Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Finis Dake on Interpreting the Bible

[bibleman]

Where do you get "God fearing men" from?

Son's of God are always created - never born physically.

OT - Angels and Adam called son of God - all created.

NT - Born again (new creation men) called son's of God.

Check it out.

I did -- let the Bible speak for itself.... and where does the Bible say we can't use the NT to understand the OT?

But somehow I believe you will disagree with this opinion... because if the Word of God is correct and people in OT (and NT) are called 'sons of (the living) God' it means there you must re-think your OPINION. And to some it is easier to reject ideas you don't agree with.

If you did then you saw what I said. No opinion - just a fact.

[Fit4theKingdom]

Where do you get "God fearing men" from?

Son's of God are always created - never born physically.

OT - Angels and Adam called son of God - all created.

NT - Born again (new creation men) called son's of God.

Check it out.

I did -- let the Bible speak for itself.... and where does the Bible say we can't use the NT to understand the OT?

But somehow I believe you will disagree with this opinion... because if the Word of God is correct and people in OT (and NT) are called 'sons of (the living) God' it means there you must re-think your OPINION. And to some it is easier to reject ideas you don't agree with.

If you did then you saw what I said. No opinion - just a fact.

What I saw was the FACT that MEN are also called "sons of God" which you now admit to. So it is OPINION that Gen 6 implies angels. That's the facts. Thanks for acknowledging it.

[bibleman]

Where do you get "God fearing men" from?

Son's of God are always created - never born physically.

OT - Angels and Adam called son of God - all created.

NT - Born again (new creation men) called son's of God.

Check it out.

I did -- let the Bible speak for itself.... and where does the Bible say we can't use the NT to understand the OT?

But somehow I believe you will disagree with this opinion... because if the Word of God is correct and people in OT (and NT) are called 'sons of (the living) God' it means there you must re-think your OPINION. And to some it is easier to reject ideas you don't agree with.

If you did then you saw what I said. No opinion - just a fact.

What I saw was the FACT that MEN are also called "sons of God" which you now admit to. So it is OPINION that Gen 6 implies angels. That's the facts. Thanks for acknowledging it.

I never said men where not called son's of God.

I said ONLY created beings are called son's of God.

OT - ONLY angles called Son's of God.
NT - ONLY born again men called Son's of God ADAM of the OT called a son of God in the NT.

You really need to study this subject in order to discuss it intelligently.

[Fit4theKingdom]

Wonderful OPINION --- you see it is your OPINION that those scriptures apply to this passage. It is your OPINION that limits to only OT usages.

The phrase "sons of God" - can be angels - or it can be God fearing men! Giants can be men of great renown or men of large size! However, I can find a place where scripture does warn against marrying unbelievers hence "sons of God" and "daughters of men"

What you are saying can only be true if there is anywhere else in the OT where "sons of God" is used of anyone other than angels. Now tell me where a normal human male in Scripture has had sex with a woman and produced a GIANT? Why would the writer of Genesis emphasize that particular point? One must really intentionally ignore this in your face evidence to keep saying that the "sons of God" being angels is an "opinion".

It's easy to call someone's clear proof opinion because a person doesn't want to believe something.

Dear Victory --- remember we are claiming to let the Bible speak for itself without giving OPINIONS. With the help of Leon we have seen by scripture that "sons of God" can be both men and/or angels. Therefor for someone to claim they are one and not the other, it becomes OPINION.

Also, your constant referral to "GIANTS" (as in great size) ignores several key issues. One of those is found in Dake's notes to vs 4 where Dake acknowledges that the word "nephil" means both "giant" AND TYRANT. But then Dake says "To say these original words refer to their degree of wickedness instead of bodily size is a mistake." How does he arrive at that OPINION when in context that verse is sandwiched between two passages that make reference to the wickedness of man and strife they caused God.

To arrive at the conclusion (OPINION) that Og, king of Bashan - was a physical giant because he had a large bed, is an OPINION. Hugh Hefner has/had a very large round bed. Does that mean Hugh is a physical giant? Or just that he had big parties in his bed?

Also -- Dake continues to make reference to their size being the reason for them called giants and not their wickedness, yet all the giants he listed were indeed wicked, so why is he of the OPINION (not fact) that one trait is all that is being referenced by the term GIANT and not both?

Another point is that it implies another "falling away" of angels from God apart from Lucifer's rebellion - please give scripture to support
Another point is that if another "falling away" is possible, then angels can still, to this day, fall away.
Another - if a continued falling away is possible, then the angels assigned to "watch over you" may not be watching over you since they are falling away.

So, while I respect the OPINION that Gen 6 is making reference to men -- it is just that opinion, not fact. Just as it is opinion that they were men, since neither can be proven, but both rely on circumstantial evidence to support their opinion.

Remember - I have not said which OPINION I hold in this, but I am simply proving that either side in OPINION, not FACT and that both OPINIONS are bibically based.

[branham1965]

you lost me there on the Hugh Hefner thing .i tend to think the Holy Ghost told us the size of his bed because he WAS a giant.and i dont mean like the pervert Hefner.
using that line of reasoning we only have opinions about the Word.

good Lord.

Wonderful OPINION --- you see it is your OPINION that those scriptures apply to this passage. It is your OPINION that limits to only OT usages.

The phrase "sons of God" - can be angels - or it can be God fearing men! Giants can be men of great renown or men of large size! However, I can find a place where scripture does warn against marrying unbelievers hence "sons of God" and "daughters of men"

What you are saying can only be true if there is anywhere else in the OT where "sons of God" is used of anyone other than angels. Now tell me where a normal human male in Scripture has had sex with a woman and produced a GIANT? Why would the writer of Genesis emphasize that particular point? One must really intentionally ignore this in your face evidence to keep saying that the "sons of God" being angels is an "opinion".

It's easy to call someone's clear proof opinion because a person doesn't want to believe something.

Dear Victory --- remember we are claiming to let the Bible speak for itself without giving OPINIONS. With the help of Leon we have seen by scripture that "sons of God" can be both men and/or angels. Therefor for someone to claim they are one and not the other, it becomes OPINION.

Also, your constant referral to "GIANTS" (as in great size) ignores several key issues. One of those is found in Dake's notes to vs 4 where Dake acknowledges that the word "nephil" means both "giant" AND TYRANT. But then Dake says "To say these original words refer to their degree of wickedness instead of bodily size is a mistake." How does he arrive at that OPINION when in context that verse is sandwiched between two passages that make reference to the wickedness of man and strife they caused God.

To arrive at the conclusion (OPINION) that Og, king of Bashan - was a physical giant because he had a large bed, is an OPINION. Hugh Hefner has/had a very large round bed. Does that mean Hugh is a physical giant? Or just that he had big parties in his bed?

Also -- Dake continues to make reference to their size being the reason for them called giants and not their wickedness, yet all the giants he listed were indeed wicked, so why is he of the OPINION (not fact) that one trait is all that is being referenced by the term GIANT and not both?

Another point is that it implies another "falling away" of angels from God apart from Lucifer's rebellion - please give scripture to support
Another point is that if another "falling away" is possible, then angels can still, to this day, fall away.
Another - if a continued falling away is possible, then the angels assigned to "watch over you" may not be watching over you since they are falling away.

So, while I respect the OPINION that Gen 6 is making reference to men -- it is just that opinion, not fact. Just as it is opinion that they were men, since neither can be proven, but both rely on circumstantial evidence to support their opinion.

Remember - I have not said which OPINION I hold in this, but I am simply proving that either side in OPINION, not FACT and that both OPINIONS are bibically based.

[victoryword]

I did -- let the Bible speak for itself.... and where does the Bible say we can't use the NT to understand the OT?

But somehow I believe you will disagree with this opinion... because if the Word of God is correct and people in OT (and NT) are called 'sons of (the living) God' it means there you must re-think your OPINION. And to some it is easier to reject ideas you don't agree with.

Fit, your system of interpretation misses a very important element which is how a phrase is used in the OT versus the New Testament. You fail to make the distinction that in the OT, the only time "sons of God" is used is in reference to angels. The only time "sons of God" (plural) is related to men is after Jesus Christ. The only human "son of God" that was referred to as one before Jesus is Adam because He was made in God's image and likeness. However, the Bible says that, it says, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth" (Gen. 5:3). Fallen man was no more a "son of God".

The only time humans become "sons of God" again is AFTER having received Jesus as personal Savior: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1:12). So if you are going to use the NT to interpret the OT, you need to get it right. The only way the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 could have been humans is if they had received Jesus. Since Jesus had not incarnated in the flesh, that is an impossibility. Hence, these had to have been angels based on how the OT uses the phrase "sons of God".

I rest my case on this one.

Dear Victory --- remember we are claiming to let the Bible speak for itself without giving OPINIONS. With the help of Leon we have seen by scripture that "sons of God" can be both men and/or angels. Therefor for someone to claim they are one and not the other, it becomes OPINION.

Also, your constant referral to "GIANTS" (as in great size) ignores several key issues. One of those is found in Dake's notes to vs 4 where Dake acknowledges that the word "nephil" means both "giant" AND TYRANT. But then Dake says "To say these original words refer to their degree of wickedness instead of bodily size is a mistake." How does he arrive at that OPINION when in context that verse is sandwiched between two passages that make reference to the wickedness of man and strife they caused God.

To arrive at the conclusion (OPINION) that Og, king of Bashan - was a physical giant because he had a large bed, is an OPINION. Hugh Hefner has/had a very large round bed. Does that mean Hugh is a physical giant? Or just that he had big parties in his bed?

Also -- Dake continues to make reference to their size being the reason for them called giants and not their wickedness, yet all the giants he listed were indeed wicked, so why is he of the OPINION (not fact) that one trait is all that is being referenced by the term GIANT and not both?

Another point is that it implies another "falling away" of angels from God apart from Lucifer's rebellion - please give scripture to support
Another point is that if another "falling away" is possible, then angels can still, to this day, fall away.
Another - if a continued falling away is possible, then the angels assigned to "watch over you" may not be watching over you since they are falling away.

So, while I respect the OPINION that Gen 6 is making reference to men -- it is just that opinion, not fact. Just as it is opinion that they were men, since neither can be proven, but both rely on circumstantial evidence to support their opinion.

Remember - I have not said which OPINION I hold in this, but I am simply proving that either side in OPINION, not FACT and that both OPINIONS are bibically based.

It would appear to me that you are looking for a lot of evidence to prove that Dake, Bibleman, and myself are only citing opinion. Never knew someone would strain so hard to find evidence toprove someone else is only citing an opinion against the clear Biblical evidence that we are citing FACTS. God is not the author of confusion. The BIble makes an explicit reference to "sons of God" producing "giants" for a specific reason. God had no need to confuse the issues and says things clearly. It takes a lot of bias in order to take away the common sense understanding of any Bible passage.

The clearest understanding of any normal human being without an agenda to prove anything is that these were angels that had supernatural offspring. I will stick with that because I find no need to come up with complicated interpretations and confusing innuendo. If you want to keep calling plain clear Bible teaching "opinion" you are welcomed to do so, but remember that it really is only YOUR opinion. The Bible presents angels producing giants through women as clear FACT!

[Fit4theKingdom]

I did -- let the Bible speak for itself.... and where does the Bible say we can't use the NT to understand the OT?

But somehow I believe you will disagree with this opinion... because if the Word of God is correct and people in OT (and NT) are called 'sons of (the living) God' it means there you must re-think your OPINION. And to some it is easier to reject ideas you don't agree with.

Fit, your system of interpretation misses a very important element which is how a phrase is used in the OT versus the New Testament. You fail to make the distinction that in the OT, the only time "sons of God" is used is in reference to angels. The only time "sons of God" (plural) is related to men is after Jesus Christ. The only human "son of God" that was referred to as one before Jesus is Adam because He was made in God's image and likeness. However, the Bible says that, it says, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth" (Gen. 5:3). Fallen man was no more a "son of God".

The only time humans become "sons of God" again is AFTER having received Jesus as personal Savior: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1:12). So if you are going to use the NT to interpret the OT, you need to get it right. The only way the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 could have been humans is if they had received Jesus. Since Jesus had not incarnated in the flesh, that is an impossibility. Hence, these had to have been angels based on how the OT uses the phrase "sons of God".

I rest my case on this one.

Dear Victory --- remember we are claiming to let the Bible speak for itself without giving OPINIONS. With the help of Leon we have seen by scripture that "sons of God" can be both men and/or angels. Therefor for someone to claim they are one and not the other, it becomes OPINION.

Also, your constant referral to "GIANTS" (as in great size) ignores several key issues. One of those is found in Dake's notes to vs 4 where Dake acknowledges that the word "nephil" means both "giant" AND TYRANT. But then Dake says "To say these original words refer to their degree of wickedness instead of bodily size is a mistake." How does he arrive at that OPINION when in context that verse is sandwiched between two passages that make reference to the wickedness of man and strife they caused God.

To arrive at the conclusion (OPINION) that Og, king of Bashan - was a physical giant because he had a large bed, is an OPINION. Hugh Hefner has/had a very large round bed. Does that mean Hugh is a physical giant? Or just that he had big parties in his bed?

Also -- Dake continues to make reference to their size being the reason for them called giants and not their wickedness, yet all the giants he listed were indeed wicked, so why is he of the OPINION (not fact) that one trait is all that is being referenced by the term GIANT and not both?

Another point is that it implies another "falling away" of angels from God apart from Lucifer's rebellion - please give scripture to support
Another point is that if another "falling away" is possible, then angels can still, to this day, fall away.
Another - if a continued falling away is possible, then the angels assigned to "watch over you" may not be watching over you since they are falling away.

So, while I respect the OPINION that Gen 6 is making reference to men -- it is just that opinion, not fact. Just as it is opinion that they were men, since neither can be proven, but both rely on circumstantial evidence to support their opinion.

Remember - I have not said which OPINION I hold in this, but I am simply proving that either side in OPINION, not FACT and that both OPINIONS are bibically based.

It would appear to me that you are looking for a lot of evidence to prove that Dake, Bibleman, and myself are only citing opinion. Never knew someone would strain so hard to find evidence toprove someone else is only citing an opinion against the clear Biblical evidence that we are citing FACTS. God is not the author of confusion. The BIble makes an explicit reference to "sons of God" producing "giants" for a specific reason. God had no need to confuse the issues and says things clearly. It takes a lot of bias in order to take away the common sense understanding of any Bible passage.

The clearest understanding of any normal human being without an agenda to prove anything is that these were angels that had supernatural offspring. I will stick with that because I find no need to come up with complicated interpretations and confusing innuendo. If you want to keep calling plain clear Bible teaching "opinion" you are welcomed to do so, but remember that it really is only YOUR opinion. The Bible presents angels producing giants through women as clear FACT!

Sorry but you haven't produced any facts... only opinions. You use "sons of God" in the OT as only angels in order to support your position only. So why does that change in the NT? What causes it to change? Where does the Bible say "now men are called 'sons of God"?

the only thing clear here, is that some don't understand the difference between OPINIONS and FACT. Opinions can be factual. And it is a fact that people have opinions, but neither of those make OPINIONS = FACTS. Anytime you, me, Dake or anyone cross references scripture to connect the two OPINION is being used. As I've shown with the giants of Gen 6 - scripture can be used by differing points of view. You have not given me FACTS why the ones I used are incorrect, but you have supported your opinion with scripture, just as I supplied supporting scripture to a contrary view.

Those are the FACTS --- now I'll listen to your OPINION about them.

Please remember - this discussion is not about angels and giants - but about using OPINIONS to form a basis of belief and the statement that "the Bible speaks for itself". Where the Bible speaks clearly - we clearly understand, but there are areas the Bible does not speak clearly so various opinions, often conflicting, are developed and both side use scripture as supporting evidence.

[bibleman]

the only thing clear here, is that some don't understand the difference between OPINIONS and FACT. Opinions can be factual. And it is a fact that people have opinions, but neither of those make OPINIONS = FACTS. Anytime you, me, Dake or anyone cross references scripture to connect the two OPINION is being used. As I've shown with the giants of Gen 6 - scripture can be used by differing points of view. You have not given me FACTS why the ones I used are incorrect, but you have supported your opinion with scripture, just as I supplied supporting scripture to a contrary view.

Hi Fit,

Above you said: "As I've shown with the giants of Gen 6 - scripture can be used by differing points of view. You have not given me FACTS why the ones I used are incorrect, but you have supported your opinion with scripture, just as I supplied supporting scripture to a contrary view."

I must have missed that... What Scriptures have you given so support your contrary view?

[victoryword]

Hi Fit,

Above you said: "As I've shown with the giants of Gen 6 - scripture can be used by differing points of view. You have not given me FACTS why the ones I used are incorrect, but you have supported your opinion with scripture, just as I supplied supporting scripture to a contrary view."

I must have missed that... What Scriptures have you given so support your contrary view?

And this is my whole point of contention with Fit. He keeps arguing and straining against the evidence presented to him without presenting any real Scriptural rebuttal. However, he did try to state that Og having a large bed did not make him a giant and stuff like that so this may be the "evidence" that he is claiming. However, while accusing others of only giving an opinion, he keeps giving opinion.

Makes me wonder why I keep wasting my time in some of these debates.

[Fit4theKingdom]

the only thing clear here, is that some don't understand the difference between OPINIONS and FACT. Opinions can be factual. And it is a fact that people have opinions, but neither of those make OPINIONS = FACTS. Anytime you, me, Dake or anyone cross references scripture to connect the two OPINION is being used. As I've shown with the giants of Gen 6 - scripture can be used by differing points of view. You have not given me FACTS why the ones I used are incorrect, but you have supported your opinion with scripture, just as I supplied supporting scripture to a contrary view.

Hi Fit,

Above you said: "As I've shown with the giants of Gen 6 - scripture can be used by differing points of view. You have not given me FACTS why the ones I used are incorrect, but you have supported your opinion with scripture, just as I supplied supporting scripture to a contrary view."

I must have missed that... What Scriptures have you given so support your contrary view?

I did not, but apparently I made a fatal assumption in believing that your admission that "sons of God" is used in scripture to identify godly men was enough not to. And I used a reference by Dake to show that the word for giant could be tyrant - although Dake denies that is a possibility. (As a side question - please explain why, when the reference to giants is never good, that Dake says the reference is only to size.)

Again, this is not a discussion about Angel's or Giants, but about how simply stating that you let the Bible speak for itself instead of forming an opinion is an untruth. You are of the opinion that Gen 6 "sons of God" is referencing angels and you cite several OT examples where it only refers to angels. I can show biblical examples where "sons of God" is in reference to godly men and therefor understand why people have the opinion that these were unions of "unequally yoked" couples. And I (as I believe you could as well) can supply scriptures where God says don't be unequally yoked, don't marry unbelievers. And would then point to this passage as one of the reasons God forbids it.

Therefor conflicting views, each "letting the Bible speak for itself" are held on the same passage. Each using scripture to support, each saying the "other side" is using scripture improperly, each holding fast to their OPINION and claim their opinion as FACT. Each is wrong - it is not fact even though each has used "facts" in an attempt to prove their point.

You see, the Bible is not clear here. Scripture tells us everything we need to know, but does not tell us everything there is to know. In this case people are trying to fill in the gaps between what was told and what did occur. Each side has gathered "facts" to support their conclusion, their opinion. You have used scripture to support your position/opinion. Others holding a contrary view have used scripture to hold that. Both are OPINIONS and when everything is revealed, one sides OPINION may be proven to be true, or maybe both sides are partially true, or neither side has any truth. But until then, they are OPINIONS SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE -- NOT FACTS.