CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - Bible Study
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 31st January 2008, 04:37 PM
Archangel Michael Archangel Michael is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 118
Default Just before the flood

Ron, what do you make of the passage below, concerning the sons of God?
Throughout the bible the term sons of God is meant as angels,watchers,or messangers( execpt when reference to our Lord), but I can't seem to get the church's position on this passage.

Genesis 6]
{6:1} And when men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them,
{6:2} the sons of God, seeing that the daughters of men were beautiful, took to themselves wives from all whom they chose.
{6:3} And God said: “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, because he is flesh. And so his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
{6:4} Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they conceived, these became the powerful ones of ancient times, men of renown.
{6:5} Then God, seeing that the wickedness of men was great upon the earth and that every thought of their heart was intent upon evil at all times,
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 31st January 2008, 04:46 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

The sons of God and the giants must refer in some way to members of the human race, though it is not clear which members. Perhaps the sons of God were the descendants of Adam and Eve who retained the worship of God learned from Adam and Eve, whereas the rest would be those other descendents who fell away from the knowledge and worship of God. The giants would perhaps be some tribe which was noted for its size, but still members of the same human race descended from Adam and Eve.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 18th April 2011, 10:33 AM
VKallin VKallin is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North Port, Florida
Posts: 601
Default A question answered

I teach in our local RCIA Class and this question was asked by a student several years ago. Who were the Sons of God and who were the giants. I have finally discovered the answer in the footnotes and the chronology of the Douay Rheims bible. It states that the Sons of God were the remaining male children of Adam and Eve.......beginning with Seth. Seth was the 3rd child of Adam and Eve and replaced Abel, who was, of course, killed by his brother Cain.

Cain was driven out of the family after his crime, but he took wives and fathered children, and established a city which was opposite of the City of God (Adam and Eve). The descendents of Adam & Eve are called the Children of God....or the Sons of God. The descendents of Cain are called the children of men. The male children of men were very evil and very large in stature, and were referred to as giants. Obviously Cain also produced daughters, who were called "the daughters of men".

The Book of Genesis continues to describe the time when the "Sons of God went into the daughters of men and produced offspring". This is a warning about mixed marriages between competing religions and it lead to the spread of evil throughout the world and eventually to the great flood.

I was pleased to finally discover this answer, but it begs another question. Who were the wives taken by Cain? The Book of Genesis gives us the descendents of both Adam & Eve and of Cain......but does not describe Cain's wives. I guess some more research is needed here.

Last edited by VKallin : 18th April 2011 at 10:36 AM. Reason: additional material
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 18th April 2011, 11:46 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

In my opinion, the genealogies before the Flood are not literal, but figurative. That is why Cain can be said to have built a city; this happened over many generations. So I would offer a similar but alternate view to the one you read. The sons of God were those persons, men and women, who retained the knowledge of God handed down from Adam and Eve. The sons of men were those persons, men and women, who did not retain this tradition from Adam and Eve; they lived secular and sinful lives, forgetting about God.

The term giants would be a figure, not literal. So those who retained the knowledge of God handed down from Adam and Eve were great, and therefore figurative giants.

{6:2} the sons of God, seeing that the daughters of men were beautiful, took to themselves wives from all whom they chose.

Men among those who retained the knowledge and worship of God, handed down from Adam and Eve, married women who were secular and sinful because they were attractive. The same could be said for women. This problem persists today, marriage not based on shared devotion to God, but on lesser values.

{6:3} And God said: “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, because he is flesh. And so his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
{6:4} Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they conceived, these became the powerful ones of ancient times, men of renown.

These children, though not holy, were able to do great things because they had the good example and teaching of even one parent. Similarly, today, it is not unusual for someone with a Catholic background to attain positions of power and leadership in society, though he or she is not a devout practicing Catholic. His Catholic upbringing is still of substantial benefit.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 18th April 2011, 02:33 PM
Brother Brother is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,849
Default

According to Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich, it seems that those "giants" were physically big and had a tremendous physical strenght also:

Quote:
Their children were very large. They possessed a quickness, an aptitude for every thing, and they gave themselves up entirely to the wicked spirits as their instruments.

Quote:
I have seen many things connected with the race of giants. They could with ease carry enormous stones high up the mountain, they could accomplish the most stupendous feats. They could walk straight up trees and walls just as I have seen others possessed by the devil doing.

--The Lowly Life And Bitter Passion Of Our Lord Jesus Christ And His Blessed Mother Together With The Mysteries Of The Old Testament (Visions Of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich) - Volume II, Pg: 31 & 32.

http://www.jesus-passion.com/DOLOROU...SUS_CHRIST.htm

However, I think this part of Scripture is still a mystery. The different interpretations are insightful and helpful but not definitive.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 19th April 2011, 07:10 AM
feyfifer feyfifer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: India
Posts: 285
Default

Here's something I picked off the net, but its just an opinion!....

In his Letter Humanae Generis, Pope Pius XII notes that it is in no way evident how scriptures could be understood in light of the theory that we have more than one pair of first parents. In light of this teaching one suggestion, academically made by Yves Card. Congar, I believe, is that true humans could have intermarried with pre-humans. Thus while having multiple first parents, all humans could be traced back to those first two humans Adam and Eve.

Assuming some manner of evolution, the creation of man would have been preceded by the evolution of a species of pre-man, an animal similar to man in all ways except lacking the immortal soul made in the image of God that makes us truly homo sapiens. The genesis of Adam and Eve, would leave our primordial parents biologically the same as these pre-humans, and thus reproductively compatible. Eve's three pure born sons could have intermingled with homo ante-sapiens women producing ever less pure blood, i.e. biologically pure humans. Souls of course don't co-mingle and so they are either truly human or not, so we, poor souls that we are, are truly human although biologically much less perfect than our forefathers.

An interesting factoid that doesn't prove anything but raises questions is that recent studies show that in mummified Egyptian bodies there are almost no cancers present. This causes many to suggest that we are causing cancer today, which might be true, but is it not possible that cancer is the result of a further degradation of that once pure human genome. You may notice in Sacred Scripture that the longevity of man diminishes with every passing generation. JRR Tolkien in his creation myth the Similarion attributes this to the interbreeding of Numenor men (the chosen) with regular humans. In Scripture itself there is the odd passage about the Nephilim, the sons of God who found mortal women attractive and copulated with them. Now while traditionally it is suggests that these were angel's, or in other religious traditions "gods", since we believe angels to be immaterial is it not possible that in fact these were true humans, sons of Adam, who intermarried with pre-humans?

Last edited by feyfifer : 19th April 2011 at 07:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 19th April 2011, 11:59 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

No, I don't believe that your idea is theologically tenable. Such an intermarriage would leave the descendents only partly related to Adam or Eve. And inevitably, not all descendents would be related, since Adam and Eve are only two persons. Even a few generations later, there would not be enough descendents of Adam and Eve to make all human persons partially related to Adam or Eve.

What is more likely is that Scripture does not give us all of the descendents between Adam and Noah. The genealogy listed would be somewhat symbolic, giving a few names to represent many generations.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 19th April 2011, 04:30 PM
garabandalg garabandalg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,657
Default is this not a common idea?

Is not much of the Bible symbolic at times? Lots of people pretend that unless it is perfectly concrete in all of its passages it is a fable or fiction....
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 19th April 2011, 07:45 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garabandalg View Post
Is not much of the Bible symbolic at times? Lots of people pretend that unless it is perfectly concrete in all of its passages it is a fable or fiction....

The Bible is basically a history book. It is the history of Israel, and the history of the Church. It is also, even more so, a book of salvation history. Even the Psalms are historical in many places.

There is much symbolism and teaching through figures, but it is not a book of 'fictional teaching stories'.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 19th April 2011, 08:31 PM
garabandalg garabandalg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,657
Default Sadly, there are many who look to make Bible a joke....

What I meant is that the Bible is history with symbolism to fill in the gaps, and provide a bridge etc. Those whose agenda is to discredit the Bible, of course, will point to that symbolism and those bridges as proof that the Bible is no more than an overrated comic book.....
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.