اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة حسين عبدالجليل
أنت كذاب .
ديل عملوا ليه أبناء كثيرين و ليس إبن واحد . إنت في دراستك اللاهوتية ماوصلت للإصحاح السادس من سفر التكوين وهو جزء أصيل من التوراة اليهودية ومن العهد القديم, هاك عربي و إنجليزي :
6: 1 و حدث لما ابتدا الناس يكثرون على الارض و ولد لهم بنات
6: 2 ان ابناء الله راوا بنات الناس انهن حسنات فاتخذوا لانفسهم نساء من كل ما اختاروا
6: 3 فقال الرب لا يدين روحي في الانسان الى الابد لزيغانه هو بشر و تكون ايامه مئة و عشرين سنة
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. بزعل منك يامحب لو قعدت تلولو لي شرح مصطلح "أبناء الله" الواضح دا بكتابة أكثر من 100 سطر.
--------
عليك الله يابابكر أعفي لي فتلي الزيادة لبوستك المفتول دا .
سؤال "لماذا أنت مسلم ؟" ممكن يابابكر يكون مقترح لبوست منفصل .
|
انا كنت موقوف ولم اتمكن من الاجابه عليك في المنبر الاسلامي ..
يا حسين جادلني بالتي هي احسن ولا تنعتني بالكذاب لاني لا انعت بدون ادله ..
القران الكريم كذب عندما ادعي علي اليهود بانهم اقاموا او اتخزوا عزير (ائ ان كان اسمه ) ابن لله .نفس اليهوم لم يتخزوا ابناء لله (مطلقا)
في الكتاب المقدس ..
لفظ ابناء الله المكتوب في الاصحاح السادس لا يتحدث عن (اليهود) او عن عزير واليهود لم يتخزوا (شخصا) ابنا لله ..
الشعب اليهودي في التكوين اصحاح سته لم يتكون بعد ولم تكن هنالك اسرائيل ككيان وشعب بعد لكي يجعلوا (ابناء لله) وهذه معلومه فاتت عليك لانك غير دارس للكتاب المقدس. ..الكتاب المقدس لا تتم معرفته بوضع كلمات في محرك بحث والمرور السريع عليها .. ..انت اتهمتني اتهام مبطن بجهلي بالمسيحيه ..لن ارد علي الاتهام .. ولكن ردي ليس عليك وانما علي القران ..انت مسلم عاطفي وكل شئ متوقع من الانسان العاطفي ..
مواصله في الرد والشرح ..
..اليهود من ابراهيم واسحق ويعقوب ونشاء الشعب بعد الطوفان وليس قبله وتاريخ قبل الطوفان ليس عن اليهود ..
....
من هم ابناء الله في الاصحاح السادس ؟
الرائ الاول انهم (ائ ابناء الله ليس بشر ) بل ملائكه وهنالك اسباب كثيره خلف هذا الرائ ..انا لا اتفق مع هذا الرائ وهو رائج في اوساط مسيحيه ..
وارده هنا للامانه اللاهوتيه
الرائ الثاني والصحيح ..
انا لدي ورقه مكتوبه من 8 صفحات وباللغه الانجليزيه ولا اود ان اغرق البوست ولكن باختصار ....
الرائ الصحيح كالاتي ..
ابناء الله هم قوم شيث لانهم (اصحاب العهد التكويني في تكوين ثلاثه عندما وعد الله بالخلاص ) . تكوين سته هو الاصحاح الذي يصف فتره ما قبل الطوفان . ابناء الله هنا لا يعني انهم (اولاد الله بالولاده او ابنائه بالولاده) وانما هذا لفظ روحي يصف علاقه (شيث كمجموعه وليس فرد بالله فهم اوائل المؤمنين ونادوا باسم الرب) . هؤلاء ( مجموعه شيث) تم زواج بينهم وبين مجموعات اخري ونقضوا العهد من جانبهم مع الله وبسبب الخطئيه جاء الطوفان وخلص الرب ثمانيه اشخاص فقط وهم اهل نوح نسبه لان الله وعد الانسانيه بالخلاص واعده قبل السقوط (رؤيا 13:8..
هذه دراسه مفصله مكتوبه بواسطه متخصص في الدفاعيات المسيحيه والموضع مكتوب خصيصا لكي يتم شرح معني (ابناء الله) علي ضؤ الكتاب المقدس ..
الاجابه المختصره (هؤلاء ليس يهود ويمكنك ان تقراء الاجابه المطوله او الاكتفاء باجابتي المختصره لان اليهود لم يكونوا موجودين كمجموعه في تكوين 6 ) وقرانك لا زال في محنه وهجومك علي غير مبرر ..
تابع
وللمره الثانيه ..اليهود ضد ان يطلق احد علي نفسه (ابن الله) لان اللفظ يجعل الشخص (لاهوت) ..
واليهود حاولوا رجم يسوع لانه قال بانه ابن الله وبهذه المقوله فانه جعل نفسه الله ..
انت لو درست الكتاب المقدس لما كتبت ما كتبت .
القران اخطاء عندما قال لك ان اليهود اقاوموا شخص كابن لله ..
هل من الصعب الاعتراف بخطاء القران ؟
ام هي العاطفه
وكما بتنعتني بالكاذب ؟
اوكي
انا عفيتك ولكني لا اجامل في النقاش وقضيتي ليست شخصيه او ضدك وصدقني اكن لك المحبه
هذه اجابه متخصصه وبالشواهد ..
Alternative Explanation Proposed
The first hypothesis described above rests its case almost entirely on a defense of the definition of
“sons of God” as angels. However, such an interpretation can be shown to be inconsistent both contextually and doctrinally, and the definition an unnecessary imposition. The key to this passage, therefore, is to
determine its relationship to the characteristics of the antediluvian generations described in preceding
chapters, and the ensuing judgment in the form of the Noahic Flood.
Notice, as Thomas does,40 the contrast between the descendants of Cain and the descendants of Seth
(refer back, also, to the section on Overall Context). Through their activities, it can be seen that the Cainites possessed characteristics of cleverness, culture, and civilization. Furthermore, by the ungodly behavior of Lamech, they generally are portrayed as earthly, selfish, sensual, and an authority unto themselves.
Of course, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the professions associated with the Cainites, and
Lamech is the only one (apart from Cain) specifically cited as sinful, but note that nothing positive is said
of them in a spiritual sense. One therefore cannot help but notice the contrast given in 4:26 with the arrival of Seth. Maars, wishing to avoid such a comparison, maintains that there is no basis in the belief that
the Sethites were known for their godliness,41 but as can be seen, this is simply not true. The Sethites were
noted by their devotion (4:25), consecration (26), fellowship (5:22), testimony (Hebrews 9:5), service
(5:29), and righteousness (6:8) in the sight of God. -7-
Thus, after the generations of Cain and Seth have been outlined in chapters four and five, and 6:2
then speaks of two groups of people, is it not reasonable to conclude that the earlier familial division is
being carried on into the later discussion? If this is the case, the “sons of God” expression is used in a
spiritual or covenantal sense, that is, referring to those who possessed characteristics of faithful service to
God. The “daughters of men” would then be those of a worldly disposition. Given the contrasting nature
of the two lines of descendants described previously, I suggest that the “sons of God” were the godly
Sethites, while the “daughters of men” were the worldly, ungodly Cainites. Such a distinction also parallels the Israelites of the Old Covenant and the Christians in the New. If this explanation is applied, the
events of those times fall logically into place.
For example, and most important, the reason for the Flood becomes evident. One could conclude that
the judgment was delivered purely on the basis of mixed and/or indiscriminate marriage on the part of the
Sethites. Indeed, morally mixed marriages are reprobated repeatedly throughout the Old Testament (e.g.,
Genesis 24:3,4; 28:1; Exodus 34:15,16; Deuteronomy 7:3). However, it probably is better to consider that
the judgment was given not merely on the basis of mixed marriages, but also on the failure of the sons of
God and the daughters of men to maintain their spiritual integrity despite those marriages. Thus, universal destruction is prescribed for universal sinfulness. It is easy to see how this situation may have arisen,
especially if the phrase “multiply on the face of the ground” indicates that the Cainites were increasing in
great numbers, in which case the influence of the numerically superior Cainites may have been overwhelming. Through intermarriage, the Sethites would have become subsumed both racially and morally:
it would be easier for the Sethites to descend to the moral level of their newly acquired relatives than for
the converse to occur.
God already had promised a way of overcoming sin through a descendant of Adam and Eve (Genesis
3:15), and hence must have decided that unless He intervened in a miraculous way, the integrity of the
messianic line would be defiled, and man would have no chance of redemption. Therefore, the sons of
God departing from their mission and marrying in an improper manner, leading to an overwhelming apostasy, provides the appropriate connection between the parallel genealogies of Genesis 1-5 and the Noahic
Flood of Genesis 6-9.
120 years—Life Span or Probationary Period?
While the meaning of the phrase “yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years” has no direct
relevance to the “sons of God” expression, it is convenient at this time to discuss this part of verse three
before moving on to an analysis of verse four.
Most scholars, liberal and conservative alike, support the idea that 120 years refers to a period of
grace or probation in between God giving Noah his instructions, and the Flood finally coming upon the
Earth. Von Rad42 is practically alone in supporting the view that the time represents the life span of longer
than 120 years for many generations after the Flood, at least until Abram. Also, there were at least one
hundred years between Noah receiving his instructions from God soon after his sons were born, at which
time he was 500 years old (Genesis 5:32), and the Flood commencing when Noah was 600 years old
(Genesis 7:6). Thus, the time frame separating these two events is consistent with the “period of grace”
interpretation.
THE “NEPHILIM” OF VERSE FOUR
The diversity of interpretations of the nature of the nephilim in verse four makes it evident that the
preceding three verses exert only minor constraining power on the definition of these antediluvian men.
Probably because the Septuagint translates the word nephilim as giant, and the King James Version
carried this definition through, the majority of scholars are inclined to the view that these were men of
gigantic stature. This also appears consistent with the only other occurrence of the word in Numbers
13:33, where the returning spies describe themselves as being “grasshoppers” by comparison with the
nephilim. The word itself generally is considered to be derived from the verb naphal meaning “to fall.”43
From this, liberal critics interpret nephilimto mean “those fallen from heaven,” in reference to their progenitors’ angelic origins. Thus, in this line of thinking, the nephilim must be a fantastic race of some de--8-
scription because they are the offspring of the mythological marriages described in verse two.44 Or, extrapolating in the reverse direction, it is argued that the “sons of God” must be angels because the word
nephilimmeans fallen from heaven. In either case, as Archer aptly argues, no one proposes that Goliath or
the sons of Anak had angelic forbears, so why suggest it here?45 Note also that the “from heaven” part has
to be provided artificially. In fact, Brown, Driver, and Briggs provide several definitions, including to fall
by accident—by violent death; in prostration—upon (attack), and others.46
Although there is nothing wrong in proposing that a tribe of tall peoples lived in those days, the full
explanation may lie beyond a mere physical interpretation. The whole problem with verse four is relating
the allusion to these men who were mighty or strong and “men of renown [name]” to the context of the
degradation of humanity. An answer may lie in the reference to nephilim in Numbers 33. Note that when
the spies returned from Canaan, they reported that the people were strong and the cities fortified, and the
descendants of Anak lived there (vs. 28). But when Caleb challenged the people to possess the land, the
spies resorted to hyperbole, saying the inhabitants were stronger and bigger than they, “the land eateth its
inhabitants,” and the nephilim, sons of Anak were there, with the Israelites being as grasshoppers in their
sight (vss. 30-33). So, while these nephilim could have been tall and strong (with some exaggeration by
the spies being considered), their obvious military prowess may have struck fear into the Israelites. This
encounter could have been an early reference to the Philistines who occupied that region, who often were
portrayed as fearsome fighters, and later included the champions Goliath and Saph. Thus, nephilim may
not have been a reference to a racial group as such, but rather to those of a fearsome character.
With the above interpretation applied to Genesis 6:4, I find myself in agreement with Carroll, Stigers, Leupold, and Keil, who propose that the “nephilim” were a group of people who were violent attackers, invaders, and the like, based on the idea that naphal might be interpreted “to fall upon.”47 This
would also be consistent with the description of the nephilim in the latter half of verse four in terms often
used for military heroes or champions, warriors, and tyrants.48 The difficulty of the expression “in the
earth in those days, and also after that” also may be overcome. To some, it means that these nephilim existed prior to the marriages, and afterwards as well,49 most adding that the Nephilim belonged to the Cainite line, but who also resulted from mixed marriages. The purpose of the verse would be, in this case, to
give an example of the terrible conditions in those times, showing how men were given to war and making a name for themselves, rather than pursuing righteousness. But again, what would be the purpose of
mentioning at this point that such ungodliness existed prior to and after the union mentioned in verse two
and reiterated in verse four? The idea that mankind had descended into ungodliness had been well stated
in the preceding verses.
An alternative interpretation, and the one that I favor, ascribes the comment “after that” to a reflection on the perspective of Moses who was noting that those sort of men lived prior to the flood, and also
afterward in the land of Canaan.50 In the antediluvian world, the Sethites may have become warring as
part of their assimilation into the Cainites, or perhaps they allowed themselves to be subjugated by tyrants. Thus, one should consider not so much the fact of the nephilim, but the effect they had on the
population. Moses, writing through inspiration, may be making a comparison between the influence of the
godless before the Flood, and their influence at the time when the Israelites were supposed to occupy the
land. The result in the former was a universal Flood, and in the latter, Yahweh’s chosen people were condemned to forty years’ wandering in the wilderness. On each occasion, perhaps, these fierce warriors
caused the faithful to stumble through lack of courage, rather than trusting in God and acting according to
His will.
In conclusion, it is preferable to seek an explanation that considers more than the mere existence and
physical attributes of the men mentioned in verse four. Just as the mere fact of the marriages is not the
key problem in verse two, but rather the effect of those marriages on those who should be faithful, so also
the effect of the tyrannical warrior-type people should be given a spiritual, rather than wholly physical,
interpretation. -9-
CONCLUSION
While Genesis 6:1-4 possesses many difficult aspects of interpretation, its general meaning may be
ascertained by the examination of the peripheral context and doctrinal principles in both the Old and New
Testaments. The latter procedure eliminates a popular explanation that defines the “sons of God” as angels, and refutes another interpretation which attributes the same expression to a class of nobility. Instead,
the overall context suggests that the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” exist as an antithetical parallelism, and refer to the godly Sethites (Genesis 4:26) and worldly Cainites (4:11), respectively. The unsanctioned and improperly motivated marriages between these two groups (6:2) led to the total moral
breakdown of the existing world order (6:5), the exception among them being Noah and his family (6:8).
Further, the nephilim should not be considered the strange, mythological offspring of this union, but
rather as a class of tyrannical warriors who maintained a faith-breaking reign of terror. In this respect,
they serve as a deliberate parallel to the nephilim of Numbers 33, who also caused God’s people to stumble.
Problems in the interpretation of the phrase “sons of God and daughters of men,” and difficulties in
defining the nature of the nephilim in verse four, can be overcome through consideration of the influence
of an overwhelming majority of ungodly on the spiritual integrity of a lesser group of worshipful people.
Thus, rather than examining merely the act of marriage, or the presence of nephilim, one should consider
the effect of these evil influences in order to provide sufficient cause for the corresponding divine judgment. The cleansing Flood of Noah was brought about to maintain the sacred messianic lineage, and thus
a single generation was left to repopulate the earth (9:1). Although man still was capable of evil and a life
devoted to ungodliness (e.g., 9:22), God promised that there would never be a flood to destroy the Earth
again (9:11). Through the descendants of Noah’s son Shem (9:26), Jesus Christ the Son of God came to
complete the Christocentric them of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17)
الورقه مكتوبه بواسطه
Trevor J. Major, M.Sc., M.A.
المراجع التي استخدمها من قواميس وكتب مساعده عددها خمسين ..
