If you go with fallen angels do you have give some credence to Cain being the offspring of the serpent and the whole serpent seed theory? However I do also find it interesting of the similarity of the name of Cain and Ham's son Canaan. I do believe Canaan to be the offspring of Ham and his mother and this was learned behavior from the pre-flood scripture. Maybe Mrs Noah was from the Cain line. Don't think the word says one way or the other.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Who are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2,4?
- Thread starter Gabriel Elijah
- Start date
- Status
I’m still waitin for Dr Bob to come out with his tyrant/judges/rulers theory—b/c it really is 2nd on my list (of actual possible biblical support). Personally I rate it like this-- 1st-angelic, 2nd-tyrants/judges/kings (what ever), 3rd----nothin get that archaic Sethite garbage out of here! Its not even biblical—at least the rulers theory has a biblical chance! And please don’t give me—that’s such a cocky attitude & its is non Christian—my challenge is only 4 biblical research!
No I don’t personally feel that way—but I’ll give u this—certain historical writings support ur idea (see Raymond E brown on John) & its not as farfetched as the Sethite theory of Gen 6-lol
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok –ok—I’m challenging any Sethite supporter to step up in the name of biblical research & support their view! I want be rude—just give me legitimate biblical support.
Steven2006
New Member
OK I have a few questions.
There are other words clearly used for angels in the OT, why is it different here?
In Mathew 22 scripture says that angels don't marry, that at least raises some additional questions to "sons of God" being angels.
Mat 24:37 "But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
If "sons of God" are angels then we are to believe that angels are going to come down and repeat this again before Christ returns?
There are other words clearly used for angels in the OT, why is it different here?
In Mathew 22 scripture says that angels don't marry, that at least raises some additional questions to "sons of God" being angels.
Mat 24:37 "But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
If "sons of God" are angels then we are to believe that angels are going to come down and repeat this again before Christ returns?
Steven2006
New Member
I wouldn't classify myself as a "Sethite" supporter (though I don't rule it out as you do), but the link I posted earlier (post97) supported that view.
Right now my idea is more like I'm with you fellers.
Thank u 4 that question---1st more than 1 phrase or word means angel in biblical writing (just look it up in any scholarly lexicon). 2ndSome objections center on Jesus’ teaching about angels (Mt 22:30; Mk 12:25; Lk 20:35-36). In the resurrection, Jesus explains, the faithful will be like the “angels of God in heaven,” who do not marry. It is a short step to the assumption that “sons of God” could not be angels because angels do not marry. Well, the angelic beings Jesus mentions are clearly elect and holy angels, whose home is in heaven. On the other hand, evil angels of Satan are not “angels of God in heaven.” In the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, it is not the angels in heaven who marry human women but the sinful angels who “left their natural habitat” (Jude 6). The qualifying phrase “in heaven” distinguishes the two groups of angels. Angels in heaven do not marry; the angels in view in Genesis 6:1-4 as “sons of God” are no longer in heaven and may marry. Does this mean they weren’t in heaven when the event happened—no this could have been their fall—Scripture never lays out 4 us the timing or how certain angels fell—When it comes to the angelic revolt its not as clear cut as many imagine it. We know Satan fell by Gen 3—but we really are not told if other angels fell with him at his initial revolt, or if there was more than 1 angelic revolt (Even if we allow Rev 12 to be about Satan’s initial revolt it does not say when or how he influenced other angels to rebel.) Nevertheless even if these angels followed Satan in his initial rebellion & had fallen by Gen 3—they still are closer to the bene elohim term than mere humans interpretation b/c at one time they were holy or classified as bene elohim.
Steven2006
New Member
Thanks for the answer.
What about my last question?
Mat 24:37 "But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
If "sons of God" are angels then we are to believe that angels are going to come down and repeat this again before Christ returns?
.
Lol some do think that—but the point of Matt 24:36-37 is not caring about godly things—being focused on the here & now—being focused on the pleasure of this life & not God’s judgment! Like the days of Noah the people who face the 2nd coming will be unaware—only focusing on fleshly pleasure! Unexpected of God’s judgment & the true power that He will reveal!.
Steve & percho thank u 4 ur continued study –I have 2 leave 4 a bit but I’ll b back soon 2 answer any questions—please keep posting
Last edited by a moderator:
The context of the book of Genesis
Really-dear brother that’s ur best answer—is “the context”—well context proves they can not be Cainite women. Adham is a Hebrew generic term sometimes used to denote mankind as a whole (Gen 6:1). 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 (based on context & original language)—they simply belong to the category of humans of the female gender. Since adham cannot be limited to Cainite women (due to the use of the Adham term in Gen 6:1 then again in 6:2)—there is no hint of this being Sethite-Cainite marriages—b/c adham (daughters of men) includes both Cainite & Sethite women. Further, the introductory phrase in Gn 6:1 is a Hebrew linguistic style of summarizing the last topic & moving to the next—at best (if any connection to the previous chapters at all)—context makes the daughters of man—Sethites, that is if we allow the original Hebrew language to actually be the context. And if context is desired—we have a new starting point (ie Gen 6:1) with human females (of an undefined class-ie Gen 6:2) intermingling with the Hebrew bene elohim. (Heb: sons of God)----—please show me any where in Hebrew literature or Scripture that the exact Hebrew bene elohim phrase ever refers to Sethites & I’ll say maybe—otherwise if u want context learn the original language-(not being rude)-just pointing out__and if i do sound rude i apologize ahead of time:godisgood:
Last edited by a moderator:
Steven2006
New Member
Gen 6:5-7 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."
So I was reading this again this morning, and another question about son=angels came to mind.
Why no mention of Gods anger at the angels? Gods makes a point of telling us in detail his anger and sorrow of man. God even goes into detail that He will destroy man, beast, bird, creeping things. With all that detail, why exclude the mention angels?
If angels really came down and forced themselves on human woman to form some types of mutants which led to such evil that God chooses to destroy all living things, why isn't there any mention of His anger at the angels for their part in this?
I know this is no kind of proof, but IMHO it certainly raises some questions?
And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."
So I was reading this again this morning, and another question about son=angels came to mind.
Why no mention of Gods anger at the angels? Gods makes a point of telling us in detail his anger and sorrow of man. God even goes into detail that He will destroy man, beast, bird, creeping things. With all that detail, why exclude the mention angels?
If angels really came down and forced themselves on human woman to form some types of mutants which led to such evil that God chooses to destroy all living things, why isn't there any mention of His anger at the angels for their part in this?
I know this is no kind of proof, but IMHO it certainly raises some questions?
menageriekeeper
Active Member
Mostly I'm just marking this discussion, but I want to comment on the forcing of the human women. I don't think you can conclude from the context that the women were "forced". Whoever they were with, they likely went willingly! Remember, this was still fairly close in time to the original temptation of Satan that man could become as God. There would be a certain temptation to take an angelic husband in order that the offspring become more godlike.
Steven2006
New Member
That's is a good point I should have said taken advantage of instead. Doesn't really change my questions though.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
I dont know if it changes you questions, but it does seem to shine the light on them from a different direction. In the case of "forced" it would seem that the women had no guilt in what was done and in the case of "taken advantage of" there would guilt because the women could have chosen God's way over the way of "sons of God".
That theme then reflects on the future "days of Noah", because what it is really saying is that once again women will lead the charge to "become like God" and in that course will turn the minds of humanity toward "evil continually".
That theme then reflects on the future "days of Noah", because what it is really saying is that once again women will lead the charge to "become like God" and in that course will turn the minds of humanity toward "evil continually".
Steven2006
New Member
With my question, I didn't mean to diminish any of mans responsibility.
My question is if sons=angels in mentioning the cause of the problem, the absence of any mention of angels with Gods anger in the following verses does bring into question if sons are angels. The verses go into much detail down to even insects, but no mention of the angels, which would be a very large part of the reason for Gods anger.
Again, I admit this is not any proof, just posting the question it brings to my mind.
My question is if sons=angels in mentioning the cause of the problem, the absence of any mention of angels with Gods anger in the following verses does bring into question if sons are angels. The verses go into much detail down to even insects, but no mention of the angels, which would be a very large part of the reason for Gods anger.
Again, I admit this is not any proof, just posting the question it brings to my mind.
Steve good question but I’ve already addressed it post 47— I’ll repost it but also read post 45
—as far as the reason God destroyed the earth—Gen 6 does not specify except that man was wicked (Gen 6:5). So this was mans punishment for his part in the sin. Many object & say—what about the angels—where is the angelic punishment in Gen 6? Well in the Bible man is the focus & not angels—there are many events that angels are involved in that we are not given the full details until later. For example Moses dies (Deut 34:5-6)- but its not until Jude 9 that we find out about this controversy between Michael & Satan over his body. In Gen 3 a serpent is described-but its not until Rev12:9, 20:2 (& possibly Rom 16:20) that it is clearly referred to as Satan. David’s takes a census, while 2 Sam 24 originally does not mention Satan, 1 Chron 21 does. Although Ex 19-20 does not tell of angelic involvement with the giving of the law-- Gal 3:19, Acts 7:53, & Heb 2:2 tells us they where somehow involved. There are many times in Scripture where angels are involved & we don’t get the full details. Gen 6 is similar—although the original account doesn’t go into detail about their punishment—2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6 does. When it comes to angels we are on a need to know basis & we always don’t need to know the details, b/c the biblical focus is on man & not angels. The flood happened to punish man—but the angels for their part were put in tartarosas (from which comes the word Tartarus). While some may object & say 2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6 cannot prove Gen 6 talks of angels---maybe not—but 1 thing is for sure—these verses do refer to the angelic understanding of Gen 6--& if not I’d love to see another possible historical/biblical example that the NT authors could be referring too.
This & post 114 are both Very good posts!
Last edited by a moderator:
glfredrick
New Member
No real dilemma at all. God designed a means of destroying all that lived on the earth. Fallen angels, while roaming the earth, are seemingly not tied to it, so any destruction coming against humankind would not really deal with them at all.
I would suggest that God has an alternative plan for the fallen angels -- either He reigns them in and they become pure and holy once again (no scriptural support at all) or He casts them into the lake of fire with their leader, Satan (some, albeit weak, scriptural support).
I would suggest that God has an alternative plan for the fallen angels -- either He reigns them in and they become pure and holy once again (no scriptural support at all) or He casts them into the lake of fire with their leader, Satan (some, albeit weak, scriptural support).
- Status