Jump to content
Online Baptist
  • Welcome Guest

    Tired of all the fighting that goes on in facebook groups? Are you ready for a community where you can talk about things of God and the Bible without getting branded a heretic? Well, we are glad you found us. Why don't you give us a try and see how friendly and different we are. - BroMatt

BabeinChrist

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

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, heartstrings said:

"Ge 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."

 

"There were giants in the earth...."  this states a situation

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I messed up on the post above.

14 hours ago, heartstrings said:

"Ge 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."

 

"There were giants in the earth...."  this states a situation

Agreed.

14 hours ago, heartstrings said:

"in those days"....denotes the time period

Agreed.

14 hours ago, heartstrings said:

The fact that the first statement is followed by a semicolon means the first statement is related to the second.

Agreed. And that relationship is grammatically indicated by the phrase, "and also after that."

14 hours ago, heartstrings said:

The second statement begins with "and also after that"

But "after that" cannot mean "at a later time" because the WHOLE STORY is taking place "in those days."

Disagreed. "After that" certainly CAN mean "at a later time," it is just necessary to understand what is the correct antecedent for the pronoun "that" in order to understand correctly "after" (at a later time than) WHAT.

14 hours ago, heartstrings said:

Therefore, the phrase "after that" , instead of meaning "later in time", means that the second state of events are an  "imitation of" or happening "as a result of" or "because of" he The existence of "giants"  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/after

 Actually, the phrase "and also after that" precisely communicates two connection to the statement before it.  First, the phrase "and also" indicates that the following information occurred in addition to the preceding information ALSO during the same general time period "in those days."  Second, the phrase "after that" indicates that the event of following information occurred AFTER the event of the preceding information ALSO within that same general time period of "those days."  As such, the event of the following information CANNOT be the cause for the event of the preceding information.  It is grammatically possible that the event of the preceding information MAY have been the cause of the event of the following information, but it is NOT grammatically possible for the event of the following information to be the cause for the event of the preceding information.

Indeed, even your claim for "after that" to mean "as a result of" or "because of" indicates the ORDER of the events -- first, the event of the giants, second, the event of the mighty men.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar and spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Well, dear brother, I for one CANNOT forgive your audacity in "re-wording Scripture."

Furthermore, the entire rest of your argument thereafter is founded upon your willingness to so reword Scripture.  As such, I am compelled to reject it.

 

Things like this are why I say you need to write a book on hermaneutics and the importance of English grammar when studying the scriptures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NN, thank you for actually going through the verses and providing your view of their meaning. I appreciate it.

For all that answered, thank you for your courtesy. As I said, I have no desire for conflict, just wanted to add the other side to be looked at. It is enough.

Would you not admit that your interpretation of this subject rests largely what you are personally willing to accept or deny regarding physiological make up of angels, what the physically are and are not, what they can and cannot do? Yet, these views are not derived from scripture, science or personal experience. All we have from scripture is the following...

Angels and man were both created by God

Angels and man both have eternal souls

Angels and man both have free will

Angels and man can both question God

Angels and man are both capable of pride, rebellion, hatred etc

Angels and man are both damned for eternity in hell for their sin

Angels and man are both called men

Angels and man both can eat, can fight, can wrestle, can kill etc.

Man was made "a little lower than the angels" - Think about that for a minute

Just how dissimilar are men and angels really? "Angel" means "messenger". In scripture, men are called angels, and angels are called men. Where do you see in scripture that angels don't have blood? It doesn't say either way. Where are we told in scripture that we are so different we cant cross over? If a zebra can mate with a donkey (I've seen it), if a lion can mate with a tiger (I've seen it), if a wolf can mate with a coyote (I've seen it), where do you see in scripture that angels are NOT "after our kind"? Now, the crosses that I mentioned above should not have happened, they were abnormal, and resulted in physiological anomalies. But they happened. 

No other creation of God shares all of these attributes with us. Only man and ..."messenger".

Why do demons in the new testament want a body so desperately? If they cant have a human, they will beg to be allowed to enter pigs! Could it be that you miss worse what you've had, and has been taken away from you?

:sorry: 

Are you pulling your hair out yet?!? Gnashing your teeth?!? Screaming at me through your computer?!? Good. If you are even trying to answer these questions honestly with scripture, then you are thinking and stretching a little. :think_smiley_11: My iron is sharpening your iron a little. It's my job. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

Are you pulling your hair out yet?!? Gnashing your teeth?!? Screaming at me through your computer?!? Good. If you are even trying to answer these questions honestly with scripture, then you are thinking and stretching a little. :think_smiley_11: My iron is sharpening your iron a little. It's my job. :laugh:

Brother Weary Warrior,

I "liked" your posting above especially for this comment of conclusion. Such we certainly need.  Now, I will acknowledge (as per your "shallow" Bible study comment in an even earlier posting) that I have engaged in very little actual Bible study IN THIS THREAD discussion on the subject.  However, it is rare for anyone to accuse me of shallow Bible study in my actual, personal studies.  In fact, when I actually post my studies, it is much more often for others to accuse me of being too detailed, too thorough, too extensive, too educated, too informational, etc.  However, as far as actually engaging with such detail and depth in this actual thread discussion, I simply am not certain that I have the time do so adequately.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By John Young
      If we go solely on the scriptures and not on extra-biblical sources we see:

      ANGELS NEVER WERE SONS
       
      Hebrews Chapter 1 makes it clear that the angels at no time were called sons. 
       
       
      Only the sons are heirs to salvation. Angels minister to the heirs but are not sons themselves. Both Genesis and Job and etc. are referring to the saved people of earth. Additionally if God meant "ANGELS" he would have said angels. The word is present in Genesis 11 times singular and 4 plural and in Job once plural (4:17). And in every instant of "Sons of God" in the N.T. never refers to angels but rather those who walk in the spirit of Christ.
       
      THE SONS OF GOD OF GENESIS 6
       To understand Genesis 6 we should never go outside of context to find the context. Rather we should see it as an integrated part of the passages around it. In Genesis 6 it is plain that God is striving with man not some angel hybrid.
       
       
      Read starting with Cain in Chapter 4:16. Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod and built a banished civilization in the wilderness. Cain's descendants did not walk with God and ended with Lamach threatening seven times violence on others who would try to punish him in the manner of Cain. In V.26 we see that the men remaining with Adam and God began to call on the LORD. 
       
       
      In Chapter 5 we see Adam's line beginning over, excluding Cain's line and Abel. Cain's line is no longer counted as part of God's descendant through Adam even though they still existed as men.  Notice carefully How the new line is called after God's and Adam's image up to Noah who was perfect in his "generations". Also notice that besides Christ Adam is also called the son of God in Luke 3: 22,38. 
       
       
      Then in Chapter 6 "God's Sons" go to the "daughters of men". This is God's Holy Men taking wives of the banished Cain women. The Spiritual taking the fleshly.
       
       
      Because the lines were separate and pure from each other until 6:4, Cain's line had 50% or so of all genetic code material and Adam/Seth's line had the other half. This caused a genetic Heterosis effect (sometimes called hybrid vigor) in the descendants of the combined lines.
       
       
      God's people are referenced taking lost women several times later also. When Balaam recommended the locals intermarry with Israel (Numbers 31:16) and when the people returned from Babylonian exile(Ezra 10:2). In each instance it was referred as God's men with non-godly women. Never does the bible say lost men taking God's women or God's wemon taking ungodly men. There is clear president that "God's men" are responsible for this type of action. Not God's angels. 
       
       
      ANGELS CANNOT MATE WITH HUMANS

      According to scripture Kinds and Glories of God's creation that cannot crossover and mate with another Kind or Glory. Neither can we observe such things happening in secular history or modern times. There are none and yet we are asked to believe that God who formed us out of the ground would make us genetically compatible to Angels which are not even part of earth's creation?! Genesis 1:11-25, 1 Corinthians 15:35-44
       

      THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST

      If angels could "mate" with humans it would make the virgin birth suspect. If following after offspring of angels cause God to destroy the world in flood how then can we know this is not what is happening again with Mary's child whom Gabriel could have mated? Or perhaps Beelzebub came to Mary. As he supposedly did with Eve to have cain. Whose Child? It is clear in scripture the only Spirit which ever "mated" with a human was when God manifest Himself in the flesh of Christ Jesus. For it is only God who can create life.
       
       
      THE SONS OF GOD IN JOB 

      Job is referencing God's people coming before God in prayer, offerings, and supplication. (Hebrews 4:16, 12:22-24.) Satan was not one of these "Sons" but "came also among them". Satans purpose was to accuse the "Sons". (Revelation 12:10)
       
       
       
      THE SONS OF GOD IN GOD'S DISCOURSE TO JOB
       
       
      Some think these verses are one whole question referring to the creation of the earth and logic is used to say Man did not exist yet so this "must be" angels. But the passage does not say this. Notice the passage is actually five separate questions. They were not present at creation but the were present when the "Corner stone" was laid. In the Bible every time we see "Corner stone" in scripture we see it is only ever referring to Christ. Christ became this Cornerstone at his resurrection and this is when "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy."
       
       

      THE REAL FALLEN ANGELS

      God's angels have always done God's will. Those that do not the will of God are the Devil's angels which fell with Satan when he was cursed for deceiving the woman in the garden of Eden and turning the heart humanity from God. This is what Jude and Peter are referencing. They are not referencing the "Sons of God" from Gen 6.
       

      CONCLUSION:
       The myth that "the Sons of God are Angels " is not actually found or stated ANYWHERE in the bible. It is derived from a Jewish Fable self imposed on scripture and spread in ignorance of the context of ACTUAL scripture. If we study the bible without the help of this myth and others like it we will see the true facts unfold. 
       
      The New Testament is very clear the "Son's of God" refer only to the Saved Human Race. What is true of the "Son" is true of the "Sons" as we are co-heirs with Christ. The Angels are not co-heirs with Christ but rather ministers to the Sons.
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 21 Guests (See full list)



×