Son's of God Genesis 6:1-8

[JaumeJ]

Posted here by accident..........

QUOTE=JaumeJ;3081625]Here is a thought.

Imagine arriving to the Kingdom only to find it is run like the US!

What an horrible notion.

I want God-s version, the real deal, a Kingdom with the Perfect King, amen! Halleluyah![/QUOTE]

 

[dcontroversal]

I like how this adds to what i found. It seems to fit, based on the fact that they needed to resort to such an offer.... which would spare the angels from the same punishment as those mentioned in Jude 6.


Jude 6-7: And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

It likens the actions of the chained angels to those of Sodom and Gomorrah, so clearly those angels mentioned were guilty of committing the same types of evils as S&G, sexual immorality and going after a strange flesh.... which is why these angels are in chains. So it is of a sexual nature.

AMEN.....My brother has a doctorate in bible languages (GREEK and HEBREW) and according to him there are sexual undertones found in the Jude application of GOING AFTER STRANGE FLESH..........many simply sweep under the rug that the bible gives weight to a celestial form and an earthly form.....The legion that JESUS cast out begged to inhabit the hogs....IN HEAVEN we are like the angels that do not marry, most refuse to acknowledge that on the earth then angels are like men and must inhabit flesh or take form in order to inhabit this physical realm.

 

[narrowispath]

Hi, bible is describing sons of GOD from descends of Enoch. We are all sons of GOD when we walk with
him just like Enoch. They are not angels because angels are spirits, although they can occupy a person.

 

[oldhermit]

They could also be grand sons or even adopted sons. English just do not have a common word for that so it must use the word "son". But it is not there in Greek.

Greek says "who was of Adam, who was of God" etc.

Adam was not the son of God, God created Adam. And he is never called like that.

In Genesis, it means something else, it is not any kind of genealogy. Its a name for the beings:

ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαί εἰσιν
"When the sons of God were seeing the daughters of humans"
-> I do not know how to find humans saw humans in this verse...
It is quite simple. The men saw that the women were beautiful. Seems rather natural to me.

This is not a matter of speculation. This is simply a matter of the rules of Greek syntax. Verse 23 supplies υἱὸς for every link that follows. The translators all get this, I do not understand why this is even being challenged. I did not make up the rules of grammar here. These are not adopted sons nor grandsons, they are sons. There is not reason to suggest an inadequacy in translational equivalency. Although Matthew only presents the linage from the time of Abraham he still marks each link of the generations. The reason the names are different is because Matthew traces Joseph's linage from Abraham while Luke traces Jesus linage through Mary back to Adam. Matthew specifies that this linage from Abraham represents 38 actual generations till the time of Christ. There is no reason to attempt to force generational gaps into either account. The accuracy of Luke's genealogy is quite easily traceable and verifiable from a study of the OT chronology. If you like I can post you a copy of the genealogy from Adam to Manasseh. It is quite detailed.

 

[trofimus]

This is not a matter of speculation. This is simply a matter of the rules of Greek syntax. Verse 23 supplies υἱὸς for every link that follows. The translators all get this, I do not understand why this is even being challenged. I did not make up the rules of grammar here. These are not adopted sons nor grandsons, they are sons. There is not reason to suggest an inadequacy in translational equivalency. Although Matthew only presents the linage from the time of Abraham he still marks each link of the generations. The reason the names are different is because Matthew traces Joseph's linage from Abraham while Luke traces Jesus linage through Mary back to Adam. Matthew specifies that this linage from Abraham represents 38 actual generations till the time of Christ. There is no reason to attempt to force generational gaps into either account. The accuracy of Luke's genealogy is quite easily traceable and verifiable from a study of the OT chronology. If you like I can post you a copy of the genealogy from Adam to Manasseh. It is quite detailed.

I must admit that I am not able to see any connection between the English translation "Adam, the son of God", just because all other figures were also sons, even if we know that Adam was not the son of God and between the use of the clear term "the sons of God" in the book of Job and in Genesis, meaning "beings higher than humans", specifically angels, as proven by the Septuagint translated by educated Jews and accepted as the authoritative translation for the Greek speaking Jews and Christians.

So I will probably leave it as it is.

 

[trofimus]

ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαί εἰσιν
"When the sons of God were seeing the daughters of humans"
-> I do not know how to find humans saw humans in this verse...

It is quite simple. The men saw that the women were beautiful. Seems rather natural to me.

In that case the Genesis would simply say "And the men saw the women...", no need to operate with "God" and "anthropos" terms.

 

[oldhermit]

But we should focus on the punctuation used here, specifically ";" - this joins both of them together.

No, the function of a semicolon is to simply link two clausesthat could each be separate sentences thus creating a longer sentence. It in no way suggests the joining of two ideas.

"And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

You may want to refer to Benson on this point although not all commentators agree on this point. The most immediate antecedent of these is Sodom and Gomorrah, not the angels.

V8 starts with "Likewise also..."

The subject is sexual immorality.
The angels are mentioned here as is Sodom & Gomorrah (plus surrounding cities).
Punishment is mentioned for both

Why would the angels be mentioned if they were not relevant in this point made?

"Likbewise also..." is not drawing a similarity between the sins of the angels and those of the cities of the plains but between the fates of each. The sins of the angels is clearly defined by the text as having having left their "own position of authority" (ἀρχὴν - rule, or beginning), not sexual immorality. These angels were not cast down to earth rather, their immediate fate was that they were "kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day."

 

[oldhermit]

I think that the epistle to Hebrews says something slightly different:

Τίνι γὰρ εἶπέν ποτε τῶν ἀγγέλων Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε;

Its a special kind of individual fathership that applies only to the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

-----

That verse is not about the same thing like for example in the book Job:

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD..."
Job 1:6 from Hebrew

Καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἦλθον οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ παραστῆναι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Κυρίου
Job 1:6 translated to Greek

-> sons of God was a term for angels, as proven by the Septuagint

The point that the Hebrew writer is making is that Jesus is set apart from this angels in the designation as son. This is a point of distinction (although certainly not the only point). If you are going to insist that 'sons of God' is a term for angels you are going to have to provide a text that demonstrates this beyond simple conjecture.

 

[trofimus]

The point that the Hebrew writer is making is that Jesus is set apart from this angels in the designation as son. This is a point of distinction (although certainly not the only point). If you are going to insist that 'sons of God' is a term for angels you are going to have to provide a text that demonstrates this beyond simple conjecture.

Hebrew text has "the sons of God" in Job 1:6

The authoritative translation of Scriptures made by Jews themselves into Greek has "the angels of God" in Job 1:6

I think this is a clear proof how the term "the sons of God" was viewed and understood in the ancient times.

 

[Adstar]

Who are the sons of God described in Genesis 6:1-8?

The Angels.. Lucifer was amoung them and lucifer was an Cherubim Angel..

 

[dcontroversal]

Logically deduced conclusions......

When the sons of God sang for joy when creation was cast down

a. It is either MEN or it is ANGELS....IF MEN one must agree and conclude that men were in existence before creation and the creation of ADAM on the 6th day.

ADAM is called a SON of GOD, after that men are referred to as son of MAN or sons of men.....it is not until the N.T. that men are referred to as the SONS of GOD.....

It can be logically deduced that the statement is applied unto angels based upon

a. Point one above
b. The consistent use of verbiage as applied unto men in the O.T.

The only people who argue this "for the most part" are those who dismiss the indications found in Genesis 6 and in JUDE......

THE OTHER THING OVERLOOKED is the comparison made between the SEED of the woman and the SEED of the serpent

THE seed of the woman being JESUS
THE seed of the SERPENT<------the last word CANNOT be swept under the rug and applied unto the lost "NECESSARILY"

Isaiah 14:29<-------reference this-->Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

 

[TimeTravler]

LOL I am afraid I may not be all that precious nor am I an elder in the Lord's Church. I am just a middle aged retired preacher. My brother gave me the hashtag of oldhermit because I am rather reclusive.

Did you preach in the church of God?

Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves,
and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,
to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

 

[oldhermit]

who were the sons of the Most High in Psalm 82?

In John 10 we find Jesus being accused of blasphemy “because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” The Jews understood the implication of Jesus statement. When they threatened Jesus with stoning, Jesus reminded them of the 82 Psalm which says ‘[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You are “gods”; [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]you are all [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]sons of the Most High[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif].’[/FONT] They knew to whom this Psalm was directed. “He called them gods, to whom the word of God came.” They knew this was talking about those who were charged with giving the Law of God to the people. Here, [FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]sons of the Most High[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] refers to those men whom God had appointed as judges in Israel.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[TimeTravler]

"Sons of God" is a term that seems to always applied to men. There does not seem to be any place in scripture where this term is ever applied to angels as many suppose with one possible exception and that is Job 38:6-7 but even this is inconclusive. Scripture must ALWAYS be allowed to define its own use of language.

Why do you discount what is written in the Book of Enoch?

 

[oldhermit]

In that case the Genesis would simply say "And the men saw the women...", no need to operate with "God" and "anthropos" terms.

Then if it were angels why does it simply not say "And angels saw the women?"

 

[trofimus]

Logically deduced conclusions......

When the sons of God sang for joy when creation was cast down

a. It is either MEN or it is ANGELS....IF MEN one must agree and conclude that men were in existence before creation and the creation of ADAM on the 6th day.

ADAM is called a SON of GOD, after that men are referred to as son of MAN or sons of men.....it is not until the N.T. that men are referred to as the SONS of GOD.....

It can be logically deduced that the statement is applied unto angels based upon

a. Point one above
b. The consistent use of verbiage as applied unto men in the O.T.

The only people who argue this "for the most part" are those who dismiss the indications found in Genesis 6 and in JUDE......

THE OTHER THING OVERLOOKED is the comparison made between the SEED of the woman and the SEED of the serpent

THE seed of the woman being JESUS
THE seed of the SERPENT<------the last word CANNOT be swept under the rug and applied unto the lost "NECESSARILY"

Isaiah 14:29<-------reference this-->Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

Yeah, thanks, its a good verse.

English Standard Version
when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

New International Version
while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

LXX
ὅτε ἐγενήθησαν ἄστρα, ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί μου.
When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice.

Job 38:7

 

[dcontroversal]

Why do you discount what is written in the Book of Enoch?

Most reject it because it did not "make the canon" of scripture.......

funny thing....Satan has been attempting to corrupt the word from the Garden Eastward in EDEN......

 

[oldhermit]

I must admit that I am not able to see any connection between the English translation "Adam, the son of God", just because all other figures were also sons, even if we know that Adam was not the son of God and between the use of the clear term "the sons of God" in the book of Job and in Genesis, meaning "beings higher than humans", specifically angels, as proven by the Septuagint translated by educated Jews and accepted as the authoritative translation for the Greek speaking Jews and Christians.

So I will probably leave it as it is.

All the translators see it. It this still does not make sense to you grammatically, perhaps you could ask Angela to explain it. She better at Greek than I and seems to have a way of explaining the rules of Greek syntax better than I can.

 

[trofimus]

All the translators see it. It this still does not make sense to you grammatically, perhaps you could ask Angela to explain it. She better at Greek than I and seems to have a way of explaining the rules of Greek syntax better than I can.

I do not know about "all the translators", but in Czech translation there is no "son"... so I am afraid it is an English language specificum.... thats probably why we do not understand each other.

 

[trofimus]

Then if it were angels why does it simply not say "And angels saw the women?"

In the Old testament, the word "angel" is not so frequently used.

They, probably because of the babylonian culture, used the term "son of God" for somebody who is higher, for rulers or angels... it can be seen in Genesis, Job, Daniel...