Hello Everyone,
I'm Nehemiah; I'm somewhat new here; I'm very analytical and word alert; I believe THE ENTIRE WORD of GOD ("All Scripture...") to be just as Literal, as some others believe it to be figurative; my mentality is to keep it simple enough for me to understand it (KISS), as I am definitely NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer; I believe that GOD Says what HE Means, and Meant Everything that HE Has Already Said; and I'd really like your answers to the following questions, along with a very very civilized discussion regarding them:

1) What happened between Genesis 1:1 ("In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."), and Genesis 1:2a ("And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.")? (Please note: I DO NOT believe the so-called "Evolutionary gap theory"!)

2) Was Adam really only, "the first man... (1Cor. 15:45)"?

3) What was GOD'S Real Purpose for Adam in Genesis 2?

4) Who was Cain's Wife?

5) Who were "the sons of GOD (Gen. 6:2,4;Job 1:6;2:1;38:7)"?

6) Who were "the daughters of men (Gen. 6:2,4)"?

[Winman]

Hi Nehemiah and welcome to the forum. It is very late and I need to get off the computer, so I can't attempt to answer your questions now, but I am sure you will get plenty of responses.

I just wanted to say Hi and welcome you to the forums!

Greetings, those are good questions...
the one about Cain's wife has been asked of me quite often, he married one of his many, many sisters, and there is actually a pretty good overview on it here...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...was-cains-wife

and another one here:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2181

Like Winman I can't answer all of these right now, but regarding no. 5 and no. 6, I will refer you to my extensive thread at the link below which contains the answers you seek and a lot more about the sons of God and the daughters of men... the entire thread is pretty good reading, but if you're in a hurry you will find that posts no. 5 and 6 on that thread lay down some pretty good timber on the subject.
by the way, what is the meaning of the title to your thread?

Giants in the Bible - Nephilim
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=896

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Nehemiah

Hello Everyone,
I'm Nehemiah; I'm somewhat new here; I'm very analytical and word alert; I believe THE ENTIRE WORD of GOD ("All Scripture...") to be just as Literal, as some others believe it to be figurative; my mentality is to keep it simple enough for me to understand it (KISS), as I am definitely NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer; I believe that GOD Says what HE Means, and Meant Everything that HE Has Already Said; and I'd really like your answers to the following questions, along with a very very civilized discussion regarding them:

1) What happened between Genesis 1:1 ("In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."), and Genesis 1:2a ("And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.")? (Please note: I DO NOT believe the so-called "Evolutionary gap theory"!)

2) Was Adam really only, "the first man... (1Cor. 15:45)"?

3) What was GOD'S Real Purpose for Adam in Genesis 2?

4) Who was Cain's Wife?

5) Who were "the sons of GOD (Gen. 6:2,4;Job 1:6;2:1;38:7)"?

6) Who were "the daughters of men (Gen. 6:2,4)"?

Nehemiah, welcome also from me to the forum. You are a man much as myself, I was raised in the Church Of Christ and am a bit of a hardcase regarding sticking to the Scriptures due to the fact COC are very good at twisting them.

Brother, we must read the Scriptures as being literal where common sense allows us to:

Ps 91:4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

This does not mean that our Lord is a chicken. Another good passage is:

Zec 2:6 Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.

If I were so inclined I could start a website and use this to preach and teach the First Church Of Santa Claus, and the adherents would run into the tens of thousands and I would be a rich man.

I'll throw my hat in the ring on answering your questions:

Question One: The "gap" theory is a gap "fact" in that the "gap" is between people's ears. This is an attempt to compromise with "science" because the people who teach and adhere to the Gap Theory feel it's too outrageous to go cross grain with "science" and appear to be dumb hillbillies as people look at me when I tell them, The Gap Is Between Your Ears.

I read Job 40:15 through to the end of the chapter for a friend who once worked at Dayton Museum Of Natural History. This man had never opened a bible of any translation and I told him only the truth: This is a translation of an ancient Middle Eastern manuscript. I read this to him twice as he took notes:

15 ¶ Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

He told me, "You are describing a stegosaurus..."

There is no "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Verse one is an overview, an introductory precept, the rest of the chapter describes what occurs in verse one. Those who stand and resist unto blood the defense of the English in the Bible then commit the same sin they lay on others who they accuse of corrupting the meaning of the Scriptures: They "go to the Hebrew" to "prove" that the Hebrew word for "replenish" means "...should be translated refill". I see no sense in being double minded and unstable in trying to prove an unprovable precept.

Question Two: I Cor. 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

You answered your own question here brother.

Question Three: If we take the sum total of the Scriptures with regards His general purpose, we see the Universe was created to be inhabited for the glory of God, a minor glitch occurred in Genesis 3 causing the Fix of Matthew 27. We wait for the consumation of all things in Revelation when His plan will then take up where it left off, an inhabited Universe for His glory.

Question Four: Ge 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

Brother, Cain and Abel both got wives from the same place Seth and the others did until the gene pool stabalized around the time of the giving of the Law: Cain married one of his sisters.

Questions Five & Six:

Lu 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

The Scriptures define three types of "sons of God":

Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Ge 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Joh 1:12 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:
Ro 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

The believer today is called a son of God, the line directily leading to Mary's, the mother of Jesus Christ, father, and angels are called sons of God. Most who define the sons of God of Genesis 6 as being angels also go to the Hebrew to prove it, the union causing anakims and nephelims. Until someone shows me that angels have normal human reproductive systems(or had)I'll stick with the line of Seth.

Brother, welcome to the forum again, I am a bit of newbie myself, and hope this forum is as much of a blessing to you as it is for me.

Grace and peace to you

Tony

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

Most who define the sons of God of Genesis 6 as being angels also go to the Hebrew to prove it, the union causing anakims and nephelims. Until someone shows me that angels have normal human reproductive systems(or had)I'll stick with the line of Seth.

Bro. Tony B,
Have you read Bro. Ruckman's Bible Believer's Commentary on Genesis, he devotes about 10 pages to this exact issue, pp 174--184. Just for another view on it...

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Bro. Tony B,
Have you read Bro. Ruckman's Bible Believer's Commentary on Genesis, he devotes about 10 pages to this exact issue, pp 174--184. Just for another view on it...

Brother Parrish, I had all of Dr. Ruckman's Commentaries up until about 1999, I found the beginning of his commentary on Genesis to be one of his weakest. I'm not going to detail the reasons, they are quite obvious to those who have read them. With respect to The Gap Theory and the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japeth Dr. Ruckman, to me, attempts to do what he damns in others: Retranslate the Bible to fit a preconceived precept. One of these is found in Genesis 9 and one I believe is worthy of discussion:

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

In Gen. 9:22 his teaching was, in the edition of the Commentary I had, that Ham sodomized Noah based on an interpretation of "...saw the nakedness of his father,..." rendering the verse:

Gen. 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, sodomized his father, and told his two brethren without.

What holds true for verse 22 must then hold true for verse 23:

Gen. 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and that they sodomized their father not.

Of all men that write commentaries, my conviction is that Dr. Ruckman is quite accurate and more honest than many, particularly Cornelious Stam, but we must remember Dr. Ruckman is a man just like me. I have a belief, based on Bible numerics(NOT numerology) and dispensationalism in that the number of people who will go up to meet the Lord in the "Rapture" will be 1/10 the living and 1/10 the dead. I believe Paul died of pneumonia while imprisoned and not execution. I could be wrong on those beliefs. As I recognize Dr. Ruckman could be wrong on Genesis 1, Genesis 6, and Genesis 9. Dr. Ruckman is quit critical of A. W. Pink in Pink's "corrections" to the 1611 text and his Calvinism with respect predestination, yet uses Pink's(quite correct) Bible "types" for Joseph and Christ without crediting Pink's commentary on Genesis. Dr. Ruckman condemns us "dry cleaners" on our convictions about water baptism being an OT ordinance and a dead work, yet is more dispensational that Stam in many his teachings, which has led me several times to say he hunts with the Baptist hounds and runs with the dispensational rabbits. His Commentary on the book of Hebrews is what actually led me into investigating the teachings of the "hypers", and is also one of his best in my opinion.

Dr. Ruckman is my first choice if I need a commentary, however there is much in his Commentary on Genesis forces me to, as he himself puts it, put his private interpretations into File 13.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

Originally Posted by Winman

Hi Nehemiah and welcome to the forum. It is very late and I need to get off the computer, so I can't attempt to answer your questions now, but I am sure you will get plenty of responses.

I just wanted to say Hi and welcome you to the forums!

Thank you very kindly Winman. I understand.

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Greetings, those are good questions...
the one about Cain's wife has been asked of me quite often, he married one of his many, many sisters, and there is actually a pretty good overview on it here...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...was-cains-wife

Thanks, but No Thanks; Been there, Ken Ham leaves too many very legitimate questions unanswered.

and another one here:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2181

Ditto.

Like Winman I can't answer all of these right now, but regarding no. 5 and no. 6, I will refer you to my extensive thread at the link below which contains the answers you seek and a lot more about the sons of God and the daughters of men... the entire thread is pretty good reading, but if you're in a hurry you will find that posts no. 5 and 6 on that thread lay down some pretty good timber on the subject.

And I'll find this "extensive thread" where?

by the way, what is the meaning of the title to your thread?

Just what it states?

Giants in the Bible - Nephilim
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=896

Watch out for "Giants" that are only "Giants" according to our fearful perception of them being "Giants".

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Bro. Tony B,
Have you read Bro. Ruckman's Bible Believer's Commentary on Genesis, he devotes about 10 pages to this exact issue, pp 174--184. Just for another view on it...

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

Nehemiah, welcome also from me to the forum. You are a man much as myself, I was raised in the Church Of Christ and am a bit of a hardcase regarding sticking to the Scriptures due to the fact COC are very good at twisting them.

Not quite; I was not "raised in the Church Of Christ", nor am I "a bit of a hardcase". And I certainly don't believe that "COC" has a monopoly on Scripture, as to being the only ones that, "are very good at twisting them".

Brother, we must read the Scriptures as being literal where common sense allows us to:

I totally agree with, "we must read the Scriptures as being literal", but I cannot agree with you on, "where common sense allows us to". The phrase, "common sense" is 1) NOT Scriptural; 2) Ungodly; and 3) not nearly so "common" in this day and age.

Ps 91:4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

This does not mean that our Lord is a chicken.

True; but what are "feathers" used for? That's the message.

Zec 2:6 Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.

If I were so inclined I could start a website and use this to preach and teach the First Church Of Santa Claus, and the adherents would run into the tens of thousands and I would be a rich man.

Maybe so, but, according to the passage, and if "the adherents" were paying close attention, they would, "flee from the land of the north", rather than running to you, let alone sending you letters, right?

I'll throw my hat in the ring on answering your questions:

Question One: The "gap" theory is a gap "fact" in that the "gap" is between people's ears. This is an attempt to compromise with "science" because the people who teach and adhere to the Gap Theory feel it's too outrageous to go cross grain with "science" and appear to be dumb hillbillies as people look at me when I tell them, The Gap Is Between Your Ears.
There is no "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Verse one is an overview, an introductory precept, the rest of the chapter describes what occurs in verse one. Those who stand and resist unto blood the defense of the English in the Bible then commit the same sin they lay on others who they accuse of corrupting the meaning of the Scriptures: They "go to the Hebrew" to "prove" that the Hebrew word for "replenish" means "...should be translated refill". I see no sense in being double minded and unstable in trying to prove an unprovable precept.

In my initial post, I clearly stated, "(Please note: I DO NOT believe the so-called 'Evolutionary gap theory'!)".

Now then, according to you, "Verse one is an overview, an introductory precept, the rest of the chapter describes what occurs in verse one". If that is so, please then explain, How, THE MOST PERFECT "GOD (WHO IS 'LIGHT, and in HIM is NO Darkness at all.') Created the Heaven and the Earth", and all of a sudden, it became, "the earth. . .without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep"???

GOD is not the author of confusion, yet "the earth" that HE Created became, in just the second verse of Genesis One, 1) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness; a) formlessness (of primeval earth); 1) nothingness, empty space; b) that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig); c) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places); d) place of chaos; which is what the phrase, "without form" means, right?

Now, dare I bring into the discussion, the word, "void (emptiness, void, waste)"? Now surely you'll agree that you cannot 'empty' that which never was contained, right? Nor can that which never was be 'wasted', can it?

Question Two: I Cor. 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

You answered your own question here brother.

Currently, Michelle Obama is "the first lady". And I won't even go into the being "old as dirt" thing. What is the context of "the last Adam" being "made a quickening spirit", as opposed to "The first man Adam", being "made a living soul"?

Question Three: If we take the sum total of the Scriptures with regards His general purpose, we see the Universe was created to be inhabited for the glory of God, a minor glitch occurred in Genesis 3 causing the Fix of Matthew 27. We wait for the consumation of all things in Revelation when His plan will then take up where it left off, an inhabited Universe for His glory.

Wow!!! Some "minor glitch". I'm sure GOD considers it a tad bit more than just that, seeing how it COST HIM HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON!

But we can agree on a "glitch" happening; you believe, in Genesis 3; I believe, right at the end of Genesis 1:1.

And HIS MASTERFULLY MASTER PLAN has been in effect since before, "In the beginning...". . .so that when all is thought, tried, and done, no one will never ever again so much as, contemplate trying to usurp GOD'S Sovereignty ever never again.

Question Four: Ge 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Brother, Cain and Abel both got wives from the same place Seth and the others did until the gene pool stabalized around the time of the giving of the Law: Cain married one of his sisters.

According to Scripture, right? or according to "common sense", and/or man's logic?

Questions Five & Six:

The Scriptures define three types of "sons of God":
The believer today is called a son of God,

True.

the line directily leading to Mary's, the mother of Jesus Christ, father,

No. In that passage, (Luke 3:23-38), only Adam is called/referred to as "the son of GOD".

and angels are called sons of God. Most who define the sons of God of Genesis 6 as being angels also go to the Hebrew to prove it, the union causing anakims and nephelims.

Not so; nowhere, nowhere, nowhere, in ALL of Scripture are "angels" ever referred to as "the sons of GOD". . .NOT even in the Book of Job.

In fact Hebrews 1:5 makes it crystal clear, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"

Grace and peace to you

Tony

And you too.

[chette777]

Nehemiah

Try this one David Regan is not an evolutionary Gap like me (CKG posted it just the other day no evolution solid evidence for the gap. this way you can get a balance of views of Gap or no Gap http://www.learnthebible.org/search/node/gap seeing BroParish and Winman will only link you to evidences that teach no gap. I want you to seek all views before you make a decision on a gap or not.

Adam was the first man and his wife was the first woman Gen1:27

Cains wife was one of his sisters women were not recorded in genealogies. we are told that Adam had sons and daughters. Gen 4-5

The Sons of God in Gen 6 are embodied devils who took human wives and produced giant men of renown part of the reason for Noah's flood. the giants show up after the flood as well. the daughters of men are just that female human beings.

simple answers for simple questions. Welcome to the the forum.

Originally Posted by Nehemiah

And I'll find this "extensive thread" where?
Watch out for "Giants" that are only "Giants" according to our fearful perception of them being "Giants".

LOL, you're getting off to a good start here...
Our perception is moot, the KJV states they WERE GIANTS.
You don't have to put it in "quotes" like it's my word, it's God's Word.

The extensive thread is the thread on Giants.
I gave you the link, back when I thought you were asking honest questions and actually looking for answers.

When I asked you the meaning of your thread title, you answered with a question.
I'll try again; where are you going with all this, what is it you are trying to connect?

Originally Posted by Nehemiah

Not so; nowhere, nowhere, nowhere, in ALL of Scripture are "angels" ever referred to as "the sons of GOD". . .NOT even in the Book of Job.

In fact Hebrews 1:5 makes it crystal clear, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"

That's BEGOTTEN SON. Big difference, but I can tell you have already taken a dogmatic position about the questions you ask, so it proabably won't matter.
At any rate, I think Bro. Chette and Tony did a pretty good job answering your questions. Since you apparently have no interest in the notion that Cain married his sister, I'm sure that you will stop asking questions at some point and make your own position clear. Who do YOU think Cain married?

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

Brother Parrish, I had all of Dr. Ruckman's Commentaries up until about 1999, I found the beginning of his commentary on Genesis to be one of his weakest... Dr. Ruckman is my first choice if I need a commentary, however there is much in his Commentary on Genesis forces me to, as he himself puts it, put his private interpretations into File 13.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

Really, too bad---I find his commentary on Genesis to be very interesting and thought provoking to say the least, but I'm wondering did you read the section I asked about before you threw it in the garbage... no matter, if you (or anyone else) wants to see more about the creatures in Genesis 6, please refer to post no. 5 and 6 in the Giants thread, those articles are not perfect but the subject is pretty well presented and I think provide a good alternative to the sons of Seth position. (providing your mind is open to it, of course).