The Sons Of God In Genesis 6

[hagoth7]

From Zakuska earlier today, on the closed Polygamy in Heaven thread, when asked for a reference that the Nephilim of Jewish lore are doctrinal.

 

 

...Then Id go here and see what the churches offical position on the "watchers", "Nephilim", "Giants", Book of Enoch is:

 

Hi Zak,

An article by an academic (whether it is published in the Ensign or not) does not thereby become the church's official position on watchers, Nephilim, or the like.

 

I suggest a simple, straightforward reading of latter-day scripture. Notice also that giants are mentioned before the highlighted verses. It would appear you're conflating a number of things.

If you choose to align with Jewish and/or Gnostic gloss over a straightforward reading of scripture, that's your prerogative. I'll respectfully decline. And unless I'm not being clear, I will state for the record that I don't think you're taking Moses 8 at face value.

 

Thoughts?

Edited November 5, 2015 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

"According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, the basic etymology of the word Nephilim is "dub[ious]", and various suggested interpretations are "all very precarious".

Edited November 5, 2015 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

I reiterate what I said in that thread:

 

That's only one of several possible interpretations.

 

I simply read "sons of God" as a reference to men who believed and were under covenant. Mortal men.

 

I see "daughters of men" meaning women, unbelievers, who were not under covenant.

[ksfisher]

Agreed that Nibley's Ensign article does not in any way constitute an official church position. 

 

I've read the same on the etymology of Nephilim.

[volgadon]

From Zakuska earlier today, on the closed Polygamy in Heaven thread, when asked for a reference that the Nephilim of Jewish lore are doctrinal.

 

 

 

Hi Zak,

An article by an academic (whether it is published in the Ensign or not) does not thereby become the church's official position on watchers, Nephilim, or the like.

 

I suggest a simple, straightforward reading of latter-day scripture. Notice also that giants are mentioned before the highlighted verses. It would appear you're conflating a number of things.

If you choose to align with Jewish and/or Gnostic gloss over a straightforward reading of scripture, that's your prerogative. I'll respectfully decline. And unless I'm not being clear, I will state for the record that I don't think you're taking Moses 8 at face value.

 

Thoughts?

You may not care much for it, but Zakuska's is the straightforward reading here.

[hagoth7]

You may not care much for it, but Zakuska's is the straightforward reading here.

I'm listening.

 

Straightforward reading of what? Genesis 6? Moses 8? Both?

 

If so, please illustrate...

Edited November 5, 2015 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

You may not care much for it, but Zakuska's is the straightforward reading here.

 

I'll ask again...Zakuska interpretation is, in your opinion, the.straightforward reading...of what exactly?

 

A. Of scripture (Genesis 6 and/or Moses 8?)

B. Of apocryphal writings?

C. Of Nibley's article?

 

(While volgadon decides whether to resolve the vagueness of that blanket statement, input from anyone else is welcome.)

 

Much appreciated.

[volgadon]

I'll ask again...Zakuska interpretation is, in your opinion, the.straightforward reading...of what exactly?

 

A. Of scripture (Genesis 6 and/or Moses 8?)

B. Of apocryphal writings?

C. Of Nibley's article?

 

(While volgadon decides whether to resolve the vagueness of that blanket statement, input from anyone else is welcome.)

 

Much appreciated.

Well, when you ask a question (especially when it is part of the title), you should figure that the answers relate to it.

[hagoth7]

Well, when you ask a question (especially when it is part of the title), you should figure that the answers relate to it.

Hi again neighbor,

 

When people ask a question, especially in a *discussion* forum, they usually hope to see something along the lines of a *discussion*. Rather than vague blanket statements.

 

Your answer is much more vague than you might imagine.

 

And the thread is actually more broad than just the title. Consider the tags created when the thread was first posted, and the originating links it directed the reader back to for a sense of context. (A thread title can only be so long.)

 

I would welcome a more thorough response to my question in post# 7, since you seem to be repeatedly vague here, intentionally or otherwise.

Edited November 11, 2015 by hagoth7

[volgadon]

Well, in answer to the reading that you are claiming is false, that is the straight-forward reading, not yours.

[volgadon]

Here is a good place to start, what does the construction "sons of" connote in Hebrew?

Edited November 11, 2015 by volgadon

[hagoth7]

Here is a good place to start, what does the construction "sons of" connote in Hebrew?

From what little I've read:

• I understand it to often mean an actual son or offspring (either literal or adopted).
• In other contexts, I understand it to mean a more distant descendant.
• In other contexts, I understand it to mean part of a group.
• In other contexts, it apparently may have some allusion to building or construction...some say a building block... 

But unlike you, I know almost nothing of Semitic. So what's your answer to your own question..?

And how do you see it relating to what was revealed in Moses 8?

[Ahab]

hagoth7 (and hagoth1, hagoth2, hagoth3, etc.),

As can be read using the link you provided to latter-day scripture in your OP, the straightforward reading is very apparent.

I would just state that I agree with that reading, if I were you, and direct others to what I agree with.

[hagoth7]

...As can be read using the link you provided to latter-day scripture in your OP, the straightforward reading is very apparent.

And that straightforward reading says...what?

 

To be more clear, are you agreeing with me, or with Volgadon/Zakuska, or with some third interpretation of your own?

 

I would just state that I agree with that reading, if I were you, and direct others to what I agree with.

Are people being flip and obtuse on purpose? Or is there something in the water?

 

Replies with substance please....

[volgadon]

I rather think that you are beng a bit obtuse. Now, the first two interpretations to my question about "sons of, " what would that say about Zakuska's reading?

[hagoth7]

I rather think that you are being a bit obtuse.

That depends on what you mean by "obtuse". When I used the word "obtuse", I meant "indirect" "circuitous" and "vague". (Perhaps you're referring to one of the other, less-polite meanings for that word....?)

 

And by obtuse/vague/indirect/circuitous, I meant that I don't quite follow why there is an ongoing aversion to answering direct questions in this thread.... Do you?

 

...Now, the first two interpretations to my question about "sons of, " what would that say about Zakuska's reading?

I would say it's flawed, because of the following. (See, *this* is what I mean about *not* being obtuse, since, rather than being vague, I offer actual details and references in an attempt to substantiate and clarify blanket statements...)

 

You're apparently preferring to use Genesis as a foundation for deciphering the intentional meaning of a phrase. For a number of reasons, while I respect your expertise in Hebrew, I think coming at the issue from that vantage point is both upside down and backwards. I think the various potential Hebrew meanings (of which we've only grazed across a few of several other possibilities) offer a limited perspective. And I believe that in order to triangulate in on what was intentionally meant in the Hebrew, we would be better off first building upon the foundation/baseline of the English provided in Joseph's latter-day Moses.

 

Also, another key relevant scriptural passage that hasn't been addressed here yet is provided by John:

 

"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. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

 

Therefore, when speaking of "the sons of God" in Hebrew (Genesis), Greek (John), or English (Moses), I believe Joseph provided the key baseline in Moses, and that John provided the missing links that help clarify the intended meaning across any language. 

 

THAT is why I disagree with Zak's assertion about gods/divine beings/fallen angels mating with mortal women....and don't have much confidence in the apocryphal gloss.

 

That's also largely why I disagree with Zak's interpretations surrounding the term nephilim.

 

So if you choose to align with Zak's assertions about such things, I'll respectfully disagree with both of you, but would still be happy to hear either of you out. 

 

Take the floor, if you wish.

Edited November 18, 2015 by hagoth7

[halconero]

My thought is that it's generally not good form to start with the bullseye and work backwards, but to start with the original piece and work forwards as Volgadon recommends.

[halconero]

As for John specifically, the notion of sonship in its Greco-Roman context wouldn't really jive well with either the Hebrew or English interpretation. It's a beautiful notion, don't get me wrong, but I don't see John's purpose in writing that scripture as a connecting bridge rather the discourse on adoptionism that it is.

[hagoth7]

My thought is that it's generally not good form to start with the bullseye and work backwards, but to start with the original piece and work forwards as Volgadon recommends.

Interesting. I consider starting with a reliable baseline as the most trustworthy and direct initial approach for any such inquiry.

 

Otherwise, you end up having to waste time sifting through a whole slew of invalid variables.

Furthermore, without starting with a reliable baseline, how would one even conclude which variables to rule out?

That's why the scriptures are called the standard works...because they are a standard or baseline of measurement.

Which is also why I objected to giving apocrypha greater weight than that standard....even in this matter.

Edited November 18, 2015 by hagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

In this context, one might want to read Bernhard Lang, “Why God has so Many Names,” Bible Review, 19/4 (Aug 2003):48-54,63, and the reader reply in BR 19/6 (Dec 2003).  As Lang points out in his reply, re Deut 32:8-9, 

 

The source of my translation “according to the number of the gods” is the reconstructed Hebrew text echoed in the Septuagint. A more technical version of the beautifully balanced couplet is “When the Most High gave their inheritance to the nations, when he divided the sons of man, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of El.”

The “sons of El” (=“the gods”) balances the “sons of man” in the parallelism. The reconstructed Hebrew text can be found in the apparatus of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, where it reads: bney el. The scribe who produced the Masoretic text took the letters BNY’L to be an abbreviation of bney Yisra’el.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[hagoth7]

In this context, one might want to read Bernhard Lang, “Why God has so Many Names,” ..The “sons of El” (=“the gods”) ....

OK. Are you saying the counterpoint between the "sons of El" and the "sons of man" suggest two different classifications? Or that they instead suggest a parallel thought?

 

And, in a similar vein, when Job said "the sons of God" shouted for joy at the creation of the earth, to whom was he referring? Angels? According to LDS teaching, in that passage God was referring to mankind.

 

In my opinion, the core reason that the "angels" paradigm surrounding Genesis 6 became so prevalent is because "angelos" was apparently the term selected by those who translated Genesis 6 from Hebrew into the Greek Septuagint over two thousand years ago....and the Septuagint translation subsequently became the adopted standard text for the Old Testament for many early Christians....So, some writers in the early Christian churches adopted that late-Jewish line of thinking without further thought.

 

That's fine for them. But I'll only accept that premise if it has been translated/rendered/conveyed correctly....which I respectfully don't think that it has.

Edited November 18, 2015 by hagoth7

[volgadon]

That depends on what you mean by "obtuse". When I used the word "obtuse", I meant "indirect" "circuitous" and "vague". (Perhaps you're referring to one of the other, less-polite meanings for that word....?)

 

And by obtuse/vague/indirect/circuitous, I meant that I don't quite follow why there is an ongoing aversion to answering direct questions in this thread.... Do you?

Ah, but none of those are what obtuse actually means.

 

I would say it's flawed, because of the following. (See, *this* is what I mean about *not* being obtuse, since, rather than being vague, I offer actual details and references in an attempt to substantiate and clarify blanket statements...)

 

You're apparently preferring to use Genesis as a foundation for deciphering the intentional meaning of a phrase. For a number of reasons, while I respect your expertise in Hebrew, I think coming at the issue from that vantage point is both upside down and backwards. I think the various potential Hebrew meanings (of which we've only grazed across a few of several other possibilities) offer a limited perspective. And I believe that in order to triangulate in on what was intentionally meant in the Hebrew, we would be better off first building upon the foundation/baseline of the English provided in Joseph's latter-day Moses.

 

Also, another key relevant scriptural passage that hasn't been addressed here yet is provided by John:

 

"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. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

 

Therefore, when speaking of "the sons of God" in Hebrew (Genesis), Greek (John), or English (Moses), I believe Joseph provided the key baseline in Moses, and that John provided the missing links that help clarify the intended meaning across any language. 

 

THAT is why I disagree with Zak's assertion about gods/divine beings/fallen angels mating with mortal women....and don't have much confidence in the apocryphal gloss.

 

That's also largely why I disagree with Zak's interpretations surrounding the term nephilim.

 

So if you choose to align with Zak's assertions about such things, I'll respectfully disagree with both of you, but would still be happy to hear either of you out. 

 

Take the floor, if you wish.

See, this is why your reading is not straightforward. What you have described is an interests approach, and you are welcome to it, you are rejecting the straightforward reading for a Mormon gloss. There really aren't many possible meanings for the construct "sons of" in Hebrew. You basically have literal descent or belonging to a group. If you insist that this meaning is incorrect, and that the phrase can only be understood by introducing a different text, then yours is not straightforward.

[volgadon]

Interesting. I consider starting with a reliable baseline as the most trustworthy and direct initial approach for any such inquiry.

 

Otherwise, you end up having to waste time sifting through a whole slew of invalid variables.

Furthermore, without starting with a reliable baseline, how would one even conclude which variables to rule out?

That's why the scriptures are called the standard works...because they are a standard or baseline of measurement.

Which is also why I objected to giving apocrypha greater weight than that standard....even in this matter.

We are not talking apocrypha, unless you have assigned Genesis to that bin. Now, a far more effective approach than what you have outlined is to take the text and read it on its own terms. Once that meaning has been established, it is fine to look at the relationship with other texts.

[halconero]

Interesting. I consider starting with a reliable baseline as the most trustworthy and direct initial approach for any such inquiry.

 

Otherwise, you end up having to waste time sifting through a whole slew of invalid variables.

Furthermore, without starting with a reliable baseline, how would one even conclude which variables to rule out?

That's why the scriptures are called the standard works...because they are a standard or baseline of measurement.

Which is also why I objected to giving apocrypha greater weight than that standard....even in this matter.

 

I'm not arguing on the authority of the canonical works, but that the correct reading generally starts with the original work and moves forward rather than the newest and works back.

 

I'm not contending that the Book of Moses isn't good scripture, but that it's not a good baseline. It's like arguing the two-document hypothesis by starting with John just because it has the most elaborate Christology of any Gospel. It doesn't work. We have to start with Mark.

Edited November 18, 2015 by halconero

[hagoth7]

Ah, but none of those are what obtuse actually means.

? Perhaps we're speaking different variants of English.

 

One meaning of obtuse is blunt, not sharp, not having a point (the figurative parallel: not getting around to making a point).

For a reference that "obtuse" actually means "indirect" and "circuitous": http://www.yourdictionary.com/obtuse

     The American Heritage Dictionary also says that about 1/2 of panelists agree that "obtuse" means "indirect". (But if you're one of the 52% who disagrees, more power to you.)

For a reference that "obtuse" actually aligns with "vague": http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=obtuse

 

My version of English happens to be a blend of Canadian, New Jersian, Washingtonian, and Utahn.

Perhaps my version of English simply encompasses more meanings for "obtuse" than yours does.

 

But more importantly, for whatever reason, you chose once again not to answer a direct question. ??!

 

See, this is why your reading is not straightforward. What you have described is an interests approach, and you are welcome to it, you are rejecting the straightforward reading for a Mormon gloss. There really aren't many possible meanings for the construct "sons of" in Hebrew. You basically have literal descent or belonging to a group....

In an LDS discussion forum, exactly how does latter-day scripture somehow boil down to "gloss"?

 

But you finally have answered my question in posts #6 and #7. Apparently you think Zak has the straightforward reading of Genesis 6. And apparently you think that Moses 8 (and other apparently-relevant passages) are subservient to whatever one chooses to make of the Hebrew of Genesis 6. I happen to think things are supposed to work the other way around.

...If you insist that this meaning is incorrect, and that the phrase can only be understood by introducing a different text, then yours is not straightforward.

And how does the interpretation I offered somehow not mean belonging to a group? If you think that it doesn't, you've misunderstood me.