Sons of God

[Salamander]

Well, that is actually an argument from silence. There is no verse in the B ible that says they can not take the form of men. And, at the same time, there are a lot of veres that show that angels (in general) can take the form of men (Gen 18:1-2 just off the top of my head).

His ministers are angels. The sons of God are the Sethites. The Sethites are God's ministers. Abel offered that which could not be controlled by an environment but only by the Lord. cain offered the bloodless, works of his hands, effected by an environment, sacrifice which God rejected. Seth took Abel's place in the Lineage of Christ. And then some.

Seems pretty clear to me.:godisgood:

 

[Bob Dudley]

Hi Salamander,

I'm not really sure what your comments have to do with the thread or how they prove that the sons of God in the OT are the line of Seth. It seems like you gave an opinion/conclusion (one that a lot of great Chritians share with you) but I didn't really see any Bible based proof for your statements.

 

[Bob Dudley]

Whoever you may think is represented in Genesis 6 (royal men, the line of Seth or fallen angels) I think it is pretty plain the sons of God in Job are angels. Please let me explain…

Some in this thread have said that the sons of God in Job are just godly men (OT equivalent of Christians). After all, they said, man has always had access to God


I think the difference in Job is that the sons of God went to a physical place to be in the presence of God. It was not a spiritual experience (i.e., they prayed and felt God’s presence). I know, in one sense, we can be in the presence of God but these passages show physical movement from one place to another to get to where God is located.

Job 1:6 – They came to present themselves.
Job 1:7 – God asks Satan where he has been. This implies that Satan had to come to God’s location.
Job 1:12 – Satan left the presence of God
Job 2:1 – Again, the sons of God had to come to God’s location.
Job 2:2 – Again, God asks Satan where he’s been.

​

And a big one, God is talking to Job (at the end of the bok) and He is talking about creation. Here’s what He says (Job 38:4-7) …

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy

​

These sons of God were surely angels, man had not been created as of yet. We know that God is omnipresent, but He has also, simultaneously, made Himself to be centrally located in heaven – Jesus is currently sitting on His right side.

So, even though we have spiritual access to God at all times we can not be in His physical presence until after we die or the rapture happens. The individuals in Job are actually in God’s physical presence. Therefore, I contend that the sons of God in Job (no matter your opinion about Genesis 6) must be angels.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Nehemiah 1:6 Let thine ear now be attentive, and thine eyes open, that thou mayest hear the prayer of thy servant, which I pray before thee now, day and night, for the children of Israel thy servants, and confess the sins of the children of Israel, which we have sinned against thee: both I and my father's house have sinned.

Was the one doing the prayer standing physically in the presence of God? No! Was he in the presence of God? Yes.

The sons of God in Job could have been in front of God through communication, just as we are when we pray today.

 

[Bob Dudley]

SFIC,

I understand what you are saying. I just don't see it in the case of the Job passage. Like I was saying in my post, I think we are always spiritually in the presence of God - just like you pointed out. But I think the language in Job 1 and 2 point to a more physical encounter.

Also, how would you explain the Job 38:4-7 pasage?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I believe the stars in Job 38:7 are the angels.

 

[Salamander]

Hi Salamander,

I'm not really sure what your comments have to do with the thread or how they prove that the sons of God in the OT are the line of Seth. It seems like you gave an opinion/conclusion (one that a lot of great Chritians share with you) but I didn't really see any Bible based proof for your statements.

Of course you didn't, you haven't read Genesis. Or at least you don't understand the terminology found there to allow yourself to determine from there and other Biblical reference points to come to the right conclusion.

One usually fails to see what the Bible is truly saying due to the influences of catholics and popish trash concerning passages like these.

One passage about God's ministers:

Psalm 104:4, "Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire"

Notice the semi-colon? Are they not combined?

I haven't got any "Bible based" proofs for you, only BIBLE!

Following the Chronology of the Bible is best advised, coupled with Jewsih/Hebrew Tradition.

Even some just plain common sense might help.

If these "sons of God" were angels, when did they stop having sexual relations with daughters of men? And why?

Are you somehow suggesting women are so much more unattractive now they couldn't be the object of their attention anylonger???

When did these angel/human almost godlike creatures cease to exist? The Flood? Maybe, but then you would have to go back and cause the fallen angels to have perished and left satan to do all his dirty deeds alone without their help.

Lay your subjective commentaries aside and try to be a little more objective and let God be the Authority.:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

SFIC,

I understand what you are saying. I just don't see it in the case of the Job passage. Like I was saying in my post, I think we are always spiritually in the presence of God - just like you pointed out. But I think the language in Job 1 and 2 point to a more physical encounter.

Also, how would you explain the Job 38:4-7 pasage?

The Book of Job is the most prevelent and prophetic book of all.

Your references don't prove anything according to your belief, except how your belief has been influenced by catholocism.

The angels/ seraphim and cheribim don't present themselves before God. Only men who desire the office of one of His ministers present themselves before God to see if there be any uncleaness in them.

I think you're confusing what God already sees in the angels and what man due to his depravity attempts to hide from God.

Neither could ever truly deceive God nor can they hide anything from Him, but men are created in the image of God, angels are not.

Adam could have eaten of the Tree of Life and spent eternity in his sin. Angels had access to the Tree of life all along, yet when they sinned, they were cast out forever. Thus in Job these couldn't be angels presenting themselves for observation to find any possibility of uncleaness, it would have meant certain judgement finding no mercy for their sin.

Our presenting ourselves before the Lord is so that He can point out any disobedience in our hearts so that we may move from grace to grace.

I know this isn't very indepth in detail, although it is too deep for some who refuse light.

Straight off the cuff, if I may.

 

[Salamander]

I believe the stars in Job 38:7 are the angels.

It is a prophetic disclosure of the future event describing when those loyal angels and the saved of all the earth sing together to bring honour and glory to the Lamb!:jesus:

 

[Bob Dudley]

Salamander, I really do try to be patient with you. Rather than have a straight forward discusion you seem to jump right to attacking the person. I've seen this in other threads against me and against others. Are you OK? Should I be praying for you?

 

[Salamander]

Salamander, I really do try to be patient with you. Rather than have a straight forward discusion you seem to jump right to attacking the person. I've seen this in other threads against me and against others. Are you OK? Should I be praying for you?

I believe you are the one who is doing the attacking.

You're imposing upon my words some sort of derogatory posture which does not exist when one places an objective remark as I did when I said "if, then that" and the word "or", as an alternative to the former statement.

Show me where I "attacked" you?

You have slanderd me in your remark that you have been patient with me and then accused me of attacking you and others.

May I see your credentials that allow you to judge others at will?

In discussing the sons of God, which you seem to forget this topic is about and rather turn against another as to rend them after they cast their pearls before you, you have made the same conjecture that has been refuted for years.

Deal with the statements I made concerning Job and Genesis along with the references I made to other BIBLICAL instances. Obviously you cannot without taking on the victim status in an effort to disanul the facts.:thumbs:

 

[Bob Dudley]

SFIC, I agree that the stars are probably angels. But I think the sons of God are also angels in this passage. Either the same ones called stars or a different group of angels.

Job 38:7 - When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

​

I think it has to be angels in both references becuase the context indicates that man was not created at this time. The verse is in the middle of a lot of illustrations (Job 38:4-11) that look like the 2nd and 3rd days of creation (sea and land).

 

[Beth]

any possibility

Is there any possibility that the daughters of men are the descendants of Cain?

We are reading through Genesis as part of our family Bible study time at night and I noticed that the Bible speaks of Cain's line, then switches to Seth, the son of Adam.

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.


Could sons of God refer to Seth's line and daughters of men refer to Cain's?

I also am stymied about the meaning of this verse.....I often have heard the concept that sons of God were angels, but I also have a difficult time reconciling that view to the Bible.

 

[Salamander]

Is there any possibility that the daughters of men are the descendants of Cain?

We are reading through Genesis as part of our family Bible study time at night and I noticed that the Bible speaks of Cain's line, then switches to Seth, the son of Adam.

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.


Could sons of God refer to Seth's line and daughters of men refer to Cain's?

I also am stymied about the meaning of this verse.....I often have heard the concept that sons of God were angels, but I also have a difficult time reconciling that view to the Bible.

When reading the English version follow rules of English grammar to reach the right conclusion.

 

[Salamander]

SFIC, I agree that the stars are probably angels. But I think the sons of God are also angels in this passage. Either the same ones called stars or a different group of angels.

Job 38:7 - When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?


​

I think it has to be angels in both references becuase the context indicates that man was not created at this time. The verse is in the middle of a lot of illustrations (Job 38:4-11) that look like the 2nd and 3rd days of creation (sea and land).

The problem with your idea, Brother, is that the two themes are separated by the use of a comma.

IOW, the comma separates the stars from being also the sons of God.

This theology that they are synonomous comes from the catholic dogma that men become angels after their death accrediting them with a possible "saint" status upon approval by the hierarchy through the vote of the archbishops.

 

[Bob Dudley]

Hi Salamander,

I don't think the Hebrew language uses commas. But the comma does imply that the KJV translators thought there should be a seperation of thought there - 2 independent clauses. So, maybe there is some merit there. My Hebrew is pretty rusty so someone else might comment on this.

However, my Greek isn't too bad. I just checked the Septuagint and they translated sons of God as angel (ἄγγελος) in Job 38. As a matter of fact, it translates sons of God in Job 1 and 2 as angels, also. And, for what it is worth, they translated sons of God as sons of God in Genesis 6.

I've never heard anyone use the "men turn into angels" argument to push the sons of God as angels. That is a new one to me. Whenever I have read journal articles on this subject the defense of this position seems to always be based on the text itself and on the opinions of Jewish scholars prior to the first century and Christian scholars in the first and second century. Although I haven't really looked at this since my days in seminary when you have to write position papers on (it seems) every controversial topic in the Book.

 

[Rubato 1]

And a big one, God is talking to Job (at the end of the bok) and He is talking about creation. Here’s what He says (Job 38:4-7) …

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy

​

These sons of God were surely angels, man had not been created as of yet.

How do you know that men had not been created yet (The angels are created beings too, right)? Did God lay the "foundations of the world," etc. after the fourth day of creation (Gen. 1:16 is the creation of the stars on day 4)?

Where is there sense in the idea of the phrase "sons of God" meaning one thing in the NT, and another in the OT? Surely God is not the outhor of confusion in this matter. Doesn't the objective "line/line precept/precept" idea lead one to consider sons of God to be flesh and blood?

 

[Salamander]

Hi Salamander,

I don't think the Hebrew language uses commas. But the comma does imply that the KJV translators thought there should be a seperation of thought there - 2 independent clauses. So, maybe there is some merit there. My Hebrew is pretty rusty so someone else might comment on this.

However, my Greek isn't too bad. I just checked the Septuagint and they translated sons of God as angel (ἄγγελος) in Job 38. As a matter of fact, it translates sons of God in Job 1 and 2 as angels, also. And, for what it is worth, they translated sons of God as sons of God in Genesis 6.

I've never heard anyone use the "men turn into angels" argument to push the sons of God as angels. That is a new one to me. Whenever I have read journal articles on this subject the defense of this position seems to always be based on the text itself and on the opinions of Jewish scholars prior to the first century and Christian scholars in the first and second century. Although I haven't really looked at this since my days in seminary when you have to write position papers on (it seems) every controversial topic in the Book.

Yes. Men have argued over this for years, but the truth still stands that the sons of God as fallen angels or even just angels, had to have stopped "breeding" with human daughters from some point in time to present day.

The question should then come, why? The answer would then be, "they never did".

So the ONLY logical explanation would be the chronological one, that these sons of God could be no less than the godly line of Seth as prescribed according to Scripture before hand and after.

To suddenly superimpose angels into the mix after the account given of the rise and fall of Cain, the birth and death of Abel, then the birth and following of Seth is stupendous.

The chronology must be incorporated to allow the Truth to remain as well as be perfectly established as that only men are spoken of here and angels were never mentioned except by certain commentators and ideals of fantasy by others.

Even though we have the Book of Miracles/ The Bible, which is fantastic, it is not a book of fantasies.

 

[Salamander]

How do you know that men had not been created yet (The angels are created beings too, right)? Did God lay the "foundations of the world," etc. after the fourth day of creation (Gen. 1:16 is the creation of the stars on day 4)?

Where is there sense in the idea of the phrase "sons of God" meaning one thing in the NT, and another in the OT? Surely God is not the outhor of confusion in this matter. Doesn't the objective "line/line precept/precept" idea lead one to consider sons of God to be flesh and blood?

Sure does, along with the knowledge that men are referred to as "angels" when they are commissioned of God/ called, to bring His Message of Salvation.

"Angel" has more than one meaning, yet never does it permit the mixing of human and angellic beings.

 

[tinytim]

Maybe they were just aliens.... (JUST JOKIN!)