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

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.

 

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:

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?

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

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

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

 

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...

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.

 

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.

 

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:

 

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.

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.

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...

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

 

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.

 

* 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

 

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.​

 

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.

 

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.

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.