Jump to content
Online Baptist - Independent Baptist Community
BabeinChrist

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

Recommended Posts

Genesis 6:

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they werefair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4There 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.

5And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

People (including Christians) use these verses to teach that fallen angels mated with human women, resulting in some half-human/half-demon hybrids.

This doesn’t sit well with my spirit, and I think there is a simple explanation of this passage that is being overlooked.

I just do NOT believe it is saying demons mated with women. Angels are not human & cannot create offspring with us. 

I do not think God would even allow that to be POSSIBLE.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BabeinChrist,

I so agree with you. It would be ridiculous for God to create angels with apparatus to procreate and then not let them. Angels do not have sexual parts as that is only what people need to have children. Jesus Himself said there is no marrying in heaven.

The `sons of God` to my understanding are the sons of Seth, as from him on then `men began to call on the name of the Lord.` (Gen. 4: 26)

regards, Marilyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi BabeinChrist,

I so agree with you. It would be ridiculous for God to create angels with apparatus to procreate and then not let them. Angels do not have sexual parts as that is only what people need to have children. Jesus Himself said there is no marrying in heaven.

The `sons of God` to my understanding are the sons of Seth, as from him on then `men began to call on the name of the Lord.` (Gen. 4: 26)

regards, Marilyn.

That’s what I am thinking. God uses the word “angels “ in other places in Genesis, so wouldn’t He have done the same if that’s what He meant in Genesis 6.

”sons of God” throughout the Bible always referred to saved people, and I think the people who are telling me they are angels are getting that info from outside of Scripture, and turning it into a false doctrine.

thx!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BabeinChrist said:

Who are the Giants, the mighty men of old?

That part still puzzles me.

Based upon the grammatical construction of Genesis 6:4, I am convinced that the giants and the mighty men are NOT the same group of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think something that people ignore is that men like Goliath were called giants - they were just big guys, not "Jack and the beanstalk" giants.

Taken like that, the giants were men noted for their size, and the mighty men were simply men noted for their fighting skill, as with the "mighty men of valour" noted in various places of the OT.

And I agree with Pastor Scott - two separate groups of guys noted for different reasons, who were prominent at that time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 2:40 PM, BabeinChrist said:

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.

One possibility since the greater context of this passage is dealing with the flood, is that these giants clearly noted in this passage as a separate thought very well could be a reference to dinosaurs, mammoths and other giant creatures which God decided not to include on the Ark nor to continue on earth after the flood. Job references strange beasts that would match the fossil remains of these creatures and there is plenty of undisputed, physical evidence that these creatures did exist on earth. It certainly was no ice age that killed them off.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, wretched said:

One possibility since the greater context of this passage is dealing with the flood, is that these giants clearly noted in this passage as a separate thought very well could be a reference to dinosaurs, mammoths and other giant creatures which God decided not to include on the Ark nor to continue on earth after the flood. Job references strange beasts that would match the fossil remains of these creatures and there is plenty of undisputed, physical evidence that these creatures did exist on earth. It certainly was no ice age that killed them off.

Brother Wretched,

That was certainly an interesting thought.  It is a completely new thought for me, since I had never encountered it before.  Thus I have indeed given it some thoughtful consideration.  At the present time, however, I would lean away from that understanding, since everything else within the immediate context of Genesis 6:1-4 seems to be focused upon mankind, not animal kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also had not considered that line of thought, but then it occurred to me:

Gen 6

 19  And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

 20  Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

So I think not. 

I had to check the exact wording of the passage, but it certainly seems inclusive.

Edited by DaveW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought it possible that everyone was giants then. After all, if one lived over 900 years, what would be the reason we would assume they would stop growing at 16 years or 18 years, like today, with so much shorter a lifespan?  Before the flood everything seems to have been much larger: giant sloths, lizards, snakes, rhinos, elk, etc, including the dinosaurs, all huge! There was greater air pressure and a higher amount of oxygen, by about 50%, and a virtually perfect atmosphere, so why wouldn't they get much bigger?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

I have always thought it possible that everyone was giants then. After all, if one lived over 900 years, what would be the reason we would assume they would stop growing at 16 years or 18 years, like today, with so much shorter a lifespan?  Before the flood everything seems to have been much larger: giant sloths, lizards, snakes, rhinos, elk, etc, including the dinosaurs, all huge! There was greater air pressure and a higher amount of oxygen, by about 50%, and a virtually perfect atmosphere, so why wouldn't they get much bigger?

 

That is an interesting idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm mildly curious, if we are so sure that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 has to be human and cannot be angels, then who are the "sons of God" in Job 1, 2 and 38?

If the "sons of God in Job are angels and cannot be human, then what is going on in Genesis 6?

If "sons of God" refers to saved people, then why would humans in Genesis 6 be called such, since one cannot be saved without the blood of Christ, which didn't exist at that time?

Why was no one else in the entire Old Testament called the "son of God"? Why was Ezekiel called "son of man" repeatedly and not ever "son of God"? Was he not saved, but the men in Genesis 6 were? Why was the next human to be called a "son of God" actually Jesus, and then after that those who were truly born again? John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

How does a "godly"person procreating with an "ungodly" person result in physiological anomalies? Why don't we see it today with saints marrying unbelievers?

Why does Genesis 6 point out that Noah "was perfect (nothing deleted or added) in his generations(bloodlines)"?

If Noah did have an ancestor that was simply a human from Cain's line, why would it have even mattered? It never did after that. See Rehab, Ruth et al

If man sinned, and thus God promised in Genesis 3:15 that he would send a messiah as a man, born of a human woman, why would Satan not begin to immediately try to taint all of the bloodlines coming from women in order to ultimately stop the source of his demise? Why would God not see this plan, cradle the untainted seed protectively in an ark while he washes the earth clean of the poison that would eventually spread unchecked to kill the promise?

Why, if we read that angels can, at will, take on physical abilities of a human (they eat, they fight, they drag by force reluctant women out of Sodom), do we discount that they might can actually take on all abilities? They ARE always referred to as males, which is a sex. And we are created a little lower than the angels. Yes, we are told that the angels do not marry in heaven, but since when is marriage automatically and always a part of sex, and  sex automatically part-and-partial to marriage? They are two different things.

I'm not in any way troubled by someone's beliefs on this issue. I don't want any heartburn or stress over it, and I don't want you to have any over it either :). But it looks to me like the study regarding this particular question has been a little ...shallow. So I'm just mildly curious.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, weary warrior said:

How does a "godly"person procreating with an "ungodly" person result in physiological anomalies? Why don't we see it today with saints marrying unbelievers?

WW, if I may ask...what "physiological anomalies" are you referring to? All that I see that the Bible says is that their children became mighty men of old...men of renown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

WW, if I may ask...what "physiological anomalies" are you referring to? All that I see that the Bible says is that their children became mighty men of old...men of renown.

"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."

NN, I think that, to me, one of the greatest mistakes we often make in interpreting scripture is that we read the English incorrectly. We will read it as though it were written in the order, style and grammatical structure of modern, European authors of a western civilization. But it was not. As I read this verse and understand it, it is as thus (I hope you will forgive my audacity in re-wording scripture) "In those days, and also in the days after that, there were giants in the land when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. These giants became mighty men of old, men of renown." The oriental, near-eastern way of writing. No, I am not discounting the placement of the semi-colon nor the commas. The KJV translation is always perfect, and this includes all punctuation. This then is what I see the punctuation rendering for us, but now placed in a familiar western order of speaking.

So, the "physiological anomalies" were men whose physical presence, power and deeds were drastic enough to warrant direct notice and reference in scripture, and were clearly attributed in the same scripture as being a direct result of the physical reality of who their parents were, whatever that reality may prove to be. The one thing pointed out about their parents, to give a reason for this mighty renown, is their two separate, independent, genetic lines. And having parents whose genetic line are only differentiated by  two opposing spiritual views does not answer to this. A spiritual problem has a spiritual answer. A physical problem, however has a physical answer.

Again, it's all good. There's no problem that some will not see it this way. But NOT seeing it this way just creates more questions for me than it answers, especially when the passage is carefully studied in the light of all other rightly-divided scripture. 

Thank's for the question, Brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, weary warrior 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."

NN, I think that, to me, one of the greatest mistakes we often make in interpreting scripture is that we read the English incorrectly. We will read it as though it were written in the order, style and grammatical structure of modern, European authors of a western civilization. But it was not. As I read this verse and understand it, it is as thus (I hope you will forgive my audacity in re-wording scripture) "In those days, and also in the days after that, there were giants in the land when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. These giants became mighty men of old, men of renown." The oriental, near-eastern way of writing. No, I am not discounting the placement of the semi-colon nor the commas. The KJV translation is always perfect, and this includes all punctuation. This then is what I see the punctuation rendering for us, but now placed in a familiar western order of speaking.

So, the "physiological anomalies" were men whose physical presence, power and deeds were drastic enough to warrant direct notice and reference in scripture, and were clearly attributed in the same scripture as being a direct result of the physical reality of who their parents were, whatever that reality may prove to be. The one thing pointed out about their parents, to give a reason for this mighty renown, is their two separate, independent, genetic lines. And having parents whose genetic line are only differentiated by  two opposing spiritual views does not answer to this. A spiritual problem has a spiritual answer. A physical problem, however has a physical answer.

Again, it's all good. There's no problem that some will not see it this way. But NOT seeing it this way just creates more questions for me than it answers, especially when the passage is carefully studied in the light of all other rightly-divided scripture. 

Thank's for the question, Brother.

Okay. Thank you for explaining further.

As I read both the scripture and your re-wording of it, the giants were already in existence at the time; in which, the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and bare children to them. Therefore, I don't see how the children born from the two groups could be the giants.

I will drop this now. Thank you for your Christian attitude in answering my original question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, weary warrior 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."

NN, I think that, to me, one of the greatest mistakes we often make in interpreting scripture is that we read the English incorrectly. We will read it as though it were written in the order, style and grammatical structure of modern, European authors of a western civilization. But it was not. As I read this verse and understand it, it is as thus (I hope you will forgive my audacity in re-wording scripture) "In those days, and also in the days after that, there were giants in the land when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. These giants became mighty men of old, men of renown."

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.

 

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gen 1:11-12
(11)  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
(12)  And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:21
(21)  And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:25
(25)  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
 

The Bible establishes that creatures will bring forth "after his kind", and that is what we see consistently throughout creation.

Animals bring forth after their kind, plants bring forth after their own kind.

Even in labs today they cannot force things to bring forth another kind.

God said it clearly - it is not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that I would drop it, but I guess I lied. Forgive me. I've been pondering the questions asked by WW, and since no one else has answered, here are my thoughts...

14 hours ago, weary warrior said:

I'm mildly curious, if we are so sure that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 has to be human and cannot be angels, then who are the "sons of God" in Job 1, 2 and 38?

While I've certainly entertained the idea that those sons of God in Job were angels, there's nothing definitive in Job describing them as such. In Job 38, there is the reference to both "morning stars" (often commonly interpreted to be angels) and "sons of God" (also commonly interpreted to be angels) in the same verse. If that's the case...that both refer to angels...then the angels and the angels were there (?).

14 hours ago, weary warrior said:

If "sons of God" refers to saved people, then why would humans in Genesis 6 be called such, since one cannot be saved without the blood of Christ, which didn't exist at that time?

Christ was foretold before Genesis 6. I believe salvation has always been, is today, and always will be given freely by grace through faith...apart from any works/deeds/law-keeping/etc...regardless of which "dispensation" existed, exists, or will exist. (I'm not trying to get into a dispensation debate. Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world). They were called sons of God, because that's who they were.

15 hours ago, weary warrior said:

Why was no one else in the entire Old Testament called the "son of God"? Why was Ezekiel called "son of man" repeatedly and not ever "son of God"? Was he not saved, but the men in Genesis 6 were? Why was the next human to be called a "son of God" actually Jesus, and then after that those who were truly born again? John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

As I mentioned, the bible isn't definitive (in my understanding) of exactly who the sons of God were in the Old Testament. The first human to be called the son of God wasn't the Lord Jesus Christ; it was Adam...one might find a reference to Christ being referred to as the son of God early in one of the Gospels; however, the Bible definitively states that the very first man who ever lived was the son of God...

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.

...as such, at this time, I can only conclude that "sons of God" are men...whether alive bodily and saved...or dead bodily but spiritually alive in Christ.

15 hours ago, weary warrior said:

How does a "godly"person procreating with an "ungodly" person result in physiological anomalies? Why don't we see it today with saints marrying unbelievers?

In my understanding, it didn't. Their children became mighty men of old...men of renown.

Was Goliath a fallen angel/human mix? Were his brothers? Were the other sons of Gath who were called giants also fallen angel/human hybrids? Was Og? All of these men lived after the flood.

One can be a mighty man and a man of renown without being a giant. Alexander the Great, George Washington, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, goodness...I would imagine if you asked anyone who Donald Trump was, they would have an answer. Why? They may not have followed the news, and they may not be able to give you an accurate answer about him; however, he has become a mighty man...a man of renown, and they can tell you something about him.

15 hours ago, weary warrior said:

Why does Genesis 6 point out that Noah "was perfect (nothing deleted or added) in his generations(bloodlines)"?

I don't understand where you get "bloodlines" as the interpretation for "generations"?

When you responded to my original question, you respectfully included the following prerequisite...

"one of the greatest mistakes we often make in interpreting scripture is that we read the English incorrectly."

...I also think that we often make the mistake of applying modern-day meanings to words that were written in the 1600's...many of which have changed meaning over the centuries. What did the word "perfect" mean in 1611?

15 hours ago, weary warrior said:

If Noah did have an ancestor that was simply a human from Cain's line, why would it have even mattered? It never did after that. See Rehab, Ruth et al

Sorry...I don't follow you on this.

15 hours ago, weary warrior said:

If man sinned, and thus God promised in Genesis 3:15 that he would send a messiah as a man, born of a human woman, why would Satan not begin to immediately try to taint all of the bloodlines coming from women in order to ultimately stop the source of his demise? Why would God not see this plan, cradle the untainted seed protectively in an ark while he washes the earth clean of the poison that would eventually spread unchecked to kill the promise?

Because...

Genesis 6:5
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The flood was about mankind's wickedness and evil...not angels. I would respectfully and humbly assert that to assume a Satanic plot of stopping the Messianic bloodline is an extra-biblical assumption with no biblical evidence.

After Joseph, Pharaoh did a lot of dirty business toward the Israelites, but that was toward the Israelites...not the Messiah. He was trying to do population control. The only definitive proof (that I'm aware of) that we have of an actual attempt to stop Christ in the Bible is found in Matthew 2; in which, Herod had all of the male children killed (who were two years old and under).

Why did God save Noah and his family?

Genesis 6:8-9
8   But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
9   These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

He found grace and was just.

16 hours ago, weary warrior said:

Why, if we read that angels can, at will, take on physical abilities of a human (they eat, they fight, they drag by force reluctant women out of Sodom),

Everything that you've described here was done by holy angels who served God.

16 hours ago, weary warrior said:

do we discount that they might can actually take on all abilities?

No. I would respectfully and humbly say that we would assume it...without real biblical evidence.

16 hours ago, weary warrior said:

They ARE always referred to as males, which is a sex.

True.

16 hours ago, weary warrior said:

Yes, we are told that the angels do not marry in heaven, but since when is marriage automatically and always a part of sex, and  sex automatically part-and-partial to marriage?

God "married" the first two humans, and told them...

Genesis 1:27-28
27   So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28   And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

From this, it would appear to me that sex (as originally intended by God) was "part-and-partial" to marriage.

However, sex isn't automatically part-and-partial to marriage in this sin-stricken world that we live in, because of man's sin nature. Sin has twisted it into something other than the wonderful joy and closeness that God intended to exist between a husband and wife. Sex outside of marriage always brings baggage and always brings remorse of some kind.

Many married couples no longer enjoy the intimacy of marriage...because of sin. Pride and selfishness take over and drives a wedge between couples. She won't be intimate, because he won't _______ , or he does _______ . He won't be intimate, because she won't _______ , or she does _______ . It's all sin. It's all due to sin. It's all an effect of living in a sin-cursed world and not allowing Christ to live through us.

WW, I didn't mean any of this as an attack on you. In fact, I thank you for stirring my interest and taking my mind off of my troubles for a while.

In closing, I leave these last few thoughts...

The giants were already living and existed when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, married them, and had children.

The flood was a judgment upon mankind...not fallen angels, nor their offspring with human wives.

Giants lived and existed after the flood. How did this happen if the angels (who are chained up until judgment day as given in Jude) were the ones who produced the giants?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, weary warrior 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."

NN, I think that, to me, one of the greatest mistakes we often make in interpreting scripture is that we read the English incorrectly. We will read it as though it were written in the order, style and grammatical structure of modern, European authors of a western civilization. But it was not. As I read this verse and understand it, it is as thus (I hope you will forgive my audacity in re-wording scripture) "In those days, and also in the days after that, there were giants in the land when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. These giants became mighty men of old, men of renown." The oriental, near-eastern way of writing. No, I am not discounting the placement of the semi-colon nor the commas. The KJV translation is always perfect, and this includes all punctuation. This then is what I see the punctuation rendering for us, but now placed in a familiar western order of speaking.

So, the "physiological anomalies" were men whose physical presence, power and deeds were drastic enough to warrant direct notice and reference in scripture, and were clearly attributed in the same scripture as being a direct result of the physical reality of who their parents were, whatever that reality may prove to be. The one thing pointed out about their parents, to give a reason for this mighty renown, is their two separate, independent, genetic lines. And having parents whose genetic line are only differentiated by  two opposing spiritual views does not answer to this. A spiritual problem has a spiritual answer. A physical problem, however has a physical answer.

Again, it's all good. There's no problem that some will not see it this way. But NOT seeing it this way just creates more questions for me than it answers, especially when the passage is carefully studied in the light of all other rightly-divided scripture. 

Thank's for the question, Brother.

Hi weary warrior,

Had you considered that `blood` is the key here. Angels do not have blood only humans. As God said - the life is in the blood. Man made of the earth has blood and our Lord partook of the same. (Heb. 2: 14) However angels fallen or holy were never created with blood and thus have no power to pass on life.

regards, Marilyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

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

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

 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"

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

The first part of Genesis 6. is describing Genesis 5, are you with me?

Let's take Methuselah for instance: Brother Methuselah, the grandfather of Noah,  was a direct ancestor in the lineage of Christ(see Luke chapter 3) and he was a believer; a "son of God". So, if Methuselah lived 969 years and "begat sons and daughters", he was still around when his family had multiplied into the thousands, possibly the millions. Brother Methuselah's family was a "superpower". The whole "tribe" were "mighty men" and a force to be reckoned with in a world full of "giants" and "violence". Brother Methuselah was "backslid" and "conformed to this world". Still saved, but backslid because he married a lost woman(most likely multiple lost women). 

By contrast, his grandson Noah, was "perfect in his generations". In other words, Noah had ONE(numero uno) wife and he "begat" all three of his sons by her alone,  she was no doubt a beleiver so he was not "unequally yoked".  Brother Noah "generated" perfectly, God's way..

 

 

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   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 72 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×