible stories to color what they are reading in Genesis to the point where what they teach is not connected to what was written in the Genesis story.

[glm1978]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

The fact that you ask this tells me that you are allowing something that is not in this verse to force you into a false conclusion about what this verse is saying.

When you read in Genesis about "giants" you automatically think of the story of David and Goliath, and how small david was and how big Goliath was....and this story of them two guys has colored the way you look at this genesis story.

This is a bad way to study the Genesis story.....


The Genesis 6 story stands on it's own, and does not need help from other stories...and you invite error if you twist things from one story into others...

This reminds me of the conversation i had here when i tried to get people who believe that the sun was created on the 4h day of genesis to answer my question : "What does the Bible say God created first "In the beginning"?"

They could not bring themselves to answer that question because they already had a time-line worked out for the events of day 4....and if they answered my question according to the text alone it screwed up their Young Earth time-line......

Thus they had taken a story that happens later in the Bible, and allowed it to twist their understanding of the opening of Genesis, to the point where what they believed about Genesis was not connected to the story as written in Genesis.

IN THE SAME WAY....People that teach that genesis 6 is talking about Big foot and horny angels only do so because they have allowed other later bible stories to color what they are reading in Genesis to the point where what they teach is not connected to what was written in the Genesis story.

Deuteronomy 3:11 - For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of GIANTs; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.


2 Samuel 21:20 - And 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.

1 Chronicles 20:6 - And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot: and he also was the son of the GIANT.

[alanmolstad]

ask......it is important to me you understand this stuff...

[glm1978]

When I was LDS I was taught that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 were descendants of Adam in the line of Seth.

[alanmolstad]

once again, twisting other things to color the Genesis story.

Just read the gen story in IT"S context and there is no need to twist other stuff into it....

[glm1978]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

ask......it is important to me you understand this stuff...

alan I seem to remember your refusal to tell us if you were born again. I hardly think you are qualified to tell us what the Bible teaches.

[glm1978]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

once again, twisting other things to color the Genesis story.

Just read the gen story in IT"S context and there is no need to twist other stuff into it....

Just read the p***ages I gave you!

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by glm1978

When I was LDS I was taught that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 were descendants of Adam in the line of Seth.

...while I dont know what the Mormons taught you about such things...I can tell you that the clear context is teaching that we are reading about the two different branches of the family tree from Adam and eve.

Cain's family, and Seth's family....

Thats all this is about....the two branches intermarried

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by glm1978

Just read the p***ages I gave you!

and Im saying that if You just stick to the context of the Genesis story we dont need to invent stories of Big Foot or horny angels...LOL|


The Bible tells us clearly right there in the verse what it means by the use of the word 'giants'.....
The wording tells us clearly that it means 'men of renown"

thats what the Bible defines the term as...not me....it's the bible's definition....

also if you can find a good study bible it should tell you that the word we see translated as 'giants" should be understood as talking about "importance'...like in:"Stephen Hawking is a giant in the world of science"

Its NOT talking about his height!...LOL

Look it up for yourself kids...Im not making this stuff up, Im simply telling you what the verse says....and does not say...

[alanmolstad]

We can all go though this verse by verse if you like....
I got my bible handy here....Im ready to show you what is being talking about if you have any doubts?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by glm1978

alan I seem to remember your refusal to tell us if you were born again. ....

Your attempt to make this about me has "FAILED"

I do not take the bait.
I dont not get into personal stuff.....for such topics are none of anyone's business and only serve to side-track a topic.

We shall stick to the verse in question and stick to the context that it appears within thankyou....

[alanmolstad]

if you have a doubt as to what I have said, get your bibles out and we shall go over the verse and look at the whole context that the verse appears within...we shall read the whole story that led up to this verse, and it is there we shall see that what i am saying is the ONLY correct way to view the verse and stay within the genesis context



Just tell me when you got your Bible open and we shall begin.....