Genesis 6:1-4

[kyredneck]

FYI (for what it's worth):

“The first, and oldest interpretation, belief is that "the sons of God" were actually fallen angels who consorted or mated with human women, which produced giant offspring called in the Hebrew (nephilim). This view was widely believed in the world of the first century, and was supported by such men as, Flavius Josephus, Philo, Eusebius, and many of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers," which included Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Ireaeus, Athenagoras, and Commodianus......”

http://www.christianarticles.net/ar...&title=Who-Were-The-Sons-Of-God-In-Genesis-6?

 

[Allan]

Pink says yes:

B]The reference in Jude 6 to the angels leaving their own habitation, appears to point to and correspond with these "sons of God" (angels) coming in unto the daughters of men[/B].”

This is what I was saying earlier.. it based off of assumption with nothing in the text telling us that this is what is being refered back to.

Pink would have us believe that 'after' satan and his followers were cast down for their rebellion that apparently other 'angels' in heaven that didn't follow after Satan, decided there was something else much more desirous than power.. 's*x. This makes no sense.

First, How can they become desirous of something they had never done and according to Christ never could do?

Second, are we to assume there was two rebellious events in heaven? Those who followed after Satan, and those who wanted s*x?

Another point I already addressed in my previous post to Hank.

Thus the only answer I can concieve is No, the plain meaning and reading of the text is refering to those who left their position/standing of heaven to follow after Satan, hoping to aquire greater standing/station than they previously had.


This is not directed at you personally but are honest questions I believe specifically deal not only with the text but the whole of scripture as well, on this issue.

 

[menageriekeeper]

It has occurred to me that Christ's pronouncement that angels don't marry or procreate "in heaven", might not apply to fallen angels, who no longer veiw God as their authority. Christ only says that angel don't marry/procreate. He doens't say they can't. There is a difference.

I still prefer the Seth/Cain linage theory, though that fails to answer the question of the giants.

 

[Allan]

FYI (for what it's worth):

“The first, and oldest interpretation, belief is that "the sons of God" were actually fallen angels who consorted or mated with human women, which produced giant offspring called in the Hebrew (nephilim). This view was widely believed in the world of the first century, and was supported by such men as, Flavius Josephus, Philo, Eusebius, and many of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers," which included Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Ireaeus, Athenagoras, and Commodianus......”

http://www.christianarticles.net/ar...&title=Who-Were-The-Sons-Of-God-In-Genesis-6?

Acatully, this isn't quite true.
While yes, the view was in the first century church (predominantly Jewish at the time) it was not actaully a 'widely' held view in that it was predominant. It was 'widely' held in that it was a belief found not just in one or two places.
Now to understand this better and why the first century church being predominant Jewish figures into this, is that by this time many of the more mystic/liberal Jewish views were being taught, one of which was that Gen 6 was speaking of fallen angels cohabitating with woman creating and thus the view would have been somthing we see in varous places of the early first century church. THough I would not state the view was 'supported' by the others as their writting contained very little on the specific subject nor was any of their works created to validate or support such a view. Yet the author gives us no citiation from which his ascertion can be proved or disproved. We are only to take him at his word with no proof and, for all intents and purposes, that is not a good place to speak from.

However with respect to the second part regarding the Ante-Nicene fathers, of which I don't necessarily disagree, he again gives us no citations of or from them to validate his ascertion. I have all the Ante-Nicene fathers works and though I know of a 'few' I can not state with him that this view was held as orthodox to the church either in the first century nor with the Ante-Nicene fathers.

 

[kyredneck]

.....Pink would have us believe that 'after' satan and his followers were cast down for their rebellion that apparently other 'angels' in heaven that didn't follow after Satan, decided there was something else much more desirous than power.. 's*x. ....

Allan, I guess I'm missing something; where did Pink say all that? I don't see anywhere that he mentions 'after' Satan and his followers were cast down for their rebellion..... What he's saying is that this was a deliberate attack by Satan on the human race in order to thwart the coming of 'the seed of the woman' that was to bruise his (Satan's) head.

....How can they become desirous of something they had never done....

You're asking a question that I think no human is qualified to answer.

..... and according to Christ never could do?

I'll let Pink answer that:

“....Against the view that "the sons of God" refer to fallen angels Matthew 22:30 is often cited. But when the contents of this verse are closely studied it will be found there is, really, nothing in it which conflicts with what we have said above. Had our Lord said, "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God" and stopped there, the objection would have real force. But the Lord did not stop there. He added a qualifying clause about the angels: He said "as the angels of God in heaven." The last two words make all the difference. The angels in heaven neither marry nor are they given in marriage. But the angels referred to in Genesis 6 as the "sons of God" were no longer in heaven: as Jude 6 expressly informs us "they left their own principality.".....”

Second, are we to assume there was two rebellious events in heaven? Those who followed after Satan, and those who wanted s*x?

Again, maybe I'm missing something, but where is Pink referring to any rebellions? Although these angel's behavior was definitely rebellious, I think you might be reading something else into this that Pink is not saying.

This is not directed at you personally but are honest questions I believe specifically deal not only with the text but the whole of scripture as well, on this issue.

Thanks Allan. In no way am I taking this personal; the fact is I enjoy it immensely.

Do you see a connection here?

For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Pet 2:4-5

 

[kyredneck]

Acatully, this isn't quite true.
While yes, the view was in the first century church (predominantly Jewish at the time) it was not actaully a 'widely' held view in that it was predominant. It was 'widely' held in that it was a belief found not just in one or two places.
Now to understand this better and why the first century church being predominant Jewish figures into this, is that by this time many of the more mystic/liberal Jewish views were being taught, one of which was that Gen 6 was speaking of fallen angels cohabitating with woman creating and thus the view would have been somthing we see in varous places of the early first century church. THough I would not state the view was 'supported' by the others as their writting contained very little on the specific subject nor was any of their works created to validate or support such a view. Yet the author gives us no citiation from which his ascertion can be proved or disproved. We are only to take him at his word with no proof and, for all intents and purposes, that is not a good place to speak from.

However with respect to the second part regarding the Ante-Nicene fathers, of which I don't necessarily disagree, he again gives us no citations of or from them to validate his ascertion. I have all the Ante-Nicene fathers works and though I know of a 'few' I can not state with him that this view was held as orthodox to the church either in the first century nor with the Ante-Nicene fathers.

The reason I 'throwed' that in there was to point out that this is/was not a view held only by Pink, but that it's been around for a long, long time.

 

[Allan]

It has occurred to me that Christ's pronouncement that angels don't marry or procreate "in heaven", might not apply to fallen angels, who no longer veiw God as their authority. Christ only says that angel don't marry/procreate. He doens't say they can't. There is a difference.

I still prefer the Seth/Cain linage theory
though that fails to answer the question of the giants.

First, there were giants in the land prior to this event and there were giants in the land after the flood, Noah and his children, who were of the line/lineage of Seth.

Also the term, in heaven, refers or give specific connotation to them being spiritual beings, like the angels are. This is important to understand since Jesus was speaking to the sadducees who not only did not believe in a literal bodily resurrection but also denied the existance of any type of spiritual existance of us as well as any type of angelic being. Therefore Jesus reference here is specifically dealing with two issues at once.

However the 'in heaven' does not relegate the specific nature of spirit being only to heaven, since demons are fallen angels then the nature of their being is no different than that of the angels of heaven. Therefore in understanding that Jesus was dealing with the nature of the their being as well as ours at death, we also know fallen angels are of the same nature (in which they were created) and being as all other spirit beings.

Another point I would like to address about these fallen angels doing what they want because they do not see God as their authority anymore.
Satan couldn't even tempt Job without God's express permission and not only thatwe find no where in scripture that they do not respect nor adhere to God's authority anymore but in fact we see the very opposite except that they were cast out and awaiting their eventual judgment.
Remember that scripture tells us .. the devils (demons) believe in God and tremble.

Therefore let us not forget that demons DO see God as their authority. He is not an authority they willingly obey, but they do obey His every command.

Thus the point of Jesus statement was two fold. One is that Jesus was dealing with spirits beings being real or existing. And two.. was speaking of those things (not precreating, marrying, or given in marriage) pertaining to those beings in heaven (like the angels - all of whom were created in like fashion) and thereby by extention includes those fallen angels (also angels from heaven) who were created just like the other angels before they fell.

Remember, this is not a command in heaven which they can not do, this deals with their very nature and creation. God states that all things procreate after their own kind, but angels do not procreate themselves, according to Jesus, thus marriage has no meaning in heaven and is the very reason there is no marriage nor given in marriage since it's main function is to create life/another being in a God honoring way. Angels are only created by God Himself.

 

[kyredneck]

....Satan couldn't even tempt Job without God's express permission ....

Perhaps a topic for another thread; you think he had God's permission to tempt Adam and/or Eve?

 

[Allan]

Allan, I guess I'm missing something; where did Pink say all that? I don't see anywhere that he mentions 'after' Satan and his followers were cast down for their rebellion..... What he's saying is that this was a deliberate attack by Satan on the human race in order to thwart the coming of 'the seed of the woman' that was to bruise his (Satan's) head.

Pink didn't say it specifically but if we take him at his word then we have 2 definate rebellions in heaven. One with Satan and his followers that were cast down either prior to or around man's time of creation. Then by Pinks ascersion, we have another group of angels, who did not rebel with Satan and thus still in heaven, that began to lust after woman. This lusting was so intence that they forsake their principalities (turned away) to fulfill their s*xual desires with these woman, and married them.

I understand what he is saying but please show me in scripture where we see this is 'Satan's' attact on mankind. This is supposition without any basis. There is nothing in scripture to point us even remotely in that direction. One main point of contention here is that Satan couldn't do any such thing without God's express permission for Him to go ahead and do it.

You're asking a question that I think no human is qualified to answer.

I agree, but I believe God, who knows the answer, has already give us the answer.

I'll let Pink answer that:

“....Against the view that "the sons of God" refer to fallen angels Matthew 22:30 is often cited. But when the contents of this verse are closely studied it will be found there is, really, nothing in it which conflicts with what we have said above. Had our Lord said, "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God" and stopped there, the objection would have real force. But the Lord did not stop there. He added a qualifying clause about the angels: He said "as the angels of God in heaven." The last two words make all the difference. The angels in heaven neither marry nor are they given in marriage. But the angels referred to in Genesis 6 as the "sons of God" were no longer in heaven: as Jude 6 expressly informs us "they left their own principality.".....”

First, he connects to the passages where connection is neither biblically given nor specifically made allusion to.

Again, maybe I'm missing something, but where is Pink referring to any rebellions? Although these angel's behavior was definitely rebellious, I think you might be reading something else into this that Pink is not saying.

Again, Pink did not specifically state 'two' rebellions however there can be no other conclusion drawn from his commentary of two rebellious events in heaven by the two different groups of angels. One group for power and the other s*xual desires.

Thanks Allan. In no way am I taking this personal; the fact is I enjoy it immensely.

Me too.

Do you see a connection here?

For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Pet 2:4-5

No, there is no connection in the Greek or English, at least in the manner you are thinking. While the two independant sentences are connected, but the connection is not relating to the same event but the same issue regarding sin. Peter phrases the issue at hand with two seperate and distinct sentences and uses both connectively to convey a central point key to both aspects.. when a being sins and remains therein, they will not be spared in judgment. Both sentences shows/illstrates God's absolute judgment and finality against sin.

Trust me, I understand the argument and see where they are coming from but I do not find the evidence for it compelling.

 

[Allan]

Perhaps a topic for another thread; you think he had God's permission to tempt Adam and/or Eve?

Yes, I do.

 

[Allan]

The reason I 'throwed' that in there was to point out that this is/was not a view held only by Pink, but that it's been around for a long, long time.

Yes, I acknowledge that Pink is not the only one to hold such a view. :saint:

 

[nodak]

Gotta go with kyredneck and pink on this one.

Gotta lot of believers marrying unbelievers around here, sadly, and not a giant to be found.

 

[Amy.G]

From what I've read, the phrase "sons of God" is a Hebrew term meaning angels and is only used this way in the OT. The Jews were very familiar with this meaning.

 

[webdog]

Remember that Genesis was written by Moses in the wilderness, prior to the Hebrews going into the promised land. God specifically warned them not to intermarry with the Caananites.

I believe Moses was demonstrating the problems that arise when God's people marry the ungodly.

So, the Sons of God are the godly line of Seth. The daughters of men are the ungodly line of Cain.

The "giants" refer to the kings of the cities that were being built.

That is my take on it.

peace to youraying:

This is my take on it as well :thumbs:

 

[webdog]

FYI (for what it's worth):

I thought FYI meant "for your information...and FWIW meant "for what it's worth"

 

[webdog]

Gotta go with kyredneck and pink on this one.

Gotta lot of believers marrying unbelievers around here, sadly, and not a giant to be found.

You don't get to see the NBA much?

 

[webdog]

From what I've read, the phrase "sons of God" is a Hebrew term meaning angels and is only used this way in the OT. The Jews were very familiar with this meaning.

I think the NT must be taken into account as well, as the jews are the primary recipient of this as well.

 

[Amy.G]

I think the NT must be taken into account as well, as the jews are the primary recipient of this as well.

Sons of God in the NT always refers to human beings who are the children of God through Christ.

In the OT, Sons of God refers to angels, always.

 

[psalms109:31]

Son of God

Psalm 82:
6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'

7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."
8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Perhaps a topic for another thread; you think he had God's permission to tempt Adam and/or Eve?

Because this interests me, I'm going to go start new thread on it.


Back to the OP. Could the word "giants" be a modifier in describing "men of reknown"? We sometimes say "he is a giant among men" when we really mean "He is well known/well respected". Could this be the case?