I’ve started taking notes during sermons to stave off boredom and to give myself some ammo for any debates I may find myself getting into with a Christian. Even though last Sunday was the first time that I started taking notes, I believe I’ve found a very interesting discrepancy in one of the Bible verses my pastor quoted.
For the sermon, my pastor quoted part of Genesis 6:4 (King James Version): “There were giants in the earth in those days...” My pastor conveniently forgot to quote the rest of the passage, which reads, “...and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
Now, if I have read the Bible correctly, Jesus is supposed to be the son of God. “And lo a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17; KJV).
If I were to take the Bible literally, this one verse in Genesis would be a blatant discrepancy that would make me seriously question the validity of Jesus’ claim to be the son of God. I’d like to point out that the phrase “sons of God” does not magically disappear in other translations [Here’s a link to an online Bible--->[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=KJV]. However, if I were to make a more moderate interpretation of this particular verse (the phrase “sons of God” referring to angels instead of multiple sons of God), there is still an issue as to why the writers/editors of the Bible did not rewrite this verse to fit more evenly with the New Testament. If God indeed had more than one son (i.e. Jesus), is it possible that there could be “grandchildren of God?” It's a strange question, I know, but it's one that has been on my mind for the past couple of days.[/align]
What is your take on these verses?
For the sermon, my pastor quoted part of Genesis 6:4 (King James Version): “There were giants in the earth in those days...” My pastor conveniently forgot to quote the rest of the passage, which reads, “...and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
Now, if I have read the Bible correctly, Jesus is supposed to be the son of God. “And lo a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17; KJV).
If I were to take the Bible literally, this one verse in Genesis would be a blatant discrepancy that would make me seriously question the validity of Jesus’ claim to be the son of God. I’d like to point out that the phrase “sons of God” does not magically disappear in other translations [Here’s a link to an online Bible--->[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=KJV]. However, if I were to make a more moderate interpretation of this particular verse (the phrase “sons of God” referring to angels instead of multiple sons of God), there is still an issue as to why the writers/editors of the Bible did not rewrite this verse to fit more evenly with the New Testament. If God indeed had more than one son (i.e. Jesus), is it possible that there could be “grandchildren of God?” It's a strange question, I know, but it's one that has been on my mind for the past couple of days.[/align]
What is your take on these verses?
"If your god has to make peace with me in my final hour when he has my whole lifetime to prove his existence to me...do you think I should bother?"
"But the happiness of an atheist is neither the vacuous enjoyment of a fool, nor the short-lived pleasure of a rogue. It is rather the expression of a disposition that has ceased to torture itself with foolish fancies, or perplex itself with useless beliefs." - Chapman Cohen
"But the happiness of an atheist is neither the vacuous enjoyment of a fool, nor the short-lived pleasure of a rogue. It is rather the expression of a disposition that has ceased to torture itself with foolish fancies, or perplex itself with useless beliefs." - Chapman Cohen
