Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

"The Sons of God are not the Angels."


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Excellent study of the biblcal issue of the sons of God and the fallen angels. This is the best exposition of the various aspects of the issue that I have ever read.

Thank you for bringing out the four important related, correct, subject matters:

1. Angels cannot mate with humans.

2. The Virgin Birth of Christ.

3. Your exposition of the discourse in Job 38:4-7 is correct. There are indeed five questions; and the cornerstone was Christ. 

4. The fallen angels are in, 'everlasting chains of darkness,' as we speak. they were never on the earth cohabiting with humans.

As you pointed out that the myth of the sons of God is a Jewish myth with no biblical foundation at all is well noted also.

Thank you for the excellent Bible study.

 

 

Edited by Alan
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Bar in Hebrew is "son" and would have been used in this context to indicate "sons".  The Hebrew in Genesis 6 uses the term "bene ha Elohim" and not bar ha Elohim.

This is in contrast to the "daughters of man", which actually in Hebrew is "bath 'adam".  These were "daughters of Adam" (not "daughters of Cain").

The word bene, literally "sons of" when used in a term such as bene ha.elohim or bene elim, means "members of the category of."

An example of such usage is the case with the bene hanebi.im, who clearly were not literally the sons of the prophets but their

followers, those who were part of a prophet's circle (1Kings. 20:35; 2 Kings. 2, 3, 5, 7, 15).

"Bar Mitzvah"  son's dedication - "Bath Mitzvah" daughter's dedication

The angels in heaven do not marry (doesn't say anything about angels on earth).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Amen!

John, have you been reading my posts or something? ;) Because I've been posting the same basic studies for so long, everyone got tired of seeing it. :rolleyes:

One thing I would like to add... The giants were not a result of the marriage of daughters of men to sons of God, and the word "after", in Genesis 6:4 does not mean "later in time" since the whole account takes place "in those days" I will elaborate later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Bar in Hebrew is "son" and would have been used in this context to indicate "sons".  The Hebrew in Genesis 6 uses the term "bene ha Elohim" and not bar ha Elohim.

This is in contrast to the "daughters of man", which actually in Hebrew is "bath 'adam".  These were "daughters of Adam" (not "daughters of Cain").

The word bene, literally "sons of" when used in a term such as bene ha.elohim or bene elim, means "members of the category of."

An example of such usage is the case with the bene hanebi.im, who clearly were not literally the sons of the prophets but their

followers, those who were part of a prophet's circle (1Kings. 20:35; 2 Kings. 2, 3, 5, 7, 15).

"Bar Mitzvah"  son's dedication - "Bath Mitzvah" daughter's dedication

The angels in heaven do not marry (doesn't say anything about angels on earth).

 

​The daughters of Cain would still be the daughters of Adam-all the women are. HOwever, they wouldn't have the be from Cain's line, because of ALL flesh was wicked in God's eyes, that would include pretty much all of the line of Seth as well. The Bible actually nowhere says that Seth's descendents before the flood were al godly people-f they were, God would not have had to flood the earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

By comparison, Noah was (1) a just man (2) perfect in his generations (3) walked with God. Gen 6:9

Noah's DNA was not "contaminated" with "alien" (fallen angels) DNA.  All other flesh had to be destroyed.

The 4th Century Catholic Church could not accept this, and Augustine and others created the "Sethite" view.

Edited by beameup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

By comparison, Noah was (1) a just man (2) perfect in his generations (3) walked with God. Gen 6:9

Noah's DNA was not "contaminated" with "alien" (fallen angels) DNA.  All other flesh had to be destroyed.

The 4th Century Catholic Church could not accept this, and Augustine and others created the "Sethite" view.

​Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam.........

This verse is announcing that the book is about "what Adam generated" or "gendered". Likewise, it means the same in the account of Noah.

Matthew 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

I believe that the "ing" in that word "marrying" indicates "actively engaged" in the practice. Therefore I believe the 'godly line" of Seth, named men in the ancestry of Christ (Luke 3:36-38), were more than likely participating in polygamy. But Noah, the last in the line, did not. He was "perfect in his generations" because he had one(1) wife and "generated" all three of his progeny with her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​The daughters of Cain would still be the daughters of Adam-all the women are. HOwever, they wouldn't have the be from Cain's line, because of ALL flesh was wicked in God's eyes, that would include pretty much all of the line of Seth as well. The Bible actually nowhere says that Seth's descendents before the flood were al godly people-f they were, God would not have had to flood the earth.

​David, committed some of the most heinous sins recorded in the Bible, and this was long AFTER God had chosen him to be king.  Abraham sinned, Moses sinned, Even Noah, the last in the line of Seth before the flood, who "walked with God" and was "perfect in his generations", kept drinking wine until he was passed out drunk. Then when his youngest son "saw him naked", he turned around and cursed his grandson for something the poor kid didn't even do. Noah had "backslid" really bad about that time. Anyway, all of the named individuals in Genesis 5, who had begun "calling upon the name of the Lord" back in Genesis 4 and are listed in the Geneology of Christ in Luke chapter 3, had all died before the flood came. God waited until the very last one died and he, Methuselah, had the longest life recorded in the Word of God. I think that shows the longsuffering of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

ben 'elohiym

In Job 1:6 if the sons of God are praying, that would mean Satan is praying.

yatsab or present is never translated prayer, offerings, and supplication

Hebrews makes your strongest point.

Another thought if Angels breed with women, does that mean all Angels are male? Also if Angels do not reproduce by breeding why have reproductive organs?

A horse and a donkey can produce a mule. Mules can not reproduce. These giants could reproduce and formed a country called Anak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

ben 'elohiym

In Job 1:6 if the sons of God are praying, that would mean Satan is praying.

yatsab or present is never translated prayer, offerings, and supplication

Hebrews makes your strongest point.

Another thought if Angels breed with women, does that mean all Angels are male? Also if Angels do not reproduce by breeding why have reproductive organs?

A horse and a donkey can produce a mule. Mules can not reproduce. These giants could reproduce and formed a country called Anak.

Your last here brings up an interesting point:

Anak can not have been the result of the Genesis 6 events for all men died in the flood, aside from the 8.

Many people propose that the wickedness of this very act of cohabitation was the reason for the judgement of the flood. (Not me by the way).

If this act resulted in the people of Anak, it was not the Genesis 6 instance, but a repeat after the flood.

If it was such a wickedness that God had to destroy all men to deal with it once, why then ignore it the second time?

 

I would suggest that the Giants of Numbers 13 - the sons of Anak - are nothing more than a fierce fighting tribe of men - possibly taller overall than the average population, but nothing more than men.

There are people groups in Asia and Africa where the whole population of that region is substantially taller - check out the tallest basketball player  right now and where he is from. He is not a one-off......

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Members

Bar in Hebrew is "son" and would have been used in this context to indicate "sons".  The Hebrew in Genesis 6 uses the term "bene ha Elohim" and not bar ha Elohim.

This is in contrast to the "daughters of man", which actually in Hebrew is "bath 'adam".  These were "daughters of Adam" (not "daughters of Cain").

The word bene, literally "sons of" when used in a term such as bene ha.elohim or bene elim, means "members of the category of."

An example of such usage is the case with the bene hanebi.im, who clearly were not literally the sons of the prophets but their

followers, those who were part of a prophet's circle (1Kings. 20:35; 2 Kings. 2, 3, 5, 7, 15).

"Bar Mitzvah"  son's dedication - "Bath Mitzvah" daughter's dedication

The angels in heaven do not marry (doesn't say anything about angels on earth).

​I'm sorry but "Bar" is not "son" in Hebrew.

Maybe you are confusing it with Aramaic?

Both Genesis chapter six and Job chapter 1 use the word "ben" and it means "son" or "descendent".

Here is Genesis 6:בְּנֵי

Job 1: בְּנֵי

Modern Hebrew: בני

The consonants in all three words are "Bet" (B) "Nun" (N)

It has nothing to do with categories of etc.

Even in Modern Hebrew the word for "son" is "Ben"

The "Bar Mitvah" may be a carry-over from Aramaic or even Yiddish to refer specifically to that celebration....but "Bar" does not mean son.  In any of the lexicons I've checked....Bar isn't even a word at all.

"Adam" simply means "man" or "mankind".  When God says "Let us make 'man'.." in Genesis chapter 1 he uses the word "Adam".  Even before the first man yet existed.  "Adam" isn't exactly a proper name as such.  God just called the creature he created "Adam".  We now refer to that FIRST man as "Adam" and render it as a proper name, but it simply means "man".  The phrase "Daughters of Adam" (daughters of men) is not sufficient grammatical evidence to support whether it is differentiating between Sethites or Cain's descendants or angels or anything else.

Whatever we can conclude about who precisely the "Sons of God" are in Genesis 6 it isn't going to come from debating the linguistics themselves.  

Edited by Heir of Salvation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...