Sons of God

[KingdomBelvr]

Serpent Seed

The Serpent Seed doctrine is actually derived from the Sethite-Cainite interpretation, and not the angelic sons of God-human wives interpretation.
S.S. believes that Satan impregnated Eve with Cain, and it is Cain's offspring that carry the Satan gene, and the Sethites carry the godly Adam gene. This idea finds fertile soil with the racist Christian Identity groups who teach it as a reason to consider blacks and Jews an inferior, evil race, because they teach that everyone white is Sethite, and everyone else is Cainite.

Anyone who is not a Saduccee should be able to see that the sons of God are angellic in Gen. 6, based on the "first mention principle" (the book of Job preceding all the books of the Bible chronologically). The angels who sinned were then chained in the bottomless pit (Jude/2 Peter). The disembodied spirits of the Nephilim who perished in the flood, being hybrids, are the demons, or evil spirits that Jesus Christ and his apostles went about casting out of people. So there is a difference between fallen angels and demons. I think the procreation on the earth of the fallen angels with human women was an attempt of Satan and those who followed him to try to tip the numeric scales in his favor.

I think it is possible that some will see a resurgence of fallen angel lust during the tribulation period. "Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." (Luke 21:36)

 

[webdog]

Anyone who is not a Saduccee should be able to see that the sons of God are angellic in Gen. 6, based on the "first mention principle" (the book of Job preceding all the books of the Bible chronologically).

This is based on the presupposition that the sons of God in Job are angels. I believe they are righteous men who present themselves before God here on earth.

Welcome to the BB, btw.

 

[paidagogos]

This is based on the presupposition that the sons of God in Job are angels. I believe they are righteous men who present themselves before God here on earth.

Welcome to the BB, btw.

That's your presupposition. How do you know? Schofield?

 

[paidagogos]

No, your ideal is diametrically opposed to sound reason because it suggests the incorporation of other verses taken in their own context all the while Genesis 6:3 should only be taken in its context.

False! You are reading your own preconceived ideas into my statements. I have said nothing of the kind. In fact, I have not openly committed to either view. I asked questions and you assume that I hold a certain position. How unsound can one be?

It is hermenuetically incorrect to assume something by comparing Scripture to Scripture apart from the contexual meaning expressed in the original example.

So what's your point? This has nothing to do with me? BTW, what contextual meaning in Genesis 6:2 indicates that the "sons of God" were men?

I had no understanding of Gen 6:3 except in its context that it is dealing specifically with man and his wickedness.

Where do you find the prohibition of marriage between the two postulated lines of mankind? Also, why are the terms "men" ('adam) referenced in v. 1 and "man" ('adam) in v. 3 differentiated from the "sons of God?" Contextually, there is no more support for the saying the "sons of God" refer to a specific genealogy than angels. Why did God judge the whole race if there were two separate lines, godly and ungodly, and one sinned by marrying into the ungodly line? Did the "daughters of men" sin by marrying a godly line? Were they prohibited from marrying godly husbands? Both views lack definite and unambiguous support from the text.

Interjecting angellic beings when none have been mentioned beforehand is simply ludicrous.

No more ludicrous than spectulating on two lines of the human race when no such thing is taught in the Scriptures. You must not confuse the Schofield notes with Scripture itself.

 

[paidagogos]

Oops, double posted.

 

[webdog]

That's your presupposition. How do you know? Schofield?

By a plain reading of the text. I haven't read Scofield. Plenty of men throughout Scripture have presented themselves before the Lord.

 

[paidagogos]

By a plain reading of the text. I haven't read Scofield. Plenty of men throughout Scripture have presented themselves before the Lord.

Okay, where does it say this in the text or intimates it? Please post the text. If it is that obvious, then the rest of us should be able to see it too. I must have missed it.

 

[Salamander]

The Serpent Seed doctrine is actually derived from the Sethite-Cainite interpretation, and not the angelic sons of God-human wives interpretation.

Do you know what I mean by "left-outfied"?

S.S. believes that Satan impregnated Eve with Cain, and it is Cain's offspring that carry the Satan gene, and the Sethites carry the godly Adam gene. This idea finds fertile soil with the racist Christian Identity groups who teach it as a reason to consider blacks and Jews an inferior, evil race, because they teach that everyone white is Sethite, and everyone else is Cainite.

That belief is stranger than fiction.

It also uses a belief system that is diametrically opposed to the rest of Scripture.

Anyone who is not a Saduccee should be able to see that the sons of God are angellic in Gen. 6, based on the "first mention principle" (the book of Job preceding all the books of the Bible chronologically). The angels who sinned were then chained in the bottomless pit (Jude/2 Peter). The disembodied spirits of the Nephilim who perished in the flood, being hybrids, are the demons, or evil spirits that Jesus Christ and his apostles went about casting out of people. So there is a difference between fallen angels and demons. I think the procreation on the earth of the fallen angels with human women was an attempt of Satan and those who followed him to try to tip the numeric scales in his favor.

With fantastical beliefs like that, it's no wonder so many turn away from the Truth, what you're espousing is a fable.

I think it is possible that some will see a resurgence of fallen angel lust during the tribulation period. "Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." (Luke 21:36)

I agree with your Scripture reference, but never will I agree with your fantastical view of it.

 

[Salamander]

False! You are reading your own preconceived ideas into my statements. I have said nothing of the kind. In fact, I have not openly committed to either view. I asked questions and you assume that I hold a certain position. How unsound can one be?So what's your point? This has nothing to do with me? BTW, what contextual meaning in Genesis 6:2 indicates that the "sons of God" were men?Where do you find the prohibition of marriage between the two postulated lines of mankind? Also, why are the terms "men" ('adam) referenced in v. 1 and "man" ('adam) in v. 3 differentiated from the "sons of God?" Contextually, there is no more support for the saying the "sons of God" refer to a specific genealogy than angels. Why did God judge the whole race if there were two separate lines, godly and ungodly, and one sinned by marrying into the ungodly line? Did the "daughters of men" sin by marrying a godly line? Were they prohibited from marrying godly husbands? Both views lack definite and unambiguous support from the text.No more ludicrous than spectulating on two lines of the human race when no such thing is taught in the Scriptures. You must not confuse the Schofield notes with Scripture itself.

I never read much from C.I. Scofield.

To answer your statement about the judgement of God on all men, it seems you think that God caused everyone to die except Noah and his crew for thier sin? Is death the judgement of God upon all men for sin and that without remedy?

What you seem to be saying that because men die there is no salvation, yet Noah died as well.

It is rather obvious that others died in the flood that were also following God in some respect.

 

[webdog]

Okay, where does it say this in the text or intimates it? Please post the text. If it is that obvious, then the rest of us should be able to see it too. I must have missed it.

Simple, sons of God elsewhere throughout Scripture is referring to mankind. Only that ONE place in Scripture can the argument POSSIBLY be made that sons of God refers to angels.

 

[paidagogos]

Simple, sons of God elsewhere throughout Scripture is referring to mankind. Only that ONE place in Scripture can the argument POSSIBLY be made that sons of God refers to angels.

But, I don't think your argument is valid because of the five times that the exact phrase "sons of God" appears in the OT, three times (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) it does apparently refer to angels. On the other hand, the "sons of God" as it occurs in the NT is definitely connected to the completed work of Christ and is contextually different from its usage in the OT. I don't think you can establish that the use of the phrase is synonymous between the OT and the NT. Thus, your argument is fatally flawed.

 

[webdog]

I don't think you can establish that the use of the phrase is synonymous between the OT and the NT. Thus, your argument is fatally flawed.

2 Timothy 3:16 would disagree.

 

[Salamander]

But, I don't think your argument is valid because of the five times that the exact phrase "sons of God" appears in the OT, three times (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) it does apparently refer to angels. On the other hand, the "sons of God" as it occurs in the NT is definitely connected to the completed work of Christ and is contextually different from its usage in the OT. I don't think you can establish that the use of the phrase is synonymous between the OT and the NT. Thus, your argument is fatally flawed.

Actually, webdog holds to a more realistic view of Scripture.

No real separation inbetween the sons of God in O.T. / N.T. exists; both are those who are following God.

Fallen angels were neither following after God, nor could they be referred to as sons of God in the respect you would like to keep saying they must be, de to their , per se; blatant disregard for the order set in place by the Lord.

It seems te more one thinks aout this, the more proof occur against them being anything but human.:wavey:

 

[paidagogos]

2 Timothy 3:16 would disagree.

How so? Make the connection.

 

[paidagogos]

Actually, webdog holds to a more realistic view of Scripture.

That's your opinion because you apparently agree with him. However, what qualifies you to judge between us? BTW, what does this have to do with anything? It seems that this thread is about ideas, not the comparison of persons or one's ascendency over another.

No real separation inbetween the sons of God in O.T. / N.T. exists; both are those who are following God.

Are you saying that the "sons of God" in Job were men of a godly line? How do you know? This does not appear to be the context.

Fallen angels were neither following after God, nor could they be referred to as sons of God in the respect you would like to keep saying they must be, de to their , per se; blatant disregard for the order set in place by the Lord.

How do you know that "sons of God" indicates beings who are "following after God?" Could the language refer to their status as created beings of power and splendor? It is not sufficient to make the assertion without support or apparent reasoning. Furthermore, how do you know "the order set in place by the Lord?" Where does it tell us this information in Scripture?

It seems te more one thinks aout this, the more proof occur against them being anything but human.:wavey:

Please address the argument instead of restating your opinion as fact. You have offered no proof. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion but recognize it for what it is--unsupported opinion. There appears to be little definitive evidence for either side. A person of truly broad understanding would recognize this and respect the other viewpoint as well.

Do you know which view I hold? I haven't told you.

 

[Salamander]

That's your opinion because you apparently agree with him. However, what qualifies you to judge between us? BTW, what does this have to do with anything? It seems that this thread is about ideas, not the comparison of persons or one's ascendency over another.

I have never even hinted towards anything of the sort. You are alone to introduce that thought.

Are you saying that the "sons of God" in Job were men of a godly line? How do you know? This does not appear to be the context.

By what standard are you making this judgement, by what some rabbinic order states or some commentary you've read? And how is it they cannot be those who are following the Lord to the point of presenting themselves before Him, that He might see if there be any uncleanliness in them?

How do you know that "sons of God" indicates beings who are "following after God?" Could the language refer to their status as created beings of power and splendor? It is not sufficient to make the assertion without support or apparent reasoning.

The ascertion is made by them being called "sons", no other life form uses that distinction in reference to offspring. Besides, in Heaven neither do they marry or are they given in marriage. Why is it to be any different here? Jesus gave us the model prayer to indicate it is God's will for it to be just like it is in Heaven.

Furthermore, how do you know "the order set in place by the Lord?" Where does it tell us this information in Scripture?Please address the argument instead of restating your opinion as fact. You have offered no proof. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion but recognize it for what it is--unsupported opinion. There appears to be little definitive evidence for either side.

All anyone has to do is comprehend what being made after their kind means.

A person of truly broad understanding would recognize this and respect the other viewpoint as well.

Your questions are answered only if you will accept the truth, but this last statement of yours reaks of a nearly slanderous intent.

Do you know which view I hold? I haven't told you.

Your view has been expressed several times in your repeated demand for "more proof".

What is your view, or do you wish to remain to appear as dishonest?

My view holds to a realistic view. To believe the sons of God were anything other than human is a fantasy incorporated to try and explain other Scripture through the rationalizations of men, the same way Christians try to explain the Gap Theory as a means to accomodate scientific evidences.

The question I have for you? Are all the fallen angels bound? If they are, then how do the agents of satan have the free roam they have in tempting men?

Only certain angels are bound under the River Euphrates, four to be exact. Why is it you seem to think all of the total of 1/3 are bound there and elsewhere?

 

[paidagogos]

I have never even hinted towards anything of the sort. You are alone to introduce that thought. By what standard are you making this judgement, by what some rabbinic order states or some commentary you've read? And how is it they cannot be those who are following the Lord to the point of presenting themselves before Him, that He might see if there be any uncleanliness in them? The ascertion is made by them being called "sons", no other life form uses that distinction in reference to offspring. Besides, in Heaven neither do they marry or are they given in marriage. Why is it to be any different here? Jesus gave us the model prayer to indicate it is God's will for it to be just like it is in Heaven. All anyone has to do is comprehend what being made after their kind means. Your questions are answered only if you will accept the truth, but this last statement of yours reaks of a nearly slanderous intent.

Oh, come off it! When one's argument lacks content and persuasive force, one yells and uses inflammatory language.

Your view has been expressed several times in your repeated demand for "more proof".

Did it ever occur to you that I could be arguing the opposite side simply for the sake of argument and debate?

What is your view, or do you wish to remain to appear as dishonest?

Evidently you don't understand the concept of honesty and dishonesty. To argue one side or the other does not bind one to a commitment of belief. Your inferences are unfounded. It would appear that you are resorting to innuendo and ad hominem insinuations when you are lacking in substance. Need I say more? The readers are intelligent enough to read and know. Please don't embarrass yourself further.

My view holds to a realistic view. To believe the sons of God were anything other than human is a fantasy incorporated to try and explain other Scripture through the rationalizations of men, the same way Christians try to explain the Gap Theory as a means to accomodate scientific evidences.

The question I have for you? Are all the fallen angels bound? If they are, then how do the agents of satan have the free roam they have in tempting men?

Only certain angels are bound under the River Euphrates, four to be exact. Why is it you seem to think all of the total of 1/3 are bound there and elsewhere?

Well, have at it then! For one who claims to be eminently Biblical, you sure spout off a lot of extra-Biblical speculation. You make unwarranted leaps and darts here and there according to your own presuppositions. My dear man, you are overly confident and self-deceived in thinking that you know more than you do. No, I don't know that exactly four angels are bound under the River Euphrates and neither do you. Where did you find this information?

 

[Salamander]

Oh, come off it! When one's argument lacks content and persuasive force, one yells and uses inflammatory language.Did it ever occur to you that I could be arguing the opposite side simply for the sake of argument and debate?Evidently you don't understand the concept of honesty and dishonesty. To argue one side or the other does not bind one to a commitment of belief. Your inferences are unfounded. It would appear that you are resorting to innuendo and ad hominem insinuations when you are lacking in substance. Need I say more? The readers are intelligent enough to read and know. Please don't embarrass yourself further.Well, have at it then! For one who claims to be eminently Biblical, you sure spout off a lot of extra-Biblical speculation. You make unwarranted leaps and darts here and there according to your own presuppositions. My dear man, you are overly confident and self-deceived in thinking that you know more than you do. No, I don't know that exactly four angels are bound under the River Euphrates and neither do you. Where did you find this information?

I see you cannot answer the questions so you resort to inflammatory conjectures.

 

[skypair]

Is there someone who can explain this thinking that the Genesis "sons of God" were angels? The only other place I've heard that stuff is in books on the occult and in the "gospel of Enoch" a supposed ancient Hebrew document of the Apocrypha.

That's a very interesting topic, Rubato. Go right back to Job 1 and consider ---- most will tell you that the "sons of God" there are angels but maybe they are earthly believers, Gen 4:26. The descendants of Seth called "sons of God." I am thinking there might be a "convention" in scriptures that in the OT these souls were "angels" here and in the NT they are in heaven.

"Boiled down," it seems to me that the idea of "guardian angel" -- "angels of the churches" (Rev 2-3) -- angels singing the same song that only the 144,000 could sing (Re 14 & 15) -- "ye are seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" -- etc. these are all examples of the heavenly counterpart (souls) of our earthly bodies.

Now maybe someone can straighten me out on this (I'm not Mormon, BTW). Or maybe my "intro" has been too sketchy. But are we "seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus?" In what way if not this? In what way are we "not citizens" here on earth? In what way are we "seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus?"


Oops! Looks like I missed the whole debate that was "brewing." OK, can we have a "start over?" I been "on break." :laugh:

skypair

 

[Salamander]

No, I don't know that exactly four angels are bound under the River Euphrates and neither do you. Where did you find this information?

Revelation 9:14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.

Read your Bible.