Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

The "sons Of God" In Genesis 6:2 & 4 Are Angelic Beings?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Brother Scott,

I have to disagree. Both verses clearly state that the context of a being after having been resurrected. There is no contextual comparison to Genesis 6 at all. One passage deals with resurrected beings, the other with beings that had not been resurrected.

Follow your own logic, if it is comparative, then I stand correct.

Matthew and Mark speak to beings that have been resurrected and to angels.

The only way to get to Genesis 6 is to state a false understanding from Matthew and Mark. Neither verse speaks to whether or not angels can reproduce, both verses merely state that in the resurrection you will be like an angel, unable to marry, due to the fact that a union between an angel and an angel is either a.) prohibited or b.) illogical considering the fact that all angels are male, hence eliminating any further discussion about unions amongst the angels. There can be none.

 

Brother "Calvary,"

 

In my post #19, I stated:

Rather, the grammar of these two verses presents a comparative between the two groups mentioned.  The first group in the first half of these verses encompasses the humans who will be "in the resurrection."  The second group in the second half of these verses encompasses the angels, who are described as being "in heaven" at the very time that Jesus was speaking.  In this manner, our Lord Jesus Christ, in this comparative, revealed something about the very nature of the angels (or, at least about the nature of righteous angels, those "in heaven").

 

If I am correct that our Lord Jesus Christ revealed something about the nature of angels in Matthew 22:30 & Mark 12:25, and if the "sons of God" of Genesis 6:2 & 4 are to be viewed as angelic beings, then there is a connection between the two passages.  That connection is the truth concerning the nature of angelic beings, if indeed angelic beings are being referenced in both passages.

 

So then, would you agree that our Lord Jesus Christ revealed in Matthew 22:30 & Mark 12:25 that angelic beings do not marry, nor are given in marriage?  Furthermore, would you agree that our Lord Jesus Christ revealed this as a basic fact, without presenting any governing reasons for that fact?  Finally, would you agree that the "sons of God" of Genesis 6:2 & 4 (whoever they may be) did marry, else the term "wives" would not have been employed in that context?

 

Personally, agreeing to the truths bound up in the above three questions, I would contend that the "sons of God" of Genesis 6:2 & 4 could not have been angelic beings; for they entered into the union of marriage, which our Lord Jesus Christ revealed as a Biblical fact that angelic beings do not do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

They didn't translate it as "sons" in Duet. 14:1. Let's stick to what the KJV says and not what the Hebrew may have been translated as. There's a reason all the new versions of the bible say "children of God" while the KJV says, "sons of God" in passages like John 1:12. And it has nothing to do with them being a bunch of misogynists and chauvinists back in those days either. It has to do with the fact that the Son of God is male and when we are born again we are created in the image of the Son of God. True, we are children of God, but more precisely, we are sons of God. This includes our saved sisters. The only exception to the rule is the mention of "daughters" in II Corinthians 6:18 but that is speaking in a practical sense.

 

There are no "sons of God" within mankind between the fall of Adam and the new birth of John 3.

 

Brother "SongOfDegrees,"

 

I myself, in my own consideration of the matter, cannot completely disregard the Holy Spirit inspired and divinely preserved Hebrew Scriptures.  Nor can I completely disregard that the original audience for the book of Genesis (that is -- the Israelites in Moses' day), not having a copy of the book of Job at that time, would likely have considered the connection between Genesis 6:2 & 4 and Deuteronomy 14:1 in their language (the original Hebrew language), since they would have viewed the five books that Moses penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as a unified context.

 

However, for your sake, in remaining strictly with the King James English translation, I would ask if the following verses have any bearing on the matter --

 

Exodus 4:22-23 -- "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: and I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn."

 

Deuteronomy 32:19 -- "And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters."

 

2 Samuel 7:14 -- "I will be his father, and he shall be my son.  If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men." (See also 1 Chronicles 22:10; 28:6)

 

Isaiah 43:6 -- "I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth."

 

Isaiah 45:11 -- "Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me."

 

Jeremiah 31:20 -- "Is Ephraim my dear son?  Is he a pleasant child?  For since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the LORD."

 

Hosea 11:1 -- "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."

 

If the possessive pronoun before the words "son" or "sons" in each of these verses is viewed as a reference to the Lord our God, then each of these verses indicates that the idea of "sons of God" is indeed applied to human individuals in the context of the Old Testament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The word 'oiketerion' speaks of a dwelling place, particularly spiritual-it doesn't mean that the angels lost the body of spirit, just that they left their spiritual dwellinglace, which was Heaven.


oikētērion clearly is a BODY and NOT a "place".
For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house
[oikētērion] which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 2 Cor 5:1-3

You may not like the "implications", but the word is very clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother "Calvary,"

 

In my post #19, I stated:

 

If I am correct that our Lord Jesus Christ revealed something about the nature of angels in Matthew 22:30 & Mark 12:25, and if the "sons of God" of Genesis 6:2 & 4 are to be viewed as angelic beings, then there is a connection between the two passages.  That connection is the truth concerning the nature of angelic beings, if indeed angelic beings are being referenced in both passages.

 

I would not agree that Jesus is revealing things about their nature so much as their limitations, respective to place. He didn´t say anything about what the angels on earth can do or didn´t do. He said clearly that the angels that are in heaven. I just believe what I read, I try not to hypothesize.

1. The reason angels do not marry and reproduce in heaven is because they are all male.

2. God did not say "as the angels of Satan on earth", he said "AS THE ANGELS OF GOD IN HEAVEN"

 

So then, would you agree that our Lord Jesus Christ revealed in Matthew 22:30 & Mark 12:25 that angelic beings do not marry, nor are given in marriage?  Furthermore, would you agree that our Lord Jesus Christ revealed this as a basic fact, without presenting any governing reasons for that fact?  Finally, would you agree that the "sons of God" of Genesis 6:2 & 4 (whoever they may be) did marry, else the term "wives" would not have been employed in that context?

 

I agree that the angels of God in heaven do not marry. The angels in Genesis 6 "took wives", they were not "given in marriage". One intimates consent, the other indicates force.

As to part "B" of your question, No, I do not agree to your hypothesis as a basic fact, for the stated reasons I have given. I would offer that the declarative statement "angels of God in Heaven", is the condition, not a side statement.

As to part "C", again, I am not inclined to believe that "wives" automatically indicates a marriage in the sense you and I understand it to be as Christians. Israel "took wives" once, without any one´s permission, it was not consensual, it was not a marriage of love between a willing women and willing man. The women in fact we forced into it. So, no, I do not agree as I do not see it is as amarriage in the sense you and I might see it today. 

 

Personally, agreeing to the truths bound up in the above three questions, I would contend that the "sons of God" of Genesis 6:2 & 4 could not have been angelic beings; for they entered into the union of marriage, which our Lord Jesus Christ revealed as a Biblical fact that angelic beings do not do.

 

Well, you are certainly free to believe that, I don´t think any thing less of you. I just don´t agree, and I have stared my reasons. No one entered into any union of marriage in Genesis 6. Women were taken.

 

 

 

 

God bless,

calvary

 

(my name in brother mitchell)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I would have to agree with Pastor Markle.

Genesis 6:2 indicates possession. "Took them wives" indicates the union of marriage. We hear the same today, "so-and-so took him a wife"

Notice the following New Testament verse...

Matthew 1:24 (KJV)
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

If, as Calvary implies, took them a wife means the sons of God took someone elses wife for sexual intercourse and procreation, that would be adultery and would be what we see Joseph doing in Matthew as well, inferring that Joseph stole Mary from a hUsband she already had.

But, no, Mary and Joseph were not married to someone else, for the angel of the Lord would not have told joseph to enter into an adulterous relationship.

Genesis 6:2 can only be speaking of the sons of God entering into a marriage relationship with the daughters of men.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

God bless,

calvary

 

(my name in brother mitchell)

 

Brother Mitchell,

 

Thank you for sharing your name.  I much prefer to begin my responses toward others with the Brother (name) or Sister (name) approach, in order to demonstrate respect for my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

Concerning your comments above in post #49 --

I would not agree that Jesus is revealing things about their nature so much as their limitations, respective to place. He didn´t say anything about what the angels on earth can do or didn´t do. He said clearly that the angels that are in heaven. I just believe what I read, I try not to hypothesize.

 

With the closing comment of this quote, you seem to be implying an accusation that I am engaging in hypothisizing.  I do not point this out because I am at offended by this implication; for throughout this discussion I have indeed engaged in a certain amount of hypothesizing.  Rather, I point this out in order to indicate, without seeking to be overly contentious, that you also have engaged in a certain amount of hypothesizing in your above post.  In that post, you continued with the comments--

1. The reason angels do not marry and reproduce in heaven is because they are all male.

2. God did not say "as the angels of Satan on earth", he said "AS THE ANGELS OF GOD IN HEAVEN"

 

Herein with point #1, you indicate that "the reason angels do not marry and reprodcue in heaven is because they are all male."  Yet Jesus did not provide the reason for His declaration.  Nor does any other passage of Scripture provide this specific truth as the reason that angels in heaven do not marry and reproduce.  Thus, in presenting this reason in your point #1, you have engaged in hypothesizing.

 

Furthermore, in the opening line of your next paragraph you stated --

I agree that the angels of God in heaven do not marry. The angels in Genesis 6 "took wives", they were not "given in marriage".

 

Herein you use the term "angels" for those spoken of in Genesis 6:2 & 4.  Yet the term "angel" or "angels" is not employed anywhere in the entire context of Genesis 6.  Thus in refering to those whom God's Word entitles "the sons of God" as "angels," you have again engaged in the process of hypothesizing.

 

Finally, concerning your comments on the phrase "took them wives," I do have some responding comments.  However, I do not have the time at this present moment to engage therein. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

oikētērion clearly is a BODY and NOT a "place".
For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house
[oikētērion] which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 2 Cor 5:1-3

You may not like the "implications", but the word is very clear.

Not concerned over implications, but what the Bible says: Once, 'house', once, 'habitation'. There is a reason it was translated as such-they both speak of a spiritual dwellingplace, just as the tabernacle of our body-it is a place the spirit dwells-and since an angel is spirit, it speaks of his habitation of heaven, not a spiritual body-if they had no spiritual body, they had no body. The believer will receive his tabernacle from heaven, which is both physical AND spiritual, different from what we have today-angels are already spirit and in their habitation.

 

I'm sorry you so dislike the KJV and feel the need to re-interpret everything to justify your positions. as has been said before, its a shame that you weren't there to advise the KJV translators, men who were all masters of multiple ancient languages, who also had at their disposal over 5,000 writings of the Bible to draw from-things I suspect you haven't got to offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

Calvary said:

I agree that the angels of God in heaven do not marry. The angels in Genesis 6 "took wives", they were not "given in marriage". One intimates consent, the other indicates force.

As to part "B" of your question, No, I do not agree to your hypothesis as a basic fact, for the stated reasons I have given. I would offer that the declarative statement "angels of God in Heaven", is the condition, not a side statement.

As to part "C", again, I am not inclined to believe that "wives" automatically indicates a marriage in the sense you and I understand it to be as Christians. Israel "took wives" once, without any one´s permission, it was not consensual, it was not a marriage of love between a willing women and willing man. The women in fact we forced into it. So, no, I do not agree as I do not see it is as amarriage in the sense you and I might see it today. 

Gen 11:29 "And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife [was] Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah."

 

Gen 24:67 "And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's [death]."

 

Gen 25:1 "Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name [was] Keturah."

 

Gen 26:34 "And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:"

 

Gen 28:9 : "Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife."

 

Gen 38:6 "And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name [was] Tamar."

 

Ex 2:1 "And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took [to wife] a daughter of Levi."

 

Ex 6:23 "And Aaron took him Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Naashon, to wife; and she bare him Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar."

 

Ex 6:25 "And Eleazar Aaron's son took him [one] of the daughters of Putiel to wife; and she bare him Phinehas: these [are] the heads of the fathers of the Levites according to their families."

 

I could go on, but we'll stop there.  Either these early followers of God were some seriously rapey folks, or the term to "take a wife" means to marry, not to force. So, toss out that argument, because it holds less water than a bottomless bucket. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

oikētērion clearly is a BODY and NOT a "place".
For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house
[oikētērion] which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 2 Cor 5:1-3

You may not like the "implications", but the word is very clear.

 

Regarding the KJV issue  

 

Most of us who devoutly believe and defend the King James Bible are well aware of how "stupid" "ignorant" "backward" "cultic" "unloving" and "narrow minded" we are IN YOUR EYES. 
 
You do not need to tell us again, we heard you the first time and have been hearing you for hundreds of years. The trouble is that we are a loyal and faithful lot finding it difficult to change our stand and beliefs. Even with all of your books, magazines, articles, and posts, you have not given us any evidence, either material or Spiritual, to show that you offer us anything better than what we already have. In fact there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that you could even offer us anything as good as we have! 
 
Therefore to listen to your insults, blasphemies, and offers, is a repeat of history and a waste of our time but we thank you for your concern (you did come out of true concern didn't you?) but we are really not interested in your offers. 
 
We will however pray that you come to know and believe in something to the point that you are willing to stand as a true defender of the faith in the face of any and all opposition just as most of us do. 
 
We DO however stand with open invitation to all who come sincerely seeking the truth in the matter of the King James Bible versus the Modern Versions. I don't know of a single KJBible defender who will lie to you or twist History or the Scriptures to make a point. If any do then they have other problems that need dealt with before the Lord and have no fellowship with the true defenders of God's Word. 
 
We ask the seeker to look beneath all the hype and the arguments found in every public KJBible forum, for the devil sends such events to keep you discouraged and in the dark. Be not detoured from your mission of truth, for in the end the Spirit of God will testify to the Spirit in you as to what is true and what is not. 
 
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: John 15:26 
 
Written by Jim Oakley and used by permission.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Added 11/05/05
 
I feel it is time I bring this back up to the top. It seems we go in circles talking about these issues and neither side gets anywhere. It is a waste of my time and yours if you will not listen to answers when they are given. If you do not like our stand that is fine just remember that you are the one who came here to fellowship with us. 
 
 
On onlineBaptist we do not correct the KK Bible, by correcting the KJ Bible you become your own god. I'm posting this realizing that many come here & start posting & never reading the rules for posting on this board. 
 
Now that you know the polite thing to do would be stop correcting the KJ Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Why did the flood come. one purpose was to destroy all those children that had been born from the fallen angels having married the daughters of men. God got rid to the to protect the line His Son would come though. Yes, old Satan tried to infiltrate that godly line that Jesus would come though.

 

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.
Ge 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Ge 6:6 ¶ And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Ge 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Why did the flood come. one purpose was to destroy all those children that had been born from the fallen angels having married the daughters of men. God got rid to the to protect the line His Son would come though. Yes, old Satan tried to infiltrate that godly line that Jesus would come though.

 

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.
Ge 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Ge 6:6 ¶ And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Ge 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

 

Where does the Bible say one of the reasons for the flood was to destroy children born to fallen angels?  I find no evidence of such a claim in the Bible.  You are adding to God's Word when you say such.

God tells us why He destroyed the world... because man's heart was evil continually.  Says nothing of children of fallen angels.  Since kind begets kind, children of fallen angels would be angels, fallen like their fathers.  But the Scripture says it was man's heart, not angels, that was evil continually... man's.

I do not subscribe to the theory that the sons of God were fallen angels.  If they were fallen angels they would not have been called sons of God.

by the way, satan infiltrated the line Jesus was born through... Rahab was a harlot, and Ruth? she was a Moabitess.  So that theory doesn't work either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Regarding the KJV issue  
 
Most of us who devoutly believe and defend the King James Bible are well aware of how "stupid" "ignorant" "backward" "cultic" "unloving" and "narrow minded" we are IN YOUR EYES.


1. I was saved in 1962 in a Baptist church and used the King James bible.
2. I attend an IFB church which only uses the King James bible.
3. I only use the King James Bible; it don't even possess any other versions.
4. I attended BIOLA college Bible Institute right after being saved.
5. I have always used Strong's concordance; I use an online KJV with Strong's hypertext.
6. The "Sethite View" of Genesis 6 is a Catholic Doctrine cooked-up by Augustine.
7. The early church fathers and Jewish scholars took Genesis 6 literally -
women and fallen angels produced offspring.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Mitchell,

 

Concerning your post #49, wherein you spoke about the phrase "took them wives," you said:

I agree that the angels of God in heaven do not marry. The angels in Genesis 6 "took wives", they were not "given in marriage". One intimates consent, the other indicates force.

As to part "B" of your question, No, I do not agree to your hypothesis as a basic fact, for the stated reasons I have given. I would offer that the declarative statement "angels of God in Heaven", is the condition, not a side statement.

As to part "C", again, I am not inclined to believe that "wives" automatically indicates a marriage in the sense you and I understand it to be as Christians. Israel "took wives" once, without any one´s permission, it was not consensual, it was not a marriage of love between a willing women and willing man. The women in fact we forced into it. So, no, I do not agree as I do not see it is as amarriage in the sense you and I might see it today. 

 

As Brother "Standing Firm In Christ" indicated above in his post #50, God's Word states in Matthew 1:24 -- "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife."  If the termonology of "taking" a wife intimates force, rather than consent, as you have indicated above, then does this mean that the righteous man Joseph was instructed by the Lord God to force Mary into being his wife?  Does this mean that Mary did not actually marry Joseph by consent?  Does this also mean that Joseph's marriage to Marry was not "a marriage in the sense you and I might see it today," that it was not "a marriage of love between a willing woman [sic.] and a willing man"? 

 

As Brother "Ukulelemike" only began a listing of Scriptures above in his post #53, the termonology of "taking" a wife is a very common usage throughout God's Word for the idea of a man getting married to a wife.  This common usage throughout God's Word reveals that the termonology of "taking" a wife does not intimate the idea of forcing a woman into a marriage relationship.  Actually, the termonology of "taking" a wife is employed with regard to the relationship of a woman, first toward her father, then toward her groom.  God's Word teaches that a woman is given by her father unto a man to be his wife.  Even so, God's Word also teaches that a man takes a woman from her father to be his wife.  This termonology is simply the Biblical termonology for marriage, and thereby signals, first the authority of the father over his daughter, and then the authority of the husband over his wife.

 

 

Concerning the word "wives" -- By its very definition, the word "wife" means "a woman who is legally (however that may be defined in any given society) married to a man."  Thus it is important to recognize that God's own Word in Genesis 6:2 employs this very word "wife."

 

No one entered into any union of marriage in Genesis 6. Women were taken.

 

God's own Word in Genesis 6:2 does not state that "women were taken."  God's own Word in Genesis 6:2 actually states that wives were taken.  By the use of this word "wives" in Genesis 6:2, which by its very definition indicates a woman who is legally married, God's own Word reveals that a "union of marriage" most certainly did occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

With respect to all, the Bible is not definitive on this point.
there is only a certain amount of support for either view.

This is one of those issues where opinion becomes the deciding factor and therefore no one can be categorical about for God has not revealed all the details.

The discussion has been interesting.

In my experience it is far more important what a person does with their opinion on this point, rather than what the actual opinion is. Raging false doctrines have been developed on the opinion that they were angels, and some on the opinion that they were godly men/sinful men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Mitchell,

 

Thank you for sharing your name.  I much prefer to begin my responses toward others with the Brother (name) or Sister (name) approach, in order to demonstrate respect for my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

Concerning your comments above in post #49 --

 

With the closing comment of this quote, you seem to be implying an accusation that I am engaging in hypothisizing.  I do not point this out because I am at offended by this implication; for throughout this discussion I have indeed engaged in a certain amount of hypothesizing.  Rather, I point this out in order to indicate, without seeking to be overly contentious, that you also have engaged in a certain amount of hypothesizing in your above post.  In that post, you continued with the comments--

 

I don´t think you contentious, we are having an adult conversation. Let´s continue to do so without having to step too lightly.

 

Herein with point #1, you indicate that "the reason angels do not marry and reprodcue in heaven is because they are all male."  Yet Jesus did not provide the reason for His declaration.  Nor does any other passage of Scripture provide this specific truth as the reason that angels in heaven do not marry and reproduce.  Thus, in presenting this reason in your point #1, you have engaged in hypothesizing.

 

OK, granted. Jesus does not provide the reason, but the Bible does clearly provide the information that all angels are male. One doesn´t need Jesus to give the reason, we can deduce with a clear conscience that given God´s views on homosexuality, male angels will not be given in marriage to other male angels in heaven. There are no females in Heaven, and the plain statement of the Lord refers only to angels of God in heaven, nor fallen angels of Satan on earth.

 

Furthermore, in the opening line of your next paragraph you stated --

 

Herein you use the term "angels" for those spoken of in Genesis 6:2 & 4.  Yet the term "angel" or "angels" is not employed anywhere in the entire context of Genesis 6.  Thus in refering to those whom God's Word entitles "the sons of God" as "angels," you have again engaged in the process of hypothesizing.

There is no hypothesis, it is merely understanding that there were no "sons of God" in the NT sense, no one was "born again" by faith in Christ in Genesis 6. They cannot be the sons of Adam, for the sons of Adam are the sons of Adam (Genesis 5:1-3). The other sons of God are born again, New Testament believers, and they can´t be in Genesis 6 for no one is born again until after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The other sons of God are the nation of Israel, and they are not born until Exodus 12. Thus the only sons of God that remain are angels. That is not hypothesis my brother, that is just simple comparing scripture with scripture.

 

Finally, concerning your comments on the phrase "took them wives," I do have some responding comments.  However, I do not have the time at this present moment to engage therein. 

 

Looks like Ukelele man got me there. But, it´s of no real consequence, my belief that these sons of God in Genesis 6 are fallen angels in no ways depends upon the phrase took wives or given in marriage. Although I still do understand that the sons of God in Genesis 6 did "take" women most likely against their will.

God bless,

calvary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...