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

[Calvary]

For the same reason that the Bible identifies me as a child of God while my brothers are not...

Genesis 4:26 (KJV) 26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD

 

If you are suggesting that men received the power to become sons of God, as in -Joh 1:12  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13  Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

, then you would have some serious doctrinal deficiency to overcome. That is why we were having this conversation in he first place. To finally get someone to publicly say, these sons of God in Genesis 6 are regenerated souls.

 

No one ever called son of God got that way unless they were created that way by God.

 

I am not saying men were not saved in the OT. But there is no new birth in the Genesis to Malachi.

 

If these men became sons of God, as you are suggesting, then you have come out with a false and heretical teaching.

 

No one was ever born again until Christ was resurrected. Period.

 

So....? That has been the the thrust of all my posting.

 

You men cannot have it both ways. You cannot say one minute that they are not angels and then say the next that they are sons of God because they "called upon the name of the Lord". The Bible simply will not support your idea of born again sons of God without a new covenant.

 

It has been tedious to get you there. But now that you are there, are you going to defend such a blatantly false premise as born again sons of God in Genesis 6?

 

But, I do not wish to take this thread in another 15 pages of posts arguing about OT salvation and New Testament salvation.

 

I am satisfied that you are unable to admit your error on this subject. But 2 wrongs do not make a right.

 

:-)

[Standing Firm In Christ]

These sons of God, imo, are sons of God, because they called on the name of the LORD. Prior to that, none called upon the name of the LORD.

I do not believe there is any doctrinal defiency in the least.

Adam was called a son of God.

How did he get that title?

[Calvary]

These sons of God, imo, are sons of God, because they called on the name of the LORD. Prior to that, none called upon the name of the LORD.

I do not believe there is any doctrinal defiency in the least.

Adam was called a son of God.

How did he get that title?

 

Adam, like Israel, like Jesus, like born again believers all are created by God. That´s why angels as well can be considered sons of God. The are a direct creation of God.

Adam was a son of God. Was Seth a son of God? No, he was a son of Adam. IN fact Enos was a son of Seth, not of God.

 

There are 3 theories over Genesis 4:26, the simplest being that men began to pray, for this is how the expression is used in scripture. Others postulate that the phrase signifies That men began to be called by the name of the Lord God. (The alexandiran LXX puts that forward "epikaleisthai to onoma kuriou tou Theou")

Then there is the Jewish scholars, (The Targum, KImchi, Rashi) They state that men quit praying to God and used his name for their idols attached his name to their gods.

 

One thing I might add is that Enoch is prophesying against an ungodly generation of sensual apostates (Jude 14). Where do these "wandering stars", "spots", "withered fruit", "rootless tress" "brute beasts" and "filthy dreamers" come from? (Jude 7-13)

I surmise that the "gods" are already present by Enoch´s time. I suggest that this calling upon the Lord could be an irreverent calling, that is to profane the name of the Lord.

 

One thing is for certain, there were no sons of God being made in Genesis 4, as every class of son of God is a direct creation of God, without exception.

 

That is were your doctrinal deficiency occurs, trying to interject New testament doctrine in an Old Testament situation., It won´t fit. It is an errant teaching as it cannot be supported by any scriptures.

 

You are placing born again believers in Genesis 4 and that is simply unBiblical and unscriptural. NO ONE  WAS EVER BORN AGAIN UNTIL CHRIST RESURRECTED.

You show us how to get around that last fact, and I might listen. Until then, your grasping at straws.

 

God bless,

calvary

[Standing Firm In Christ]

There you go again,accusing me of having a doctrinal deficiency, when you have no scripture whatsoever that proves that I am wrong.

I thought the false accusations were in the past, but I guess not.

There is no proof whatsoever that the sons of God in Genesis 6:2,4 are angels. There is however, evidence that they could be man.

1. The fact that the result of the union was the birth of children who became men
2. The fact that kind begets kind. Human beings were born to the husband and wife... Children who became men of renown.
3. There is not one verse in the entire Bible that says angels are sons of God, yet there are plenty that identify men as sons of God.

It is quite obvious that, if there is any doctrinal deficiency whatsoever, it is in the camp of those who are arguing from silence. Creating a doctrine based on supposition and silence is not wise.

There is not one hint of evidence that sons of God must refer to one who was directly created by God. You have not proven they are by Scripture. We are all God's creation, and as such, those who called upon Him in the Old Testament could be sons of God in His eyes.

I never used the term born again believers to describe anyone in the book of Genesis. Things were different before the cross. People were not born again. But many were said to be righteous. Why were they righteous? Could it possibly be that it was because they believed God as Abraham did? But notice Abraham, even though righteous, had the tendency to lie. He did about Sarah. Job also, who was a just man , showed his weakness.

The point is, sons of God could mean those who had called on the name of the LORD, to say it can't because not every person in the Bible was called a son of God is not necessarily correct.that would be like saying a gnat is not an insect because the Bible never calls it one.

As i said, if there is any doctrinal deficiency, it is with those who have less Scriptural support than i. This will be my last response to you, Calvary, as it is evident that whatever the evil you have in your heart towards me is still there. I have never argued from silence. I give Scripture to support any doctrine i teach.

[Calvary]

There you go again,accusing me of having a doctrinal deficiency, when you have no scripture whatsoever that proves that I am wrong.

I thought the false accusations were in the past, but I guess not.

There is no proof whatsoever that the sons of God in Genesis 6:2,4 are angels. There is however, evidence that they could be man.

1. The fact that the result of the union was the birth of children who became men
2. The fact that kind begets kind. Human beings were born to the husband and wife... Children who became men of renown.
3. There is not one verse in the entire Bible that says angels are sons of God, yet there are plenty that identify men as sons of God.

It is quite obvious that, if there is any doctrinal deficiency whatsoever, it is in the camp of those who are arguing from silence. Creating a doctrine based on supposition and silence is not wise.

There is not one hint of evidence that sons of God must refer to one who was directly created by God. You have not proven they are by Scripture. We are all God's creation, and as such, those who called upon Him in the Old Testament could be sons of God in His eyes.

I never used the term born again believers to describe anyone in the book of Genesis. Things were different before the cross. People were not born again. But many were said to be righteous. Why were they righteous? Could it possibly be that it was because they believed God as Abraham did? But notice Abraham, even though righteous, had the tendency to lie. He did about Sarah. Job also, who was a just man , showed his weakness.

The point is, sons of God could mean those who had called on the name of the LORD, to say it can't because not every person in the Bible was called a son of God is not necessarily correct.that would be like saying a gnat is not an insect because the Bible never calls it one.

As i said, if there is any doctrinal deficiency, it is with those who have less Scriptural support than i. This will be my last response to you, Calvary, as it is evident that whatever the evil you have in your heart towards me is still there. I have never argued from silence. I give Scripture to support any doctrine i teach.

 

That is were your doctrinal deficiency occurs, trying to interject New testament doctrine in an Old Testament situation., It won´t fit. It is an errant teaching as it cannot be supported by any scriptures.

 

You are placing born again believers in Genesis 4 and that is simply unBiblical and unscriptural. NO ONE  WAS EVER BORN AGAIN UNTIL CHRIST RESURRECTED.

You show us how to get around that last fact, and I might listen. Until then, your grasping at straws.

 

It is not evil to demonstrate that a false teaching is false my friend. I guess if you can´t handle that then you shouldn´t debate doctrine. You and others on this thread have decried the phrase sons of God cannot be an angel, OK, fine. If it is not angles, then is it Adam? No you all say. Is it Israel? No you all say. Is it Jesus? No you all say. Is it a believer? Yes, say some of you. And I say, that is a false teaching. So if it is evil to call a false teaching a false teaching then call me evil. Sorry you feel that way. You have not been able to support your assumption with any scripture. The sons of God, if not angels, how did they become sons of God? No one has ever been just by proxy a son of God. All sons of God are a direct creation of God. Without exception.

 

You show me how to get around the fact of regeneration by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Until then your sons of God in Genesis 6 cannot fit the Biblical definitions of son of God, unless you accept that there are a 5th class.

 

My argument is not from silence, it is from deduction. I conclude that since these sons of God cannot be

1. Adam.

2. Israel.

3. Jesus Christ.

4. New creatures in Christ,

 

they must be a direct creation of God to hold the title sons of God.

 

 

WHO IS LEFT??

 

Like it or not, those are the choices.

 

You have indicated that you believe them to be # 4 on my list. I am merely pointing out to all reading this thread that that will not hold water as far as the Bible is concerned.

It is you that make them regenerated. it is you that makes them born again, it is you that is putting them in Christ, not me. All of those affirmations and much more are only true of sons of God.

 

Joh 1:12  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13  Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
 

 

I am truly sorry that you are offended that your presentation of the definition of sons of God has not held to be scriptural.

 

John 1 is in the Bible to help us, not hinder us. If your classification of sons of God includes a being that has not been born of God, then your definition is wrong.

 

For that reason, I add # 5 to my list.

 

5. Angels.

 

Genesis 6 cannot and will not ever be any of the other 4. Unless you toss out the New Testament definition of a son of God.

 

I am glad that this conversation has gone where it has. I am glad that I could present, steadfastly and consistently what sons of God are according to the Bible, no matter how hard it has been for some.

 

Your choice is obvious.

Concede that they are angels, or invent a new doctrine of sons of God not born again.

 

God bless, 

calvary

[OLD fashioned preacher]

I never used the term born again believers to describe anyone in the book of Genesis. Things were different before the cross. People were not born again. But many were said to be righteous. Why were they righteous? Could it possibly be that it was because they believed God as Abraham did? But notice Abraham, even though righteous, had the tendency to lie. He did about Sarah. Job also, who was a just man , showed his weakness.

 

 

 

 

 

You are placing born again believers in Genesis 4 and that is simply unBiblical and unscriptural. NO ONE  WAS EVER BORN AGAIN UNTIL CHRIST RESURRECTED.

You show us how to get around that last fact, and I might listen. Until then, your grasping at straws.

 

 

I've kept my dog out of the fight and chained on the porch ---- I see (from said porch), however, that a half paragraph was overlooked or ignored (don't know which, doesn't matter).

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Thank you, oldfashionedpreacher.

I am tired of responding to Calvary.

It is obvious he is not being honest concerning my teaching.

To date, he has not provided Scriptural proof that sons of God are angels, and he has the nerve to accuse me of false teachings?

Calvary assumes that only his line of deduction is the correct doctrine.  Yet he is not the only one that can deduce things.

I have demonstrated that the Scripture reveals that kind begets kind as seen in Genesis 1.

God's Word also tells us that angels are ministering spirits

If kind begets kind, then angels are not going to produce mortals... they are going to produce their own kind... spirits.

There are not Scriptures that say angels were ever called sons of God, so I am not sure what line of deduction infers that they were.  The directly created argument doesn't work, as Eve was directly created by God and we never see any evidence of her being called His daughter.

[DaveW]

You have continually stated that sons of God are direct creations of God.
I would like to see some scripture to back that claim up.
The plain fact is that the passage is not clear on the nature of these sons of God, nor in fact on the nature of the daughters of men.

In fact the best indicator of the nature of the participants in this event is the fact that there were offspring from the event.
According to the statements of God, kind begets kind. ALL scientific observation supports God's words in this.

Therefore, in a passage which is unclear, the best, but not the only possible conclusion is That these sons of God were men.

Your conjecture on the nature of sons of God being only direct creations of God is largely irrelevant to this passage unless you can conclusively prove what yourself state comes from deduction.

And I do not say they are not angels, only that I think it is likely from the passage itself that these were men.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Can we logically deduce that King David rode a motorcycle since we read in the Word that his triumph was heard throughout the land?

Of course not!

When seeking to understand Scripture, we cannot go outside of Scripture to explain Scripture.

And what does Scripture say concerning the sons of men in Genesis 6?  That human children were born unto them who later became men of renown.

They were humans who were born to the sons of God.  Kind begets kind.  Really doesn't take much to see who these sons of God were, imo.

[LindaR]

I received this in my email from the Berean Call:

 

Jul 10 2013

TBC Staff

 

HEBREW ROOTS, THE NEPHILIM, AND THE SHROUD OF TURIN COME TOGETHER

 

TBC: The 2013 Pikes Peak Prophecy Conference at the end of July will feature speakers including Gary Stearman, Tom Horn, Chuck Missler,  Jonathan Cahn,  L.A. Marzulli, Mark Biltz, Lennart Moller, Joseph Farah, and others. The conference is sold out and we probably shouldn't be surprised. The featured topics, while hardly biblical, are exciting and seem to capture the attention of those who seek to be ever learning (2 Timothy:3:7).

 

In his 2/14/13 blog, L.A. Marzulli posted an article entitled, "Evolution or Hybrid? As in the Days of Noah..." in which he speculates about the meaning of a Chinese boy born with blue eyes. Marzulli issues a token warning that "We shouldn’t, however, jump on the Nephilim hybrid band wagon just yet, not until further tests are done on the boy," before jumping on that same band wagon himself. "We are told that it will be like the days of Noah when the son of man returns. This begs the question, what differentiates the days of Noah from any other? In my opinion it is the presence of the fallen angels openly manifesting on the earth and engaging in sex with human females, that resulted in hybrids. The question I would ask the mother of the child is this, does she recall being taken? Did she see lights in the sky and then have a period of missing time? I realize that the main street churches won’t touch this with a 100-foot pole, but that doesn’t mean in any way that the phenomena isn’t real, burgeoning, and not going away, does it?"

 

Commentator Gaylene Goodroad notes, "If the foundation laid by God in Genesis 6 is shifted from personal sin to supposed invading gods and demonic DNA, then Christ’s prophecy concerning 'the days of Noah' will also be altered to fit the Nephilim scenario. Note the Lord’s actual teaching: 'And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all" (Luke:17:26-27 ).

"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matt:24:37-39 ).

 

"The Scripture mentions four things that will be taking place on the earth prior to His return: mankind will be 'eating,' 'drinking,' 'marrying,' and 'being given in marriage.' There is NO mention of an outside demonic horde planning to corrupt the human gene pool by sexual and reproductive means! The clear implication of these sobering passages is that people--sinners--will be doing normal things up until the time judgment comes. They won’t be prepared for what happens very quickly--like the flood waters that overtook the men and women of Noah’s day. The details for this judgment are found in the Book of Revelation--and the Nephilim are conspicuously absent from all twenty-two chapters." 

 

(http://herescope.blogspot.com/2012/07/nephilim-eschatology.html)

 

The complete article:

Hebrew Roots, the Nephilim, and the Shroud of Turin

[John81]

 

I received this in my email from the Berean Call:

 

Jul 10 2013

TBC Staff

 

HEBREW ROOTS, THE NEPHILIM, AND THE SHROUD OF TURIN COME TOGETHER

 

TBC: The 2013 Pikes Peak Prophecy Conference at the end of July will feature speakers including Gary Stearman, Tom Horn, Chuck Missler,  Jonathan Cahn,  L.A. Marzulli, Mark Biltz, Lennart Moller, Joseph Farah, and others. The conference is sold out and we probably shouldn't be surprised. The featured topics, while hardly biblical, are exciting and seem to capture the attention of those who seek to be ever learning (2 Timothy:3:7).

 

In his 2/14/13 blog, L.A. Marzulli posted an article entitled, "Evolution or Hybrid? As in the Days of Noah..." in which he speculates about the meaning of a Chinese boy born with blue eyes. Marzulli issues a token warning that "We shouldn’t, however, jump on the Nephilim hybrid band wagon just yet, not until further tests are done on the boy," before jumping on that same band wagon himself. "We are told that it will be like the days of Noah when the son of man returns. This begs the question, what differentiates the days of Noah from any other? In my opinion it is the presence of the fallen angels openly manifesting on the earth and engaging in sex with human females, that resulted in hybrids. The question I would ask the mother of the child is this, does she recall being taken? Did she see lights in the sky and then have a period of missing time? I realize that the main street churches won’t touch this with a 100-foot pole, but that doesn’t mean in any way that the phenomena isn’t real, burgeoning, and not going away, does it?"

 

Commentator Gaylene Goodroad notes, "If the foundation laid by God in Genesis 6 is shifted from personal sin to supposed invading gods and demonic DNA, then Christ’s prophecy concerning 'the days of Noah' will also be altered to fit the Nephilim scenario. Note the Lord’s actual teaching: 'And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all" (Luke:17:26-27 ).

"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matt:24:37-39 ).

 

"The Scripture mentions four things that will be taking place on the earth prior to His return: mankind will be 'eating,' 'drinking,' 'marrying,' and 'being given in marriage.' There is NO mention of an outside demonic horde planning to corrupt the human gene pool by sexual and reproductive means! The clear implication of these sobering passages is that people--sinners--will be doing normal things up until the time judgment comes. They won’t be prepared for what happens very quickly--like the flood waters that overtook the men and women of Noah’s day. The details for this judgment are found in the Book of Revelation--and the Nephilim are conspicuously absent from all twenty-two chapters." 

 

(http://herescope.blogspot.com/2012/07/nephilim-eschatology.html)

 

The complete article:

Hebrew Roots, the Nephilim, and the Shroud of Turin

 

I read this too. Never heard of some of these strange claims before. I know some Christians believe UFO's and alien abduction cases are demonic in origin but I've not heard the idea these "demon aliens" are having sex with women, creating new hybrids or possibly to have some modern day Nephilim.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Things that are being imagined today never happened, nor did they happen in Noah's time.  Gaylene Goodroad rightly said:

 

Tragically, teachers of these themes do not confine themselves to the Bible, but rather rely heavily upon extra-biblical sources to prove their fantastic scenarios, including apocryphal, pagan, and occult materials.

Nephilim false eschatology overlooks the seriousness of mankind’s sin against a holy God and places the focus upon an outside enemy: half demon, half human creatures—hell-bent on destroying the human race by corrupting our DNA. The reader should be reminded at this point, that this false teaching cannot be found in Genesis or anywhere else in Scripture… but only through fallible and highly questionable outside sources.

http://herescope.blogspot.com/2012/07/nephilim-eschatology.html

 

The idea that demons (that's exactly what fallen angels would be) mated with humans is preposterous and has its roots in pagan doctrines.  In Greek mythology, Hercules was said to be the son of a god and a mortal woman.  Greek gods were said to have taken mortal wives and created unusual offspring.

It is indeed tragic that some apply the same paganistic fables to the creation of God, despite the fact that Scripture is clear that kind begets kind.

[LindaR]

I read this too. Never heard of some of these strange claims before. I know some Christians believe UFO's and alien abduction cases are demonic in origin but I've not heard the idea these "demon aliens" are having sex with women, creating new hybrids or possibly to have some modern day Nephilim.

 

Have you ever watched Prophecy in the News?  Used to be hosted by J. R. Church and Gary Stearman...but when J. R. Church passed away, Gary Stearman took over the show.  He has some strange beliefs...and one of them is that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2-4 were fallen angels and those fallen angels married and had sex with the "daughters of men".  Those unions produced those Nephilim...or those"demon aliens", as you correctly stated.

[John81]

Have you ever watched Prophecy in the News?  Used to be hosted by J. R. Church and Gary Stearman...but when J. R. Church passed away, Gary Stearman took over the show.  He has some strange beliefs...and one of them is that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2-4 were fallen angels and those fallen angels married and had sex with the "daughters of men".  Those unions produced those Nephilim...or those"demon aliens", as you correctly stated.

I'm not sure if I've seen that or not, if I have, it was some time ago. Most prophecy shows seem unwilling to simply stick with Scripture, preferring to add things not there, create theories and declare them as fact, promote wild ideas, try to appeal to the curious minded and fearful using sensationalism to gather an audience and supporters. So I don't watch these like I once did because virtually everything predicted and claimed as biblical truth back in the 70s and 80s which I read and watched have been proven untrue and the prophecy teachers just keep changing their stories to fit contemporary circumstances and the mood of the people.

 

I have noticed that since ghost hunter and paranormal type shows have become popular lately that some prophecy teachers are jumping on the bandwagon and saying this is evidence of demon activity prior to the end.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Here's a question for those "angels/humans" cohabitation theorists...

In the book of Leviticus, God set forth laws that governed sexual sins; i.e., man taking a woman who was married, sodomy, bestiality, etc..  Why no mention of sexual sins with angelic beings if such a thing were indeed possible?  It is quite evident that Nephilim were on the Earth during the time the sexual laws were established. 

Surely, if such a union was possible, God would have written, "The daughters of man are not permitted to lie with angels, all who do such are in abomination."

The fact that God never gave man a law against the sexual union of women with angels is proof enough for me that such a union could never take place, and proof enough that the angels cohabitated with women teaching is again... argument from silence.