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

[Gabriel Elijah]

1. Yes family is important.
2. I don't have any historical quotes of the angelic view to help me out. that is why I asked you pollitely to quote and expound on them for me. My theory is a weak attempt to understand Genesis.
3. I'm sorry my argument is weak. Can you correct my weakness?
4. No I really wasn't trying to debunk your #45 post. I was responding to it based on my understanding of Genesis.
5. No I don't read Hebrew. If you can can you teach me why I'm wrong and show me how the language does not allow for my interpretation?
6. I don't see why my argument is weak because you haven't directly responded to my weak points. I admit that it is very possible that it is incorrect. As of right now, it is my view, and I have not been shown "clearly" that it is incorrect.
7. What do you mean by plausible evidence. Please give me some for the proper interpretation of Genesis 6:2.

Merry Christmas! Enjoy the fam. I will when i wake up... it's 1AM... bad habits..

Thanks for your time

b4 I even destroy everything u just said—please answer the question—can u even read Hebrew? b/c if so u aint shown it---give historical evidence (ie others around the time of of biblical authorship who agree with u !) My wife wants my time & if u not an expert on this matter then back down--& admit who u r! atleast t cassdy has some credentials this matter—please b the same! Merry Christmas

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I just want to take the time to apologize 2 zrs—I got a pm that I thought was from him that wasn’t---- I’ll get to all those questions u posted later brother—after dec 25-sorrry 4 the confusion bother!

 

[glfredrick]

Very good point! I just want to know if u get to hang out with Schriner while ur at work???:smilewinkgrin:

I can... I see him often, but we both have work to do. Not much time for just hanging around.

Same goes for Mohler, Moore, Ware, Garrett, and the other great leaders and professors on campus.

 

[zrs6v4]

b4 I even destroy everything u just said—please answer the question—can u even read Hebrew?

5. No I don't read Hebrew.

b/c if so u aint shown it---give historical evidence (ie others around the time of of biblical authorship who agree with u !) My wife wants my time & if u not an expert on this matter then back down--& admit who u r! atleast t cassdy has some credentials this matter—please b the same! Merry Christmas

This sounds silly, no offense. Of course I'm no expert.

I just want to take the time to apologize 2 zrs—I got a pm that I thought was from him that wasn’t---- I’ll get to all those questions u posted later brother—after dec 25-sorrry 4 the confusion bother!

its ok, I try to avoid getting heated at all costs hehe. Being Calm = humility (a state in debate that helps see personal errors rather than being hard hearted and stubborn) and to avoid looking silly... I don't intend to point fingers by saying that, it is just a personal practice I try to exercise although I fail many times...

 

[canadyjd]

Well dear that is a really good question & 1 that men who are much better at Hebrew than myself are divided on.

:love2:First of all, and please don't take offense, but the only person who calls me "dear" is my wife. I prefer "brother".

Secondly, the understanding of "and afterward" is crucial to the timing of the events. The "and afterward" is directly linked to the event of the sons of God coming to the daughters of men. That event produces "Nephilim", being born to these unions.

The problem with your angelic theory is that the "Nephilim" exist prior to the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men, and both groups are identified as the "mighty men of old".

The best answer, imho, is the "mighty men of old" are from the godly line of Seth, and when these "sons of God" inter-marry the ungodly line of Cain "daughters of men", the "mighty men of old" (Nephilim) that are produced are corrupted and do wickedness and evil...for which God destroys the earth.

But the reason many give about the “and afterward” phrase was that the event is a continuing process....

Could you please link to someone who holds that view so I can study it myself?

peace to youraying:

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

:love2:First of all, and please don't take offense, but the only person who calls me "dear" is my wife. I prefer "brother".

Secondly, the understanding of "and afterward" is crucial to the timing of the events. The "and afterward" is directly linked to the event of the sons of God coming to the daughters of men. That event produces "Nephilim", being born to these unions.

The problem with your angelic theory is that the "Nephilim" exist prior to the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men, and both groups are identified as the "mighty men of old".

The best answer, imho, is the "mighty men of old" are from the godly line of Seth, and when these "sons of God" inter-marry the ungodly line of Cain "daughters of men", the "mighty men of old" (Nephilim) that are produced are corrupted and do wickedness and evil...for which God destroys the earth. Could you please link to someone who holds that view so I can study it myself?

peace to youraying:

Specifically your problem with the Nephilim should not impact the interpretation of Gen 6:1-4 b/c of the obscurity of the original language in respects to your question/problem. However, due to the fact that you are at least putting effort into this I wanted to give you some reading material---the problem is you asked for internet resources & most internet resources are inadequate & to un-detailed to address this issue with the precision that is truly needed (I even think this about the material that agrees with my conclusion). This is why I only recommend books, articles, ect that are usually unavailable n internet. But this explanation really doesn’t help or answer your question. So after doing some rigorous research I think I may have found some-what of a solution. If you go to the website posted below & follow directions—it should allow you access to articles that address your original question/problem about the Nephilim.

http://library.umobile.edu/mobile/database.asp?page=11
then go to 3rd option on list—ie ATLA Religion Database with ATLS Series (EBSCO)—it’s the one with articles from 1949 to present. Once here type in “Genesis 6:1-4” & find articles on the topic. I’ve given a brief list & description of ones that address your specific question/problem. While I don’t agree with the conclusion or theology of every article listed—the agenda is to attempt to answer ur question—so here is some suggested reading material.

Make sure u click on pdf full text reading to get articles--
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 'SONS OF GOD1 EPISODE (GENESIS 6:1-4) IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ^PRIMEVAL HISTORY1 (GENESIS 1-11)* by David J A Clines JSOT 13 (1979) 33-46
See esp page 35 (of article which starts on p 33) & footnote 15 specifically deal with ur question. Now I’m not endorsing everything Clines says but He does address your question.

The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 (An Example of Evangelical Demythologization) by Willem A Van Gemeren---deals with the linguistics of the passage & periodically refers to your question

The Sons of God (Genesis 6:1-4) by Rick Marrs found in Restoration Quarterly, 23 no 4 1980, p 218-224.
Footnote 10-14 addresses your question


An exegetical study of Genesis 6:1-4 by Birney, Leroy. Source: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 13 no 1 Wint 1970, p 43-52.
Page 50-51 deals with you question—although the thesis of this article is to support the “rulers” interpretation, ie he goes against the angelic & Sethite view—my goal is to find reading material for your question not necessarily to find material by authors who agree with my conclusion.

Gen 6, 1-4 as an antediluvian event, by Kvanvig, Helge S.. Source: SJOT, 16 no 1 2002, p 79-112.
Page 82-85 deal specifically with you question (its #33 on EBSCO site)


http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/90-254
not sure how much of a Joh MacAthur fan you are—but he’s an example of a popular theologian who supports the angelic understanding of Gen 6, but believes the Nephilim & men of renown should be distinguished & thinks only the men of renown are the “angel” babies

http://ldolphin.org/nephilim.html
although this doesn’t go into detail it does address the issue of your question briefly from men a lot more popular than myself



http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted.../Text/Articles-Books/Newman-Gen6-GTJ-1984.pdf
This article by Newman does a good job summarizing the historical sources involved in the interpretation of Gen 6—not sure how well it answers your initial question about the debate over the Gen 6:4 wording—but a good article 4 understanding an important argument to the Gen 6 debate

Another good article that summarizes the history of the debate is The Targumim and Early Exegesis of “Sons of God” in Genesis 6 by Philip S Alexander


http://www.pacificrimbible.com/books/The Nephilim.pdf
although I do not agree with all of the evidence this person uses for th angelic understanding of Gen 6—he does address ur question about the Nephilim--although 2 b honest I dont agree with his xplination about them being on earth after flood but it does let u see other theories floating around

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

GE

Do you think those in Gen. could be thought of say like Legion in the NT accounts of the demon possessed man?

Could be a stretch to say through the genealogy in Luke to go back through the Seth line the son of Adam the son of God.

I do not have a set in stone opinion of this. I do believe we miss something in the word of God because of translators that have something to do with God, man, sin, women, sex, sexual morality, marriage and even birth and it started in the garden of Eden. It has to do with the relationship between God and man and I can not put my finger on it. I wish someone smarter than me would tackle this. I even think there could be something sexual about the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve ate and she gave to her husband (Iysh) and he did eat and that bothers me.

Hope I did not go beyond the rules but let me know what you think.

Actually you make very interesting points. First—do I think it’s a stretch to say that those in Gen where possessed? That actually is a theory endorsed by some who support the angelic view—that men became possessed & this is how the unnatural union happened. I personally think ita a possibility but also think the angelophany (when angels take the appearance of men) is also a possibility.
Next n regards to ur question , “Could be a stretch to say through the genealogy in Luke to go back through the Seth line the son of Adam the son of God.”—not sure if ur asking if could b possible that angels possessed Sethites & if this is the reading. Well they could have possessed Sethites, not ruling that out—but the angelic involvement 4 me is the key. (Sorry if I misunderstood u r question).

And as far as the sexual nature at Eden—there are extra-biblical Jewish writings that suggest this—but I don’t personally endorse it. Nevertheless—very good questions.

 

[MB]

Looking at these verses;
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Gen 6:3 And 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.

Gen 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.

All I see here is men I see no angles. The first verse says the son's of God took themselves some women to be there wives.

The second verse confirms the writer was speaking of men after all it is men who God strives with.

The third verse mentions there were giants in the land it never says the giants were the offspring of the daughters of men it just drops that discussion and goes to another subject. The giants could just as well of been dinosaurs. The daughters of men bore more men strong men and came to be well known. Adam was a type of son of God the men who came directly after him were considered the same. That's the way it appears to me.


MB

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I am trying to understand your view posed here. I have not thoroughly read every post in this thread, so forgive me if I miss something. First, I am very unfamiliar with these outside sources you've listed. Quotes and dates would be very helpful "(cf 1 Enoch 6-19; Jubilees 4: 15, 22; 5: 1; Damascus Document 2: 17-19; 1QapGen 2: 1; Testament of Reuben 5: -7; Testament of Naphtali 3:5; 2 Barach 56: 10-14)".

Ok so these writings talk about the angels being locked in chains which is similar to Jude verse 6. Peter is listing separate events of God's judgment to be looked at separately to emphasize God's judgment.

2 Peter 2:4-8

2:4- Judgment on angels with no mercy due to their sin (No Gen. 6 connection)
2:5- Judgment on mankind during Noah's time ( connects to Gen 6)
2:6- Judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (no Gen 6 connection)

Jude v.5-7 also shows God's judgment in 3 separate events

v.5- Judgment on Egypt (Exodus)
v.6- Judgment angels (unknown time or recording when they fell)
v.7- Judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah

At this time I am not making a clear connection to materializing angels in Genesis 6.




Please refer to my above account on 2 Peter. I can't see how you can group the angels to the fall of man in Noahs day without connecting Sodom and Gomorrah. Again, I may be wrong, but they are 3 different events of God's judgment. Apparently the angels all most likely fell before Adam did in the garden which is assumed but not given in detail.




I am not familiar with extra Biblical quotes so you will need to do some quote or linking along with explaining them further. If the New Testament audience is familiar with the Genesis 6 account and clearly knows that angels materialized I would be surprised. Again, I could use a little more detail please. Jude and Peter's audience were most likely understanding the basic message of their writings which were dealing with judgment on ungodly and sin. They all simply knew that angels fell and immediately under eternal judgment (the in chains part is tricky due to lack of explaining), people sinned in Noah's day and were destroyed, and Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

Zrs6—1st I want to apologize again 4 the earlier remarks—I thought u were the guy who kept pm-ing me about his “alien” view-lol- a whole other story there. But in regards to ur initial questions—What we have in 2 Peter 2:4 & Jude 6—is examples that are suppose to be well known among the original audience that would demonstrate the certainty of God’s wrath & his punishment of the ungodly. Keep in mind that this is an analogy that the 1st century reader would have known well enough as to demonstrate the author’s main point—so want we want 2 know is—what stories about fallen angels do we know this audience would have know about & specifically what historical/biblical examples are there of fallen angels who are chained or locked away. So first we can look at the Jewish literature of the resources previously sited: 1 Enoch 6-19; Jubilees 4: 15, 22; 5: 1; Damascus Document 2: 17-19; 1QapGen 2: 1;ect) & know by Peter & Jude’s day the angelic understanding of Gen 6 was known. For a survey of the history of the angelic theory see: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted.../Text/Articles-Books/Newman-Gen6-GTJ-1984.pdf
Keep in mind that there really is not a clear cut description in the Bible of how the angelic revolt happened or if there was more than 1 revolt ect. (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 what we are looking for in 2 Pet & Jude is a group of angels in the Bible or in history that at the time of NT authorship were known to have rebelled & were chained. Well up to this point the Bible is silent about any certain group that clearly fits this description, but extra-biblical literature is not. 1 Enoch clearly refers to angels who fell & in particular angels who fell & where chained. This is important bc Jude shows familiarity with 1 Enoch by quoting the work in Jude 14-15. This is also important because 1 Enoch treats Genesis 6:1-4 as the sin of the angels. 1 Enoch also describes the fallen angels from Genesis 6 as imprisoned (e.g. 1 En 10:4-7, 12-14; 19:1; 20:2-3; 21:10). Based on his reference, Jude should offer an explanation to his readers if he holds any other view. IE Jude has just talked about angels being chained—he has also just showed his familiarity with 1 Enoch—drawing a natural connection between the 2. But that alone is not the only support of Jude with the sexual nature of the angelic sin. Consider the expression in Jude 7 is “ton homoion tropon toutois,” or “in the same manner as these.” Many scholars believe this phrase compares the sexual actions of the angels to the sexual immorality of the Sodomites. Jude says that the Sodomites (Jude 7) sinned in a way similar to the angels (Jude 6). Clearly, the sin in Jude 7 is sexual immorality, so the sin of the angels in Jude 6 seems to be sexual in nature as well. Although there is a lot more that needs to be said—one of the main points of the original post—was for someone to demonstrate any other historical example of chained angels that Peter’s & Jude’s audience would have known about that wasn’t related to the Gen 6 angels. If you’d like me to clarify any of this please feel free to ask.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Looking at these verses;
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Gen 6:3 And 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.

Gen 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.

All I see here is men I see no angles. The first verse says the son's of God took themselves some women to be there wives.

The second verse confirms the writer was speaking of men after all it is men who God strives with.

The third verse mentions there were giants in the land it never says the giants were the offspring of the daughters of men it just drops that discussion and goes to another subject. The giants could just as well of been dinosaurs. The daughters of men bore more men strong men and came to be well known. Adam was a type of son of God the men who came directly after him were considered the same. That's the way it appears to me.


MB

thank u 4 tha input--please read all of my previous post I address all of ur questions-:godisgood:

 

[annsni]

3. The law of creation "after its kind" would prevent conception in an angel/human mating.

This is what sticks in my head. Man was made in the image of God. Angels were not. Angels are completely different beings than man and where do we see anywhere that they can procreate at all - no less with human women?

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

This is what sticks in my head. Man was made in the image of God. Angels were not. Angels are completely different beings than man and where do we see anywhere that they can procreate at all - no less with human women?

Dear brother if that ur only problem I’d suggest further research—this very well could have been the angelic sin & in regards to angels in the image of God—feel free to read C. Fred Dickason “Angels: Elect & Evil” who would whole heartedly disagree with your ideas on the imago Dei.

 

[kyredneck]

Dear brother if that ur only problem I’d suggest further research—this very well could have been the angelic sin & in regards to angels in the image of God—feel free to read C. Fred Dickason “Angels: Elect & Evil” who would whole heartedly disagree with your ideas on the imago Dei.

(pssst, annsni is a sister)

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

(pssst, annsni is a sister)

Lol--thanks--thats twice i've made that mistake--one time 4 a guy the other for a girl-

 

[zrs6v4]

nevermind.....

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

nevermind.....

Thank u 4 at least thinking about the issue—even if we don’t reach the same conclusion about Gen 6—at least there is effort being put in to understand what the Bible is saying about this difficult, yet interesting topic-God Bless!

 

[Aaron]

Lol--thanks--thats twice i've made that mistake--one time 4 a guy the other for a girl-

Maybe that explains the willingness to believe that spirit can procreate with flesh.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Maybe that explains the willingness to believe that spirit can procreate with flesh.

:laugh:Lol- I was actually gonna make that joke myself! But as u can read from my various posts, its much more than just a feeble attempt to believe something that I conjured up. I’ve spent several years on the topic & would recommend anyone who wants to defend their interpretation of Gen 6 (no mater what it may be) put the time & effort into their understanding, b/c such a complex passage requires more than just oversimplified proof points.

 

[Aaron]

You say you wrote your Master's thesis on the topic.

I've traveled through the RLDS and Charismatic camps, all of whom claim specialized knowledge and revelation concerning angels.

To think the Sons of God are angels requires not only the contradiction of some basic Scriptural maxims concerning angels, which I'm sure have already been touched upon in this thread, but a host of arbitrary assumptions concerning them as well.

Who advised you to write about angels and demonology, and what school is your degree from?

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

You say you wrote your Master's thesis on the topic.

Well I didn’t personally say that to you—or in this thread—but yes that is in my bio.

I've traveled through the RLDS and Charismatic camps, all of whom claim specialized knowledge and revelation concerning angels.

Well I claim to have specialized knowledge about angels too—its called the Bible.

To think the Sons of God are angels requires not only the contradiction of some basic Scriptural maxims concerning angels, which I'm sure have already been touched upon in this thread, but a host of arbitrary assumptions concerning them as well.

Well since your obviously trying to question my education level—let me educate you-friend! In the Hebrew of Gen 6:2, 4-- “sons of God” is bene ha elohim & it is Hebrew idiom for angels. See Job 1:6; 2:1 for the only exact appearances & without the article in Job 38:7—all of which refer to angels. So the assumption that “sons of God” can not refer to angels-- simply demonstrates the lack of biblical & linguistic research on your part. If you don’t believe me-- go read a Hebrew lexicon. So if you’d like to lay out before me the contradicted scriptural maxims please feel free to & oh please let it be Matt 22:30 b/c I’ve never seen or heard that one b4. Especially considering the context, audience, & qualifying phrase of that passage are required for accurate interpretation. And I’d love for you to demonstrate my “arbitrary assumptions” b/c its easy to throw unspecified accusations around—its a lot harder to actually debate me on this topic! I’ll be honest—I don’t mind people having other understandings of Gen 6:1-4, as long as they are actually giving valid evidence that demonstrates that they have actually spent some time on this topic—something you have yet to do.

Who advised you to write about angels and demonology, and what school is your degree from?

I went to the University of Mobile—a Baptist University in Lower Alabama---I got accepted to various Universities (a lot of them bigger & more popular)—but I felt the Lord leading me to this school & I’m glad He did-- b/c the college’s theologically conservative professors kept me from tuning to liberal theology & caused me to put God’s Word first in all research. When you ask who advised me on writing my thesis on biblical angelology & demonology—well no one advised me. In fact, at first I was discouraged not to write on the topic—but after demonstrating to my professors (with Scriptural, historical, & linguistic evidence) that I could put together a well written thesis on the subject—they allowed me. In the end I had over 250 pages written on topics such as:
angels in general (origin, nature, functions, terms used for them, ect); other heavenly creatures that could be angelic (seraphim, cherubim, the Living Creatures); The Angel of the Lord (who he was, his relation to God, survey of the Preincanate Christ theory); the Reality of Satan (origin, person, names); A biblical Survey of Satan (limited use of Satan in the OT, Satan more developed in the NT—focus on Satan at Christ’s temptation, Satan in John, his role in the betrayal of Christ, his judgment, Satan in Paul’s letters); Satan’s original rebellion & a survey of the possible relation of Ezek 28:11-19 & Isa 14:12-19); the Sons of God in Gen 6 (survey of Sethite, rulers/judges, angel theories; the history of exegesis concerning Gen 6:1-4, Gen 6 in NT); Demons (survey of theories concerning origin, activities, involvement in spiritual warfare); Demons in the modern world (occult & ghosts) & various theories regarding modern spiritual warfare & methods used.---(And this is only a limited example of the topics I covered).

I’m not sure what your implying when you ask about my education level—but I can assure you this-- I don’t have theories about angels & demons b/c its—“just what I think sounds right”—I have theories on them that are biblically based & thought out with historical, linguistic, & systematic support. If it makes that much difference to you—I’ll send u a picture of my Masers degree with my Honors award—but I really don’t se how that plays apart in this debate—b/c if you personally had ever researched the topic—you’d know what I’m saying is supported by a lot more popular theologians than myself. Just a thought—what was your degree in again? Since degrees matter so much to you—I thought you’d might like to share your credentials—since you were so insistent about mine!—God Bless! :godisgood: