Members John the Baptist Posted June 24, 2007 Members Share Posted June 24, 2007 It is not eisegesis to interprete The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-8 as believers of the godly line of Seth. The geneologies in Genesis 4 and 5 trace the human race through two lines one headed by Cain and the other headed Seth. In the context these geneologies are accompanied by a statement of the moral develpments in Genesis chapter 6. The intermarriage of the "Sons of God", the godly line of seth with "the daughters of men", the ungodly line of Cain caused wickedness to become so great that God purposed to destroy man from the earth. Notice in Genesis 6:6, "And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." The topoic is man. In Genesis 6:7, "And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the ground; both man, and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that I have made them." The subject throughout is man not angels. There are three interpretations to who "the Sons of God" are: (1) Sons of princes but this is not warranted by the use of language and is altogether unscriptural. (2) Sons of God are angels (must go for now will continue later. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John the Baptist Posted June 24, 2007 Author Members Share Posted June 24, 2007 Continued: (2) Sons of God being Angels could be more pausible because the "Sons of God" in Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 and Daniel 3:25 are clearly angels. The antithesis "Sons of God" and "Daughters of men" would lead us naturally to regard the "Sons" of God" as angels as distinct from men and the daughters of men. This is okay if the lanuage usage permits only to this. But this is not the case for it is not only to angels that the Son" of God" refer too. In Psalm 73:15 in an address to God, they are called "the generation of Thy "sons" or childern." In Deu. 32:5 The Isralites are called His "Sons" and in Hosea 1:10 "sons of the living God." These passages show that "Sons of God can refer to men. The term "Sons of God cannot be applied to angels in a physical way because for the "sons of God" to refer to angels in the context goes against what Scripture says about the nature of angels. (3) The "sons of God" as men is correct according to the context of Genesis chapter 5 and 6. This is my understanding and view point. There are many Godly pastors and Christians who hold the "Sons of God" to be Fallen angels. But according to the context od Scripture I cannot hold that view. God Bless John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jerry Posted June 25, 2007 Members Share Posted June 25, 2007 I agree with you here. As a new Christian, I thought that passage was teaching the angels procreating with mankind - but as time went on, I came to believe that the primary focus of that chapter was continuing the contrast between the godly line and the ungodly line, and showing the corruption that intermarriage with the lost caused. And we find this is a theme ALL throughout the Scriptures, even warned against in the NT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 I can't believe this discussion is still going on? :puzzled: Maybe we can debate the "gap theory" or "geocentrism" next. :saint Wil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IM4given Posted June 25, 2007 Members Share Posted June 25, 2007 Sons of God being Angels could be more plausible because the "Sons of God" in Job 1:6' date=' 2:1, 38:7 and Daniel 3:25 are clearly angels.[/quote'] Daniel 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. That was no Angel walking around in the fire with Shadrack, Meshack, and Abendigo - that was Jesus Christ himself walking in that fiery furnace! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted June 25, 2007 Members Share Posted June 25, 2007 :thumb I believe that too sister! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IM4given Posted June 26, 2007 Members Share Posted June 26, 2007 You know, instead of arguing and fighting about who angels are and what they are all about, we ought to be busy concerning ourselves about the same sorts of things that angels are concerned about...namely lost souls. Here is a very good sermon preached by Billy Sunday that is as relevant today as it was back then ... http://www.biblebelievers.com/billy_sunday/sun16.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bro. Williams Posted August 6, 2007 Members Share Posted August 6, 2007 Continued:The term "Sons of God cannot be applied to angels in a physical way because for the "sons of God" to refer to angels in the context goes against what Scripture says about the nature of angels. The text I assume you are referencing is Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Being new, I'll take the bait. The text does not say that angels are sexless as most suppose, it says they neither marry nor are given in marriage. Specifically speaking, it also says as the angels of God in heaven. I believe the passage you wish to comment on, Gen 6, is speaking about happenings on earth. That passage is not a valid argument, it never has been and it never will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pneu-engine Posted August 6, 2007 Members Share Posted August 6, 2007 The text I assume you are referencing is Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Being new, I'll take the bait. The text does not say that angels are sexless as most suppose, it says they neither marry nor are given in marriage. Specifically speaking, it also says as the angels of God in heaven. I believe the passage you wish to comment on, Gen 6, is speaking about happenings on earth. That passage is not a valid argument, it never has been and it never will be. Still, all of that mattereth not one iota in this discussion::::::: The "sons of God" refers to ordinary red-blooded human creatures with an eternal soul in each one. :lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Will Posted August 6, 2007 Members Share Posted August 6, 2007 Still, all of that mattereth not one iota in this discussion::::::: The "sons of God" refers to ordinary red-blooded human creatures with an eternal soul in each one. :lol Prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IM4given Posted August 6, 2007 Members Share Posted August 6, 2007 Prove it. Got a better idea Will, why don't YOU prove that what pe said was wrong? Did the KJV translators make some sort of mistake? That is what people seem to be saying when they say that this really means that or that really means this. Angels mean Angels and sons of God means sons of God. If the translators had believed that the scriptures really meant Angels, then they would have just translated the word Angels there, now wouldn't they? Angels never have, nor will they ever procreate with human beings - and the people who contniue to cling to this pagan notion so fervently is beyond my imagination!!! It doesn't make any sense at all. That is like saying dogs can breed with cats and make "dats" or maybe "cogs" - it just can't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bro. Williams Posted August 6, 2007 Members Share Posted August 6, 2007 1.) Where in the OT does sons of God refer to the human race? (excluding the delided notion of Gen. 6:2). Adam fell. Anyone after his flesh is a child of the devil, according to God's word, not a son of God. To call any man, in any line of men, in the OT a son of God would be ridiculous. In the NT, those who become sons of God in John 1:12 are those believing in Christ and recieving him. One would think this to be sufficiently clear. 2) Genesis 6:4 is very evident in direcly stating contrasting expressions of "sons of God" with "daughters of men". Things that are different are not the same. Yea, hath God said? 3) Where does an idea of a "godly line" come from? Where is any notion of the such found anywhere in holy writ? There is no mistake if someone can read fifth grade English. Look at the references in Job 1, 2, and 38. What is confusing is why anyone would take a clear passage with clear references and question the simple clear statement that is clearly being made to anyone thinking clearly. Clear as mud? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Madeline Posted August 6, 2007 Members Share Posted August 6, 2007 Here comes another can o worms... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted August 6, 2007 Members Share Posted August 6, 2007 Prove it. 1. There is only one direct, absolute definition, for "sons of God", found in the Bible: believers. "Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God"...."brethren, now are we the sons of God"..... 2. A son is begotten....that includes the only begotten Son...AND believers. Angels are not begotten. Not a single one. The world was not destroyed in the flood because of a "tainted line" or "cohabitation" of angels and humans. The Bible says it was destroyed because the "wickedness of MAN was great". Jesus tells us in the New Testament what men were doing before the flood...."marrying and giving in marriage". He mentioned NOTHING about the cause being any angelic beings. Now read Genesis chapter 5 and 6. Genesis 5 begins with the "generations of Adam". These BELIEVERS were doing alot of "generating". Then in chapter 6 it explains more details about those "generations"...It says they "took them WIVES". These guys were praciticng polygamy with unbeleivers. Then, later in chapter 6, it says that Noah was "PERFECT in HIS generations". What does that mean? Perfect means FLAWLESS. Noah was the husband of ONE wife, and that wife was evidently a believer. The Ark was a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. Incidently.....Only beleivers are IN the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, Noah was perfect in his generations. He generated God's way. And the book of Jude doesn't prove your theory either because those who try take it out of context. Prove that Genesis 6. Job 1:7, Job 2:1 and Job 38 is speaking of angelic beings. You cannot do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pneu-engine Posted August 6, 2007 Members Share Posted August 6, 2007 1. There is only one direct, absolute definition, for "sons of God", found in the Bible: believers. "Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God"...."brethren, now are we the sons of God"..... 2. A son is begotten....that includes the only begotten Son...AND believers. Angels are not begotten. Not a single one. The world was not destroyed in the flood because of a "tainted line" or "cohabitation" of angels and humans. The Bible says it was destroyed because the "wickedness of MAN was great". Jesus tells us in the New Testament what men were doing before the flood...."marrying and giving in marriage". He mentioned NOTHING about the cause being any angelic beings. Now read Genesis chapter 5 and 6. Genesis 5 begins with the "generations of Adam". These BELIEVERS were doing alot of "generating". Then in chapter 6 it explains more details about those "generations"...It says they "took them WIVES". These guys were praciticng polygamy with unbeleivers. Then, later in chapter 6, it says that Noah was "PERFECT in HIS generations". What does that mean? Perfect means FLAWLESS. Noah was the husband of ONE wife, and that wife was evidently a believer. The Ark was a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. Incidently.....Only beleivers are IN the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, Noah was perfect in his generations. He generated God's way. And the book of Jude doesn't prove your theory either because those who try take it out of context. Prove that Genesis 6. Job 1:7, Job 2:1 and Job 38 is speaking of angelic beings. You cannot do it. Most excellent, HS. :thumb :thumb Don't we just love it when the plain sense makes sense. :Green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts