> General Discussions
Genesis 6:6?????
mharrell08:
--- Quote from: newgene87 on October 15, 2011, 07:37:38 PM ---I don't believe in free will anymore and I accept the sovereignty of God fully, but the one verse that stumps me how God doesn't change his mind is Genesis 6:6 - "and it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart".... Even when I pay attention to the words as well as the text; it confuses me.... Why and how would the Lord repent that he made man?? Has Ray ever explained this "perceived" contradiction of the "unchangeableness" of Gods character?? (Numbers 23:19 - "God is not....a son of Adam, that he should repent...")
--- End quote ---
The Hebrew word for 'repent' is nacham. Here are a few definitions:
1. to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
2. to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted, ease oneself
It's a relative word, not easily defined in black/white settings. Just from the definitions above, some could be used to describe God ('be moved to pity'), while others would not ('rue or suffer grief'). Even in the case of humans, only certain definitions would fit the context of what is being spoken:
Gen 5:28-29 Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and had a son. And he called his name Noah, saying, “This one will comfort [Heb 'nacham'] us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD has cursed.”
Lamech did not repent of having a son. His son brought him comfort to ease him in his hard work with his hands. Besides 'being comforted or at ease', I don't see any other definition that would apply to Lamech and his son Noah. This is just an example of how relative this word 'nacham' is.
Concerning the passage of Gen 6:6, God was moved with pity ['grieved his heart' - Gen 6:6] with the people of that land. And though He knew these people would be destroyed, God does not take pleasure in doing such:
Ezek 33:11 As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live...'
--- Quote from: newgene87 on October 15, 2011, 07:37:38 PM ---And why the distinction in verse 2, that "the SONS of God saw the DAUGHTERS OF MEN...."? Commentaries I come across always seem to mention angels or something to that nature? Just a little confused and I'm definitely not trying to turn to a pastor or church for an answer. Thanks :)
--- End quote ---
The Sons of God were of Adam through Seth's lineage. The Daughters of Men were not. That is what led to the corrupt behavior in the people of the land. This happens again and again throughout the scripture and why God commands us to be separate from unbelievers [Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you - 2 Cor 6:17]
Hope this helps,
Marques
IbTee:
--- Quote --- Giants
« on: January 14, 2007, 07:03:59 PM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray,
I hate to keep asking questions But, Here is another one I would like to know. I have read a lot on your web site and I could not find what I was looking for. I studied with Arnold Murray for about 10 years and I am now finding out a lot of what I thought I knew was wrong. He teaches that we were angels in the first age. And in this age we have to prove which side we are on. (which I know now is not right). He also teaches that the geber (Giants) were the result of the fallen angels mating with women. I would like to know what you think on this subject. I know you are starting to get a lot of Arnold Murray's followers coming to your website now as I have been giving them your website address. And as a matter of fact I got your website from someone else who studied with him. I no longer study with him and I know a lot of others who have stopped studying with him as well. But, After 10 years of hearing him I have a lot of stuff packed into my brain that you have not covered d. I have other questions I would like to ask you but no all at one time. Oh one more thing have you ever watched Arnold Murray and what did you think of his teachings. Russell
Dear Russell:
I think several dozen through the years have mentioned Arnold Murray's writings to me. As you have already seen for yourself, he teaches heresy, so what more can I say. It is both unscriptural and foolishness to suggest that the giants of Genesis were the result of angels fornicating with human women. First, where it says the "sons of God saw the daughters of men," it does not suggest that they fornicated together, but rather they took them for "WIVES." And Jesus plainly told us that the Angels of heaven DO NOT MARRY. One cannot have a "wife" without marrying.
This subject is, however, too big for an email answer. These sons of God were mortals just as the "wives" they took from the "daughters of men." Goliath was a giant, and he was a Phillistine, not an ANGELTINE!
God be with you,
Ray
--- End quote ---
Marques,
Thank you for your clarification about the "LORD repenting", but after reading the above email, I'm confused about who the "daughters of men" are.
Please guide me to where I can read further.
Thank you for all your help.
IbTee
lilitalienboi16:
--- Quote from: IbTee on October 16, 2011, 07:49:50 PM ---
--- Quote --- Giants
« on: January 14, 2007, 07:03:59 PM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray,
I hate to keep asking questions But, Here is another one I would like to know. I have read a lot on your web site and I could not find what I was looking for. I studied with Arnold Murray for about 10 years and I am now finding out a lot of what I thought I knew was wrong. He teaches that we were angels in the first age. And in this age we have to prove which side we are on. (which I know now is not right). He also teaches that the geber (Giants) were the result of the fallen angels mating with women. I would like to know what you think on this subject. I know you are starting to get a lot of Arnold Murray's followers coming to your website now as I have been giving them your website address. And as a matter of fact I got your website from someone else who studied with him. I no longer study with him and I know a lot of others who have stopped studying with him as well. But, After 10 years of hearing him I have a lot of stuff packed into my brain that you have not covered d. I have other questions I would like to ask you but no all at one time. Oh one more thing have you ever watched Arnold Murray and what did you think of his teachings. Russell
Dear Russell:
I think several dozen through the years have mentioned Arnold Murray's writings to me. As you have already seen for yourself, he teaches heresy, so what more can I say. It is both unscriptural and foolishness to suggest that the giants of Genesis were the result of angels fornicating with human women. First, where it says the "sons of God saw the daughters of men," it does not suggest that they fornicated together, but rather they took them for "WIVES." And Jesus plainly told us that the Angels of heaven DO NOT MARRY. One cannot have a "wife" without marrying.
This subject is, however, too big for an email answer. These sons of God were mortals just as the "wives" they took from the "daughters of men." Goliath was a giant, and he was a Phillistine, not an ANGELTINE!
God be with you,
Ray
--- End quote ---
Marques,
Thank you for your clarification about the "LORD repenting", but after reading the above email, I'm confused about who the "daughters of men" are.
Please guide me to where I can read further.
Thank you for all your help.
IbTee
--- End quote ---
"The daughters of men" I believe is a reference to the same one made when cain knew his "wife" outside of the garden of eden. Yet how could that be so if adam and eve were first humans and we're inside the garden and cain and abel we're their only children at the time?
Well... I think ray covers this but basically the people outside the garden were of humans who could not "till the soil." Because remember in Genisis God says their was no man to TILL the soil, not that there was NO man, period.
So these daughters of men that were outside the garden, these "men" that gave birth to the woman that would eventually be cains wife, were different then adam and eve. "The sons of God."
Did you know that, scientifically, right around the time homo sapians appeared, neandrathels vanished? Right around the time homo sapians appeared we also started finding evidence of farming etc....
Interesting eh? ;)
P.S. If i'm wrong on what I said, feel free to correct me, this is how I understand things as of now :P
newgene87:
Wow oh wow. To read all of these replies, I deeply and whole heartily appreciate the answers and feedback. God bless each and every one of you for your insight and scripture references because a veil has been lifted from my eyes. Especially the response about the "daughters of men"; that's a nugget to chew on and it is relief. For the confusion on my perception of God "repenting": I accept the insight and I now have something to pray on cause I know understanding is from God, again thank you all. This is truly a loving forum; yall really are a family here and when someone is weak in one area (me for an example); there are big brothers coming to give strength :). I really appreciate it cuz I did not expect the answers y'all gave :). God bless you all.
gmik:
Newbies....please don't feel bad about asking questions that you feel are "old news" to us who have been on here awhile....we need the refreshing reminders...at least I do-constantly!!
great topic and contributors!
Thanks!
gena =)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version