IAMWEAK_2007
Member
Son's of God took as wives the daughters of men. Does this son's of God are human?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Genesis 6:2
- Thread starter IAMWEAK_2007
- Start date
Tom Butler
New Member
I've heard two views.
One, the sons of God are fallen angels and the daughters of men are human.
Two, the sons of God are the descendants of Seth and the daughters of men are descendants of the ungodly line of Cain.
Both views account for the growing wickedness of the people, but neither is completely satisfactory.
One, the sons of God are fallen angels and the daughters of men are human.
Two, the sons of God are the descendants of Seth and the daughters of men are descendants of the ungodly line of Cain.
Both views account for the growing wickedness of the people, but neither is completely satisfactory.
I see the second one as being completely satisfactory and the first one as absurd.
beameup
Member
bene ha elohim is always in reference to angels, not men in the O.T.
It clearly says the "daughters of Adam" in the Hebrew, not the "daughters of Seth".
The angels of Satan "volunteered" to forever lose their glorified bodies and have bodies similar to humans - including all sexual functions.
The resulting offspring were nephilim which were half-breeds. Corruption of the human DNA was the goal, which would have prevented a Savior
of the seed of Adam.
It clearly says the "daughters of Adam" in the Hebrew, not the "daughters of Seth".
The angels of Satan "volunteered" to forever lose their glorified bodies and have bodies similar to humans - including all sexual functions.
The resulting offspring were nephilim which were half-breeds. Corruption of the human DNA was the goal, which would have prevented a Savior
of the seed of Adam.
beameup.
Is that the part where Nicholas cage jumps off the skyscaper and lands on his head, so he could fornicate with meg ryan????:laugh::laugh:
Is that the part where Nicholas cage jumps off the skyscaper and lands on his head, so he could fornicate with meg ryan????:laugh::laugh:
Tom Butler
New Member
What is your source for the fallen angels who volunteered?
"Ditto" that for me, too, Rev!!!!:type::type:
Some see the sons of God as fallen angels who came in and begin a series of procreations with the women of that day----but that would simply mean that those fallen angels(as well as others who didn't fall) were all created with the ability to 1. Procreate with each other---which there is not one reference in the Bible to point to that ever happening and 2. They have the ability to procreate with man/woman----which would mean that God created them with the same exact DNA materials necessary to procreate as man and with man
I just don't see ----- from a medical point of view ---- anything of this fashion happening
I just don't see ----- from a spiritual point of view ----- anything like this happening
Last edited by a moderator:
This question has been discussed/debated a length in the past on the BB—but there are actually 3 main views that have various branches of thought.
1. the celestial being view (fallen angels or angels who fall b/c of this act)
2. the Sethite view (godly men who marry ungodly women)
3. judges/nobles/rulers view (high ranking officials who marry outside of their social class, possibly even forcing the women to marry)
While the Sethite view was popular in modern times it has fallen from favor among scholars for its various weaknesses (although Kenneth Matthews does do a good job supporting it in “The New American Commentary”). The celestial view has come to dominate the discussion in the past 20 or so years, but the judges/rulers view has seen a surge of support primarily due to the Mesopotamian studies & their relationship to the Bible done by such scholars as John Walton. It is even becoming popular to combine the rulers view & the angelic view. This being said—it is possible that all 3 events actually happened in the pre-deluge world, but I personally support the celestial view b/c of the original language (the bene elohim phrase being Hebrew idiom for angels, eg. Job 38:4-7), the context of the passage (the emphasis of contrast in the Hebrew between the ha’adam (mankind, earthly sphere) & bene elohim (divine or heavenly sphere), the history of interpretation (it being the oldest know explanation), & the NT support (esp 2 peter 2:4, jude 6). There are a few other reasons as well, but they would take to long to explain—lol. Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that there will never be enough evidence for any of the various theories to be unanimously accepted among Christians or Christian scholars. Hope this helps.
1. the celestial being view (fallen angels or angels who fall b/c of this act)
2. the Sethite view (godly men who marry ungodly women)
3. judges/nobles/rulers view (high ranking officials who marry outside of their social class, possibly even forcing the women to marry)
While the Sethite view was popular in modern times it has fallen from favor among scholars for its various weaknesses (although Kenneth Matthews does do a good job supporting it in “The New American Commentary”). The celestial view has come to dominate the discussion in the past 20 or so years, but the judges/rulers view has seen a surge of support primarily due to the Mesopotamian studies & their relationship to the Bible done by such scholars as John Walton. It is even becoming popular to combine the rulers view & the angelic view. This being said—it is possible that all 3 events actually happened in the pre-deluge world, but I personally support the celestial view b/c of the original language (the bene elohim phrase being Hebrew idiom for angels, eg. Job 38:4-7), the context of the passage (the emphasis of contrast in the Hebrew between the ha’adam (mankind, earthly sphere) & bene elohim (divine or heavenly sphere), the history of interpretation (it being the oldest know explanation), & the NT support (esp 2 peter 2:4, jude 6). There are a few other reasons as well, but they would take to long to explain—lol. Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that there will never be enough evidence for any of the various theories to be unanimously accepted among Christians or Christian scholars. Hope this helps.
Gosh, haven't any of you seen City of Angels?
Answers all these questions with a great GooGoo Dolls song.
Answers all these questions with a great GooGoo Dolls song.
Bronconagurski
New Member
quantumfaith
Active Member
Ditto for me two (too).
I didn’t realize that the absurdity of an idea determined its biblical reality—lol.
quantumfaith
Active Member
:laugh:
To be honest "absurdity" is a bit strong for me, but I feel it is much more likely to refer to "sethite" or "aristocratic" thingy.
:thumbs:
Virgin Birth???
Resurrection???
Red Sea parting???
Healings???
Cloud/Pillar of fire???
etc, etc, etc
If one wants to talk absurdity, the Bible is FULL of "absurdities"!:BangHead:
quantumfaith
Active Member
Is there not a difference between a clearly stated fact, and interpretations of passage meaning and intent.....but I can also see how the two can run together.