The Sons Of God And The Daughters Of Men - from MDD

[_Buffalo]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/546 ... rs-of-men/

Changed wrote:

on another forum we were discussing Genesis 6:2... Wild speculations on my part, but it seems like there is a distinction of two family trees going on here - one family tree are the descendants of Adam who was a son of God - hence "sons of God" and another line, who, rather than being a descendant of God were children of "men"... Just thinking that at one point many thought the Nephites/Lamanites were the only people who populated the Americas... at one point some also thought that Adam/Eve were the only ones populating the Earth... We now know that there were other people besides the Nephites/Lamanites living in America... we also now know that there were more people than Adam/Eve living on the earth 6,000 years ago... perhaps this account of "the sons of God saw the daughters of men..." is the account of the mixing of two family trees? That Adam and Eve's children did not have to marry one another after all, but instead got together with the indigenous population? Has anyone else read that theory anywhere? Just wild speculations, don't know why I even posted that, sorry.

Interesting topic. Someone posted the explanation from the manual:

I believe the church institute manual says that the 'sons of God' were those who were children of the birthrite-kind of 'born in the covenant'-and that the 'daughters of men' were women from families who were a different religion-pagans.

Basically, members marrying non-members, so to speak.

Which is totally wrong.

The sons of God are the son of El. El, the pagan father god of Canaan and later Israel, had 70 sons, all minor gods, each with the task of ruling over a nation on the earth. These gods had sex with mortal women and created the giants - that's what the Bible's saying, not the fluff that's in the manual. It'd be nice if the church hired academics to write their manuals instead of amateur theologians. They wouldn't be filled with these kinds of errors.

[_Kevin Graham]

LeSellers explaining why the Nephilim were giants:

We know that, according to Joseph Smith. Adam was a very tall man, and that Eve was as large (for a woman, meaning she would have been shorter, but still dramatically tall compared to XIX women).

Oh.

My.

God.

Dan Peterson and David Bokovoy both have written on the biblical meaning of "sons of God" and they both maintain that they refer to divine beings called Gods.

[_maklelan]

The sons of God are the son of El. El, the pagan father god of Canaan and later Israel, had 70 sons, all minor gods, each with the task of ruling over a nation on the earth. These gods had sex with mortal women and created the giants - that's what the Bible's saying, not the fluff that's in the manual. It'd be nice if the church hired academics to write their manuals instead of amateur theologians. They wouldn't be filled with these kinds of errors.

This is mostly correct, but the notion that they were giants is not biblical. That comes from later tradition. The Nephilim (which are erroneously translated "giants" in the Septuagint) are actually described as already around when the sons of God come down. In Num 13:33 the Nephilim appear again and are described as enormous. Nephilim, however, just means "fallen ones." The children of the sons of God and the daughters of men are described as gibborim, or "warriors," "mighty men," etc.

I agree that the manuals are full of conservative and traditional readings of the scriptures that conflict with their originals sense, but the manuals are also very old and LDS scholars have moved well beyond them, for the most part.

[_Buffalo]

The sons of God are the son of El. El, the pagan father god of Canaan and later Israel, had 70 sons, all minor gods, each with the task of ruling over a nation on the earth. These gods had sex with mortal women and created the giants - that's what the Bible's saying, not the fluff that's in the manual. It'd be nice if the church hired academics to write their manuals instead of amateur theologians. They wouldn't be filled with these kinds of errors.

This is mostly correct, but the notion that they were giants is not biblical. That comes from later tradition. The Nephilim (which are erroneously translated "giants" in the Septuagint) are actually described as already around when the sons of God come down. In Num 13:33 the Nephilim appear again and are described as enormous. Nephilim, however, just means "fallen ones." The children of the sons of God and the daughters of men are described as gibborim, or "warriors," "mighty men," etc.

I agree that the manuals are full of conservative and traditional readings of the scriptures that conflict with their originals sense, but the manuals are also very old and LDS scholars have moved well beyond them, for the most part.

Thanks for the correction on the giants issue.

[_Buffalo]

LeSellers explaining why the Nephilim were giants:

We know that, according to Joseph Smith. Adam was a very tall man, and that Eve was as large (for a woman, meaning she would have been shorter, but still dramatically tall compared to XIX women).

Oh.

My.

God.

Dan Peterson and David Bokovoy both have written on the biblical meaning of "sons of God" and they both maintain that they refer to divine beings called Gods.

The LDS apologists are more in touch with the scriptures than the prophets. Maybe they should switch places.

[_maklelan]

The LDS apologists are more in touch with the scriptures than the prophets. Maybe they should switch places.

The prophet does quite a bit more than just interpret scripture, though, and scripture is only one portion of what contributes to the church's theology and ethics.

[_madeleine]

My study Bible says:

This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation--the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.

The sons of heaven: literally "the sons of the gods" or "the sons of God," i.e., the celestial beings of mythology.

[_Buffalo]

The LDS apologists are more in touch with the scriptures than the prophets. Maybe they should switch places.

The prophet does quite a bit more than just interpret scripture, though, and scripture is only one portion of what contributes to the church's theology and ethics.

Yes, they're mainly administrators.

[_Buffalo]

My study Bible says:

This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation--the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.

The sons of heaven: literally "the sons of the gods" or "the sons of God," i.e., the celestial beings of mythology.

That mythology is really foundational to the Jewish religion. El was their first God - their relationship with El's sons was not always adversarial.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9.

When the Elyon (most high) gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of El. But Yahweh's portion was with his people, (the tribe of) Jacob was his share of inheritance.

Psalm 29:1
Acknowledge Yahweh, you sons of El,
acknowledge His majesty and power!

Psalm 89:6
Who in the skies can compare to Yahweh?
Who is like Yahweh among the sons of El?

Yahweh himself was not originally one of those sons, but a minor war god from another tradition who was borrowed by the Jews and later conflated with El himself.

[Guest]

It is very clear in the Old Testament that the Hebrews struggled constantly with paganism.