Son's of God Genesis 6:1-8

  • 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.
oldhermit

oldhermit

Senior Member
#101
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#101
valiant said:
Far from being nonsense it makes very good sense. The sons of the Elohim in OT are always shown in a heavenly environment with the possible exception of Gen 6.1-4. But there it fits in nicely as well.

In OT the humans are described as 'the children of YHWH your God' (Deut 14.1) a very different description.

I suggest the nonsense is yours.
Click to expand...
It does not matter which word from scripture you use for God. If man is the son of God by one name, he is the son of God by all his names and the name of God in Gen 1 is ĕ-lō-hîm; of whom Luke says Adam was the son of.

Valiant, your arguments become more nonsensical the more you talk. I think I am just going to cut this off right here. I prefer to converse with someone who at least demonstrates the capacity for abstract thought.
 
oldhermit

oldhermit

Senior Member
#102
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#102
trofimus said:
But in Genesis it is not "assumed", but it is how they are named.
Click to expand...
We are not talking about Genesis. We are talking about Luke's inspired account of the linage of Jesus. The Greek is quite clear. None of the other links of the genealogy are supplied with "the son," yet you do not question that. The translators are all correct in their translation of this text. Each person of the genealogy is linked to his predecessor as the "son of". Why do feel this is somehow different in the case of Adam?
 
V

valiant

Senior Member
#103
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
#103
Originally Posted by valiant
Far from being nonsense it makes very good sense. The sons of the Elohim in OT are always shown in a heavenly environment with the possible exception of Gen 6.1-4. But there it fits in nicely as well.

In OT the humans are described as 'the children of YHWH your God' (Deut 14.1) a very different description.

I suggest the nonsense is yours.
Click to expand...
oldhermit said:
It does not matter which word from scripture you use for God. If man is the son of God by one name, he is the son of God by all his names and the name of God in Gen 1 is ĕ-lō-hîm; of whom Luke says Adam was the son of.
Click to expand...
But it does matter greatly. A man is NEVER called in Scripture 'a child of the elohim' (one from among the Elohim). The elohim are heavenly beings, as was the spirit that wanted to represent itself as Samuel. Thus Satan was 'a child of the elohim'. But no man is ever called that in the OT.

In the NT we are introduced to a new description, a child of theos (singular). But it does not compare in usage with 'sons of the elohim' (plural). You are muddling up the OT with the NT. In the OT godly folk are called 'children' of YHWH.

And even in the NT Adam was called 'of God', and not a 'child of God' (Luke 3). Sons of God was a new conception totally, as used later by the Apostles of the church as they were gathered into His body..

Valiant, your arguments become more nonsensical the more you talk. I think I am just going to cut this off right here. I prefer to converse with someone who at least demonstrates the capacity for abstract thought.
Click to expand...
You have no arguments so you run away. Well we all know what that means, try and phrase it as you will.

you however are right on one thing. I depend on Scriptural thought not on abstract thought. Let anyone compare what I say with the Scriptures and they will see that it is true.
 
oldhermit

oldhermit

Senior Member
#104
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#104
valiant said:
But it does matter greatly. A man is NEVER called in Scripture 'a child of the elohim' (one from among the Elohim). The elohim are heavenly beings, as was the spirit that wanted to represent itself as Samuel. Thus Satan was 'a child of the elohim'. But no man is ever called that in the OT.

In the NT we are introduced to a new description, a child of theos (singular). But it does not compare in usage with 'sons of the elohim' (plural). You are muddling up the OT with the NT. In the OT godly folk are called 'children' of YHWH.

And even in the NT Adam was called 'of God', and not a 'child of God' (Luke 3). Sons of God was a new conception totally, as used later by the Apostles of the church as they were gathered into His body..



You have no arguments so you run away. Well we all know what that means, try and phrase it as you will.

you however are right on one thing. I depend on Scriptural thought not on abstract thought. Let anyone compare what I say with the Scriptures and they will see that it is true.
Click to expand...
And scripture says angels are not called 'sons'.
 
V

valiant

Senior Member
#105
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
#105
oldhermit said:
We are not talking about Genesis. We are talking about Luke's inspired account of the linage of Jesus. The Greek is quite clear. None of the other links of the genealogy are supplied with "the son," yet you do not question that. The translators are all correct in their translation of this text. Each person of the genealogy is linked to his predecessor as the "son of". Why do feel this is somehow different in the case of Adam?
Click to expand...
in other words it does not say 'son of God'. The links show that only the first is 'a son of --'. He has deliberately avoided saying Adam was the son of God. You have altogether missed the implication. Adam is 'of God'. He is not 'the son of God'. And anyway you look at it, even to the most simple, it is clear that he was NOT SO.
 
V

valiant

Senior Member
#106
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
#106
Originally Posted by valiant
But it does matter greatly. A man is NEVER called in Scripture 'a child of the elohim' (one from among the Elohim). The elohim are heavenly beings, as was the spirit that wanted to represent itself as Samuel. Thus Satan was 'a child of the elohim'. But no man is ever called that in the OT.

In the NT we are introduced to a new description, a child of theos (singular). But it does not compare in usage with 'sons of the elohim' (plural). You are muddling up the OT with the NT. In the OT godly folk are called 'children' of YHWH.

And even in the NT Adam was called 'of God', and not a 'child of God' (Luke 3). Sons of God was a new conception totally, as used later by the Apostles of the church as they were gathered into His body..



You have no arguments so you run away. Well we all know what that means, try and phrase it as you will.

you however are right on one thing. I depend on Scriptural thought not on abstract thought. Let anyone compare what I say with the Scriptures and they will see that it is true.
Click to expand...
oldhermit said:
And scripture says angels are not called 'sons'.
Click to expand...
Where in the OT does it say angels are not called 'children of ---' ?

Even in Hebrews it merely denies that angels are called 'MY SON'.
 
Last edited:
oldhermit

oldhermit

Senior Member
#107
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#107
trofimus said:
But in Genesis it is not "assumed", it is how they are named. "The son of God" is not a title for Adam. It is just a genealogical construction as you said.

But for angels, they are called "the sons of God" and it does not mean any genealogical construction. It means their nature that is not "from dust" like we are.
Click to expand...
Still, Luke by inspiration calls Adam the son of God. As for angels, scripture tells that God has never calls his angels 'son'.
 
oldhermit

oldhermit

Senior Member
#108
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#108
trofimus said:
But in Genesis it is not "assumed", it is how they are named. "The son of God" is not a title for Adam. It is just a genealogical construction as you said.

But for angels, they are called "the sons of God" and it does not mean any genealogical construction. It means their nature that is not "from dust" like we are.
Click to expand...
The fact is that Luke by inspiration calls Adam the son of God. Scripture also tells us that God has never called angels 'sons'.
 
V

valiant

Senior Member
#109
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
#109
oldhermit said:
Still, Luke by inspiration calls Adam the son of God. As for angels, scripture tells that God has never calls his angels 'son'.
Click to expand...
this is incorrect. He is called 'of God' by Luke's inspired word. The word 'son' at the beginning is too far off to be directly applied. It is allowed to fade way so that 'of God' is not so direct.

and I ask AGAIN, where does it say angels are never called 'children of --' ?

I suggest the OT comparison with 'children of the elohim' should be 'the children of Belial'.
 
Last edited:
oldhermit

oldhermit

Senior Member
#110
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#110
valiant said:
this is incorrect. He is called 'of God' by Luke's inspired word. The word 'son' at the beginning is too far off to be directly applied. It is allowed to fade way so that 'of God' is not so direct.
Click to expand...
You clearly do not know your Greek so stop arguing about things you do not understand.
 
oldhermit

oldhermit

Senior Member
#111
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#111
valiant said:
this is incorrect. He is called 'of God' by Luke's inspired word. The word 'son' at the beginning is too far off to be directly applied. It is allowed to fade way so that 'of God' is not so direct.

and I ask AGAIN, where does it say angels are never called 'children of --' ?

I suggest the OT comparison with 'children of the elohim' should be 'the children of Belial'.
Click to expand...
ENOUGH! You are simply wasting my time.
 
V

valiant

Senior Member
#112
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
#112
oldhermit said:
You clearly do not know your Greek so stop arguing about things you do not understand.
Click to expand...
lol tell that to London University. And I won the senior Greek prize at my College,
 
V

valiant

Senior Member
#115
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
#115
oldhermit said:
They need to give you your money back.
Click to expand...
lol your insults to a fine English University make humerous reasoning.

The fact is that 'children of the elohim' in Gen 6.1-4 refers to angelic beings.

To apply the term to humans is to ignore the fact that the 'godly line of Seth' was no longer so godly, as Terah proved.

The angels indulged in demonic intercourse with humans which is why all mankind had to be destroyed,,
 
oldhermit

oldhermit

Senior Member
#116
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#116
valiant said:
lol your insults to a fine English University make humerous reasoning.

The fact is that 'children of the elohim' in Gen 6.1-4 refers to angelic beings.

To apply the term to humans is to ignore the fact that the 'godly line of Seth' was no longer so godly, as Terah proved.

The angels indulged in demonic intercourse with humans which is why all mankind had to be destroyed,,
Click to expand...
We're done Val.
 
preacher4truth

preacher4truth

Senior Member
#117
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,718
113
#117
valiant said:
The fact is that 'children of the elohim' in Gen 6.1-4 refers to angelic beings.
The angels indulged in demonic intercourse with humans which is why all mankind had to be destroyed,,
Click to expand...
Soooo...the only ones these demons didn't have intercourse with were the 8? Wonder why Noah preached then?
 
iamsoandso

iamsoandso

Senior Member
#118
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#118
oldhermit said:
The fact is that Luke by inspiration calls Adam the son of God. Scripture also tells us that God has never called angels 'sons'.
Click to expand...

In Luke 1:2 Luke himself states that the testimony he is delivering is from the eyewitnesses who delivered the things that was/is believed among them. You keep saying that he was delivered this "by inspiration",,,not that I am arguing but rather in light of the wording of Luke himself declaring that he received the testimony from eyewitnesses is there other scripture to support him having received his writings(Luke and Acts) by inspiration,i.e. inspiration/by the Holy Ghost ?
 
Ahwatukee

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
#119
Mar 12, 2015
11,159
2,375
113
#119
oldhermit said:
The fact is that Luke by inspiration calls Adam the son of God. Scripture also tells us that God has never called angels 'sons'.
Click to expand...
Actually, angels are referred to as "sons of God" but you just refuse to acknowledge it.

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them."

"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."

These who are referred to as "the sons of God" are not men presenting themselves before God as you suggested. The angels, the sons of God, are presenting themselves before the Lord and Satan appeared with them. You would have us believe that men are presenting themselves before the Lord and that Satan appeared with them? That Satan appeared with them would demonstrate that the sons of God were of the same type or genre as Satan, i.e. heavenly beings, not of mankind.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the contest that would infer that these "sons of God" are appearing before God in the earthly temple, which by the way did not yet exist at that time. That they appeared before God would infer that this took place in His presence in heaven and not on earth. Below is Enoch's version of Genesis 6:1:

"It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful. And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamored of them, saying each other: Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beg children."

The angels co-habiting with human women and their offspring who became giants and all that the angels, the sons of God, taught mankind, which were the things of heaven and which was the reason for the corruption of the world and the resulting flood. Enoch even mentions Noah and how to escape the flood:

(God speaking to Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Suryal, and Uriel regarding those angels who sinned)

"Then the Most High, the Great and Holy One spoke; And sent Arsayalalyur to the son of Lamech (Noah), Saying: Say to him in my name; Conceal thyself. Then explain to him the consummation which is about to take place; for all the earth shall perish; the waters of a deluge shall come over the whole earth, and all things which are in it shall be destroyed. And now teach him how he may escape, and how his seed may remain in all the earth. (Enoch 10:1-5, Gen.6:11-22)
 
S

samuel23

Banned
#120
Dec 2, 2016
1,652
26
0
#120
How could angels have sex with women and even have children?, the bible does not explain "how". However the story in Genesis gives us evidence that the angles did take human women and have children with them. First of all we have the angels that God has reserved "in chains" because of doing something sexually immoral as they are compared to the men of Sodom who were having homosexual sex. They were angels who did this. Then we do back to when this happened in Genesis and we see the sons of God going after daughters of men...the women had fathers who were men, the sons of God had no human father but were created by God. The rub comes in when we try to reconcile the story of angels having sex with humans with the story that humans that are resurrected will not marry but be equal to the angels. I think it is important to recognize that Jesus did not make the statement that angels could never have sex, that is a man made assumption. It is obvious from Genesis that in the past some angels were able to have sex with human women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.