Why Genesis 6 is not referring to the sons of Shem

[seanD]

Okay, I started this thread for a debate about the theology of Genesis 6, which was sidetracking the other thread. One of the problems I see is with Jude and Peter's reference to the story of Enoch and Jude's reference about the fall of the angels. This presents a problem to me because it doesn't explain how inspired men would mix ideas of a fallacious story in the annals of inerrant scripture. I'll present some of my other arguments later on.

[Sparko]

please quote the relevant verses and how you think they support the idea that Angels had sex with humans.

[seanD]

please quote the relevant verses and how you think they support the idea that Angels had sex with humans.

They both reference angelic events found in the Enoch source (Jude quoted from it directly). In order to deny the angelic event was present in that source, you would have to argue that it was a later interpolation in the text after they quoted it. That in itself is a serious stretch. Then when you couple the fact that Jude mentions an angelic event that is similar to the event found in Enoch and also mentions the book of Enoch directly in the same letter; then denying they knew nothing about the story is pretty laughable. Again, I'm not interested in people who go to those lengths to deny something for subjective religious views. You can't win that argument.

[Sparko]

They both reference angelic events found in the Enoch source (Jude quoted from it directly). In order to deny the angelic event was present in that source, you would have to argue that it was a later interpolation in the text after they quoted it. That in itself is a serious stretch. Then when you couple the fact that Jude mentions an angelic event that is similar to the event found in Enoch and also mentions the book of Enoch directly in the same letter; then denying they knew nothing about the story is pretty laughable. Again, I'm not interested in people who go to those lengths to deny something for subjective religious views. You can't win that argument.

are you referring to the bit about Moses' body being in the book of Enoch? That doesn't work. Enoch is not an infallible source document. It could have some truth in it and some false ideas. Just because Jude references one bit doesn't mean the rest of the book of Enoch is true. Not only that but perhaps Jude was referencing another ancient source, and Enoch used that same source about Moses.

Nothing in the bible supports humans and angels having sex that I know of.

try again.

[seanD]

are you referring to the bit about Moses' body being in the book of Enoch?

No.

[Sparko]

No.

well unless you want to clarify your evidence for human/angel hybrids and what the heck you are referring to in the bible, then this thread is useless.

I asked you for verses in the beginning and you didn't give any.

[seanD]

well unless you want to clarify your evidence for human/angel hybrids and what the heck you are referring to in the bible, then this thread is useless.

I asked you for verses in the beginning and you didn't give any.

The fact you don't even know what passages I'm referring to tells me I'm obviously dealing with someone out of his element of knowledge when it comes to even the basics of this subject. It's as annoying as skeptics who want to refute Christianity from a low level of knowledge about the subject. It not only tells me you're not interested in the subject -- just refuting it for the sake of refuting it -- but that it would be a fruitless task for me to have to explain the basics to you and refute your refutations at the same time.

[Sparko]

The fact you don't even know what passages I'm referring to tells me I'm obviously dealing with someone out of his element of knowledge when it comes to even the basics of this subject. It's as annoying as skeptics who want to refute Christianity from a low level of knowledge about the subject. It not only tells me you're not interested in the subject -- just refuting it for the sake of refuting it -- but that it would be a fruitless task for me to have to explain the basics to you and refute your refutations at the same time.

yeah right. I am supposed to read your mind to know what verses you are trying to use to support your idea that humans and angels had sex.

No what is happening is you just created this thread to stop discussing this in your starchild thread and have no intention of discussing it here either. Because you know the bible doesn't support it.

[seanD]

yeah right. I am supposed to read your mind to know what verses you are trying to use to support your idea that humans and angels had sex.

No what is happening is you just created this thread to stop discussing this in your starchild thread and have no intention of discussing it here either. Because you know the bible doesn't support it.

Of course I created this thread to move it from the other thread, which is what I just said in the OP. And I have no problem discussing it, just not with the likes of you for reasons I explained above. Usually when I face refutation of one of my arguments, I expect the person to at least have basic knowledge of the subject they're refuting. That's how debates usually work.

[Sparko]

Of course I created this thread to move it from the other thread, which is what I just said in the OP. And I have no problem discussing it, just not with the likes of you for reasons I explained above. Usually when I face refutation of one of my arguments, I expect the person to at least have basic knowledge of the subject they're refuting. That's how debates usually work.

I am not a mind reader Sean, so I don't know what verses you are using to support your idea. If you refuse to give your evidence then you are not wanting to discuss anything. You just want to claim "it is so" and not have anyone argue against you.

Like I said in the other thread, you are just like Augustine2004 with his vaccination conspiracy nonsense. But at least he posts his "evidence" - he just doesn't want to debate it. You won't even do that.

[Jedidiah]

There are at least 3 different ways to interpret Genesis 6. I do not believe there is enough solid evidence to choose one over another.

[Chrawnus]

I think the passage SeanD is referring to might be Jude 1:6-7.

Jud 1:6-7 NASB

And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

[RBerman]

What would Genesis 6 have to do with the sons of Shem, who are not mentioned until Genesis 10:21?

[seanD]

What would Genesis 6 have to do with the sons of Shem, who are not mentioned until Genesis 10:21?

I’ve only heard that as the alternative view.

[Chrawnus]

I think you mean sons of Seth, not sons of Shem.