The Nephilim

[TCassidy]

The problems I have with the fallen angels view is three fold.

1. Jesus says angels are sexless and do not marry.
2. The context clearly tells us:

Now it came to pass, when men (not angels) began to multiply on the face of the earth…

…the sons of God saw the daughters of men…

…“My Spirit shall not strive with man…”

Those were the mighty men (not angels, or hybrids, men) who were of old, men of renown.

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man (not angels, man) was great…

And the LORD was sorry that He had made man (not angels) on the earth…

So the LORD said, “I will destroy man…”

It seems to me that, if God was trying to stamp out the sin of angels cohabiting with man he failed miserably! After all, angels are immortal! The flood would not kill them nor stop their sin!

3. The law of creation "after its kind" would prevent conception in an angel/human mating.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

The problems I have with the fallen angels view is three fold.

1. Jesus says angels are sexless and do not marry.
2. The context clearly tells us:

Now it came to pass, when men (not angels) began to multiply on the face of the earth…

…the sons of God saw the daughters of men…

…“My Spirit shall not strive with man…”

Those were the mighty men (not angels, or hybrids, men) who were of old, men of renown.

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man (not angels, man) was great…

And the LORD was sorry that He had made man (not angels) on the earth…

So the LORD said, “I will destroy man…”

It seems to me that, if God was trying to stamp out the sin of angels cohabiting with man he failed miserably! After all, angels are immortal! The flood would not kill them nor stop their sin!

3. The law of creation "after its kind" would prevent conception in an angel/human mating.

mr "CONTEXT' man--Me and you had this debate several years ago --& I answered all of your responses then [& actually in all my previous responses tonight as well]--And yes--i agree with you-- the context of Gen 6 is about 'man'--& angels are secondary --[listen to my youtube talk link]-but that does not mean the 'Sons of God' are not angels--they are clearly involved as 2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6 show--the same concept is seen with angels being involved with the Law in Gal 3:19 but not mentioned clearly in the original account &-- Satan & Michael being involved with Moses body in Jude 9--but not in the context of the Torah--Satan's involvement in Gen 3 is not clarified in the immediate context but brought to light in Rev 12 & Rom 16---thus context often is NOT clarified until later in Scripture--especially in regards to angels--that being said-- we went round & round years ago on this--so imagine I wont convince this round either--lol--have a good one brother

 

[Reynolds]

mr "CONTEXT' man--Me and you had this debate several years ago --& I answered all of your responses then [& actually in all my previous responses tonight as well]--And yes--i agree with you-- the context is about 'man'--& angels are secondary--[listen to my youtube talk link]----but remember your Sethite view is the weakest & why its getting dropped by every modern scholar who has to deal with 2 peter 2:4 & Jude 6 ----that being said-- we went round & round years ago on this--so imagine the same might happen again--lol

The vast majority of commentators are now saying these men were fallen angels.

 

[Reynolds]

The problems I have with the fallen angels view is three fold.

1. Jesus says angels are sexless and do not marry.
2. The context clearly tells us:

Now it came to pass, when men (not angels) began to multiply on the face of the earth…

…the sons of God saw the daughters of men…

…“My Spirit shall not strive with man…”

Those were the mighty men (not angels, or hybrids, men) who were of old, men of renown.

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man (not angels, man) was great…

And the LORD was sorry that He had made man (not angels) on the earth…

So the LORD said, “I will destroy man…”

It seems to me that, if God was trying to stamp out the sin of angels cohabiting with man he failed miserably! After all, angels are immortal! The flood would not kill them nor stop their sin!

3. The law of creation "after its kind" would prevent conception in an angel/human mating.

Does Jesus say angels are sexless?
He says they do not marry. Not marrying does not mean being incapable of having sex.
Extra Biblical can be taken for being worthless, but have you ever found it odd that all the native American tribes have legends about shape shifters raping women or the Cherokee see them as friendly and helpful but still sexual.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

[

The vast majority of commentators are now saying these men were fallen angels.

i agree with you brother--i felt bad how i worded that to him--[felt like it was to provoking sounding]--so i thought it'd be best to change how I worded it--just an issue the Lord's been working on me on lately--but yes--i wholeheartedly agree with the fallen angels view of Gen 6

 

[Reynolds]

[


i agree with you brother--i felt bad how i worded that to him--[felt like it was to provoking sounding]--so i thought it'd be best to change how I worded it--just an issue the Lord's been working on me on lately--but yes--i wholeheartedly agree with the fallen angels view of Gen 6

I definitely lean toward it heavily. To me that is the only way the necessity to completely annihilate certain Cannanite tribes makes any moral sense.

 

[Happy]

I understand your second disagreement but not your first. I said that we are dealing with intermarriage and not fornication, to which you disagreed noting that wives who produced offspring copulated with their husbands. Fornication is not such an act between husband and wife.

Correct. Marriage between unholy angels and human women, who produced offspring.
Correct. Fornication is between unmarried couples.

My point is that the passage speaks of these “sons of God” taking as wives women and fathering children.

Correct.

Except for this passage evidence of angels marrying women and raising children seems foreign to Scripture

Correct. Not spoken of at length.

and I do not see enough evidence to substantiate such a claim.

Disagree.

this passage evidence of angels marrying women and raising children

I find the evidence revealed sufficient.

 

[JonC]

Correct. Marriage between unholy angels and human women, who produced offspring.
Correct. Fornication is between unmarried couples.



Correct.



Correct. Not spoken of at length.



Disagree.



I find the evidence revealed sufficient.

Thanks for the clarification. I had misunderstood your last post (my misunderstanding, not your articulation). Although we disagree I see what you are saying.

Part of the reason that I reject the interpretation that “sons of God” here means “angels” is that such an interpretation is not necessary based on the text. All three interpretations (angels, the line of Seth and Cain, and mighty rulers) can be supported by the text itself. So what we are left with is reasoning through Scripture itself.

In the early Genesis account we are dealing with two people groups (a godly people and an ungodly people). The idea that the test demands “daughters of men” to be interpreted as mankind rather than one group because of its preceding usage in 6:1 ignores the fact that chapter 6 is a continuation of a larger narrative. We have been provided two linages – one of Cain and one of Seth. The people group described in the linage of Seth are contrasted against the people group that has been described in the linage of Cain. This takes us to Genesis 6:1. Interpreting the “sons of God” to be godly men who “call upon the name of the Lord” simply continues the narrative. The reason that I accept the interpretation that these “sons of God” were the godly men just spoken of is I believe this interpretation is faithful to the text itself.

In addition to why I hold my view there are several reasons I reject the angelic interpretation. Here are a few: First, nowhere are angels said to be sexually attracted to human women. Women are spoken of as the “glory of man”, not the glory of angels. The notion that angels (who are not created flesh) would hold such a type of attraction is derived from certain traditions and not from Scripture. Second, the work of angels (even fallen angels) is in the “heavenly realm”, not marrying women and raising families. Third, Jesus’ words concerning marriage between men and women in the resurrection uses angels (in a contemporary setting to His audience) as an example. This is not saying that in the resurrection angels do not marry, nor is it restricting the location of angels to Heaven but the heavenly realm to which angels belong (even fallen angels, as our struggle is with wickedness in the heavenly). And then there is the issue of a third class of creatures (hybrid humans) who are neither of Adam nor of Christ. There is also the issue that Scripture refers to men, not hybrid angels, in the following verses. And it is because of man, not angels, that judgment comes. And, of course, there remains the issue of a non-redeemable hybrid man. And, if you believe the virgin birth was significant in that Christ was born not “of Adam”, the issue of sin type (these hybrid men would not experience sin as passing from Adam, but rather the sin of angels).

That said, when I look at the interpretation that these “sons of God” were the godly line just described in Genesis 5 contrasted against the ungodly line just described in Genesis 4, none of these issues exist.

 

[Revmitchell]

The problems I have with the fallen angels view is three fold.

1. Jesus says angels are sexless and do not marry.
2. The context clearly tells us:

Now it came to pass, when men (not angels) began to multiply on the face of the earth…

…the sons of God saw the daughters of men…

…“My Spirit shall not strive with man…”

Those were the mighty men (not angels, or hybrids, men) who were of old, men of renown.

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man (not angels, man) was great…

And the LORD was sorry that He had made man (not angels) on the earth…

So the LORD said, “I will destroy man…”

It seems to me that, if God was trying to stamp out the sin of angels cohabiting with man he failed miserably! After all, angels are immortal! The flood would not kill them nor stop their sin!

3. The law of creation "after its kind" would prevent conception in an angel/human mating.

Not sure why that has to be explained.

 

[rlvaughn]

Who were the Nephilims's - Genesis 6:1-8

Where did they come from

If they came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men (which is not clear in the context) they also existed prior to that. Notice "and also afterward" in verse 4 refers to the time "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men." So there were also Nephilim before.

Who were they

The context of Numbers 13:33 suggests "Nephilim" refers to men of a great size.

What

Nephilim were giants, men of large stature. Those born by the daughters of men to the sons of God were valiant men of renown, but men nevertheless (v. 4).

When

In those days prior to the flood when the Lord said, "My spirit shall not always strive with man..." and also in the days when the Moses's messengers were sent to spy out Canaan (Numbers 13:33).

Where

Somewhere on the face of the earth in Noah's day (vs. 1, 4) and in Canaan in Moses day (Numbers 13:33).

How

It is not clear to me what you mean by "how". See answer on "Where did they come from?"

Why

Natural result of the state of the world described in Genesis 6:1-8, within the governance of God who works all things after the counsel of his own will.

 

[Happy]

I'm unclear on your post.

We agree that angels do not father children, but that they can take on the appearance of man. What about these "sons of God" who fathered children (do you think these are angels who fathered half-breed children, or were these "mighty men" something else?)

Allow me to preface ~ ABOUT Scripture ~
Scripture IS for KNOWLEDGE ~ written Words are for everyone and anyone to read. (Angels and Mankind)
UNDERSTANDING the KNOWLEDGE ~ is for "exclusively" for those, who ARE "according to God" ... Holy
The "extent" (how much) one is given Gods understanding, BY GOD, is always at Gods pleasure.(His determination)

The "titles" (position), given an Angel or Mankind, (of "son" of God), is paramount knowledge, to know;
Who, When, Why.

And ^ that is revealed, VIA, "study" of the Knowledge.

Men can Hear the world of God, Read Scripture, and believe it.....or not.....study it....or not....Seek the understanding....
via ~ their Carnal Mind....(ie makes sense, seems plausible, logically deduced, etc.)
or
via ~ seeking Gods understanding....(which has nothing to do with logic of a mans mind), but is solely according to God, which ONLY HE gives an individual, "subjected unto Him" in committed faithfulness.

It is taught in Scripture, Gods Order....
Hear, Verify via the Written word, Trust, Believe, Submit, Continue following the word, Read, Study, ASK HIM for His understanding, thus one is PREPARED to speak to others on His behalf, that others may also do the same according to His Order /WAY.

Point being ~ there IS an ORDER /WAY.
Point being ~ Skipping any part thereof IS a corruption of the ORDER.
Point being ~ Not unusual for MANY WHO, claim having submitted unto God....CONTINUE to read, BUT (out of order)
.....continue to "understand" Scripture via their MIND (ie makes sense, seems plausible, logically deduce, etc.) <--- the exact opposite of what Scripture teaches.

Moving on ~ "the title" sons of God. It is paramount to KNOW, who, when and why that "title" (position) APPLIES.
Which is specifically part of the study of the knowledge revealed in Scripture.

Angels - beings CREATED Holy ~ are sons of God.
Angels ~ Holy ~ were given great Knowledge, some Understanding, great power.
Angels ~ beings who become unholy ~ forfeit their "title" as a son of God. (also forfeit ~ their "estate")
Angels ~ Holy ~ were entitled to an "estate" in Heaven
Angels ~ who forfeited their holiness ~ became "occupants" of another "estate" ie Earth. ~
Angels ~ who became unholy ~ forfeited their right to GAIN more understanding from God.
Angels ~ who became unholy ~ DID NOT forfeit their great power given them of God.

Mankind ~ created beings ~ some are sons of God....according to Gods order
Mankind ~ created beings ~ some are NOT sons of God....according to Gods order.
Adam ~ first created man. Being first, he is an exception, from all other humans. Not born.
Adam ~ created BODILY FLESH, called GOOD (ie not corrupt).
Adam ~ given LIFE from God, VIA a LIVING SOUL, called GOOD.
Adam ~ "titled" son of God.
Adam ~ FLESH, (bodily) fell from being GOOD, to being corrupt.

So, we find Angles are created, GOOD, with KNOWLEDGE, some understanding, with Power, with a Heavenly estate, with title, (son of God) AND can "FALL" from that position, while keeping their Power, limited knowledge they were given and some understanding.

So, we find Mankind (the first), was created GOOD, after the LIKENESS of God, fell from being good.... then what?
Mankind AFTER Adam, was created, corrupt, after the LIKENESS of Adam. (Gen 5: 1,2,3)

Pertaining to Adam, and Mankind thereafter, is mankind, WHO, must then.....BECOME GOOD....or remain corrupt.
The KNOWLEDGE in Scripture reveals HOW a man becomes GOOD ( according to Gods ORDER ), which is Gods acceptable WAY.

A mankind WHO becomes GOOD, according to Gods acceptable WAY ~ is thereafter given the title, of "son of God".

Did Adam become ACCEPTABLE, "after falling", to be titled with, "son of God"? yes.
Did Angels who had fallen, become ACCEPTABLE to KEEP the title "son of God"? no.

WHY?

Again, Angels were created "WITH" the KNOWLEDGE, thus they have NO EXCUSE, to not KEEP IT and rely on it.
Mankind was created "WITHOUT" the KNOWLEDGE, but must choose to SEEK it.
God has provided a means, for ALL of mankind to hear and be aware of the KNOWLEDGE, thus mankind has NO EXCUSE to not hear it, read it, and rely on it.

And according to Gods Way, a man WHO, hears, reads, learns, believes, trusts, submits in faithfulness to God ONLY, is a man WHO, (though having been corrupt), becomes Acceptable to be included, and titled, as a "son of God", wholly acceptable to God.

^ That applied to Adam, and to numerous men, in the OT, in the NT, (that are named, and given us for KNOWLEDGE), to learn HOW to apply the same to our own selves.
THUS ^ that also applies to ANY man today, WHO follows after and submits to Gods order (ie WAY).

So, we hear, we read and verify, that the knowledge is correct, we submit, we forfeit our MINDS logical concluding and understanding, and seek God for His understanding, to be prepare to serve God, (telling others), that they too might choose to do the same as we have done according to the same WAY (order) as God has revealed IS His WAY.

Holy Angels "do not marry", thus "do not reproduce".
Holy Angels (sons of God) came from their estate, (Heaven), to Earth.
They SAW daughters of MANKIND, no big deal.
and "lusted" after them, because of the womens appearence.
THAT ^ CHANGED the Holy Angels "position". That immediately, changed the holy angels, from HOLY to UNHOLY.
THAT ^ caused an Angel, who was a son of God, to no longer be holder of that title, according to holiness.
Holy Angels are created WITH HAVING Gods "grace", given at their creation; great knowledge, some understanding, and great power.
MANKIND is not. Mankind on the other hand are created, having to LEARN about God, gain knowledge, some understanding and some power.
Thus WHEN an Angel, falls, His falling is LOSING Gods GRACE, which an Angel can NOT, regain.
Thus WHEN a man, is born, He must choose to GAIN Gods GRACE, via following, submitting, and receives Gods Grace, which is first...FORGIVENESS, for the corruption of his flesh (body) and the corruption of his soul (in his body), and thereafter, the Grace given a man, is never forfeited, or lost. (and by the way, increased, via blessings and power).

Meaning, Angels are created (without choice), with Gods Grace of (not forgiveness), but great attributes.
Meaning, Mankind must seek to gain (forgiveness) and great attributes, by their CHOICE, and receive Gods Grace.

HOLY Angels, (sons of God) DID come to earth.
Holy Angels (sons of God) DID see women of mankind.
Holy Angels DID become UNHOLY, when they lusted after the beauty of human women.
Unholy Angels, DID, via their power appear in the flesh.
Unholy Angels, DID, take human women (that they lusted after their beauty), as wives.
Unholy Angels, DID, procreate offspring with such human women.
The offspring, WERE of exceptional stature and strength and occupied lands upon the earth.
The unholy Angels, their offspring, human women, human men, human children, became subject of Gods disapproval.
God created a FLOOD to destroy the corrupt beings occupying the earth, ie cleansing the earth.

Point being. You reject what IS revealed. "not enough evidence". The evidence is there. It is your lack of "understanding" that sways your conclusion.

You said...

We agree that angels do not father children, but that they can take on the appearance of man.

That is not true. But you apparently did not understand.
HOLY Angels, whose ESTATE IS still HEAVEN, DO NOT FATHER CHILDREN.

UNholy Angels, (sons of God, WHO saw human women)....and their fall from Grace, lusting after the beauty of such women, thus FELL from their holy state to an unholy state, and MARRIED human women and absolutely DID father children with human woman.

Again, it is paramount for one to STUDY, BEFORE being introduced to the understanding of the knowledge revealed.

THE "STUDY", is the part that, WHEN something is mentioned in Scripture, such as the phrase "son of God", to read, search, discover, Who, what, when, why, that applies to....so WHEN it IS mentioned in any verse of Scripture, you KNOW, who, what, when & why, it is being APPLIED to.

 

[JonC]

Point being. You reject what IS revealed. "not enough evidence". The evidence is there. It is your lack of "understanding" that sways your conclusion.

No, what I am doing is not rejecting what has been revealed (via Scripture) but rather dismissing the "angelology" you are applying to the passage. I'm sure you are literate enough to understand that all three positions can be supported by the phrase "sons of God", so that leaves reviewing what has been revealed and what has not been revealed. Unfortunately for your position what is being dealt with from Genesis 4:1 to Genesis 6:4 and from Genesis 6:4 throughout the judgment of the Flood is not the sin of angels or God's judgment on angel-hybrids but the sin of man and God's judgment on mankind. The idea that angels somehow hijacked mankind is unbiblical. Even when sin entered the world through Adam's transgression, Satan's role is as tempter and accuser.

The doctrine of angel hybrids being judged as men is more in line with the Jewish myth of Lilith bearing the wicked seed of Adam than it is of revealed truth.

That is not true. But you apparently did not understand.

Yes, exactly. We established this already - I had misunderstood you and asked for clarification, which you were both kind and gracious enough to provide.

 

[Happy]

The problems I have with the fallen angels view is three fold.

1. Jesus says angels are sexless and do not marry.
2. The context clearly tells us:
3. The law of creation "after its kind" would prevent conception in an angel/human mating.

First you have to comprehend WHICH Angels Jesus is speaking of.
Scripture is clear. Jesus is speaking of and APPLYING His Words to: exclusively.....Holy Angels.

The context clearly tells us:
sons of God, are HOLY Angels.
sons of God SAW human women.
sons of God VIEW human women, as having a look of beauty.
At this point ~ they are still HOLY Angels.

(It is also KNOWN, from the knowledge revealed in Scripture, that ANGELS have the POWER to appear in the LIKENESS of human FLESH BODILY men.)

The turning point of a HOLY Angel, falling from Grace of his HOLINESS, to being unHOLY, is revealed in Scripture.

Gen 6
[2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; <--- HOLY Angels
and they took them wives of all which they chose. <--- their FALL FROM HOLY, to unHOLY.

Jesus spoke of HOLY Angels, Angels IN HEAVEN, who do not MARRY or reproduce.

Gen 6:2
Speaks of HOLY Angels, seeing human women....
and reveals their FALL from HOLY to UNHOLY
when;
they took human women as wives.

And further, we find they reproduced.
And further, we find the attributes of the offspring of Unholy Angels and human women (and the consequence thereof).

Giants, Great stature, unlike other men, Great strength, unlike other men. Occupied the earth. Were feared by other men.
Disappointing to God. Destroyed in the flood God brought upon the earth.

The law of creation "after its kind" would prevent conception in an angel/human mating.

No.
The LAW of creation is clearly revealed by God in Scripture.
The CORRUPTION of nearly every one of Gods LAWS, are clearly revealed in Scripture, and our ability to see.

The LAW of creation was that HOLY Angels were to NOT mate with Humans, marry or Reproduce.
The POWER given (by God) to HOLY Angels, ALLOWED them to appear in the flesh likeness as a man, to do GOOD works.
The POWER given (by God) to HOLY Angels, ALLOWED them to appear in the flesh likeness as a man, AND DO WICKED WORKS as well.

The ANGELS....as is MANKIND.....are given LAWS, of what to follow, what to not follow.....and the FREEWILL, to choose what THEY please.....and thereafter BE subject to the consequences of their choices....good or bad.

LAWS are simply STATED "INFORMATION" of what IS acceptable and what IS NOT acceptable, and the consequences thereof.

The LAWS themselves, do not "MAKE" or "PREVENT" anyone (Angels or mankind), from obeying or disobeying.

IT is our (and Angels) FREEWILL, that gives rise to what one will CHOOSE to do or not do.

IF you do not grasp the UNDERSTANDING, your conclusion becomes FLAWED.

You skipped the understanding.....It is HOLY Angels, who do not marry or reproduce.
You skipped the understanding.....It is unHOLY Angels, who did marry human and did reproduce.
You did not consider; the great power given the Angels, by God, has remained the same, for Unholy.
You did not consider; one of an Angels great powers IS they can APPEAR in the flesh likeness as a human man.
You did not consider; WHO (which Angels) Jesus was specifically of.
You did not consider: WHEN holy angels (sons of God), fell from grace of God, (and became unholy, precisely BY marrying human women).

The problems I have with the fallen angels view is three fold.

Your problems are three fold.
1) Lack of consideration of ALL the knowledge revealed,
2) proper application of the knowledge revealed TO Scripture,
3) and the understanding thereof, according to God.

 

[Happy]

No, what I am doing is not rejecting what has been revealed (via Scripture) but rather dismissing the "angelology" you are applying to the passage.

I am not familiar with the term "angelology". And you straying from the point, by introducing psychobabble terms, simply reveals, you did not get the point.

I gave a brief overview, that you might be encourage, to trust the knowledge revealed, and further STUDY, and seek God, that He would give you the understanding.

I'm sure you are literate enough to understand that all three positions can be supported by the phrase "sons of God", so that leaves reviewing what has been revealed and what has not been revealed. Unfortunately for your position what is being dealt with from Genesis 4:1 to Genesis 6:4 and from Genesis 6:4 throughout the judgment of the Flood is not the sin of angels or God's judgment on angel-hybrids but the sin of man and God's judgment on mankind. The idea that angels somehow hijacked mankind is unbiblical. Even when sin entered the world through Adam's transgression, Satan's role is as tempter and accuser.

You jump on SIN of mankind, which was not the point being discussed, the FLOOD, which happened, but was not the point being discussed.

I tried to stress to you the PARAMOUNT importance of study AND understanding, according to God.

YES, the earth was cleansed via Water, via a Flood, BECAUSE of the sin of mankinds FLESH!

AND? WHO was destroyed in THAT flood?

Human men, women, children? Yes
Created Angels? (who had fallen from Grace) No.
The offspring of unholy Angels and Human Women? Yes.

Created Angels ARE spirits, they can not be destroyed.
Procreated "things" via a spirit and human, are NEVER (in Scripture) called by anything, but, by their "names" and "description" of their attributes....which I have given you examples out of Scripture; ie Anakims, giants, great strength, great stature. Called Nephilim.

These offspring, were NEITHER Angels or Humans. Were called men. And were subject to being destroyed in the flood.

[/QUOTE] The doctrine of angel hybrids being judged as men is more in line with the Jewish myth of Lilith bearing the wicked seed of Adam than it is of revealed truth.[/QUOTE]

Again you introduce a psychobabble term. (ie hybrid) that has NO basis in such a term being taught in Scripture.
I didn't teach any such thing.
It is Scripture that called them men.
It is Scripture that declared their being subject to being killed by human men.
It is Scripture that declared their destruction in the flood.

I simply trust what Scripture SAYS, without trying to decide if it is LOGICAL or ACCEPTABLE to my carnal mind!

Example of a human man killing a "giant", as Scripture has labeled, men of unholy angels, and a human womans offspring.

2 Sam 21
[18] And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant.

Example of giants upon the earth being destroyed in the flood and the exception of Noah, his wife, their 3 sons, their sons 3 wives, being excepted from flesh upon the earth being destroyed.

Gen.6

1. [17] And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

1Pet.3

1. [20] Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Were ANY angels destroyed in the FLOOD? No. Angels are spirits, and not subject to death or destruction.

THUS your implication, I was saying the FLOOD was because of angels is in error.
The FLOOD, did was because of the evil that was upon the earth.
The FLOOD, affected mankind, and the offspring of fallen angels and mankind.
The FLOOD, did not affect the fallen angels, (causing them death or destruction)

Facts revealed of .... what happened to the spirits, who were the sons of God, who fell from Grace, became unholy, and mated with human women?

Jude 1
[6] And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

The FLOOD WAS to cleanse the earth, and corrupt mankind, and thus mentioned.....BECAUSE it also cleansed the earth (via destruction) of the offspring of unholy angels and human women.

Study of the knowledge and understanding thereof is paramount.

 

[JonC]

I am not familiar with the term "angelology". And you straying from the point, by introducing psychobabble terms, simply reveals, you did not get the point.

This is what I expected. There are some here who have taken the time and effort to understand each view even as they disagree. And then there are those like you who remain willfully ignorant and prefer to insult those who dare to believe the "traditional view".

I understand your position and agree it is s legitimate interpretation of the phrase "sons of God" but reject it as contrary to the teachings of Scripture. No one is arguing against angels leaving their proper place. We are arguing against the mythology of angels marrying human women and starting a family.

Oh....angelology is not a psychobabble term. It is the "theological dogma or speculation concerning angels"(from αγγελōς = messenger, Greek equivalent of the Hebrew

). It's often considered one of 10 major categories of systematic theology.

 

[rlvaughn]

Yhet went after "strange flesh"...

Going after strange flesh in Jude verse 7 refers to Sodom and Gomorrha. This was homosexual predilection as far as the men of Sodom and the neighboring cities were concerned.

 

[Happy]

Thanks for the clarification.

U R Welcome.

I had misunderstood your last post (my misunderstanding, not your articulation). Although we disagree I see what you are saying.

Part of the reason that I reject the interpretation that “sons of God” here means “angels” is that such an interpretation is not necessary based on the text.

Gods Understanding IS ALWAYS necessary, to arrive at Gods "interpretation".

My Point, is Scripture is full of knowledge. The Scripture is the Written, KNOWLEDGE, ink on paper.
Stressing to you....the UNDERSTANDING (according to God), IS NOT written IN ink on paper!
The Understanding of the Knowledge according to God...IS not something we can philosophize, logically conclude, search for in ink or find........

Scripture teaches....it is a colossal FAIL, for men to attempt to "interpret" Scripture....according to their natural carnal mind, philosophy of men, guessing, using logical conclusions, etc. .....Utter FAIL!

All three interpretations (angels, the line of Seth and Cain, and mighty rulers) can be supported by the text itself. So what we are left with is reasoning through Scripture itself.

When you understand WHO, and WHEN, and WHY, the title "sons of God" applies, any similarities they may or may have as other men, does not apply UNTIL, information reveals it does apply.

In the early Genesis account we are dealing with two people groups (a godly people and an ungodly people).

Correct.

The idea that the test demands “daughters of men” to be interpreted as mankind

Agree.

rather than one group because of its preceding usage in 6:1 ignores the fact that chapter 6 is a continuation of a larger narrative. We have been provided two linages – one of Cain and one of Seth. The people group described in the linage of Seth are contrasted against the people group that has been described in the linage of Cain.

Jumping past onto the linage of Cain and Seth, is irrelevant, at the point of discussion of WHO the term a son of God applies to.
Since, the "sons of God", were not IN CONTEXT, yet revealed, having such title.
It was simply mentioned.....and WHO it applied to was not yet revealed, but by subsequent information.

How we know, the CONTEXT, and the first mention of "sons of God", applies to holy angels, is because of the knowledge revealed.....of WHO was present WHEN the earth, being created for the subsequent mankind, was a title given angels, who were present, when the earth was being created........AND the title given "humans", being called "man".......AND the Scripture....

"sons of God"....saw daughters of "men".....and that requires the knowledge that "sons of God", are also revealed called "spirits" and "stars". And it was the stars that were present during the creation of the earth, before mankind, and witnesses of the creation of the earth.

This takes us to Genesis 6:1. Interpreting the “sons of God” to be godly men who “call upon the name of the Lord” simply continues the narrative. The reason that I accept the interpretation that these “sons of God” were the godly men just spoken of is I believe this interpretation is faithful to the text itself.

I disagree. Since the knowledge of "holy men", was not introduced, until later, in Exodus, and even then "they were not disclosed as "sons of God".

To say in context....to know WHO was the subject being spoken of in Gen 6: 1,2, "sons of God" are holy angels. created humans, were at that point only called Men. The daughters were offspring of human men. The unholy angels took human women as wives. The unholy angels and human wives had offspring. The offspring were giants.

In addition to why I hold my view there are several reasons I reject the angelic interpretation.

I didn't get my understanding from an angel or man. But rather Christ Jesus, who is my teacher.

Here are a few: First, nowhere are angels said to be sexually attracted to human women.

Irrelevant to mention sexual attraction. Scripture tells you they were attracted to human women, because of their look. It is obvious they invoked a relationship with them.....because it reveals they married them and had offspring....which is a result of a sexual encounter.

Women are spoken of as the “glory of man”, not the glory of angels.

So? Did you change women to being the glory of angels? I didn't.
Is it attraction of a man to a woman, define the glory of man? no
Is it marriage of a man and a woman, define the glory of man? no
Is it a sexual encounter of a man and a woman that defines the glory of man? no
Is it a woman having a child what defines the glory of man? no

So, how does your statement have any application to the discussion? It doesn't, and here's why.

1 Cor 11:
[7] For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

WHO is the image and glory of God? A natural born man? No. Remember, Adam was in the image and likeness of God, and thereafter all men born became in the image and likeness of Adam.

A man WHO is in the image and likeness of God, is a man WHO has become forgiven, is submitted to faithfulness in God, has his body, justifies, sanctified, had his soul restored, and has had his spirit "quickened" (ie born again).

So where in Gen 6:..... is any of that revealed, such things applied to the "MEN" being spoken of? It doesn't.

Continued....

 

[Happy]

Part of the reason ....

Continued

The notion that angels (who are not created flesh)

Correct, not created flesh, but HAVE THE POWER to have a flesh body.

would hold such a type of attraction is derived from certain traditions and not from Scripture.

FALSE. Scripture notifies you, MEN (humans) had daughters, sons of God (only at that time revealed applied to holy angels), saw daughter of men, mentioning their fairness, which is their beauty, and married them, and produced offspring with them.

It is not necessary for Scripture to MIMIC mankind (particularly philosophical) detailed / graphic, landing on the edge of pornographic details, to reveal an attraction, an encounter, and a result.

Second, the work of angels (even fallen angels) is in the “heavenly realm”, not marrying women and raising families.

FALSE. Unholy angels (called fallen), do not operate in the "heavenly realm", or in a holy manner serve God.

A holy angels estate IS Heaven. An unholy angel IS banned, removed, booted out, cast out, from his heaven estate, and earth becomes his "estate"....and for some, the center of the earth (ie aka hell), becomes his "estate".

The did not serve God in a holy manner, thus what applies to HOLY angels, no long applies to them!

Third, Jesus’ words concerning marriage between men and women in the resurrection uses angels (in a contemporary setting to His audience) as an example.

Contemporary setting....irrelevant language.

This is not saying that in the resurrection angels do not marry,

Holy Angels NEVER marry. THEY were created holy, and remain holy, BECAUSE they STAY in their position of holiness, which includes to NEVER marry or produce offspring.

nor is it restricting the location of angels to Heaven

HOLY angels are not restricted to ONLY their heavenly estate.
unHOLY angels LOSE their "estate" being Heaven, to having another estate, "earth or hell".

Specifically HOLY angels have access to Heaven, the atmosphere, the surface of the earth and hell. (within the earth).
Specifically UNholy angels have access to the atmosphere, the surface of the earth and hell (within the earth)., BUT not Gods throne, which IS Heaven.

but the heavenly realm to which angels belong (even fallen angels,

FALSE. And the knowledge is revealed, unholy angels have lost their estate in heaven.
unholy angels are still spirits, can not die, still have their power.

as our struggle is with wickedness in the heavenly).

Mankinds struggle IS with wickedness. It began with the influence of unholy angels, and has progressed generationally, via men who became wicked and influenced other men.

And to note ~ the continuing of human procreation, lends to the fact, that they begin without the knowledge of the history, and as well can be influenced by unholy angels, and additionally wicked men.....and why specifically it is the parents DUTY to guard them from such influences, WHILE teaching them how to guard themselves.

And then there is the issue of a third class of creatures (hybrid humans)

No such language in scripture. What is revealed is a class of men, called giants. The aforesaid as described, also called men, and subject to die, and nothing in scripture have I found, that they can experience an eternal existence, (as do spirits, or born again men,) OR that they have a means to be forgiven. (never studied in depth to find anything provided for them, regarding forgiveness or eternal life).

who are neither of Adam nor of Christ. There is also the issue that Scripture refers to men, not hybrid angels, in the following verses. And it is because of man, not angels, that judgment comes. And, of course, there remains the issue of a non-redeemable hybrid man. And, if you believe the virgin birth was significant in that Christ was born not “of Adam”, the issue of sin type (these hybrid men would not experience sin as passing from Adam, but rather the sin of angels).

Nothing to comment on a premise of phychobabble "ie hybrid angels".
Since nothing whatsoever, calls the offspring of an unholy angel and human, ANY kind of angel.

That said, when I look at the interpretation that these “sons of God” were the godly line just described in Genesis 5 contrasted against the ungodly line just described in Genesis 4, none of these issues exist.

Gen 5 does not call any man in Gen 5, a "son of God".
Gen 5 does reveal, one man specific, that you should subsequently learn is a "son of God".

Gen 5 [24] And Enoch walked with God: <---- and THAT, was after Enoch was 65 yrs old, and had Methuselah.

What tells you, Enoch was living at the time, spoken of "sons of God" saw daughters of men, and married them? For you to consider, it may have been Enoch "ie the son of God", in Gen 6 ?

What tells you, ANYone else in Gen 5, walked with God...and "they were the son of God", whom mated with daughters of men, and produced Giants?

And further.

IF, as you purport, it was "HUMANS" referred to as "sons of God" in Gen 6, who married daughters of men......

uh....facts..... Humans WHO "become sons of God", do so by submission unto God, and receiving his internal changes, BECAUSE the man subjects himself in faithfulness to God only....

By your reasoning....even today....human men who become "sons of God" (via Gods way) and marry daughters of men....
(which they do)........would mean, their offspring would be giants......and a bunch of unholy angels are chained in hell....because such men married daughters of men?

Not scriptural or logical!

 

[JonC]

U R Welcome.



Gods Understanding IS ALWAYS necessary, to arrive at Gods "interpretation".

My Point, is Scripture is full of knowledge. The Scripture is the Written, KNOWLEDGE, ink on paper.
Stressing to you....the UNDERSTANDING (according to God), IS NOT written IN ink on paper!
The Understanding of the Knowledge according to God...IS not something we can philosophize, logically conclude, search for in ink or find........

Scripture teaches....it is a colossal FAIL, for men to attempt to "interpret" Scripture....according to their natural carnal mind, philosophy of men, guessing, using logical conclusions, etc. .....Utter FAIL!



When you understand WHO, and WHEN, and WHY, the title "sons of God" applies, any similarities they may or may have as other men, does not apply UNTIL, information reveals it does apply.

Correct.



Agree.



Jumping past onto the linage of Cain and Seth, is irrelevant, at the point of discussion of WHO the term a son of God applies to.
Since, the "sons of God", were not IN CONTEXT, yet revealed, having such title.
It was simply mentioned.....and WHO it applied to was not yet revealed, but by subsequent information.

How we know, the CONTEXT, and the first mention of "sons of God", applies to holy angels, is because of the knowledge revealed.....of WHO was present WHEN the earth, being created for the subsequent mankind, was a title given angels, who were present, when the earth was being created........AND the title given "humans", being called "man".......AND the Scripture....

"sons of God"....saw daughters of "men".....and that requires the knowledge that "sons of God", are also revealed called "spirits" and "stars". And it was the stars that were present during the creation of the earth, before mankind, and witnesses of the creation of the earth.



I disagree. Since the knowledge of "holy men", was not introduced, until later, in Exodus, and even then "they were not disclosed as "sons of God".

To say in context....to know WHO was the subject being spoken of in Gen 6: 1,2, "sons of God" are holy angels. created humans, were at that point only called Men. The daughters were offspring of human men. The unholy angels took human women as wives. The unholy angels and human wives had offspring. The offspring were giants.



I didn't get my understanding from an angel or man. But rather Christ Jesus, who is my teacher.



Irrelevant to mention sexual attraction. Scripture tells you they were attracted to human women, because of their look. It is obvious they invoked a relationship with them.....because it reveals they married them and had offspring....which is a result of a sexual encounter.



So? Did you change women to being the glory of angels? I didn't.
Is it attraction of a man to a woman, define the glory of man? no
Is it marriage of a man and a woman, define the glory of man? no
Is it a sexual encounter of a man and a woman that defines the glory of man? no
Is it a woman having a child what defines the glory of man? no

So, how does your statement have any application to the discussion? It doesn't, and here's why.

1 Cor 11:
[7] For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

WHO is the image and glory of God? A natural born man? No. Remember, Adam was in the image and likeness of God, and thereafter all men born became in the image and likeness of Adam.

A man WHO is in the image and likeness of God, is a man WHO has become forgiven, is submitted to faithfulness in God, has his body, justifies, sanctified, had his soul restored, and has had his spirit "quickened" (ie born again).

So where in Gen 6:..... is any of that revealed, such things applied to the "MEN" being spoken of? It doesn't.

Continued....

I believe that we should allow Scripture to interpret Scripture and I grant that you probably believe the same. The difference being that I believe Scripture defines "sons of God" in Genesis 6 as being godly men (human beings) and this intermarriage as one between this people group and those of the world whereas you believe these to be angelic beings.

If you want to know where in Genesis it is revealed that such things are applied to men the answer is in chapters 4 to 5. We cannot read Scripture as stand-alone passages and I believe that you are making a mistake by removing Genesis 6:4-6 from its context.

Oh...and all men are created in God's image (this is why God demands the life of a murderer in Genesis 9:5-6).

 

[Yeshua1]

The vast majority of commentators are now saying these men were fallen angels.

Yes, but the other position is also legit to hold....