Genesis 6:1-4, who are the "sons of God"?

[npetreley]

But npetreley, if they did that, they would cease to be referred to as "sons of God". They would be demons.

I think the responses above deal with the issue well (as in being not mortal), but I'll also point out that you're assuming that:

1. You must refer to an angel as a demon in any context where he does something wrong.
2. Demons are fallen angels.

I don't think either assumption is purely scriptural. There's no scriptural rule that if an angel rebels, it must be referred to as a demon.

As for assumption #2, most people assume demons are fallen angels, but the Bible never says that. We don't really know for sure where demons come from. The only thing the Bible says about them that we know for sure is that they are bad, that some demons are more potent than others, and that they seem to be obsessed with possessing flesh in some way or another. While it seems reasonable to assume that demons are fallen angels (since there is a hierarchy among angels as well as demons), the Bible doesn't come right out and say they're fallen angels.

See my other thread for a speculation that demons are the result of dead offspring of angels/women. Is that what demons are? I have no idea, but it's a thought.

 

[Inadequate in Myself]

As for assumption #2, most people assume demons are fallen angels, but the Bible never says that. We don't really know for sure where demons come from.

Many on here will tell you that Revelation 12:4 will tell you where demons come from. Not agreeing or disagreeing, just pointing it out.

 

[npetreley]

Many on here will tell you that Revelation 12:4 will tell you where demons come from. Not agreeing or disagreeing, just pointing it out.

Rev 12:4 basically says that satan took 1/3 of the angels with him in his rebellion and they were flung to the earth. It doesn't say anything about whether or not those 1/3 are what we have come to know as demons. Maybe they ARE the demons, but the passage doesn't actually say that.

Here's another problem:

13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.

When was satan hurled to the earth? The implication is that he's been banished to the earth. But if that's so, then how does that fit in the timeline such that this could have happened?

6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.

And how is it that satan and Jesus are not only on speaking terms, but satan can ask permission to do things?

Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat.

Even Paul seems to understand something about satan's role that isn't very clear to us today:

1 Timothy 1:20 of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Satan also seems to know a lot about human anatomy and can manipulate it to cause infirmities in people.

16 So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound—think of it—for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?”

 

[webdog]

This is one of those cases where you cannot simply break down the individual words and derive a meaning. It is an idiomatic phrase in Hebrew to say something is "son of" is to say that their essence is what follows. To call someone "son of man" is to say that they are human. To call someone "son of god" is to say that they are godly (little "g" is intentional to hopefully get across the idea that we're not necessarily dealing with God in the idiom), but not necessarily in reference to all the characteristics of god - simply that they are not human.

A similar idiom is "ba'al of" in Hebrew. To say that someone/something is the "ba'al of" is to say that they possess it. Therefore, Elijah could be called the "ba'al of hair" (2 Kgs 1:8) and Yahweh could be called "ba'al of wrath" (Nahum 1:2)

As to your other question concerning demons and "sons of god" the phrase in Job does allow Satan to be included as one of them (though it is not required). That would be the only place where such a reference might occur.

The phrase "sons of God" is broken up, as there is no single hebrew word for this phrase...it's "ben elohim". I think when you compare it to where it is used in Scripture, the only place it is used in regards to angelic being is in reference to un-fallen angels. Everywhere else it is in reference to righteous humans. To state that the phrase is in reference to fallen angels goes against the meanings put forth in Scripture.

 

[npetreley]

The phrase "sons of God" is broken up, as there is no single hebrew word for this phrase...it's "ben elohim". I think when you compare it to where it is used in Scripture, the only place it is used in regards to angelic being is in reference to un-fallen angels. Everywhere else it is in reference to righteous humans. To state that the phrase is in reference to fallen angels goes against the meanings put forth in Scripture.

I really think this isn't the way to try and understand the passage, but even your reasoning here is off. The context is that "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose." They weren't fallen until they did the dirty deed, so why would there be a need to refer to them differently?

Think of it this way...

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

In the narrative, it isn't necessary to refer to Eve as a fallen woman because she's going to eat the fruit. Similarly, it isn't necessary to refer to the angels as fallen angels because they're going to do something bad. At the point where they look upon the daughters of men, they're still angels.

 

[Inadequate in Myself]

The phrase "sons of God" is broken up, as there is no single hebrew word for this phrase...it's "ben elohim". I think when you compare it to where it is used in Scripture, the only place it is used in regards to angelic being is in reference to un-fallen angels. Everywhere else it is in reference to righteous humans. To state that the phrase is in reference to fallen angels goes against the meanings put forth in Scripture.

First, I personally believe it is a reference to Shem's descendants.

As to the Hebrew it is not to be broken up as sons is unquestionably in the construct form which means it can ONLY be read in relation to God/god/god (depending on the translation). The question then becomes what the phrase means. I agree with Mathews that the construct in the case forces the absolute to be read almost adjectively - "godly sons." However, there is a good case to be made given the numerous examples of "son of" being the introduction of an idiom.

It is a little circular to argue it ONLY refers to un-fallen angels to exclude a case where it might not be - when you have so few examples to work from. Especially when one of the very few examples you have is the Job passage that could very well (linguistically speaking) include Satan as one of them.

Other matters way into the discussion. I was only speaking from a linguistic point of view. and linguistically you absolutely cannot exclude the possibility of it referring to heavenly beings. In fact, the linguistic argument is by far the strongest argument for it being "angels" of some sort.

 

[webdog]

The context is that "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose." They weren't fallen until they did the dirty deed, so why would there be a need to refer to them differently?

OK, I agree with your reasononing that it could refer to fallen angels prior to falling. That makes sense.

One thing I'm not understanding is where we see in Scripture the fact that angels are attracted to humans. If this happened then, who is to say this isn't still happening today? Maybe we are descended from angel / human hybrids still?

I also don't see where an angel / human offspring would be referred to by God as "human". If humans could intermate with canine's, we wouldn't refer to the hybrid created as humans.

Also, where do we find either scripturally or scientifically where a species can intermate with other species?

 

[reformedbeliever]

I think the point that Dr. Pettingill was making is that the demons or fallen angels were possibly possessing other human males, and then in that state mating with the women, who were worshiping demons or the devil. That would account for the need of the destruction in the flood. Of course, I've thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. :laugh:

 

[npetreley]

OK, I agree with your reasononing that it could refer to fallen angels prior to falling. That makes sense.

One thing I'm not understanding is where we see in Scripture the fact that angels are attracted to humans. If this happened then, who is to say this isn't still happening today? Maybe we are descended from angel / human hybrids still?

I don't think it's happening today, otherwise we'd have giants running around. But there is good reason to believe it happened again AFTER Genesis 6. Genesis 6 takes place before the flood, obviously. Then, AFTER the flood, there are occasional reports of giants whom the Israelites believe descend from the nephilim (giants). But if all the nephilim were destroyed in the flood, where did these giants come from? There's a Jewish tradition that says some of them held onto the side of the ark and survived the flood. I see no Biblical support for that, but who knows? I think the easy answer is that some angels did it again after the flood.

I also don't see where an angel / human offspring would be referred to by God as "human". If humans could intermate with canine's, we wouldn't refer to the hybrid created as humans.

They aren't referred to as human, at least not exclusively. They're referred to as nephilim, which was translated as giants in the septuagint, and in some modern translations, too.

Also, where do we find either scripturally or scientifically where a species can intermate with other species?

Lions and Tigers can mate and produce a Liger. But that's beside the point. We're talking about angels here, who (scripturally) have the ability to take on human form. Are they familiar enough with human form to come up with a genetic pattern that would, when combined with humans, produce giants? I don't see why not. That was the purpose of me pointing out that satan seems to have an intimate knowledge of our anatomy (and most likely our genetics, too). Why would they do such a thing as deliberately produce giants as offspring? Pride, maybe? After all...

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Hey, will you look at that? "and also afterward" I wonder if that refers to the giants who appeared after the flood?

 

[webdog]

They aren't referred to as human, at least not exclusively. They're referred to as nephilim, which was translated as giants in the septuagint, and in some modern translations, too.

I believe the Nephilim aren't the byproduct of the sons of God, and daughters of man. Notice the wording, that the Nephilim were already on the earth when this took place...
Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Barnes' comments on 6:4
Two classes of men, with strong hand and strong will, are here described. "The giants," the well-known men of great stature, physical force, and violent will, who were enabled by these qualities to claim and secure the supremacy over their fellow-men. "Had been in the land in those days." In the days when those intermarriages were beginning to take place, the warriors were asserting the claim of might. Violence and rapine were becoming rampant in the land. "And after that." The progeny of the mixed marriages were the second and subsequent class of leading men. "The sons of God" are here contradistinguished from the "nephilim, or giants," who appear therefore to have belonged to the Cainites. The offspring of these unhallowed unions were the heroes, the gallants, the mighty men, the men of renown. They were probably more refined in manners and exalted in thought than their predecessors of pure Cainite descent. "Men of name," whose names are often in men’s mouths, because they either deserved or required to be named frequently on account of their influential or representative character. Being distinguished from the common herd by prominent qualities or memorable exploits, they were also frequently marked out by a special name or surname, derived from such trait of character or deed of notoriety. "Of old" (מעולם mē'ôlām). This has been sometimes explained "of the world," in the sense of αἰών aiōn; but the meaning is too late for the present passage. The phrase uniformly means "of old," covering a more or less extensive length of time. This note of time implies a writer probably after the deluge, who could speak of antediluvian affairs, as happening of old.

They aren't referred to as human, at least not exclusively. They're referred to as nephilim, which was translated as giants in the septuagint, and in some modern translations, too.

Gen. 6:3, God exclusively referred to them as "adam", meaning human beings.
Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years."

Lions and Tigers can mate and produce a Liger.

Both feline, so they are the same "kind". This is like comparing hispanics mating with caucasians. It is clear that angels and humans mating would be like humans and apes mating.

We're talking about angels here, who (scripturally) have the ability to take on human form.

Oh, I believe they have human form, that's not the issue. Chimpanzees have human form, too....walk upright, opposable thumbs, etc.

Are they familiar enough with human form to come up with a genetic pattern that would, when combined with humans, produce giants? I don't see why not.

Science teahes us different. Man cannot interbreed with any other species. That is a fact.

Hey, will you look at that? "and also afterward" I wonder if that refers to the giants who appeared after the flood?

Giants appear today. Look at Shaq, Yao, etc. The fact there were giant "heros" of the day doesnt' mean they were the offspring of angels and man, as I pointed out in the above. The giants were already on the earth when the sons of God came into the daughters of man.

 

[webdog]

I'm curious about those who voted "none of the above" and "another form of creation". Who do you think they are?

 

[J.D.]

None of the above.

I realize that I have a very minority view, but I think "sons of God" is some sort of hyperbole for just plain old "men". They looked on the daughters and lusted after their beauty. Fill in the rest from there and you have the pre-flood corrupt society. And you also have the western world of 2007.

 

[Rex77]

* The angels in heaven can’t marry they are all masculine.!!!

Mt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

* The angles in Gen 6 were not in heaven when they took wives.

Ge 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.


* The term sons of God in the bible refers to someone who is perfect when the were created, or created new .


For example.

ADAM

Lu 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.


BORN AGAIN BELIEVERS.

Joh 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:


ANGELS

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Eze 28:15 Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.


REPENTANT ISRAEL

Isa 43:6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth;


The fallen angels were perfect when created

 

[tinytim]

None of the above.

I realize that I have a very minority view, but I think "sons of God" is some sort of hyperbole for just plain old "men". They looked on the daughters and lusted after their beauty. Fill in the rest from there and you have the pre-flood corrupt society. And you also have the western world of 2007.

I am with you... I voted none of the above.
I think this is referring to the leaders, judges, or mighty men of old, that decided to take what they wanted because they had the authority.

There are other places in the Bible that speaks of humans as gods... meaning judges, or leaders....
John 10:34-35
(34) Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
(35) If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;


I believe this statement in Genesis is referring to the men of old that had God-given authority to lead.

BTW, the extra-biblical book of Jasher says about the same thing... they were judges.
"18 And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force

from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from
the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture
of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw
the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men
and all animals."

Of course this is just my opinion, and I refuse to be dogmatic over it, so disagree all you want.​

 

[npetreley]

Science teahes us different. Man cannot interbreed with any other species. That is a fact.

Yes, that is a fact, but it doesn't extablish whether or not an angel can take on a human form that can reproduce with a human to create a giant. There are still giants today (not as big as described in the Bible) due to a genetic mutation. So what's so hard to believe that an angel can manipulate the genetics to produce a giant?

What I really wanted to address, however, was that if you're going to go by what science teaches us, your conclusions will be based on the most flimsy foundation. Science teaches us whatever is necessary to support materialism and evolution.

For example, there is a documented case where a colony of mosquitoes in a London subway split into two colonies. After a number of generations, the second colony mutated in such a way that they could not reproduce with the first colony. Scientists call this "speciation", and claim that the second colony is now a new species of mosquito, which "proves" evolution. Yet they're all mosquitoes, right?

Then you have the case of the Lion and Tiger, which science considers to be two different species. Yet they can mate and produce offspring. What's the scientific rationale? That they're both branches off a single line of evolution, and thus are related. So they have their cake and eat it, too. When two mosquitoes can't mate, that proves evolution. When a Lion and Tiger can mate, that proves evolution.

Warning: When you talk to someone who believes this stuff, don't mention plant life, which allows for all kinds of bizarre hybrids and cross-species offshoots. That totally screws up their idea of speciation and you get nothing but gobbledy gook double-speak for answers as to how this fits into their theory.

 

[webdog]

So what's so hard to believe that an angel can manipulate the genetics to produce a giant?

First, as I stated on the last page, these giants were already on the earth at that time, so those giants mentioned weren't the offspring of the sons of God / women.
Second, it is pure speculation that angels can change their dna into that of ours. That would almost make them quasi-gods. They are a created species like all of God's creation. We have no proof (biblical or otheriwise) that any creation can change their dna into that of another species.

I'm really liking the idea the TinyTim put forth from the book of Jasher. I will have to study that one more. Where in Jasher is that from?

 

[npetreley]

First, as I stated on the last page, these giants were already on the earth at that time, so those giants mentioned weren't the offspring of the sons of God / women.

Actually, the passage could be read to imply that the giants/nephilim were on the earth in those days because (when) the sons of God went into the daughters of men.

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Yes, it's pure speculation on what angels can do, just as it's pure speculation as to what they can't do.

I'm done with the topic, though. It's not important, and it's impossible to reach a firm conclusion either way, so I'm all argued out about it.

 

[webdog]

I am with you... I voted none of the above.
I think this is referring to the leaders, judges, or mighty men of old, that decided to take what they wanted because they had the authority.

There are other places in the Bible that speaks of humans as gods... meaning judges, or leaders....
John 10:34-35
(34) Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
(35) If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;


I believe this statement in Genesis is referring to the men of old that had God-given authority to lead.

BTW, the extra-biblical book of Jasher says about the same thing... they were judges.
"18 And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force

from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from
the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture
of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw
the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men
and all animals."​

Of course this is just my opinion, and I refuse to be dogmatic over it, so disagree all you want.​

Tim, wouldn't these men of old, the ones that had the God given ability to lead, still be righteous? Wouldn't they have come from the line of Seth?