sons of God?

The sons of God... I thought were through the seed of Seth.

Scriptural support??????
All I know is Cain was cast out from his people and Seth was born after Able.

 

Even the daughters of men, as pointed out in Genesis 6:2 and verse four, had consummated sexual union with fallen angelic beings. God’s Word says the women were fair and beautiful to look at from the standpoint of men and the fallen angels. These new beings that replenished the earth were a kind of hybrid human being. Provocative theologians have called these quasi-human beings Nephilim. First, the writer of Genesis calls them the sons of God, a title referred to in Job 1:6 and also in 2:1. Apparently, at least during the time of Job, the angels had access to the Presence of God as did Satan. This goes without saying, that these happenings were within the sovereign permissive will of Almighty God.

And again in Job 38:7, ‘the sons of God shouted for joy’ as the Lord laid the foundation of the world and placed it on its axis in space. The sons of God could not be humandkind because God made man after He had created the earth and universe. Without question, the angels which He created were in existence before He created the world and universe with various galaxies. Thus, ‘. . . morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy,’ because they viewed the awesome, unprecedented, and final creation of the κόσμος (kosmos). To the spiritually astute, there is not a scintilla of evidence that the sons of God were not falling angelic beings. These Nephelim were born to the daughters of men and became hybrid mighty men which were of old, men of renown. Partially, because of this horrendous sin God said, ‘. . . I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man and beast. . .’ [Genesis 6:7].

 

They were not fallen angels.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven.

They were the seed of Seth. We who are believers are also referred to as "sons of God".

Gal 3:26 for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

 

from the general context, they appear to be the lineage of Seth. It would be in line with the common usage of the phrase ("sons of God" typically referrs to the God's faithful, in a manner similar to the NT usage of the phrase "children of God" referrs to God's saved).

We NT folks tend to get confused by the phrase, confusing it to how "Son of God" is used to refer to Jesus.

 

I knew the first verse that would appear on the screen would be Matthew 22:30.

This verse does not mean that men and angels did not have the capacity to procreate in those earliest of time under the O.T. Notice the words, 'FOR IN THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD. . .' the saints and angels will not be able to have children. Keep things in context; it would help,

Check all the references to 'sons of God' in my first post and you will realize that angels did commit iniquity against the Lord as did men and women, thus the world wide flood and destruction of these hybred persons.

Theologians think the Book of Job was the first written down and notice also in Genesis that 'sons of God' have nothing to do with human men.

Study my brothers and don't simply believe what Aunt Elnora taught you as a youth.

 

I agree with the idea, the sons of Seth, who mingled and married with Cain's daughters and themselves led into unholy alliances, so that God, humanly speaking, regretted He ever created man...the key being "man" which rules out any hint of angellic beings.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I think this is a question lacking any possible Biblical answer since nothing is ever spelled out concerning the "sons of God."

 

I think it was the sons of Seth. It wouldn't be angels because they are spirits. Only physical beings have sex.

 

sons of God are believers. That is defined a number of times in the Bible where humans are concerned. Seth was in the Christ line, but that does not mean they were all believers. The implication in Genesis 6 is that believing men were marrying unbelieving women and thus being corrupted by them, in the pattern of Adam and Eve*, Samson and Delilah, etc.

This is indicated by the insistence of Abraham, later, that his son Isaac marry into the family so that their religion would be kept pure. Isaac and Rebekah were quite upset when the oldest of their twins, Esau, married outside the family into a pagan culture and Jacob went back to the family home to marry within the family.

This theme is carried into its spiritual implications in the NT when we are told that believers should not marry unbelievers as light cannot be paired with darkness.

This is a recurring theme throughout the Bible.

There is no indication at any time that there is any special blood line that are 'sons of God' and there is no indication in the Bible or genetically that angels, fallen or otherwise, can sexually mate with humans.

*edit: this is not to mean Eve was an unbeliever, but that she led to Adam's fall.

 

The only scripture I can think of is;

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:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Thats what Eve said when Seth was born. That God had given him to her:

Gen 4-25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

In those days, there weren't very many Sons of God, so when they mated with the daughters of Cain, it produced the mighty men of valor, the giants.

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.


So, the way I see it, the daughters of Cain mated with the sons of Seth, and produced Giants, be cause Seth had fantastic genes, since the human race was relatively new on earth, so that produced "super humans" as it were!

Peace,

Tam

 

The 'two angels' in Genesis 19:1 are spoken of by Lot as 'men' and the homosexuals called the two angels--'men.' in vss. 19:5 c. Then in 19:8 Lot refers to the two angels under his roof as 'men.' Also, in verse 10 the writer of the Book of Genesis calls these angels men.

Obviously, the homosexuals were more than enthusiastic about what might have been a good experience for them, except the angels blinded these evil men from Sodom.

'Sons of God' in the early part of the O.T. has reference to angelic beings.

Do not mix up the two covenants of the Abrahamic/Mosaic and that of Jesus covenant of grace.

Yes, we are the sons and daughters of God; every Christian should know this [John 1:12; I John 3:2]. This concept of the saved people of God is really the A B C's of Gospel knowledge.

 

I believe the Bible teaches they were fallen angels as well. There are four different types of "sons." Angels are referred to as sons of God. Christ is THE Son of God. Christians who are qualified as co-heirs will be adopted as firstborn sons in the future. And Israel is a firstborn son as well.

Angels do not have firstborn status. They are just sons of God.

This happened in these days and it will happen again in the future before the millenial kingdom is set up.

 

Some hold that these "sons of God" were the "angels which kept not their first estate" Jude 1:6. It is asserted that the title is in the O.T. exclusively used of angels. But this is an error Isa 43:6. Angels are spoken of in a sexless way. No female angels are mentioned in Scripture, and we are expressly told that marriage is unknown among angels. Mt 22:30.

The uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that verse Ge 6:2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain, and so the failure of the testimony to Jehovah committed to the line of Seth Ge 4:26.

(Scofield Bible Reference Notes)


Ray

 

Athanasian Creed,

If you had studied in depth you should have known that Jude 1:6 refers to Tartarus a special holding tank for some fallen angels 'held in everlasting chains, under darkness. These angels could not have had access to the women in Genesis 6:4.

It was the angels who fell from the Lord's grace before the creation of the world that are involved in Genesis chapter 6. Genesis speaks of these 'sons of God' as well as Job in chapters 1:6; 2:1 and 38:7. Study the context. The 'sons of God' in chapter 38 could not have been human beings because this speaks of the creation of the earth and the Garden of Eden. It speaks of the 'seas' and He says, 'When I made the clouds a garment.' I was always taught that God created the world first and then Adam and Eve. Maybe your church taught you that the Lord made humankind first and then the earth, but I kind of doubt that too. Don't fight the truth it is biting at your heals.

Do you have a Thompson Chain Reference Bible too. Study for yourself; the Holy Spirit will guide you best of all.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

Hello Ray,

The fact that a bunch of radically depraved men referred to the angels that came to Lot as "men" does not necessitate that the angels were indeed men (with reproductive organs etc.)

I assume that you are referring to the fact that the men of Sodom wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who visited Lot. However, again just because these redically depraved men wanted to engage in such an act does not mean that it was possible.

I want for there to be world peace right now. However, my desire is not possible because Christ has not returned and sin rules this world. My desire for world peace does not change reality just as the desire of the Sodomites did not change reality and make angels into men.

 

Of course sexual activity was possible between these good angels and the men of Sodom. If they were not capable of relations, why did Lot offer up his daughters who were unmarried? Lot did not want the men of Sodom to take advantage of these angels that even Lot calls 'men.' Either way the angels blinded the perverts and the Lord dealt with their perversion.

 

Just because angels are sexless and do not marry does not mean that sex is in capable. Angels are said to be able to take on the form of a human body, so that would mean they would have all the parts.

And why would fallen angels care if they were married or not. That is a moot point.

 

Well Ray....how do you feel about the Devinchi (sp?) Code and what it says about Jesus and Mary Magdalene?

sons of God would have to be from the blood line of Seth.