Genesis 6

I suspect your foundational assumption, Sons of God = angels, is flawed. Sons of God, elsewhere in scripture also refers to saved men. And nowhere in scripture is a demon ever refered to as a son of God. Besides, the law of procreation "after his kind" as given in Genesis 1 would make conception impossible between a demon/angel and a human. The more likely explanation, and in keeping with the context of Genesis, which deliniates between the ungodly line of Cain and the Godly line of Seth, is that the "sons of God" were saved men and the "daughters of men" were unsaved women. The "giants" were not necessarily giant in physical stature but renouned for their sinful acts and condition.

 

Dear MAC,

If you do a web search on "nephalim" (the Hebrew word for the KJV "giant") you will find that even ancient rabbis were divided concerning the identity and nature of "the sons of God" "the daughters of men", the nephalim and the giborim.

This one will keep you reading for a while.
Happy searching.

HankD

[ September 02, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

>Was not the offspring(Nephilim) of this sinful union the reason for the flood? 2nd Pet. 2:4&5. Gen. 6:9 Noah and his family where found pure in pedigree from Adam.>>

Yes, or so the theory goes.
The word nephilim itself comes from the Hebrew root NPL - to fall or in Genesis 6 - "the fallen ones" it has other meanings - an untimely birth or "abortion".
The dead lying in the battlefield and/or the ruins of war.

HankD

 

I have always understood those seeds to be beliefs. God planted truths, Satan planted lies.

 

It sounds to me like God put enmity between snakes and people, not Satan's seed and Eve's seed.

 

This is a good one! I admit that I had to refer to my trustworthy "Hard Sayings of the Bible" by WALTER C. KAISER JR., PETER H. DAVIDS, F.F. BRUCE, MANFRED T. BRAUCH, INTERVARSITY PRESS Downers Grove, Illinois

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Few texts in the history of interpretation have aroused more curiosity and divergence of opinion than Genesis 6:1-4. It is at once tantalizing and deeply puzzling. What is most difficult is the identification of the main participants in this short narrative—the “sons of God,” the “daughters of men” and the “Nephilim” (or “giants”). An impressive array of scholars has lined up for each of the three major positions taken on the identification of these three groups of participants. The three positions may be labeled “the cosmologically mixed races view” (angels and humans), “the religiously mixed races view” (godly Sethites and worldly Cainites) and “the sociologically mixed races view” (despotic male aristocrats and beautiful female commoners).
Nowhere else in Scripture are we told that angels married humans. In fact, our Lord specifically stated that angels do not marry (Mk 12:25).

Even more serious is the problem of why judgment should fall on the humans and on the earth if the angels of heaven were the cause of the trouble. God should have flooded heaven, not earth. The culprits came from above; the women seem to have been doing nothing except being beautiful!
To allege that “giants” were the results of such sexual unions is once again to go beyond any data we possess in Scripture. Did the angels procreate without the use of natural bodies? Or did they already possess natural bodies? Or did they create for themselves natural bodies by the use of some mysterious, intrinsic, but rebellious power? Any and all answers to such questions would be purely speculative.
The religiously mixed races view identifies the “sons of God” as the godly line of Seth. Given the sin they committed, they are generally looked on as the apostate line of Seth. “The daughters of men” are equated with the ungodly line of Cain. The sin condemned, then, would be the sin of being “unequally yoked”—that is, the marriage of believers to unbelievers.
This view also fails to meet the test of consistency with the biblical data and context. It uses the term men in verses 1 and 2 in two different senses: in verse 1 “men” is used to indicate humanity generically, while in verse 2 it is understood to refer to the Cainite line specifically. Suggesting such an abrupt change in meaning without any indication in the text is unwarranted.
But even more alarming is the problem of the offspring. Why would religiously mixed marriages produce nepôiliòm-gibboòriòm (or, as some translate this Hebrew expression, “giants”)? Does the mixture of pagan and godly genes assure that the offspring’s DNA will be wild and grotesque?
This religiously mixed view should be abandoned as well as the cosmologically mixed view. Neither one can stand the weight of the evidence of the passage.
The preferable interpretation of this passage is the sociologically mixed view.
“Sons of God” is an early, but typical, reference to the titularies for kings, nobles and aristocrats in the ancient Near Eastern setting. These power-hungry despots
not only lusted after power but also were powerfully driven to become “men of a
name” (or “men of renown”—Gen 6:4).
In their thirst for recognition and reputation, they despotically usurped
control of the states they governed as if they were accountable to no one but
themselves. Thus they perverted the whole concept of the state and the provision
that God had made for some immediate amelioration of earth’s injustices and
inequities (Gen 6:5-6; see also Gen 10:8-12). They also became polygamous,
taking and marrying “any of [the women] they chose” (Gen 6:2).
What evidence can be produced for the correctness of this view? There are
five lines of evidence. (1) The ancient Aramaic Targums render “sons of God” as
“sons of nobles” (Targums of Onkelos), and the Greek translation of Symmachus
reads “the sons of the kings or lords.” (2) The word gods (Hebrew eloôhiŒòm) is
used in Scripture for men who served as magistrates or judges (“Then his master
must take him before the judges [eloôhiŒòm],” Ex 21:6; see also Ex 22:8; Ps 82:1,6). (3) Structurally, the account of the Cainite Lamech (Gen 4:19-24) and that of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 are very much alike. In each there is the
taking of wives, the bearing of children and the dynastic exploits. The former
passage ends with a boast of judgment by Lamech, and the other ends with God’s
decree of judgment. Lamech practiced bigamy (Gen 4:19), and he enforced his policies by using tyranny. The portraits are parallel and depict states of tyranny, corruption and polygamy. (4) Near Eastern discoveries have validated the pagan use of all sorts of gods’ and goddesses’ names in order to give more clout and prestige to the governments of Egypt and Mesopotamia—hence the title “sons of God.”
The fifth and final line of evidence concerns the nepôilŒòm/gibboòrim of
Genesis 6:4. The word nepôilŒòm occurs only here and in Numbers 13:33, where it refers to the Anakim, who were people of great stature. The root meaning of the word nepôilŒòm is “to fall.” However in Genesis 6:4 the nepôilŒòm are associated with the term gibbo The word gibboòrŒòm comes from gibboòr, meaning “a mighty man of valor, strength, wealth or power.” Nimrod, in Genesis 10:8, was such a gibboòr. He also was clearly a king in the land of Shinar.
Hence the meaning of nepôilŒòm/gibboòrim is not “giants,” but something more like “princes,” “aristocrats” or “great men.”
Genesis 6:1-4, therefore, is best understood as depicting ambitious, despotic
and autocratic rulers seizing both women and power in an attempt to gain all the
authority and notoriety they could from those within their reach. Their progeny
were, not surprisingly, adversely affected, and so it was that God was grieved over the increased wickedness on planet Earth. Every inclination of the hearts and thoughts of humanity was evil. Thus the flood had to come to judge humankind for the perversion of authority, the state, justice and human sexuality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ September 02, 2001: Message edited by: John Wells - formerly wellsjs ]

 

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

It sounds like a snake to me.

 

The fundamental problem here is that angels are not able to procreate. They are a company not a race. They "do not marry and are not given in marriage." Hence they could not procreate with women.

Secondly nachash does mean snake everywhere else in the OT. There is no reason to think that it does not mean snake here.

 

Dear MAC,

You've asked my opinion concerning Genesis 6.
To be honest I've waffled over the years concerning the passage in question. I have no solid conviction concerning this except to say that I have no doubt whatsoever that that old serpent the devil is alive and well doing his deeds. As you said, we know his agenda from Matthew 13 and other scriptures.

But we've both read the end of the Book.
Plus, we have our Father's promise of safety.

KJV 1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

HankD

 

Why I believe the evidence points toward Sons of God being Angels.

As it has already been pointed out the Hebrew underlining this is translated Angels
elsewhere in Scripture. But the most convincing is in Job, where the Sons of God came with Satan to talk with God.

There is much more than just a Godly line meeting the ungodly. If that were true, several problems would result. Such as an entire line being corrupt! Everyone? Or the entire line being good? All of them? And why such a sever judgment on intermarriages? And was there a command not to intermarry? Was the men pure and the women not pure? And the Bible makes it clear that only Noah was holy.

Satan did want to destroy the human line that would produce our Savior. This was his
motive. When we read the text in Genesis 6, certainly this is more than unique or bizarre! But so are a lot of things found in Scripture. And we must note that these people were thinking evil continually, and their thoughts were always evil. Non stop. This is certainly not the case with every person today as Genesis teaches it affected everyon We now have good thoughts. Even lost people have good thoughts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2 Peter 2:4
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed
them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; NASU<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we find that there were angels that sinned, and they were cast into a place translated hell but in the Greek it is:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>NT:5020 tartaroo (tar-tar-o'-o); from Tartaros (the deepest abyss of Hades); to
incarcerate in eternal torment: KJV - cast down to hell.:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a special place for angels. Now to prove this is the same angels in Genesis is
impossible. But this is a bit of evidence. It also says that these angels are in chains until future judgment. I think this judgment is the judgment of Revelation 9. The would be human judgment.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jude 6-7 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home-these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. NIV<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is more evidence of angels who did something that was compared to Sodom and
Gomorrah and the sexual immorality. They are bound in chains for future judgment. Again I believe this is human judgment found in Revelation 9.

Jesus said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Luke 17:26-31
"Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. "It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. "It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. NIV<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many think this refers to the times before the rapture, the world will be corrupt. But there is something else happening that must be unique, such as a weird marriages. Now the Angels are bound in chains, but I believe they will be let loose in Revelation 9. What is the first thing we read after the events in Revelation 9?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rev 10:1 Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; ... NIV<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember the rainbow is Gods reminder that the flood will never happen again. This is
after Genesis 6. And in Genesis 6:4 it says that there were giants in the earth in those
days, and also after that

It has been stated that the Angels can’t have sexual relations. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Matt 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like
angels of God in heaven.
NKJV<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above only affirms that the Angels of God, in heaven in the resurrection are not given in marriage. And if we read the account of Sodom again remember the perverted men of that city lusted after angels sent by God to warn Lot. Yes they were in the form of man, but that only proves that it is possible for angels to take on human form, and they can be lusted after.

One final note: This is a neat study. I believe that the sons of God are angels because the evidence points to that. I would not be dogmatic on my conclusions and would be open minded to further discussion. I have questions even in my own studies. I am not sure that the angles produced the nephiyl. They did show up again in Numbers 13. What is interesting is the term giants. Type that into your PC and compare those results. They are never spoken of in a positive light.

With love,

Chet

 

B.G.Mac & Chet, your exegesis of Gen. 6 is flawed. You have given the answer by Dr. Cassidy, John Wells & others and you seem to ignore it altogether. Is there a point to go further? What you are doing is kicking a dead horse. This subject has been thoroughly discussed a while back on the board - sorry that you have missed it.