No, the fact that Satan is also among those son's of God, to present himself to the Lord, would demonstrate that this was taking place in heaven, being in God's immediate presence that they appeared. This would do away with the idea that the son's of God was referring to men appearing to God in the temple.
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No, the fact that Satan is also among those son's of God, to present himself to the Lord, would demonstrate that this was taking place in heaven, being in God's immediate presence that they appeared. This would do away with the idea that the son's of God was referring to men appearing to God in the temple.
I am sorry it is taking so long to respond. Having a lot of service issues here.
It is the same principle we see in God's warning to Israel before they entered Canaan. "You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons." It does not suggest that the opposite arrangement was not also true. The particular emphases in Gen 6 seems to be related to the consequences of the sons of Seth taking the daughters of Cain. "And his daughters might play the harlot with their gods and cause your sons also to play the harlot with their gods." This seems to be precisely what happened leading up the Gen 6.
It is the same principle we see in God's warning to Israel before they entered Canaan. "You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons." It does not suggest that the opposite arrangement was not also true. The particular emphases in Gen 6 seems to be related to the consequences of the sons of Seth taking the daughters of Cain. "And his daughters might play the harlot with their gods and cause your sons also to play the harlot with their gods." This seems to be precisely what happened leading up the Gen 6.
You are assuming that because Satan and God are having this conversation that this "presentation" of the sons of God is something that is taking place in heaven. If so, what could this possibly have to do with Job and why would one automatically assume that Satan must be in heaven for this conversation between Satan and God to be taking place? Leviticus defines the terminology for us about one's presentation to Jehovah. If this is a worship scenario the presence of God is among his worshipers (See the examples of the offering of sacrifices in Exodus 25:22 "There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.") This then is an earth bound experience. Clearly, Satan is also present. This does not necessitate that this is taking place in heaven. This is unwarranted conjecture.
The sons of Seth were not sons of GOD... Adam and Jesus and the angels are called sons of God. Seth was a 'son of man', so am I.
As far as the ability of the 'fallen' angels (rem, this happened after the Lord gave Satan the [Prince-cipality] of this world), they have all the knowledge there is. How can one extrapolate that 'angels cannot have sex (intercourse)' out of the Bible verse Matt. 22:30 that says:.."In the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.".
The Bible does not say or even allude to this activity THUS we simply do not know!!!!!Simple as that.
Here is the issue with Gen 6. Since the text does not specifically tell us that those 'sons of God' are angels we are left with no alternative but to seek a definition of the term 'sons of God' so, the question is, what definition do we assign to the meaning of this term? /there are only two options - imagination or scripture. If we assign angelic beings to this term then we must then find where scripture itself assigns such a definition to this term. This presents a problem since no such scripture exists. On the other hand, we see repeated passages where 'sons of God' is used to describe men as the subject but there is no text that ever defines angels in this way.
Hey oldhermit...hope this finds you well.....
The lines of Seth and lines of Cain was started back in the fifth century when it became an embarrassment to the Church when 'angels' was used when interpreting Genesis 6. Thus, Julius Africanus started using the Sehite interpretation.
One more Question ...If Genesis 6 refers to the Sehites (Son's of God) and daughter's of men (restricted to the line of Cain??) Where is the reason the offspring are called Nephillum? While they (both lines--Seth and Cain) may be rebellious, their tawdry rendezvous should NOT produce Giants??????
That is quite an assumption. We know from the mouth of the Lord that angels are not sexual beings. To insist that these in Gen 6 are the offspring of a union between angels and humans makes a number of unwarranted assumptions. This assumes that the term 'sons of god' can only refer to angels. It assumes that the angels which were cast down from heaven were cast down upon the earth. It assumes that if they were cast down upon the earth that they assumed human form. It assumes that if they took human form they became sexual creatures. It assumes that they were sufficiently genetically compatible with human DNA to produce offspring. It assumes that the appearance of the giants in the land can only be explained through this quantum leap of conjecture, none of which is supplied by any biblical text.
Last edited:
Where is the verse(s) for this statement:"We know from the mouth of the Lord that angels are not sexual beings."
I have already stated that marriage is not needed in heaven because a mother and father is not needed to procreate children.
YET!
The epistle of JUDE 6-7 ....tells us a little more.
"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. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
It appears these angels could have intercourse.
Last edited:
I like that you like the KJV, KJV1611. Anyway, I wonder what you see the giant Goliath as being. Do you think he is a descendant of some kind of supernatural creature and humans? I must say I don't see that. I see him as being just a large human. I think that men do sire giants. However, chapter six of Genesis is a picture of events prior to the flood, when men's hearts were evil continually. This is a time which is given in Genesis as an illustration of the time of the church age leading up to the tribulation and the falling away from the Lord of the congregations. The term giant is a Bible buzzword (a parable word) for those who oppose the true believers. Remember, Matthew 24 tells us that the true believers will be hated for his name's sake and will be rejected in 'houses of worship'. Despite this, those who oppose the true believers are like giants in the earthly sense and in the law quited versed. This is a picture of congregations. Consider how today there are many people wielding a lot of religious influence in 'super churches' and on TV and so forth. Perhaps many are giants in the earthly sense. Yet David calls his giant opponent 'uncircumcized' meaning unconverted, unsaved. God is for the true believers so he has defiled the armies of the living God. The verse in Genesis 6 which talks about the sons of God and the daughters of men is simply saying what the Bible always says the sons of God are. The sons of God are true believers (humans) and the daughters of men is meaning those who are unsaved. The mixing of the saved and the unsaved leads to worldliness and God was displeased, hence the flood. The situation was like Ezra records: "We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing." This again is a picture of true believers taking unbelievers for wives.
Here is what I found on it. Interesting point highlighted in red.
Copy/paste....
Copy/paste....
Question: "Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?"
Answer:
Genesis 6:1-4 refers to the sons of God and the daughters of men. There have been several suggestions as to who the sons of God were and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants (that is what the word Nephilim seems to indicate).
The three primary views on the identity of the sons of God are 1) they were fallen angels, 2) they were powerful human rulers, or 3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to the first theory is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with this is in Matthew 22:30, which indicates that angels do not marry. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that angels have a gender or are able to reproduce. The other two views do not present this problem.
The weakness of views 2) and 3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were “giants” or “heroes of old, men of renown.” Further, why would God decide to bring the flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbade powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain? The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4. Only the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment.
As previously noted, the weakness of the first view is that Matthew 22:30 declares, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” However, the text does not say “angels are not able to marry.” Rather, it indicates only that angels do not marry. Second, Matthew 22:30 is referring to the “angels in heaven.” It is not referring to fallen angels, who do not care about God’s created order and actively seek ways to disrupt God’s plan. The fact that God’s holy angels do not marry or engage in sexual relations does not mean the same is true of Satan and his demons.
View 1) is the most likely position. Yes, it is an interesting “contradiction” to say that angels are sexless and then to say that the “sons of God” were fallen angels who procreated with human females. However, while angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5). The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1-5). It is plausible that angels are capable of taking on human form, even to the point of replicating human sexuality and possibly even reproduction. Why do the fallen angels not do this more often? It seems that God imprisoned the fallen angels who committed this evil sin, so that the other fallen angels would not do the same (as described in Jude 6). Earlier Hebrew interpreters and apocryphal and pseudopigraphal writings are unanimous in holding to the view that fallen angels are the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. This by no means closes the debate. However, the view that Genesis 6:1-4 involves fallen angels mating with human females has a strong contextual, grammatical, and historical basis.
Answer:
Genesis 6:1-4 refers to the sons of God and the daughters of men. There have been several suggestions as to who the sons of God were and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants (that is what the word Nephilim seems to indicate).
The three primary views on the identity of the sons of God are 1) they were fallen angels, 2) they were powerful human rulers, or 3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to the first theory is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with this is in Matthew 22:30, which indicates that angels do not marry. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that angels have a gender or are able to reproduce. The other two views do not present this problem.
The weakness of views 2) and 3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were “giants” or “heroes of old, men of renown.” Further, why would God decide to bring the flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbade powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain? The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4. Only the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment.
As previously noted, the weakness of the first view is that Matthew 22:30 declares, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” However, the text does not say “angels are not able to marry.” Rather, it indicates only that angels do not marry. Second, Matthew 22:30 is referring to the “angels in heaven.” It is not referring to fallen angels, who do not care about God’s created order and actively seek ways to disrupt God’s plan. The fact that God’s holy angels do not marry or engage in sexual relations does not mean the same is true of Satan and his demons.
View 1) is the most likely position. Yes, it is an interesting “contradiction” to say that angels are sexless and then to say that the “sons of God” were fallen angels who procreated with human females. However, while angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5). The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1-5). It is plausible that angels are capable of taking on human form, even to the point of replicating human sexuality and possibly even reproduction. Why do the fallen angels not do this more often? It seems that God imprisoned the fallen angels who committed this evil sin, so that the other fallen angels would not do the same (as described in Jude 6). Earlier Hebrew interpreters and apocryphal and pseudopigraphal writings are unanimous in holding to the view that fallen angels are the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. This by no means closes the debate. However, the view that Genesis 6:1-4 involves fallen angels mating with human females has a strong contextual, grammatical, and historical basis.
Everyone that claim that the sons of God are fallen angels by using Job alway miss this part. Job 1:6 "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. The context separates satan from the sons of God and Job 2:1 further separates him from the sons of God "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord." By adding to present himself before the Lord.
Yes satan was with or among the sons of God when they came before the Lord, but was not counted as one of the sons of God. Why? Because he "also came among them." 2:1 adds, "to present himself before the Lord." again not part of the sons of God, only among the sons of God, but he was not a son of God. I know there are some that say that because it's in heaven that that proves that satan is one of the sons of God, but what does Revelation say, he is before God accusing the brothers both day and night, does that sound like what the sons of God were or would do?
Plus when Jesus spoke about the resurrection in Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." Jesus said angels do not marry and from what I understand angel is used in the neuter form (I don't know for sure) and it is clear that the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 married the daughters of men, "and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. "So from a Biblical viewpoint, they were not committing fornication, sex with someone that is not your husband or wife is fornication or illicit sex.
Look at 6:5-7 the Lord states the reason He is going to judge the earth, “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” Notice how the Holy Spirit guided Moses to used the word "man" instead of men, the plural form, I wonder if it's because He used men to separate them from the son of God and now by using man He is bring all humans together for the judgement? Something to think about.
No mention of the union/marriage of the sons of God to the daughter of men, but if was because of mans heart was intent, thoughts, only evil always. Where in the Bible does it say that a being that has rebelled against God is one of His child or son(s)?
Please do not bring up the book of Enoch, because in 10:12 we know that 10 talks about children of fornication by the watchers or angels and some believe this is talking about Genesis 6, when it's not. Enoch 10:10-13 "Restore the earth, which the angels have corrupted; and announce life to it, that I may revive it. 11. All the sons of men shall not perish in consequence of every secret, by which the Watchers have destroyed, and which they have taught, their offspring. 12. All the earth has been corrupted by the effects of the teaching of Azazyel. To him therefore ascribe the whole crime.13. To Gabriel also the Lord said, Go to the biters, to the reprobates, to the children of fornication; and destroy the children of fornication, the offspring of the Watchers, from among men; bring them forth, and excite them one against another. Let them perish by mutual slaughter; for length of days shall not be theirs."
This is not talking about Genesis 6, the Lord did not say "restore the earth" He said he was going to destroy the men of the earth, not because of the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men. He was going to destroy men because they were evil in thoughts in their heart continually and He judged man, not azazyel. The children from the union again were not of fornication, because the sons of God and the daughters of men were married, so no fornication there or children go fornication.
Who were the sons of God? Genesis 4:25-26 "And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” 26 And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord." This is why, some believe think they are the descendants of Seth, because Seth is another seed, instead of Abel. Remember, God said "between your seed and her seed"? Abel was the seed that was going to bring forth the Messiah. This is why the Holy Spirit had Moses write it down like that, so we could know that "her seed" was still going to be at enmity with "his seed". And his son Enoch was born and men began to call on the name of the Lord.
Who are the daughters of men, Genesis 4:16-17 "Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch." Since Cain went out from the presents of the Lord, which has to mean that he did not follow the Lord or his heart had not changed, he still had the heart of fruits of the ground for an offering to the Lord. Because we know that you can not go from the presenceof the Lord, Psalms 139:7-12.
This is how people come to the conclusion that the daughters of men, were Cain's offspring, because Cain's clan live apart from Seth's offspring and with Seth's son Enosh men began to call on the name of the Lord. So they were living different types of lifestyles. The main thing to remember of why the Lord wanted to stop this is because of Eve's seed or the promised Messiah and Seth was another seed after Abel's death to take Abel's place in that line to bring about "her seed", because it says "and another seed" that was Eve's reaction to Seth's brith.
Hope that helped, I know no one is going to change their view, but for those that aren't sure, that's what is behind the Seth and Cain belief.
Yes satan was with or among the sons of God when they came before the Lord, but was not counted as one of the sons of God. Why? Because he "also came among them." 2:1 adds, "to present himself before the Lord." again not part of the sons of God, only among the sons of God, but he was not a son of God. I know there are some that say that because it's in heaven that that proves that satan is one of the sons of God, but what does Revelation say, he is before God accusing the brothers both day and night, does that sound like what the sons of God were or would do?
Plus when Jesus spoke about the resurrection in Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." Jesus said angels do not marry and from what I understand angel is used in the neuter form (I don't know for sure) and it is clear that the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 married the daughters of men, "and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. "So from a Biblical viewpoint, they were not committing fornication, sex with someone that is not your husband or wife is fornication or illicit sex.
Look at 6:5-7 the Lord states the reason He is going to judge the earth, “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” Notice how the Holy Spirit guided Moses to used the word "man" instead of men, the plural form, I wonder if it's because He used men to separate them from the son of God and now by using man He is bring all humans together for the judgement? Something to think about.
No mention of the union/marriage of the sons of God to the daughter of men, but if was because of mans heart was intent, thoughts, only evil always. Where in the Bible does it say that a being that has rebelled against God is one of His child or son(s)?
Please do not bring up the book of Enoch, because in 10:12 we know that 10 talks about children of fornication by the watchers or angels and some believe this is talking about Genesis 6, when it's not. Enoch 10:10-13 "Restore the earth, which the angels have corrupted; and announce life to it, that I may revive it. 11. All the sons of men shall not perish in consequence of every secret, by which the Watchers have destroyed, and which they have taught, their offspring. 12. All the earth has been corrupted by the effects of the teaching of Azazyel. To him therefore ascribe the whole crime.13. To Gabriel also the Lord said, Go to the biters, to the reprobates, to the children of fornication; and destroy the children of fornication, the offspring of the Watchers, from among men; bring them forth, and excite them one against another. Let them perish by mutual slaughter; for length of days shall not be theirs."
This is not talking about Genesis 6, the Lord did not say "restore the earth" He said he was going to destroy the men of the earth, not because of the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men. He was going to destroy men because they were evil in thoughts in their heart continually and He judged man, not azazyel. The children from the union again were not of fornication, because the sons of God and the daughters of men were married, so no fornication there or children go fornication.
Who were the sons of God? Genesis 4:25-26 "And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” 26 And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord." This is why, some believe think they are the descendants of Seth, because Seth is another seed, instead of Abel. Remember, God said "between your seed and her seed"? Abel was the seed that was going to bring forth the Messiah. This is why the Holy Spirit had Moses write it down like that, so we could know that "her seed" was still going to be at enmity with "his seed". And his son Enoch was born and men began to call on the name of the Lord.
Who are the daughters of men, Genesis 4:16-17 "Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch." Since Cain went out from the presents of the Lord, which has to mean that he did not follow the Lord or his heart had not changed, he still had the heart of fruits of the ground for an offering to the Lord. Because we know that you can not go from the presenceof the Lord, Psalms 139:7-12.
This is how people come to the conclusion that the daughters of men, were Cain's offspring, because Cain's clan live apart from Seth's offspring and with Seth's son Enosh men began to call on the name of the Lord. So they were living different types of lifestyles. The main thing to remember of why the Lord wanted to stop this is because of Eve's seed or the promised Messiah and Seth was another seed after Abel's death to take Abel's place in that line to bring about "her seed", because it says "and another seed" that was Eve's reaction to Seth's brith.
Hope that helped, I know no one is going to change their view, but for those that aren't sure, that's what is behind the Seth and Cain belief.
Last edited:
Because the term for angelic beings in the OT is "the sons of God". Its a natural name for them.
So when you say they are humans, descendant of Seth, what in the Bible uses it in this way?
Also, notice that the term "daughters of men" is in the original "daughters of Adam". So it is very difficult to imagine how it could be only about the Seth's descendants but not about the Cain's ones.
So when you say they are humans, descendant of Seth, what in the Bible uses it in this way?
Also, notice that the term "daughters of men" is in the original "daughters of Adam". So it is very difficult to imagine how it could be only about the Seth's descendants but not about the Cain's ones.
Last edited:
There is also a more scientific view - the mixing of homo sapiens with neanderthals.
It can be seen in our DNA even today, mostly in the European race (the huge variations of eye and hair colors in Europe is said to be because of the neanderthal DNA).
It is very possible that such mixing could produce many strange looking men, even giants.
I am listing it just for a completion, I prefer the angels-humans view.
It can be seen in our DNA even today, mostly in the European race (the huge variations of eye and hair colors in Europe is said to be because of the neanderthal DNA).
It is very possible that such mixing could produce many strange looking men, even giants.
I am listing it just for a completion, I prefer the angels-humans view.