sons of God?

"good angels" are called sons of God. Fallen angels are not. Good angels don't take human wives while God stands by and does nothing. God sanctioned marriage - between humans. God has total control of what He allows demons to do.

Standing, do you know how utterly ridiculous this phrase you said is?

"God did not sanction it, but that does not mean it was not a marriage."

I guess, then, we have to recognize homosexual marriage, too, huh? Marriage between man and animals? God DOES santion marriage - between the normal husband wife relationship, even in unbelievers. It's as much a sin for two unbelievers to get divorced as it is for believers.

ANGELS DO NOT MARRY! FALLEN OR NOT!

The arguments that wives has multiple meanings is moot when read in context of Genesis 6. The meaning is not women, but wives.

 

Good point WebDog.

The term is reserved for the "obedient" as we see in Matt 5 the "peacemakers" are the ones that shall be called "The sons of God".

But more than that - according to Matt 22 the
Creator did not make angelic beings with the capacity to form families and procreate.

Hence

John Gill, Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry - they all agree with you on that one.

But what is most amazing is that this is one of those basic common ground points of agreement that even Wesley and Calvin agreed upon.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Webdog can you explain to me how the context of Genesis 6 shows that the correct rendering is wives. Because as far as I can tell the context lends itself to be correctly translated women . . . not wives.

As I said if this is the "line of Seth" that are being called sons of God then they were in rebellion, because they were not supposed to be marrying these folks in the first place. So the whole line of they have to be obedient to be called sons of God doesn't hold water, because these were disobedient folks that were mating with women that they were supposed to be.

So I look forward to reading your explanation of the context of Genesis 6.

 

Does not anyone follow the hermaneutical and exegetical guide in relation to Job 38:7, Job 16, Job 2:1 and of course, Genesis 6:4.

In all cases this refers to angelic beings.

We are not allowed to mix the covenants as to the sons of God or Jesus the Son of God.

If you desire to frustrate the Word of God and yourselves you can mix there terms of the Old and New Covenants to your own peril.

 

The term "sons of God" is defined in Rom 8:14 in a way that works in all contexts!!

These are those who are obedient to God - who follow God.

Romans 8 is not trying to find a better way to say "human" it is not worried about the reader getting confused about humans. It is specifically showing us the term references those who follow God and are obedient.

But in context of earth obviously - this is the "obedient" people of God".

This is absolutely impossible to deny.

In Gen 6 we see the context is Earth - and on Earth it is the context of the obedient people of God who err in that they take to themselves for wives - the daughters of Cain.

So Matthew Henry and Jamieson Fausset and Brown are clearly right just as are the other Bible commentators who simply observe the obvious here.

 

This was posted by Humblesmith in the baptist only forum under the sons of thunder. This would apply to sons of God, also.

Fallen angels do not have divine natures.

 

I am enjoying the thread but would like to interject a couple of thoughts but not dogmatically.

"But this is an error Isa 43:6. Angels are spoken of in a less way. No female angels are mentioned in Scripture, and we are expressly told that marriage is unknown among angels. Mt 22:30".

I have done what for me is a careful study of the following verses and would conclude that there are female angels.

Zechariah 5:9-11 Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven. Then said I to the angel that talked with me, Whither do these bear the ephah? And he said unto me, To build it an house in the land of Shinar: and it shall be established, and set there upon her own base.

Secondly Jesus said that they do not marry nor are they given in marriage but he did not say that they did not procreate. It seems that all life was told to be fruitfull and multiply on earth why not heaven as well.

I am not suggesting that eternal life is one filled with s-xual liberty only that we do not know how many angels there are or if they began with only a male and a female angel.

One other thing in continueing the thread, what is the actual type that stands behind Greek mythology since there is "nothing new under the sun" it would seem that 'the sons of God' if they existed would be an acceptable answer.

Enjoy the day the Lord hath made it and I will enjoy reading the responses on this thread.

thjplgvp

 

Back up a little in that Zechariah passage, hoss.

Zechariah 5:5-11 Then the angel that talked with me went forth, and said unto me, Lift up now thine eyes, and see what is this that goeth forth. And I said, What is it? And he said, This is an ephah that goeth forth. He said moreover, This is their resemblance through all the earth. And, behold, there was lifted up a talent of lead: and this is a woman that sitteth in the midst of the ephah. And he said, This is wickedness. And he cast it into the midst of the ephah; and he cast the weight of lead upon the mouth thereof. Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven. Then said I to the angel that talked with me, Whither do these bear the ephah? And he said unto me, To build it an house in the land of Shinar: and it shall be established, and set there upon her own base.

The women are not mentioned as being angels, the angel that talked with Zechariah was not one of those women.

NOwhere in scripture can you produce one scripture that says angels were female, nor can you show they had wings.

 

That is true my brother (it does not say they are angels)but you will notice I did not say I was dogmatic on the idea only that my study seemed to indicate that they were angels. Would you disagree that shinar Gen 10:10 is the beginning of the of Mystery Babylon, or that the ancient Modona had her beginning in Shinar. I submit that it is plausable that the winged womem are angels (though as you point out there is no proof) or perhaps demonic apparitions and that their work was definately that of instituting a false religion through which the mother was worshiped as the co-matrix (equal part, female diety) of salvation. I would never build a doctrine on so little proof but neither would I totally deny the possibility that there are female angels.

This is a hypothesis only.

thjplgvp

 

I dont know why eople just dream things up when the Bible clearly tells us what the "sons of God" are.

Phil:2:15: That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world


Upon receiving the curse of God, Cain had withdrawn from his father's household. He had first chosen his occupation as a tiller of the soil, and he now founded a city, calling it after the name of his eldest son. He had gone out from the presence of the Lord, cast away the promise of the restored Eden, to seek his possessions and enjoyment in the earth under the curse of sin, thus standing at the head of that great class of men who worship the god of this world. In that which pertains to mere earthly and material progress, his descendants became distinguished. But they were regardless of God, and in opposition to His purposes for man. To the crime of murder, in which Cain had led the way, Lamech, the fifth in descent, added polygamy, and, boastfully defiant, he acknowledged God, only to draw from the avenging of Cain an assurance of his own safety. Abel had led a pastoral life, dwelling in tents or booths, and the descendants of Seth followed the same course, counting themselves "strangers and pilgrims on the earth," seeking "a better country, that is, an heavenly." Hebrews 11:13, 16.

For some time the two classes remained separate. The race of Cain, spreading from the place of their first settlement, dispersed over the plains and valleys where the children of Seth had dwelt; and the latter, in order to escape from their contaminating influence, withdrew to the mountains, and there made their home. So long as this separation continued, they maintained the worship of God in its purity. But in the lapse of time they ventured, little by little, to mingle with the inhabitants of the valleys. This association was productive of the worst results. "The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair." The children of Seth, attracted by the beauty of the daughters of Cain's descendants, displeased the Lord by intermarrying with them. Many of the worshipers of God were beguiled into sin by the allurements that were now constantly before them, and they lost their peculiar, holy character. Mingling with the depraved, they became like them in spirit and in deeds; the restrictions of the seventh commandment were disregarded, "and they took them wives of all which they chose." The children of Seth went "in the way of Cain" (Jude 11); they fixed their minds upon worldly prosperity and enjoyment and neglected the commandments of the Lord. Men "did not like to retain God in their knowledge;" they "became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Romans 1:21. Therefore "God gave them over to a mind void of judgment." Verse 28, margin. Sin spread abroad in the earth like a deadly leprosy.

 

its like when in Revelation 14:6-12 it talks about the Mark of the Beast then it says but Gods people are they who keep the commandments of God.

So what would common sense tell us those who receive the Mark of the Beast will do?

obviously they will be those who DONT keep the commandments of God.

yet people come up with all manner of speculation about the Mark of the Beast being a computer chip and all sorts of other nonsense.

 

Except in the Bible sexual relations, procreation, and marriage are tied together in God's eyes. If Jesus says there is no marriage with angels, then they cannot procreate.

How would spirit begins procreate anyway? Procreation as far as we know requires a physical body. Beyond that is mere speculation and the Bible seems pretty clear in presenting no evidence for procreation among angels.