Folks I realize that this is not a critical issue, however I hear so much about the giants in the bible being the offspring of angels and humans...THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY THAT. There were two declarations made, one was that there were giants in the earth in those days...STOP... the other was that when the sons of God(angels) took the daughters of men that they bore men of great ability. Two things that it is describing, one is giants, who were before and after the flood, the other is a hybrid between an angel and a human that only appeared before the flood. Think please, for a five foot six inch ,130 pound woman, to produce a ten foot eight hundred pound man, that would mean that her husband had to be fifteen feet tall and weigh fourteen hundred pounds. It would be like trying to cross a male mastiff with a female wiener dog. First the sex act is not gonna happen and even if it did the wiener dog would die way before birth time...same with a human woman trying to have a sixty pound baby...not going to happen. The offspring of women and angels were normal in height and weight but built with incredible strength and speed and toughness. The giants are kind of a mystery since they were before and after the flood and I have never been able to trace their ancestors with any success.
Luke 3:38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Consider that for these sons of God to take wives for themselves among the daughters of men for these women to be called wives in God's words, then God would have to join them together... and so the sons of God has to be men.
Matthew 19:[SUP]4 [/SUP]And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,[SUP]5 [/SUP]And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?[SUP]6 [/SUP]Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
That is what marriage is to God for God to join a woman to a man for that women to be called a wife to that man in His words.
Then we have Jesus reproving the idea that God would marry angels to women, because angels do not marry.
Matthew 22:[SUP]29 [/SUP]Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.[SUP]30 [/SUP]For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
If we look at how christians join the now God's chosen family tree....as opposed to the bloodline of old...
John 1:[SUP]12[/SUP]But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:[SUP]13[/SUP]Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
I know believers refer to Job as proof of sons of God being angels, but is it not a coincidence that Job was mentioned both times the son of God presented themselves to the Lord? Why do they read it as if Job was not among these sons of God? If he was not among the sons of God when presenting themselves to the Lord, how insulting would that be if God ignored their presentation as if they had paled in comparison to a human by the name of Job? So they need to stop reading those verses as if sons of God meant angels because it can never be angels.
And to insinuate that God would join an angel ( why would a fallen angel be called a son of God still? ) with a woman in "unholy matrimony" would make God an accessory to that sin of them falling from their first estate, thus God would have sinned if He had done that, which He did not.
Just like God is not joining men to men or women to women in holy matrimony either. No, He is not.
Angels were not created to reproduce after their own kind. That is why they are not given in marriage.
The firstfruits of the resurrection; aka the elect, are not going to marry either in Heaven or stayed married when raptured. Only Christ's love will reign in the elect; no romantic love that is associated with the world will exists for it pales in comparison to what Christ's love is.
1 Corinthians 7:[SUP]29 [/SUP]But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;[SUP]30 [/SUP]And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;[SUP]31 [/SUP]And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
Now I know they that disagree would like to bring up Job 38:6-7 below...
Job 38:1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,[SUP]2 [/SUP]Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?[SUP]3 [/SUP]Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.[SUP]4 [/SUP]Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.[SUP]5 [/SUP]Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?:[SUP]6 [/SUP]Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;[SUP]7 [/SUP]When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?.....[SUP]21 [/SUP]Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?[SUP]22 [/SUP]Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,[SUP]23 [/SUP]Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?...........[SUP]41 [/SUP]Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.
Since scripture cannot go against scripture, then they are reading that point of reference wrong. Do we not sing about the wonders of God's creation? One hymn comes to mind "How Great Thou Art". I believe God was pointing out to Job how he, with the sons of God, had sung about His creation and His commands & providence in nature as found in the scripture that he should know better even though he was not there at the time He spoke it into being or doing it now in relations to his present day suffering. God's answer to Job was due to his verbal response prior to this chapter.
Job 37:[SUP]23 [/SUP]Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out: he is excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice: he will not afflict.[SUP]24 [/SUP]Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart.
Job was under the impression that God does not afflict the righteous, and so being beyond his understanding to fathom why he was being afflicted other than he must somehow deserved it, regardless of those even wise in heart.
So it wasn't about Job not being there at creation, but answering Job's negative response due to his suffering, because it was about him not seeing God's hand even in the present since Job was suffering, and yet God had driven that point home about the sons of God shouted with joy when celebrating and singing about God's hands in creation, and then to Job's present on how the world is by God's command in nature & His Providence. How could the sons of God, even Job, had sung of such things unless they had knowledge? Job was to know that God is still in control even when someone is suffering, and just because someone is suffering, it does not mean God does not love him, but that He is with Him always to provide help to get him through it.
There is no other way to explain it since the sons of God cannot be angels, not even in John 38:7 for why refer to another witness, let alone, a group of witnesses like the sons of God, unless Job could confirm with them in reminding him since he was among them that he should know better since they have sung of His acts in creation and other things too?