Who are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2,4?

[Gabriel Elijah]

Possibly, but this still goes back to my first reply that ability is needed, and we don't find that. In fact, when comparing Bible against Bible, and modern science, it is impossible for different species to cross breed.

One issue that needs to be brought to this discussion is "who are the Nephilim"? The fallen angel theorists state they are the byproduct of this union between fallen angels and man, but Scripture states they were already here when the sons of God took the daughters of man.

First, you gotta teach me how to do his piece by piece quote thing-it make it a lot easier 4 me-lol But As you said-
“ Possibly, but this still goes back to my first reply that ability is needed, and we don't find that. In fact, when comparing Bible against Bible, and modern science, it is impossible for different species to cross breed.”
Your argument runs that we must prove they can before they can—well if Gen 6 is about angels it proves they can—but here’s a challenge –prove they can’t—find 1 verse in Scripture that refers to the sexual capability or procreative ability of angels
And as far as Science goes-Ah-Science—well science needs a test case-& if you can find 1 instance where Science has tested angels-then this might be relevant. But since its angels were talking about—the invisible spiritual beings who are the closest things to shape shifters to ever exist (ie an angelophony)—there is nothing even in the same area that Science could begin to compare it too. And when we compare Bible with Bible we do have references to the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 (please see my post 75).

And as you said—“ Actually, I believe that phrase is used in regards to those who are in union with God as opposed, whether it be an Angel, Israelite, or Christian.”
You can believe that all you want brother-but I’d challenge you to find a Hebrew lexicon where the exact bene elohim phrase means anything other than angels-lol
Now as far as the Nephilim go—this is a whole other story

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Like the cal v. arm debate...I believe it's "both" They were the righteous leaders from Seth.

I think this actually is a very good possibility-that Gen 6 has a double possible triple meaning that combines all that happened before the flood—where you have Sethites intermarrying Cainites, rulers acting as tyrants, & fallen angels making a whole mess of things. Or possibly the Sethites or angels being the rulers. Now there are a lot of other problems with tha Sethite theory I haven’t yet addressed—but I just want you to know I’m not opposed to this suggestion.

 

[webdog]

First, you gotta teach me how to do his piece by piece quote thing-it make it a lot easier 4 me-lol But As you said-

Hit the Quick quote button on the bottom right. Highlight a portion you want to reply to, then right click, "copy" then paste it into the box. Highlight it again, then click on the quote bubble icon. It will wrap quotes around that portion you want.

Your argument runs that we must prove they can before they can—well if Gen 6 is about angels it proves they can—but here’s a challenge –prove they can’t—find 1 verse in Scripture that refers to the sexual capability or procreative ability of angels

First, you cannot prove a negative. Second, if a claim is made, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not to prove the claim is false . Nothing from that text hints that this was the first time nature could be thwarted. That has to be read into the text. Marriage was intended by God to include pro-creativity and sex. When it is said Angels cannot marry, that concept goes hand in hand with God's design.

And as far as Science goes-Ah-Science—well science needs a test case-& if you can find 1 instance where Science has tested angels-then this might be relevant.

Actually, all you need is one species being able to cross breed with another for your position to be plausible....you don't need an Angel, just the proof it "can" be done. It has never been done and cannot scientifically.

But since its angels were talking about—the invisible spiritual beings who are the closest things to shape shifters to ever exist (ie an angelophony)—there is nothing even in the same area that Science could begin to compare it too. And when we compare Bible with Bible we do have references to the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 (please see my post 75).

Actual Angels are spiritual beings...not invisible beings. Angels ate with Abraham, talked, carried Lot out of Sodom and appeared to people. A Spiritual body doesn't automatically = invisible body.

And as you said—“ Actually, I believe that phrase is used in regards to those who are in union with God as opposed, whether it be an Angel, Israelite, or Christian.”
You can believe that all you want brother-but I’d challenge you to find a Hebrew lexicon where the exact bene elohim phrase means anything other than angels-lol

I think we have to look at the whole of scripture. Angels were also referred to as messengers, particularly leaders of the 7 churches in Revelation.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

As you'll see I'm still learning the quote thing-lol But

As you said-"Nothing from that text hints that this was the first time nature could be thwarted. That has to be read into the text. Marriage was intended by God to include pro-creativity and sex. When it is said Angels cannot marry, that concept goes hand in hand with God's design."

But something in Gen 6 does hint at the thwarting of nature—The contrast made between the daughters of men & the Sons of God (The whole point is that there is something unnatural or forbidden about this union). Consider this, the phrase “daughters of men” cannot refer solely to Cainite women. Adham is a Hebrew generic term sometimes used to denote mankind as a whole. It is highly unlikely that adham is used in Genesis 6:1 to mean all mankind and then restricted to one particular family in the next verse (6:2). The reference to the “daughters of man” cannot be limited to the genealogy of Seth or Cain—they simply belong to the category of humans of the female gender. Now to add to this that the focus of the verses is to contrast these females of the human gender with whoever the “Sons of God” are. Since adham cannot be limited to Cainite women (due to the use of the term in Gen 6:1 then again in 6:2)—then their is no hint of this being Sehite-Cainite marriages—b/c adham (daughters of men) includes both Cainite & Sethite women. Add to this the normal Hebrew meaning of bene elohim (ie celestial beings) & one can see a real contrast between “the daughters of man” (ie normal human women) & the sons of God (ie angels). There is no real distinction if both groups are human b/c the ability to reproduce among men has been established & is not forbidden or unnatural (esp in the genealogy chapters). The point of Gen 6:2 is to show contrast & the unnatural/forbidden union that takes place between the 2 groups. There is nothing contrasting about humans reproducing & forbidden inter-marriage in not talkd about before this event anywhere in Gen 1-5. Thus, what ever happened is a unique situation introduced for the 1st time in Gen 6.

"

Actually, all you need is one species being able to cross breed with another for your position to be plausible....you don't need an Angel, just the proof it "can" be done. It has never been done and cannot scientifically."

What you are referring to is cross-breeding—if an angel can take the form of a man or possess a man—would this be cross-breeding—the problem is—nothing can shape shift like an angel or possess something like an angel—thus there is nothing to compare it to scientifically—what real test could be run that would be relevant to this capability?. One other thing-Can it be scientifically demonstrated that a virgin can give birth without ever having a sexual experience with a man or without artificial insemination—yet you don’t have a problem with the lack of science on that 1-lol

"

Actual Angels are spiritual beings...not invisible beings. Angels ate with Abraham, talked, carried Lot out of Sodom and appeared to people. A Spiritual body doesn't automatically = invisible body.”

it clear from Ps 104:4, Heb 1:7, 14 that they are spiritual beings & Jesus says in Lk 24:37-39 that spirits do not have the same flesh & bones as humans—thus there body is clearly unlike ours. Does this make them invisible? For centuries Jews & Christians have both taught they do not have physical or material bodies & the fact they have no flesh & bone—causes them to be invisible. But this s not a necessity—nevertheless—when they appeared to Abraham, Lot, ect—they appeared like other men & even carried out the same functions as normal men & since their normal bodies are not flesh & bone—they would have had to take a appearance that is not their normal non-flesh & bone appearance (known as an angelophany).

"I think we have to look at the whole of scripture. Angels were also referred to as messengers, particularly leaders of the 7 churches in Revelation.”

The term angel in the Greek is angelos & it means messenger & many believe the 7 churches in Rev where not spiritual angels but human messengers—considering the original Greek has angelos—which can also mean a human messenger. But as far as the exact bene elohim phrase in Gen 6—it only refers to angels in Scripture & is Hebrew idiom for angels—keep in mind it’s the exact Hebrew we are talking about not English equivalents. That’s why I said good luck finding a Hebrew lexicon to support ur idea on that 1.

 

[Amy.G]

Another Sethite here.


3. Adam was referred to as a "son of God." Seth was his son, so it makes sense that his offspring would be called the sons of God. In scripture we see references to "Israel" which actually refers to the children of Israel. So, I can see that happening with the sons of Seth.

I could not find the term "son of God" in scripture which referred to Adam. Could you show it to me? Yes, Adam was a son of God, but he was not ben elohiym.

What we're talking about is the Hebrew ben elohiym, which is translated "sons of God". This term refers to angels.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I could not find the term "son of God" in scripture which referred to Adam. Could you show it to me? Yes, Adam was a son of God, but he was not ben elohiym.

What we're talking about is the Hebrew ben elohiym, which is translated "sons of God". This term refers to angels.

He’s talking about Luke 3:38—a proposal that neglects the NT is in Greek while the OT in Hebrew & does not consider the original Hebrew bene elohim phrase but attempts to theorize based on English equivalents.

 

[canadyjd]

I could not find the term "son of God" in scripture which referred to Adam. Could you show it to me? Yes, Adam was a son of God, but he was not ben elohiym.

Matt. 3:38 "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

peace to youraying:

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Matt. 3:38 "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

peace to youraying:

its Luke brother not Matt

 

[Amy.G]

He’s talking about Luke 3:38—a proposal that neglects the NT is in Greek while the OT in Hebrew & does not consider the original Hebrew bene elohim phrase but attempts to theorize based on English equivalents.

I was just going to post the same thing.

We're talking about the Hebrew guys.

 

[Steven2006]

I find it somewhat hard to believe that fallen or evil angels would be referred to as "the sons of God"?

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I was just going to post the same thing.

We're talking about the Hebrew guys.

Amen sister!!! Glad to have my (fallen) Angelic theory partner back!!!

 

[canadyjd]

I believe that Jude's reference to the book of Enoch is valid or it wouldn't be in God's word. He speaks of it as truth in the same way that Jesus spoke of Noah, the flood, Jonah..ect.


I'm not arguing with you. Just giving my opinion. It's a hard concept, but I think if you keep studying you might come to the same conclusion as I have.

It is possible. If I do, it won't be the first time I've changed my mind about what is clearly taught in scripture.

But you have to admit, it's a great topic of discussion!

This may be one of the most interesting, and civil discussions I've been involved in on the BB.

Thank you for your thoughts.

peace to youraying:

 

[Amy.G]

I find it somewhat hard to believe that fallen or evil angels would be referred to as "the sons of God"?

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.


These are angels.

 

[canadyjd]

its Luke brother not Matt

Yikes, I confused my geneologies! How embarrassing! Not only that, but you beat me to the post!

peace to youraying:

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Yikes, I confused my geneologies! How embarrassing! Not only that, but you beat me to the post!

peace to youraying:

No friend don’t feel bad—I felt rude for saying that abruptly! Don’t worry I’ve had plenty occasions in a sermon I’ve accidentally said the wrong verse-lol

 

[Steven2006]

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.


These are angels.

Yes, those were good angels, and referred to as sons of God. My point is that I find it difficult to believe evil, fallen angels would also be referred to as "the sons of God". Are evil fallen angels really sons of God?

 

[Amy.G]

Yes, those were good angels, and referred to as sons of God. My point is that I find it difficult to believe evil, fallen angels would also be referred to as "the sons of God". Are evil fallen angels really sons of God?

Where does scripture say that only "good" angels are called sons of God?

You are assuming that.

Did God create all angels? Weren't they all good at one time?

 

[canadyjd]

But something in Gen 6 does hint at the thwarting of nature—The contrast made between the daughters of men & the Sons of God (The whole point is that there is something unnatural or forbidden about this union).....

I'm looking at Gen. 6 again. In v. 4 it says "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

This is the main passage you are using to support the theory of angelic inter-marrying with human women... with the "Nephilim" as their offspring.

But the passage says the "Nephilim" were already on the earth in those days, prior to the "sons of God" coming in to the "daughters of men". These "Nephilim" are then identified both as the offspring of the union and as the "mighty men of old, men of renown".

How can the "Nephilim" (the offspring of the union of angels and human women) be on the earth before the angels came to the human women and had relations with them?

peace to youraying:

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I'm looking at Gen. 6 again. In v. 4 it says "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

This is the main passage you are using to support the theory of angelic inter-marrying with human women... with the "Nephilim" as their offspring.

But the passage says the "Nephilim" were already on the earth in those days, prior to the "sons of God" coming in to the "daughters of men". These "Nephilim" are then identified both as the offspring of the union and as the "mighty men of old, men of renown".

How can the "Nephilim" (the offspring of the union of angels and human women) be on the earth before the angels came to the human women and had relations with them?

peace to youraying:

Well first off the Hebrew does not demand that it be worded as if the Nephilim are on the earth before—the “when” could very well be that they are on the earth when this event happens—b/c it is this event that causes them to be there. But second—some believe that the Hebrew should be translated as the Nephilim are on the earth when this happens & say the Nephilim aren’t the angel babies but only the men of renown. (sorry for any misspellings I tried to type fast)

 

[Steven2006]

Where does scripture say that only "good" angels are called sons of God?

You are assuming that.

Did God create all angels? Weren't they all good at one time?

Yes, I am assuming. I think this topic in Genesis is one where nobody can say dogmatically that this is exactly what it is.

That said, IMHO evil angels, spirits etc would not be referred to as "the sons of God". Would you ever refer to Satan as the son of God?