Did God Command Genocide During the Conquest of Canaan?

jmdrake said:
Fair enough. FTR I'm fine with reading materials outside the Protestant cannon. Bel and the Dragon are funny stories TBH.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "Protestant Canon" (one N btw). They adopted the Tanakh of the Masoretes as it existed.
 
ClaytonB said:
I do understand that. It is a false and antichrist teaching, as the entire institution of the papacy itself also is (Matt. 23:9). But that is off-topic from this thread.



It's just equivocation of separate topics. In Christ, the church is glorified and is not only holy, sinless and infallible, but even has authority above the angels themselves (1 Cor. 6:3, etc.) Does the Pope, a sinner like you and me, have the power to command angels? Of course not, because the Pope (like you and me) is not yet glorified. The future sinless state of the church in glory cannot be hypostasized in the present without doctrinal error (this is the same error as the Holiness movement, for example), and this is so robustly proved in the New Testament that it does not even need extrapolation here.



Which is a self-refuting claim, on its face. You do see that, don't you?



The issue is not that the bishops of Rome were all sinners (and admittedly so) -- the issue is that Jesus explicitly told us "Call no man on earth father". Yes, there are spiritual fathers, but Jesus also told us why we are not to call any man on earth father, that is, The Father (which is what The Pope means) -- because we already have one Father, who is in heaven. Matt. 23:9 alone is sufficient to demonstrate that the papacy is antichrist, but there 1,000 proofs from Scripture, just as strong as this. Note that my description of the institution as antichrist does not mean that the bishop of Rome is, in his person, the Antichrist nor even is he necessarily filled with an antichrist spirit, but the institution itself is blasphemously placed in carnal stead of the Heavenly Father and thus it is, in its very essence, antichrist and cannot be otherwise.

The root error is the bishop of Rome's insistence on pre-eminence on his own cognizance among the bishops of the church of Jesus Christ -- not even the Lord Jesus himself did such a thing. He did not tell the disciples who He was, rather, he asked "Who do YOU say that I am?" (the actual context of Matt. 16:18, BTW). If the bishop of Rome actually obeyed and imitated Jesus -- whom he claims to be the unique vicar on earth of -- he would do as Jesus did. "Who do you (the churches) say that I am?" Yet, he does not, he instead demands pre-eminence just like every other carnal ruler in this world, of which he is just another.
Click to expand...

This is a good article about the "father" red herring you Protties throw at us. So dumb, as usual.


I didn't make an appearance in this thread to revist this disagreement. You didn't even want to read any books I've posted before.
It is what it is. I can't even remember what the topic was originally.
 
Last edited:
jmdrake said:
Why are you skeptical of this?



Edit: Look how big that head is in the thumbnail. There's your "nephilim / giants" that the Bible talked about.
Click to expand...

The AI summary of this video says .... "Explore how Neanderthals and early humans coexisted for over 200,000 years, challenging previous evolutionary models. New fossil discoveries in the Levant reveal a complex history of interaction and gene flow. This compelling documentary uses DNA and archaeological evidence to paint a vivid picture of their shared lives."

If the scientists cannot even accurately date the fossils, I'm highly skeptical of any other conclusions they concoct up.

Having said that, back in the pre-flood days, humans lived much longer, had much better diets, much better environmental conditions. It's not surprising they were larger.

Side note, it's entirely impossible to use any scientific methods of dating beyond 4000-6000 years. They have absolutely no way of calibrating their instruments and methodology. It's pure speculation.
 
1stvermont said:
Did God Command Genocide During the Conquest of Canaan?

Some atheist claim during the conquest of Canaan God ordered the Israelites to murder innocent Canaanites men, woman, and children. So therefore, the god of the bible is either evil, and not worth worshiping, or not the true god since god must be good. While the claim is false, assuming it were true and god did order genocide against innocents, would that not be a reason to do what he wants to not anger him? Nothing from an atheist view point says god must be “good” [or how we view “good”] or act in a loving way. Those beliefs come from the christian ideas of god in the bible. If God did order genocide, that would not disprove a god, only that god at times ordered genocide. Atheist must put themselves in place of God to judge his actions by their standards. Instead of God who is a perfect judge of people living thousands of years ago, to decided what is morally correct or not. Atheist must make three assumptions before judging gods actions.

1] We must assume we are god, that only we can tell and know what is morally acceptable or not.

2] We must assume their are such things as morals, “right” and “wrong” those ideas only make sense if a moral god created us. Since there are no true morals in an atheistic evolutionary scenario.
Click to expand...
.
This has so many fuggin words it's making my eyeballs hurt.

Reported.
.
 
Snowball said:
This is a good article about the "father" red herring you Protties throw at us. So dumb, as usual.


I didn't make an appearance in this thread to revist this disagreement. You didn't even want to read any books I've posted before.
It is what it is. I can't even remember what the topic was originally.
Click to expand...

The article is giving a pastoral application -- no, Christians should not be afraid to use the word "teacher" nor "father", not even spiritually. There are spiritual fathers, this is proved from the New Testament itself and is, in any case, obvious. But Jesus is not using hyperbole, here -- he's simply not talking about the common uses of the words "teacher" and "father" which is clear from the very context cited. The Pharisees weren't just teachers, they were a powerful religious establishment, just like the church of Rome is. A "father" in this context is not merely someone who mentors you, etc. but holds your fate in the balance -- according to the beliefs of the church of Rome itself, even your eternal fate ("there is no salvation outside the church [of Rome]"). That is not a fatherhood of love, it is a fatherhood of fear (see 1 John 4:18).

The Pharisees and the chief priests were two of the primary parties who conspired to have Jesus crucified, and falsely convicted him of blasphemy. Jesus begins the chapter on the matter of authority -- you are to do what they command because they have authority from Moses, but you are not to do as they do. Why do they call one another "teacher" and "father"? We learn elsewhere it is because they are children of the devil (John 8:44), that is, they are spiritually corrupt, a hierarchy of evil spiritual power. The church of Rome, in its laity and its bishops other than the Pope, are not in scope of Matt. 23:9 -- only one office in the church of Rome is under examination, and that is the papacy itself. Can a papacy belong to a hierarchy of godly spiritual power? Or can it only belong to a hierarchy of evil spiritual power? THAT is the question.

The apologists of the papacy are innumerable, and their arguments are of enormous volume. But scale proves nothing. By simply reading the New Testament and understanding the abundantly plain language on its pages, any reasonable person will immediately come to the conclusion that the ekklesia (assembly, congregation, church) are sooner all of us popes ("vicars of Christ" in the fullest possible sense of that term) than that there is just one sinner on earth who is this. The error of the church of Rome is not that it asserts that there is a man who is the vicar of Christ on earth, but that there is JUST ONE man who is the vicar of Christ on earth. But what does Scripture say? (This matters, even for Catholics, because God the Holy Spirit can never contradict himself, whether through tradition or Scripture):

"And we [clearly meaning all believers], who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." (2 Cor. 3:18)

See also (and cross-reference): Mat 25:40, Rom 8:29, 1Co 15:49, Rom 13:14, John 17:22, Rev 1:5, Eph 1:11, John 17:16, 1Jo 3:2, Col 1:15, 2Co 5:17, Eph 4:24, 2Co 4:4, Gal 6:15, Phi 3:21, 2Ti 1:9, Mat 12:50, Heb 1:5, Heb 2:11, 1Co 2:7, etc.

These passages are crystal clear: Jesus died not merely to save us, but to make us like Him, and not merely in some reflective or metaphorical sense, but unto unification (John 17, whole chapter, Eph. 1:10, etc.) This doctrine is also present in the traditional teachings of the church of Rome (theosis), but its ecclesiastical implications are not only evaded, but contradicted by the institution of the papacy. The false teaching of papacy attempts to "restrict the franchise" to just one man, yet the New Testament teaches in crystal-clear language that the Gospel transforms sinful men into the very likeness of the Lord Jesus Christ, seated at the right hand of God. The universality of the Gospel transformation cannot lower its celestial glory -- the miracle is not that God saves many sinful men, the miracle is that he saves any sinful men.

The New Testament also clearly tells us what the church is, and this immediately contradicts the institution of the papacy -- the church just is the brotherhood of believers, and not just any brotherhood, but the brotherhood whose eldest brother is the Lord Jesus Christ himself (Romans 8:29). The papacy contradicts this because it implicitly claims that Jesus has left us (contradicting Matt. 28:20) and, in his absence, "put St. Peter in charge", which would make St. Peter the eldest of the brotherhood (contradicting Romans 8:29). This is carnal error, and directly contradicts Matt. 23:11,12 which is the point that Jesus is making from Matt. 23:1-10 (including v. 9), and many other passages. The kingdom of God is the reverse of the kingdoms of this world. Honor in God's kingdom does not flow from the scepter, it flows from service (humility). The churches of Orthodoxy have practiced this correct aspect of ecclesiology from the times of the Apostles themselves, which routs any attempt by the church of Rome to use "tradition" to salvage the papacy. Jesus is with us always, through his Holy Spirit, who being very God and one with Jesus in the Triune being of God, is the only Shepherd of the church, the shepherds (bishops) of the churches being also His sheep (along with all believers).

The Bible says the church looks like this:

[ Jesus (eldest) | the body of believers ] }-- the Holy Spirit our Comforter and Teacher in all times and places

The papacy makes the church look like this:

[ Jesus (eldest), and also the Pope (second eldest) | the clergy (Shepherds) | the body of believers ]

This is completely alien to Scripture, and to documented church tradition (Orthodox).

If there is honor in the apostolic succession, it is an honor that is given, not demanded, Matt. 16:15, 23:11,12.
 
Intrepid said:
.
This has so many XXXX words it's making my eyeballs hurt.

Reported.
.
Click to expand...



Gemini-Generated-Image-k8j8mok8j8mok8j8.png


I couldn't find the original image :(
 
redmod79 said:
ClaytonB, thank you again for your replies. I'm not yet ready to respond. I promise I will, though.
Click to expand...

Take your time, it's the holidays. I know my replies are voluminous but this happens to be a topic I've been studying on the side for the last couple years, and your posts are a good opportunity to get my thoughts organized together. It's been a good discussion, and I look forward to future discussion.

PS: Yesterday, I had the idea to include the late John MacArthur's "possession view" as a third alternative between the Sethite view and the angel-view. I think MacArthur's view can't be refuted from the text alone, because there is no way to prove from the text in exactly what manner the sons of God came to the daughters of men, whether by unauthorized incarnation, or by unauthorized possession. That said, I also see it as a distinction without much difference... if the sons of God are acting unauthorized, does it much matter by precisely what material vehicle they did this? Only God knows the exact details, and perhaps he hasn't revealed them to us even through extra-biblical sources, but I find it a strange hill to die on, to assert that the sons of God came down from heaven unauthorized but did not incarnate, only possessed. I think the purpose is to try to reserve incarnation as a power that God treasures to himself alone, but we already know that the angels do indeed incarnate (in true human form, indiscernible to human eyes). If fallen angels incarnate bodily in order to sin, or merely possess another already-incarnated body to do so, it is a spiritual rebellion of equal magnitude. Anyway, I consider this third-view in the status of "not refutable" but also seeming to split hairs against received tradition where I'm not sure what the improvement is -- the early church fathers almost all believed in the angel-view, and had no doctrinal issues with the idea that the fallen angels did actually do false-incarnation in rebellion against God and I also see no doctrinal problems with this view, which is what the text really seems to say. But maybe we won't find out until glory...
 
ClaytonB said:
Take your time, it's the holidays. I know my replies are voluminous but this happens to be a topic I've been studying on the side for the last couple years, and your posts are a good opportunity to get my thoughts organized together. It's been a good discussion, and I look forward to future discussion....
Click to expand...
Thank you, here's a response I have regarding "sons of God". I might respond to other parts of your response later, depending on how this conversation goes. I really think the crux of the matter is with this phrasing. I also learned something new today about this, regarding Deuteronomy 32:8.

Regarding the "sons of God" (*bene ha Elohim*) phrase, I think we have to look at what Moses was doing in the chapters leading up to Genesis 6.
Genesis 4 and 5 already established two groups: the line of Seth (calling on God) and the line of Cain (violence). It seems like a stretch to ignore that history and import a definition from Job. Moses himself uses this language for humans. In Deuteronomy 14:1, he tells Israel, "Ye are the children [sons] of the LORD your God."
While the wording isn't an exact match to Genesis 6, it is practically the same:

  • Genesis 6: bene ha-elohim (Strong's H1121 and H430)
  • Deut 14:1: banim (H1121) la-YHWH (H3068)
The root word is identical, and the concept is the same: a covenant relationship with the Creator.
The New Testament backs this up, consistently using "sons of God" to refer to people who follow the Spirit:

  • John 1:12: "power to become the sons of God"
  • Romans 8:14: "as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"
  • Philippians 2:15: "that ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God"
  • 1 John 3:1: "that we should be called the sons of God"
Why prioritize a poetic definition from Job over the clear definition found in the New Testament and Moses' own writings?


Evidence in Deuteronomy 32:8
Here’s something interesting I just came across regarding Deuteronomy 32:8. Let’s look at the text from 3 different sources:

  • KJV (Masoretic Text):
    "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel."
    bene yisra'el (Strong's H1121 H3478)
  • Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeutʲ):
    "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of God."
    bene elohim (Strong's H1121 H430)
  • Septuagint (LXX):
    "When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God."
    angelon theou (Strong's G32 G2316)
The Dead Sea Scrolls show the older Hebrew likely said "sons of God" (*bene elohim*). This makes sense because Israel didn't exist at Babel. In this passage, Moses is contrasting the "sons of Adam" (those rebelling and dispersed) with the "sons of God" (His own people). It's the same pattern as Genesis: God's people vs. the world.

This creates a strong argument that “sons of God” (H1121 H430) can be used for people, and not just heavenly beings.

”Angel” doesn’t always mean heavenly being
The LXX translators rendered this as "angels of God" (*angelon theou*), but that’s just an interpretation, not a literal translation.
But even if we accept the word "angels," it doesn't prove they are heavenly beings. The Strong's definition for angel (G32 aggelos) is simply "a messenger, envoy, one who is sent." It describes a function, not necessarily a nature.
You've noted yourself that the "angels" of the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3 are people, not heavenly beings. So, even if the Septuagint uses the word "angel," it isn't required to mean heavenly beings.
If "sons of God" in Deut 32:8 refers to people and is contrasted with the ungodly "sons of Adam," it seems very well within reason that Moses uses these same terms in Genesis 6 to distinguish between groups of people based on their relationship to God.
 
redmod79 said:
The AI summary of this video says .... "Explore how Neanderthals and early humans coexisted for over 200,000 years, challenging previous evolutionary models. New fossil discoveries in the Levant reveal a complex history of interaction and gene flow. This compelling documentary uses DNA and archaeological evidence to paint a vivid picture of their shared lives."

If the scientists cannot even accurately date the fossils, I'm highly skeptical of any other conclusions they concoct up.

Having said that, back in the pre-flood days, humans lived much longer, had much better diets, much better environmental conditions. It's not surprising they were larger.

Side note, it's entirely impossible to use any scientific methods of dating beyond 4000-6000 years. They have absolutely no way of calibrating their instruments and methodology. It's pure speculation.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Just because these scientists are operating from a different timeframe from the Bible doesn't mean the DNA evidence is wrong. You're stretching. But whatever dude.
 
jmdrake said:
:rolleyes: Just because these scientists are operating from a different timeframe from the Bible doesn't mean the DNA evidence is wrong. You're stretching. But whatever dude.
Click to expand...
What does the DNA evidence suggest? That a particular group of people in the past that they refer to as neanderthals mixed with another group of people they refer to as "normal" people? That these two groups were able to reproduce together, and thus are of the same kind? Ok.
 
redmod79 said:
”Angel” doesn’t always mean heavenly being
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The LXX translators rendered this as "angels of God" (*angelon theou*), but that’s just an interpretation, not a literal translation.

But even if we accept the word "angels," it doesn't prove they are heavenly beings. The Strong's definition for angel (G32 aggelos) is simply "a messenger, envoy, one who is sent." It describes a function, not necessarily a nature.

You've noted yourself that the "angels" of the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3 are people, not heavenly beings. So, even if the Septuagint uses the word "angel," it isn't required to mean heavenly beings.
Click to expand...

But this argues my point, not yours in this case. In the Revelation letters to the seven churches, the reason for using this language is clearly to call attention to (a) the high calling of the bishops of the seven churches, and their answerability to the ascended, heavenly Lord Jesus and (b) their future station if they remain secure in their calling, that is, to join the ranks of the angels in heaven as sons of God, that is, as heavenly beings bearing the authority of God. To properly understand this, we need to understand the doctrine of glorification, which many Protestant churches have not remained fully faithful to the clear teaching of the Bible -- Anselm pithily summarized it as, "God became man that man might become God." Not "gods", but one with God himself, in eternity. This refers explicitly to the royal authority which we will have in Jesus Christ, as co-heirs with him (of the kingdom of God). This is why, even though we are made lower than the angels (Psalm 8:5), we will yet judge them (1 Cor. 6:3), having royal authority in Jesus Christ. Strictly future, of course, but if we are to properly understand why Jesus says of the bishops of the seven churches "To the angel of ___, write", we must understand the structure of heavenly authority. Jesus is Lord not only of earth, but also heaven (Matt. 28:18), and we are co-heirs in him of that very same royal authority, see Luke 10:20, etc.

I agree with you on Deut. 14:1 being a use of the phrase "sons of God", just slightly reworded. But when we apply our New Testament understanding and ask, "What was Moses trying to say in Deut. 14:1 by describing the congregation of Israel as 'sons of God'?", it's immediately obvious -- it's the very same thing that Jesus is doing in Rev. 2,3 when he refers to the bishops of those churches as "angels", or when John says in John 1:12, "To them gave he the right to become the sons of God". We are not yet in the heavenlies, but we will be (if indeed we are in Christ), and we will bear authority greater than that of the angels (1 Cor. 6:3, etc.) Therefore, we ought to act like it! "You are sons of God (to be)... so act like it!" We already know that we are sons of God by the down-payment of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, but there is yet a future fullness which is yet coming, and which we have not yet received. That future fullness we will receive in glory, as God unifies us to himself, through Jesus (2Cor 5:18).

But this is clearly not what is being said in Genesis 6, in fact, the exact opposite. These "sons of God" were no actual sons of God at all, but rebels and traitors. So, the plain reading of the text simply does not comport with the sense that you want to imprint on it. Moses surely is not referring to their moral status as "sons of God" -- so in what sense are they "sons of God"? If not their moral status, then their creaturely station as heavenly beings (as in all the other places this phrase is used). It is not referring to their moral status (as Deut. 14, Rev. 2,3, John 1:12, etc. are), it is referring to their station as heavenly beings and this is directly pertinent to the phrase, "daughters of Adam" which, again, is referring to their station as earthly creatures. If anything, these women appear to be victims or objects in this whole episode, there is no indication that they were whoring "daughters of Cain" or some kind of sinful women since the bene ha'Elohim simply took whichever of them they chose and bore the Nephilim by them. In the case of Rev. 2,3, Jesus is referring to human bishops as angels; in Genesis 6, Moses is simply referring directly to angels. If he had intended to refer to men, he would have just spoken plainly and said that. Something like, "These men, former sons of God, saw that the daughters of Adam were fair and married whichever of them they chose..." But that's not what he says, nor in any way like it.

In respect to angel referring to an office (as messenger), this also makes my case, not yours --- the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 certainly were not messengers of God, and we see many instances throughout the text where the term "angel" is referring not to any holy angel, but to some kind of wicked creature. We see in 2 Cor. 11:13-15 that Satan has his own apostles, who oppose the church of Jesus from within; I see no problem including these men among the number of the devil's angels (Matt. 25:41), so that the description "angels of the devil" would not necessarily indicate a creaturely station (heaven or earth), but an allegiance. Nevertheless, we must take care to let the biblical cosmology prevail in our thinking and not allow Gnostic cosmology to inadvertently influence our thinking, as though "heaven" refers to some other "dimension" when Scripture nowhere speaks of it this way, with the possible exception of the very throne-room of God in Ezek. 1, Rev. 4,5, etc. which is the "highest heavens" (1 Kings 8:27) where human eye cannot pierce and nothing more can be said about it than what we have in Scripture. With all of that said, Paul is clear that we are definitely going to change our station (1 Cor. 15) when we receive our resurrection bodies, and we are glorified and unified with God in Jesus Christ -- we will no longer be earthly beings, we will be heavenly beings. So the term "the angel of the church of ____" should not be merely understood to say that the bishop of this church is taken to be among the number of the believers, but it is specifically referring forward to the future change of station which these men will undergo, in order to emphasize and underscore the dread severity of their obligation to Jesus Christ. God charges his angels with error (Job 4:18), and Jesus warns these bishops that he can, and will, do the same with them. Our change of station should be no cause of laxity or apathy, as though we have "arrived" and now we can rest from watching against sin. No, our future station as heavenly beings only further underscores our obligation to keep watch against sin. Deut. 14:1 is essentially exactly this same lesson, but in the Old Testament context.

Regarding the "sons of God" (*bene ha Elohim*) phrase, I think we have to look at what Moses was doing in the chapters leading up to Genesis 6.

Genesis 4 and 5 already established two groups: the line of Seth (calling on God) and the line of Cain (violence). It seems like a stretch to ignore that history and import a definition from Job. Moses himself uses this language for humans. In Deuteronomy 14:1, he tells Israel, "Ye are the children [sons] of the LORD your God."
Click to expand...

We agree that there is a spiritual lesson in Genesis 4-6. But I think you are the one who is not incorporating the full context, here. The context starts at Genesis 3, not 4... this isn't just a "contrast of two lines", this is a contrast of two lines (spiritually) and how they connect the Fall itself and Satan's own motive in tempting Eve, to its eventual fruits (Gen. 6:1-7): the antediluvian wickedness. Genesis 6 was Satan's purpose for tempting Eve. Jesus affirms this in Matthew 24:37 when he prophesies "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man" -- why would this happen, why would the world return to that global debauchery if there were not some force agitating to that end? Which is precisely what the devil has been doing ever since the Flood (see Babel, Sodom, Babylon, the Crucifixion, etc.)

To clarify, this has nothing to do with minimizing human sin in participating in the devil's schemes -- human guilt is more than sufficient to damn us all to hell, nothing is clearer in Scripture. Nevertheless, the sinfulness of man is not even close to the full story of what is driving history and why the world has unfolded in the way that it has. We must understand the parallel rebellion of both heaven and earth in order to properly understand prophecy and the nature of spiritual warfare. The devil isn't just throwing the dice and hoping human sin will win out in the end-- he is taking every conceivable measure to achieve his own ends, which are to murder God via regicide/deicide (Luke 22:2,3,6) and to vaunt his throne above the stars of God (Isaiah 14:12), which are just two sides of the same coin. In order to do this, Satan has descended to evil on a scale that surpasses human comprehension ... no human is even capable of sinning on such a scale, apart from taking the Mark and receiving wicked powers from Satan to this end (which is what Matt. 4:1ff is all about). Many antichrists have already arisen, but there can be no doubt that the final, capital-A Antichrist will be, by far, the most wicked of them all, the very son of Satan, the prophesied Seed of the Serpent. The Nephilim are at the very core of the devil's scheme, and this is why they will make a reappearance at the end of the Age, with the Antichrist -- "the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41)

While the wording isn't an exact match to Genesis 6, it is practically the same:
Click to expand...

Agreed.

  • John 1:12: "power to become the sons of God"
  • Romans 8:14: "as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"
  • Philippians 2:15: "that ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God"
  • 1 John 3:1: "that we should be called the sons of God"
Why prioritize a poetic definition from Job over the clear definition found in the New Testament and Moses' own writings?
Click to expand...

But you're getting it backwards -- these occurrences are not materializing the phrase "sons of God" to be just a flowery label for righteous men, rather, it is elevating us to a higher status, just as Jesus referring to each of the bishops of the seven churches as "the angel of the church of ___" is elevating them to the true splendor and gravity of their calling. In Christ, we are no longer men, we are heavenly beings. We are heirs but we have not yet inherited the fullness of that future glory, which we will receive in our resurrection bodies. But in Christ, it is fait accompli, thus, we speak of the future as already present. But that future to which we are referring is a heavenly future, not an earthly/material one. "To the angel of the church of ____, write" -- at once exhilarating, terrifying, exalting and humbling! It is in this way that Moses uses the term "sons of God" in respect to the congregation of Israel, thus calling them to greater holiness (see the context, read what he goes on to say).

Evidence in Deuteronomy 32:8
Here’s something interesting I just came across regarding Deuteronomy 32:8. Let’s look at the text from 3 different sources:

  • KJV (Masoretic Text):
    "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel."
    bene yisra'el (Strong's H1121 H3478)
  • Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeutʲ):
    "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of God."
    bene elohim (Strong's H1121 H430)
  • Septuagint (LXX):
    "When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God."
    angelon theou (Strong's G32 G2316)
The Dead Sea Scrolls show the older Hebrew likely said "sons of God" (*bene elohim*). This makes sense because Israel didn't exist at Babel. In this passage, Moses is contrasting the "sons of Adam" (those rebelling and dispersed) with the "sons of God" (His own people). It's the same pattern as Genesis: God's people vs. the world.

This creates a strong argument that “sons of God” (H1121 H430) can be used for people, and not just heavenly beings.
Click to expand...

I agree with your conclusion on Deut. 32:8 almost certainly having been in the original "sons of God", not "sons of Israel", which is essentially unintelligible and must have been a scribal mistake. I haven't read all of the late Michael Heiser yet, so I don't know my stance on his teachings, but what I've read so far is spot-on: the "sons of God" of Deut. 32:8 explicitly refers to heavenly principalities, the very same principalities and powers that Paul mentions in Eph. 6:12, etc. When we go back to Genesis 3, we see that God delegated earthly authority to just one person: Adam (and Eve, as one flesh with him, Gen. 1:26-28). When Adam abdicates this authority by disobeying God, there is an empty throne. Who sits on that throne? Well, the devil seeks to usurp that throne (the point of tempting Eve!) and ultimately to usurp the throne of God himself (Isa. 14:12).

Thus, in this power-vacuum, we see the earth parceled out to "the nations" (Gentiles) in Deut. 32:8, "according to the number of the sons of God", that is, according to the heavenly principalities, also referred to as "the kingdoms of the world" in Matt. 4:8. This is why the link from the Nephilim to Canaan is so crucial -- the other nations of the world were settled according to their heavenly principalities, but Canaan was settled by the descendants of the pre-Flood rebellion. When God calls Abram out of Ur, Abram becomes a kind of "anti-Adam" -- where Adam believed and obeyed the Serpent rather than God, Abram believes and obeys God rather than remaining in his natural element as the son of an idol-maker in the capitol of idolatry (the land that would later become Babylon). This is why his faith is accounted to him for righteousness. To this new Adam, God promises a new land -- the land of Canaan. God brings Abram there and shows him the land when it is apparently much less densely populated than it will be when the children of Israel leave Egypt. The Israelites conquer the land by dual force, first the angel sent ahead to prepare the land, then by divinely-guided warfare. But who is the land being taken from? Ultimately, it is being taken from Satan himself, since all the other nations have "legitimate" heavenly rulers under the post-Flood order, which is what Deut. 32:8, Matt. 4:8, etc. are saying. There was only one space on earth where God could[1] create his new nation -- Canaan.

[1] I mean "could", here, in a restricted sense of "playing by the accuser's own rules", that is, even the devil cannot slander what God has done because the abominable offspring settled in the land were themselves the outgrowth of Satan's own rebellion before the Flood, and even persisting afterwards... "and also after". He could have stopped rebelling against God, but chose not to. Thus, Abraham and Israel are God's "from scratch" new nation -- a new creation.
 
Last edited:
redmod79 said:
What does the DNA evidence suggest? That a particular group of people in the past that they refer to as neanderthals mixed with another group of people they refer to as "normal" people? That these two groups were able to reproduce together, and thus are of the same kind? Ok.
Click to expand...
Neaderthals are different enough from homo sapiens to be considered a different species.
 
jmdrake said:
Neaderthals are different enough from homo sapiens to be considered a different species.
Click to expand...
... who look pretty much the same as other people, and can reproduce with other people. This in and of itself doesn't prove anything. In the early days Cain and his lineage split off from Seth and his lineage. It's not surprising that would result in two different groups of people with enough DNA difference for modern scientists to think they were different species. Different species is just a branch in the genealogy but still compatible for reproduction. And of course they intermingled and most of Cain's lineage was destroyed in the flood. Seems pretty consistent with my arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jmdrake
When Jehovah allowed a Molech like child sacrifice
Replies
19
Views
87
jmdrake
jmdrake
Occam's Banana
Christian Zionism @ The Scott Horton Academy
Replies
1
Views
21
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
Yes, the church of Jesus is the extreme right-wing
Replies
10
Views
576
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
Brian4Liberty
God Complex: The Rise of America’s Censorship Machine
Replies
4
Views
32
PAF
PAF
PAF
What Would Jesus Do?
Replies
0
Views
145
PAF
PAF
Back
Top