Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

The Sons Of God And The Days Of Noah.


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I was wondering is there anything in the Bible about how angles multiply heaven, or other than they have food that was called manna by Israel do they drink in Heaven, Are we told at all if they age in heaven. Oh wait that would all be speculation to say that they are not born.

One problem with the angels aren't born so they can't be called sons. Is that Adam was not born and yet he is called a son. Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Heb 1:5
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?


Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 

Job 2:1-2
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD,
and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

 

 

Can we consider this "yea sayeth the serpent"?

 

PS: wasn't the "original sin" the one of pride?

I believe that failure to acknowledge you are

wrong would fall under this category...

 

Who would the sons of God being during Job's day.  It is thought he is a contemporary of Abram.  It was before Israel was in the picture if that was true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Job 38:4
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:7

Can we conclude "thus sayeth the serpent"?

Can you say "Type of Christ"?
1Co 3:11
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.



Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Can you say "Type of Christ"?
1Co 3:11
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.



Anishinaabe

Some would say that the brass serpent was a type of Christ

 

Nun 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
 9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Job 2:1-2
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD,
and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

 

 

Can we consider this "yea sayeth the serpent"?

 

PS: wasn't the "original sin" the one of pride?

I believe that failure to acknowledge you are

wrong would fall under this category...

 

If the verse said this. I would concede and agree with you....

 

Job 2:1-2
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD,
and said, From the earth, and from walking up and down in it.  
 
Because that would indicate that Satan LEFT earth. But it doesn't: he simply says what he was DOING in the earth......."going to and fro in the earth"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If the verse said this. I would concede and agree with you....

Job 2:1-2
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD,
and said, From the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Because that would indicate that Satan LEFT earth. But it doesn't: he simply says what he was DOING in the earth......."going to and fro in the earth"

This is where English grammar comes into play. "Going to and fro in the Earth" is a gerund OP.
That means that the whole phrase is acting as a noun.

Job 1:7
7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

The second prep phrase also has a gerund OP.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Job 2:1-2
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD,
and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

 

 

Can we consider this "yea sayeth the serpent"?

 

PS: wasn't the "original sin" the one of pride?

I believe that failure to acknowledge you are

wrong would fall under this category...

 

Oh my  :nuts:

There is a difference between failing to "acknowledge" you are wrong when you KNOW that you are and holding with what you truly believe is right.

 
 
Gen 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.
 
The phrase "and also after that" is not speaking of "later in time" because of the grammar and punctuation, and because of the fact that the whole story takes place "in those days". The word "after" can also mean "In imitation of", "in conformity with", "according to the nature of", or "in accordance with" such as "after his kind". This is important because it explains the phrase "There were giants in those days.".
 
This is what the verse means........
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also in conformity (or in accordance) with 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.
 
These are the Bible definitions of the term"Sons of God" Jhn 1:12,  Rom 8:14, Rom 8:19, Phl 2:15, 1Jo 3:1, 3:2  Men began to become "sons of God" back in Genesis 4:26 when they began to "call upon the name of the Lord". Their "generations" aka "begetting" of such named individuals are recorded in Genesis 5, their names appear again in the lineage of Christ in Luke 3:23-38, and the details of their "begetting sons and daughters" are found in Genesis 6:4.
 
Understand that if a man, such as Methuselah "begat sons and daughters", and lived to be 969 years old, he would be alive to witness his family multiply exponentially into the thousands and possibly millions in his own lifetime. Such a man and his "family" would be immensely powerful politically(taking wives of all aka "marrying and giving in marriage"), economically(Boaz was a "Mighty man of wealth"), and militarily(such as Davids "mighty men").  So Methuselah, a "son of God" aka believer in the lineage of Christ, was alive for all of the 120 years that Noah preached righteousness and built the ark. 
 
But Methuselah is not recorded as having "walked with God" or "perfect in his generations" and died the exact same year of the flood. The only named "son of God" listed in Genesis 5, who entered the ark and came out the other side of the flood, was Noah. The Bible says that Noah was "perfect" in his "generations" , meaning his "procreating", and I think this is because he was not a polygamist(taking wives of all aka marrying and giving in marriage), and because his one wife was a believer ("daughter" of God) instead of one of the "daughters of men")
 
In short, the "sons of God" aka believers, with the exception of Noah, were living after the world, "Mighty men" in a world of violence, God let them all die out, and the last one (Methuselah) died the year of the flood leaving only their last descendent, Noah. Oh yes...and the "giants" were simply tall people, such as the "sons of Anak" or the Masai.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am not sure if this will help.  But I was told in Liberty Bible College as you finish your study always check it with others to see if your conclusions match with other men of God. Not that this is a must do kind of thing.  But this is from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.  And here we have it the sons of God must be men in Gen 6 but in Job it is angleic beings and that is according to this article in the ISBE.

 

1. Job and Psalms:

This article will deal with this phrase as it is used in the above passages. In the passages from Job and Psalms it is applied to supernatural beings or angels. In Job the "sons of God" are represented as appearing before the throne of Yahweh in heaven, ready to do Him service, and as shouting for joy at the creation of the earth, In the Psalms they are summoned to celebrate the glory of Yahweh, for there is none among them to be compared to Him. The phrase in these passages has no physical or moral reference. These heavenly beings are called "sons of God" or "sons of the 'elohim" simply as belonging to the same class or guild as the 'elohim, just as "sons of the prophets" denotes those who belong to the prophetic order (see A.B. Davidson, Commentary on Job 1:6).

 

2. Genesis 6:2,4:

Different views, however, are taken of the passage in Ge 6:2,4: "The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose ..... The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men."

See GIANTS ; NEPHILIM .

 

(1) "Sons of God" is interpreted as referring to men, (a) to sons of the nobles, who married daughters of the common people. This is the view of many Jewish authorities, who hold that it is justified by the use of 'elohim in the sense of "judges" (Ex 21:6; 22:8 f, etc.). But this cannot be the meaning of 'elohim here, for when 'adham, "men," is used to denote the lower classes, it is contrasted with 'ish, as in Ps 49:2 (Heb 3), not with 'elohim. When contrasted with 'elohim it signifies the human race. ( B) Some commentators hold that by "sons of God" is to be understood the pious race descended from Seth, and by "daughters of men" the daughters of worldly men. These commentators connect the passage with Ge 4:25 f, where the race of Seth is characterized as the worshippers of Yahweh and is designated as a whole, a seed (compare De 14:1; 32:5; Ho 1:10 (Heb 2:1)). They consider the restricted meaning they put upon "men" as warranted by the contrast (compare Jer 32:20; Isa 43:4), and that as the term "daughters" expresses actual descent, it is natural to understand "sons" in a similar sense. The phrase "took wives," they contend also, supports the ethical view, being always used to signify real and lasting marriages, and cannot, therefore, be applied to the higher spirits in their unholy desire after flesh. On this view Ge 6:1-4 are an introduction to the reason for the Flood, the great wickedness of man upon the earth (Ge 6:5). It is held that nothing is said in Ge 6:4 of a race of giants springing from the union of angels with human wives (see paragraph 2, below), and that the violence which is mentioned along with the corruption of the world (6:11) refers to the sin of the giants.

 

(2) Most scholars now reject this view and interpret "sons of God" as referring to supernatural beings in accordance with the meaning of the expression in the other passages. They hold that De 14:1, etc., cannot be regarded as supporting the ethical interpretation of the phrase in a historical narrative. The reference to Jer 32:20, etc., too, is considered irrelevant, the contrast in these passages being between Israel and other nations, not, as here, between men and God. Nor can a narrower signification (daughters of worldly men) be attached to "men" in Ge 6:2 than to "men" in Ge 6:1, where the reference is to the human race in general. This passage (Ge 6:1-4), therefore, which is the only one of its kind, is considered to be out of its place and to have been inserted here by the compiler as an introduction to the story of the Flood (Ge 6:5-8). The intention of the original writer, however, was to account for the rise of the giant race of antiquity by the union of demigods with human wives. This interpretation accords with Enoch chapters 6 through 7, etc., and with Jude 1:6 f, where the unnatural sin of the men of Sodom who went after "strange flesh" is compared with that of the angels (compare 2Pe 2:4 ff). (See Havernick, Introduction to the Pentateuch; Hengstenberg on the Pentateuch, I, 325; Oehler, Old Testament Theology, I, 196 f; Schultz, Old Testament Theology, I, 114 ff; Commentary on Genesis by Delitzsch, Dillmann, and Driver.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am not sure if this will help. But I was told in Liberty Bible College as you finish your study always check it with others to see if your conclusions match with other men of God. Not that this is a must do kind of thing. But this is from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. And here we have it the sons of God must be men in Gen 6 but in Job it is angleic beings and that is according to this article in the ISBE.

1. Job and Psalms:
This article will deal with this phrase as it is used in the above passages. In the passages from Job and Psalms it is applied to supernatural beings or angels. In Job the "sons of God" are represented as appearing before the throne of Yahweh in heaven, ready to do Him service, and as shouting for joy at the creation of the earth, In the Psalms they are summoned to celebrate the glory of Yahweh, for there is none among them to be compared to Him. The phrase in these passages has no physical or moral reference. These heavenly beings are called "sons of God" or "sons of the 'elohim" simply as belonging to the same class or guild as the 'elohim, just as "sons of the prophets" denotes those who belong to the prophetic order (see A.B. Davidson, Commentary on Job 1:6).

2. Genesis 6:2,4:
Different views, however, are taken of the passage in Ge 6:2,4: "The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose ..... The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men."
See GIANTS ; NEPHILIM .

(1) "Sons of God" is interpreted as referring to men, (a) to sons of the nobles, who married daughters of the common people. This is the view of many Jewish authorities, who hold that it is justified by the use of 'elohim in the sense of "judges" (Ex 21:6; 22:8 f, etc.). But this cannot be the meaning of 'elohim here, for when 'adham, "men," is used to denote the lower classes, it is contrasted with 'ish, as in Ps 49:2 (Heb 3), not with 'elohim. When contrasted with 'elohim it signifies the human race. ( B) Some commentators hold that by "sons of God" is to be understood the pious race descended from Seth, and by "daughters of men" the daughters of worldly men. These commentators connect the passage with Ge 4:25 f, where the race of Seth is characterized as the worshippers of Yahweh and is designated as a whole, a seed (compare De 14:1; 32:5; Ho 1:10 (Heb 2:1)). They consider the restricted meaning they put upon "men" as warranted by the contrast (compare Jer 32:20; Isa 43:4), and that as the term "daughters" expresses actual descent, it is natural to understand "sons" in a similar sense. The phrase "took wives," they contend also, supports the ethical view, being always used to signify real and lasting marriages, and cannot, therefore, be applied to the higher spirits in their unholy desire after flesh. On this view Ge 6:1-4 are an introduction to the reason for the Flood, the great wickedness of man upon the earth (Ge 6:5). It is held that nothing is said in Ge 6:4 of a race of giants springing from the union of angels with human wives (see paragraph 2, below), and that the violence which is mentioned along with the corruption of the world (6:11) refers to the sin of the giants.

(2) Most scholars now reject this view and interpret "sons of God" as referring to supernatural beings in accordance with the meaning of the expression in the other passages. They hold that De 14:1, etc., cannot be regarded as supporting the ethical interpretation of the phrase in a historical narrative. The reference to Jer 32:20, etc., too, is considered irrelevant, the contrast in these passages being between Israel and other nations, not, as here, between men and God. Nor can a narrower signification (daughters of worldly men) be attached to "men" in Ge 6:2 than to "men" in Ge 6:1, where the reference is to the human race in general. This passage (Ge 6:1-4), therefore, which is the only one of its kind, is considered to be out of its place and to have been inserted here by the compiler as an introduction to the story of the Flood (Ge 6:5-8). The intention of the original writer, however, was to account for the rise of the giant race of antiquity by the union of demigods with human wives. This interpretation accords with Enoch chapters 6 through 7, etc., and with Jude 1:6 f, where the unnatural sin of the men of Sodom who went after "strange flesh" is compared with that of the angels (compare 2Pe 2:4 ff). (See Havernick, Introduction to the Pentateuch; Hengstenberg on the Pentateuch, I, 325; Oehler, Old Testament Theology, I, 196 f; Schultz, Old Testament Theology, I, 114 ff; Commentary on Genesis by Delitzsch, Dillmann, and Driver.)

Please ensure that your sources believe in the same AV you do.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am not sure if this will help.  But I was told in Liberty Bible College as you finish your study always check it with others to see if your conclusions match with other men of God. Not that this is a must do kind of thing.  But this is from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.  And here we have it the sons of God must be men in Gen 6 but in Job it is angleic beings and that is according to this article in the ISBE.

 

1. Job and Psalms:

This article will deal with this phrase as it is used in the above passages. In the passages from Job and Psalms it is applied to supernatural beings or angels. In Job the "sons of God" are represented as appearing before the throne of Yahweh in heaven, ready to do Him service, and as shouting for joy at the creation of the earth, In the Psalms they are summoned to celebrate the glory of Yahweh, for there is none among them to be compared to Him. The phrase in these passages has no physical or moral reference. These heavenly beings are called "sons of God" or "sons of the 'elohim" simply as belonging to the same class or guild as the 'elohim, just as "sons of the prophets" denotes those who belong to the prophetic order (see A.B. Davidson, Commentary on Job 1:6).

 

2. Genesis 6:2,4:

Different views, however, are taken of the passage in Ge 6:2,4: "The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose ..... The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men."

See GIANTS ; NEPHILIM .

 

(1) "Sons of God" is interpreted as referring to men, (a) to sons of the nobles, who married daughters of the common people. This is the view of many Jewish authorities, who hold that it is justified by the use of 'elohim in the sense of "judges" (Ex 21:6; 22:8 f, etc.). But this cannot be the meaning of 'elohim here, for when 'adham, "men," is used to denote the lower classes, it is contrasted with 'ish, as in Ps 49:2 (Heb 3), not with 'elohim. When contrasted with 'elohim it signifies the human race. ( B) Some commentators hold that by "sons of God" is to be understood the pious race descended from Seth, and by "daughters of men" the daughters of worldly men. These commentators connect the passage with Ge 4:25 f, where the race of Seth is characterized as the worshippers of Yahweh and is designated as a whole, a seed (compare De 14:1; 32:5; Ho 1:10 (Heb 2:1)). They consider the restricted meaning they put upon "men" as warranted by the contrast (compare Jer 32:20; Isa 43:4), and that as the term "daughters" expresses actual descent, it is natural to understand "sons" in a similar sense. The phrase "took wives," they contend also, supports the ethical view, being always used to signify real and lasting marriages, and cannot, therefore, be applied to the higher spirits in their unholy desire after flesh. On this view Ge 6:1-4 are an introduction to the reason for the Flood, the great wickedness of man upon the earth (Ge 6:5). It is held that nothing is said in Ge 6:4 of a race of giants springing from the union of angels with human wives (see paragraph 2, below), and that the violence which is mentioned along with the corruption of the world (6:11) refers to the sin of the giants.

 

(2) Most scholars now reject this view and interpret "sons of God" as referring to supernatural beings in accordance with the meaning of the expression in the other passages. They hold that De 14:1, etc., cannot be regarded as supporting the ethical interpretation of the phrase in a historical narrative. The reference to Jer 32:20, etc., too, is considered irrelevant, the contrast in these passages being between Israel and other nations, not, as here, between men and God. Nor can a narrower signification (daughters of worldly men) be attached to "men" in Ge 6:2 than to "men" in Ge 6:1, where the reference is to the human race in general. This passage (Ge 6:1-4), therefore, which is the only one of its kind, is considered to be out of its place and to have been inserted here by the compiler as an introduction to the story of the Flood (Ge 6:5-8). The intention of the original writer, however, was to account for the rise of the giant race of antiquity by the union of demigods with human wives. This interpretation accords with Enoch chapters 6 through 7, etc., and with Jude 1:6 f, where the unnatural sin of the men of Sodom who went after "strange flesh" is compared with that of the angels (compare 2Pe 2:4 ff). (See Havernick, Introduction to the Pentateuch; Hengstenberg on the Pentateuch, I, 325; Oehler, Old Testament Theology, I, 196 f; Schultz, Old Testament Theology, I, 114 ff; Commentary on Genesis by Delitzsch, Dillmann, and Driver.)

There is no throne or heaven mentioned in Job chapter 1 or 2 where the "sons of God" "came to present themselves before the Lord".. Again, Abraham, Moses, David and others were "before the lord" and never left the planet.

 

And in the Book of Jude, the sin of the angels was to "despise dominion"; it was the Sodomites who "went after strange flesh"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Who would the sons of God being during Job's day.  It is thought he is a contemporary of Abram.  It was before Israel was in the picture if that was true.

We know that Mechezidek was the high priest of the true God, so that tells me that, like him and Abraham, there were some mwho still followed after Him. That they were not of Israel has nothing to do with it-Job was a son of God, abraham was, Melchezidek would have been, and if there was a HIGH priest, there were probably priests and followers, as well. The Bible follows a pretty narrow line of humanity in many cases and its possible, probable, that there were others who believed in Him outside of Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here is some more of conclusions of others about the sons of God

 

Morrish Bible Dictionary
Sons of God

This title is susceptible of considerable latitude of meaning and has various applications in scripture.

1. There were 'sons of God' who took wives of 'the daughters of men.' Ge 6:4. These are believed by some to have been angels, permitted to take human form: cf. Jude 1:6-7. Others judge the descendants of Seth to be alluded to.

2. The angels who came to present themselves to God in the days of Job, and who shouted for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid, are called 'sons of God.' Job 1:6; Job 2: l; Job 38:7.

3. The Gentiles, who had no place at all as God's people, were to be called 'sons of the living God.' Ho 1:10.

4. Christians, those led of God's Spirit, in the present dispensation are declared to be 'sons of God.' Ro 8:14,19; Ga 4:6. It is their calling according to God's purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

John Wesley's Notes on the Bible
Genesis 6:2

Verse 2. The sons of God - Those who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name, married the daughters of men - Those that were profane, and strangers to God. The posterity of Seth did not keep to themselves as they ought, but intermingled with the race of Cain: they took them wives of all that they chose - They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair - Which was all they looked at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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



×
×
  • Create New...