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

Genesis 6:7 (KJV) 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.

Does anybody think it strange that God did not say it repented Him that He had created angels if angels were indeed the culprits of this violence and evil?

Why would God destroy man and not angels?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

To return right to beginning....


Genesis 6

 1  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

 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.

 3  And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

 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.


To begin with, verse 2 makes it plain that marriage was involved, not only sexual relations.
secondly, while giants are mentioned, the phrase 'and also after that' separates the giants from the event of daughters of men - sons of God.
thirdly, the result of these unions were children who became mighty men, men of renown.

There is actually nothing in the passage that indicates that the resultant offspring were anything more than famous fighting men, and they were not born mighty men but became mighty men.

The only reason there is any contention in this passage is the use of the phrase 'Sons of God' and that only because it is contrasted with 'daughters of men'.

Now even if a particular phrase is used in a particular sense, that does not mean it necessarily must conform to that in every case.
The context of the usage also helps in that determination.

I see no need to read this as angels, and personally I feel that the more obvious reading is that these were men, but I don't think we actually have enough information to be solid about it.

 

Two things I am sure of is that neither side can be sure of this issue and that it is a lesser issue.

 

However Dave, there is more to it than can be quickly proven or dismissed. The first verse makes it clear that men, women, wives and intercourse was already taking place. So verse 2 is not related to that same arrangement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I suspect that this has gone about as far as perhaps it might go. I'm starting to get some hints of people getting a bit hot over the arguments. IN fact perhaps this is becoming more of an argument, than a civil discussion among brethren. Maybe time to lock the thread? Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Brother "Standing Firm In Christ,"

 

 

As such, I wish to answer your question quite directly.  Then I wish to ask you a series of questions concerning Job 38:7 and its context.  First, concerning your above question -- There is no place anywhere in God's Holy Word wherein "sons of God" are specifically and directly identified as angels. 

 

 

 

 

 Even so, the sarcasm began to flow within the discussion; and as the sarcasm flowed more freely, the tension within the discussion grew more intensely.  I myself would request that the sarcastic remarks be set aside, in order that the tension might be relieved and in order that grace might return.

 

 

You have not answered out simple question.

That being, Where does the Bible say the sons of God were angels?

See red above

 

Never mind, you already saw and responded

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If we are identifying ourselves as preachers of God's Word, we need to stick to what the Word says.

When we interject into the text that which is not written anywhere in the Bible, it is no doubt going to raise some eyebrows.

The current topic, being the perfect example.

When did man first deduce that sons of God referred to angels?
How did man come to that conclusion?
What Scripture can he give to support his beliefs?

These are all valid questions, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I will confess to my brethren that Standing does rankle me. I shouldn´t let it, but (not as any justification) I have been untoward to him.

It is not because of this thread. It was in my heart before hand.

 

I apologize to him if I have been caustic to him, or if I have been un Christian in my demeanor to him.

 

Let it be done with.

 

 

Yet, to date, Standing has not told us who the sons of God are in Job 38. There are only 4 (5 to me) biblical choices. I would love to hear from his own mouth who they are.

 

God bless,

calvary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I will confess to my brethren that Standing does rankle me. I shouldn´t let it, but (not as any justification) I have been untoward to him.

It is not because of this thread. It was in my heart before hand.

 

I apologize to him if I have been caustic to him, or if I have been un Christian in my demeanor to him.

 

Let it be done with.

 

 

Yet, to date, Standing has not told us who the sons of God are in Job 38. There are only 4 (5 to me) biblical choices. I would love to hear from his own mouth who they are.

 

God bless,

calvary

Calvary,

I accept your apology.  If I came across to you as unChristlike, I never meant my posts to be as such.

That said, I have answered to the best of my ability the question of Job 38:7.  The Bible does not say who, or what, the sons of God may be referring to.  So, for me to say they are angels would be pure speculation.  I do not know anything more than what the Bible says, and that it, that they are "the sons of God."

As I pointed out, and Pastor Markle so rightly admitted, there is no verse whatsoever in the Word of God that says that sons of God is referring to angels.

Given what evidence we have concerning angels in Hebrews 1:5-6, I do not see how they could be angels.  Why would God identify angels as sons in the Old and not in the New?  Can a son of God truly cease being a son of God?  imo, I don't believe he can.

I do not know what they are referring to.  In Genesis 6, they seem to be indicating man, since men are born to them. (kind begetting kind)

In Job 38, it is clearly not man, since they are with God from the first day of creation. 

When were angels created?  Day one? Day two? Three? Four? Five? Six?   The Bible does not say.  Yet they had to have either been created by Him on one of those days, or have always existed with Him. 

Am I trying to teach heresy?  Not at all.  Just trying to reason out the Scripture evidence we have before us.  We are not told exactly when the angels were created.

Now, we do know that the king of Tyre and Sidon was created, but the Bible does not identify him as an angel... rather a cherubim.

Could sons of God in Job been cherubim? or even seraphim? or angels?  or some other heavenly host that are not described?  That is only a mystery, and will no doubt remain a mystery until we enter His Glorious Kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Job 38:4  Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5  Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6  Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7  When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

 

Earths foundation... when..... the question is rhetorical. The obvious answer is NO MAN was there, including Job.

 

When the sons of God shouted for joy, is at the time when the foundations of the earth were laid.

 

That is the context. You nor I have any understanding, but since the Bible is not silent on the term sons of God for us, I ask again, who were they.

 

Were they

1. Adam?

2. Israel?

3. Jesus?

4. Born again believer?

 

 

I understand your inability and unwillingness to answer with anything conclusive on your part, it would lead you to face the "false doctrine", the "nonsense", the "inability to understand deductive bible study", the impossible task of "reconciling false doctrine" with New Testament stated facts of the new birth. No one has been caustic to you, but some one has decided to hold your feet to the fire and exact an answer on this simple question. To date, I have not had one. To say it is one of the 4, you will be found to have more questions then any answer. You both know that, that is why you have as yet refused to chose one of the only choices available.

 

Though Pastor Scott does not agree with my findings, he did graciously concede that they could not have been of the other 4 classes.

I can respect that.

 

 

What I lack respect for is a man who will refuse to answer simple questions.

 

God bless,

calvcary

Again, I do not know the answer. I have a theory and will keep it to myself and, although I have sent it in a PM to Brother Scott, I trust that he will keep it to himself too.

Sons of God are clearly specified in the case of the other 4 but Job 38 doesn't specify what they were and it doesn't say angels.

This has been engaging to say the least and I, also, apologize if any of my comments weren't gracious or if led anyone astray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Two things I am sure of is that neither side can be sure of this issue and that it is a lesser issue.

However Dave, there is more to it than can be quickly proven or dismissed. The first verse makes it clear that men, women, wives and intercourse was already taking place. So verse 2 is not related to that same arrangement.


But the same contrasting language - sons of God, daughters of men - is used.

If verse 2 is just men and women, then so is verse 4; if verse 2 is not, then verse is not.
Surely this is so, seeing as the same terms are used in the same context.

It doesn't prove it one way or the other, but the consistency of terms can't be ignored.

If the sons of God are angels in verse 4 then they are angels in verse 2. If they are men in 4, they are men in 2.

However, this does not change the fact that the children were mighty men.
David also had a band of mighty men, but none suggest they were superhuman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But the same contrasting language - sons of God, daughters of men - is used.

If verse 2 is just men and women, then so is verse 4; if verse 2 is not, then verse is not.
Surely this is so, seeing as the same terms are used in the same context.

It doesn't prove it one way or the other, but the consistency of terms can't be ignored.

If the sons of God are angels in verse 4 then they are angels in verse 2. If they are men in 4, they are men in 2.

However, this does not change the fact that the children were mighty men.
David also had a band of mighty men, but none suggest they were superhuman.

 

I am just pointing out the contrast in terms the Lord uses between verse 1 and the subsequent. He uses "men" in verse 1 and "sons of God" in 2. It stands to reason this is part of the reason for debate. Why would He use these different terms if He were referring to the same type of creature? Why would He apply such unusual adjectives to "males" mentioned in subsequent verses and the offspring if it were just normal people as He mentions in verse one without adjective?

It is not mistake and it is not for confusion, wouldn't you agree?

 

Where are our good brothers  I Tim, John81 and Irishman at, I agree with them mostly. Maybe we should all just go soulwinning and forget the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

The only thing clear about this passage seems to be that it is unclear.  Perhaps we should all try to be a little less dogmatic and cutting about things we do not know for sure...

 

Just wanted to say that I appreciate those who have accepted the hints about the way their posts are coming across. It's nice to see the tone change for the better. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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



×
×
  • Create New...