Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

Who are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6?


Recommended Posts

  • Members
7 hours ago, aaronpakerson said:

My first mistake when I joined your forums was not reading the current content. By mistake I created a forum topic

““Who was the true author of Genesis?” and then I found this forum. My mistake, I hope my new forum covering the same topic does not distract others from posting here.

Can I cut and paste the question I was asking there to here instead?

Sure, Aaron, I would think that you could cut and paste the question here - if it relates to the subject at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 hours ago, weary warrior said:

 

. Where do you see in scripture that angels don't have blood? It doesn't say either way.

Hi weary warrior,

It actually was me who said that statement about angels not having blood. We see that man was given life via the blood -

` But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is its blood.` (Gen. 9: 4)

We see that blood carries the life in mortals. However when we are made like unto the Lord we will have spirit life, not earth, blood life. Angels also have `eternal life` and that is not possible with blood life.  Thus they cannot and were not created to produce life.

regards, Marilyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Well hey, I just learned today that the Book of Enoch provides strong statements concerning the idea that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were indeed unrighteous angelic beings.

I wonder if that influences anyone's beliefs one way or the other on this matter.  

Not sure I would give much weight to the book of Enoch. What’s out there now as the book of Enoch is likely a forgery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Not sure I would give much weight to the book of Enoch. What’s out there now as the book of Enoch is likely a forgery.

Oh, Brother Kurecki, I myself do NOT give the Book of Enoch any favorable weight at all.  If anything, this particular "evidence" for one side of the debate actually influences my perspective more negatively against that side.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Oh, Brother Kurecki, I myself do NOT give the Book of Enoch any favorable weight at all.  If anything, this particular "evidence" for one side of the debate actually influences my perspective more negatively against that side.

Ok. It sounded like you are in favor of the passage from the book of Enoch. I just have misunderstood 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
34 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Ok. It sounded like you are in favor of the passage from the book of Enoch. I just have misunderstood 

No problem. I was seeking to present a fact with neutrality, although I myself was not and am not neutral about that fact.  Was seeking for people to think about the matter -- IF the Book of Enoch is an original source, or is one of the original sources, for a given position, what does that indicate about that given position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Well hey

Knowing Bro. Scott as I do, anytime that I see him start off a post with something like "Well hey", I would automatically assume that he's being facetious. :laugh:

At least the book of enoch (lower caps on purpose) let's us know that the giants were 300 cubits tall... :4_11_9:

Those poor human women would'a had a time birth'n one'a them-there kids...    :13_1_209:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Now that I think about it...it makes perfect sense...

What happened to the dinosaurs?

The giants ate them.

~~~~~~

the book of enoch, chapter 7...

11. And the women conceiving brought forth giants,

12. Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labour of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them;

13. When they turned themselves against men, in order to devour them;

14. And began to injure birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
58 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

No problem. I was seeking to present a fact with neutrality, although I myself was not and am not neutral about that fact.  Was seeking for people to think about the matter -- IF the Book of Enoch is an original source, or is one of the original sources, for a given position, what does that indicate about that given position?

That ones position is based on something outside of the word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Members

Being my first post I apologize as I will have to rock the boat.  Yes much of what is taught on angels marrying women is from the Book of Enoch but let us not just think there is no scripture to support it.  Before I go any further I must admit when I first learn of this teaching it appalled me; I think it was my IFB upbringing.

 

The most famous argument I know of the sons of God can't be angels is:

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor or given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.   Matthew 22:30

So case closed right this passage but it all to rest................................ ..........................................................

Unless the Bible gives some explanation that doesn't contradict these words of Jesus.

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.    Jude 6

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness reserved unto judgment;   II Peter 2:4

So we can see from Jude these angels change their first estate.  For God made them spiritual beings yet they decided to become flesh and also left heaven for earth.  We also see Peter speaking of this event.  Peter even connect their sin to Noah's time just read    II Peter 2:5.

Other passages like Daniel 2:43 and I Corinthians 11:10 could also be making reference to this incursion and even others after it.

Now this in no way proves it happen but hopefully helps others to realize why people like me believe it did.

But it really nothing more than an interesting topic to discuss.  For if believe the sons of God were of Seth or  rather angels no big wow.

But if you don't believe Jesus is very Only Begotten Son of God who redeem us all, you will join these angel  that Jude and Peter spoke of.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

There was a question asked earlier on concerning the 'sons of God' mentioned twice in Job, those who presented themselves before the Lord, among whom Satan came.

I have no problem with them being humans. Consider: we know virtually nothing about the formal religion of those who worshiped God before the time of Moses. We know a tiny bit concerning the patriarchs, but we know there was a formal movement, because there were at least two priests of God mentioned, Jethro and Melchezidek. Melchezidek, we know, even Abraham honored. So, if there were priests, there was a priesthood and followers.  we know Job was roughly a contemporary with Abraham, so there was formal worship of God meaning they had traditions and such.

SO, when we see the sons of God presenting themselves before the Lord, why could this not be seen as those of Israel, who, during the three main feasts, the males were all required to come to Jerusalem to appear before God? Why do we assume they are angels, in Heaven, appearing before the Lord? What purpose would that serve, as the angels are always in Heaven before the Lord already? It would make much more sense if it was a spiritual requirement for the male followers of God to appear before the Lord at a designated time and place as an aspect of worship, as they did in Israel. For all we know, Job was one of those sons of God presenting himself before the Lord. And where God's people gather, is Satan not far behind?

Speculation? Absolutely-but then, isn't that all we can do with the question at hand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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...