Sons of God

[prins]

well cain was also Adams son. wht makes it intriguing is their offspring who were real giants.

 

[p_rehbein]

But you have to reconcile Luke 20:34-36
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:


35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:


36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
KJV

I do not see what is to reconcile? As well, as I do not hold to a position one way or the other concerning this, I am not sure I want to be placed in a position of defending one side or the other........

just saying

Still, being "as the angels" does not make it absolute Truth that the angels are neither male nor female........just that they will NOT be given in marriage, as the angels do not marry.......speaking of the angels of Heaven.......not the fallen angels who have become servants of the deceiver of the world.......

I stated that both sides appear to have a basis for their position..........

 

[pottersclay]

Gen 6 can be taken and is taught 2 different ways. Seth's blood line or demonic blood line sorta speak.

The question arises why did God choose to judge the whole world and not just a certain people?
There ways were wicked and evil continuously.
God found grace in the eyes of noah, was it because his bloodline was not tainted?
These things are not salvation issues but can form a perspective on the rest of the bible.
For the unbeliever they see 2 God's the one in the old testament killing and destroying, the one in the new loving and forgiving. Imo this causes confusion and a distrust in the whole thing. I don't think it wise to witness gen 6 to anyone who is not mature enough to understand it's meanings. I have a hard enough time considering the fact of (monsters under the bed). So with that being said let me make it clear that there are 2 ways this is taught both have there points.

 

[LaurenTM]

The Mystery of Iniquity

The Daughters of Cain
The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2
It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam." There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)
Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God,13 it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.


Why did God send the judgment of the Flood in the days of Noah? Far more than simply a historical issue, the unique events leading to the Flood are a prerequisite to understanding the prophetic implications of our Lord's predictions regarding His Second Coming.1
The strange events recorded in Genesis 6 were understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, as well as the Septuagint translators, as referring to fallen angelsprocreating weird hybrid offspring with human women-known as the "Nephilim." So it was also understood by the early church fathers. These bizarre events are also echoed in the legends and myths of every ancient culture upon the earth: the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and virtually all the others.
However, many students of the Bible have been taught that this passage in Genesis 6 actually refers to a failure to keep the "faithful" lines of Seth separate from the "worldly" line of Cain. The idea has been advanced that after Cain killed Abel, the line of Seth remained separate and faithful, but the line of Cain turned ungodly and rebellious. The "Sons of God" are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the "daughters of men" is deemed restricted to the line of Cain. The resulting marriages ostensibly blurred an inferred separation between them. (Why the resulting offspring are called the "Nephilim" remains without any clear explanation.)
Since Jesus prophesied, "As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be,"2 it becomes essential to understand what these days included.
Origin of the Sethite View
It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)
Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.
Problems with the Sethite View
Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah."3 Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following:
1. The Text Itself
Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")
The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5
The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth.
If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)
And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.
The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order.6 In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God."7 The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God.8 Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation,9 at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God10 and in every respect equal to the angels.11 The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.12
The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term.
2. The Daughters of Cain
The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2
It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam." There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)
Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God,13 it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.
3. The Inferred Lines of Separation
The concept of separate "lines" itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture.14 National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later.15 Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.
4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth
There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, "The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers," whose sonship is "distinctly a New Testament revelation."16
The "Sons of Elohim" saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?)
It should also be pointed out that the son of Seth himself was Enosh, and there is textual evidence that, rather than a reputation for piety, he seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God.17
If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood?
5. The Unnatural Offspring
The most fatal flaw in the specious "Sethite" view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. (Bending the translation to "giants" does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood.
Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce "monsters," but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.
The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah's case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah's family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.18
Why were the offspring uniquely designated "mighty" and "men of reknown?" This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly.
A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no "women of reknown" are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only "Y" chromosomes available in this line?)19
6. New Testament Confirmations
"In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."20 In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare Scripture with Scripture. The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.21
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5
Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah.
Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven`."22 In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus.
The Epistle of Jude23 also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process:
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. Jude 6,7
The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oivkhth,rion, refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.24)
These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies.
7. Post-Flood Implications
The strange offspring also continued after the flood: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that..."25 The "Sethite" view fails to meaningfully address the prevailing conditions "also after that." It offers no insight into the presence of the subsequent "giants" in the land of Canaan.
One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty.
8. Prophetic Implications
Another reason that an understanding of Genesis 6 is so essential is that it also is a prerequisite to understanding (and anticipating) Satan's devices26 and, in particular, the specific delusions to come upon the whole earth as a major feature of end-time prophecy.27


In Summary
If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should "tie together." It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the "Sethite View" is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record.
It should also be pointed out that most conservative Bible scholars accept the "angel" view.

I believe this view as well

I don't think 'stretching' scripture to fit what we can conceive of works at all

I've heard and read enough both sides of this one...in other forums as well

my personal opinion, is that MUCH is left out of scripture because God does not want us knowing the rest

God is Spirit...there is an entire spiritual realm...evil is real, but Jesus has overcome for us


oh...question please: who is the author?

 

[Zmouth]

I do not see what is to reconcile?

You might be right, but it would be getting off topic but maybe it might come up in another thread.

 

[garee]

The Daughters of Cain

The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2
It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam."

here is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)

Sons of God are all who led the the Spirit of Christ it represents those in whom God has given the faith to believe Him

The dichotomy had not been used as of yet. The generation of Christ in respect to the spiritual seed (Christ) as a ceremonial law was used up until the time of the reformation. It began with Abraham who as a metaphor typified our heavenly father as the father of many nations (all) . God puts no difference between the flesh of a Jew and a gentile. Purifying the hearts of both equally by a work of His faith

That seed was traced through the fleshly seed of man but was never in respect to it. The genealogy in Mathew reflects that temporal law as a shadow that pointed to Christ .He fulfilled it. Today there is no more need for a genealogy the reformation came, Christ appeared in the flesh.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; Mat 1:1

 

[abcdef]

The angels that kept there first estate didnt do it.
It is the ones that left and by the power and choice given to them took upon themselves the the realm of earthborns.
If we believe that Jesus was born by Mary through the unbeliavable Miracle of the Holy Spirit putting the fetus of Jesus inside the womb of a mortal woman, it even should be easier to grasp the facts in Genesis 6.

All the apostles and the early churchfathers and the rabbis didnt even paus on this one.

The short verses in gen 6 is so clear because this frightening event was/is recorded in every culture of the earth. And I really dont think ancient man where more brutish than we.

Just watch what happens to us so very civilized people when chaos strikes. We dont even know how to survive without our electrical sockets.

May God impart a special blessing upon this topic. Its crucial to understand the whole supernatural worldview thats is darkened by all our devices and profane movies and the so called wisdom of men.

Where did the angels go who did not keep their first estate?

Read the rest of the verse, Jude 6,

They didn't go to earth,

"....He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgement of the great day,"

Accept it or don't accept it.

 

[prodigal]

so-if-the-fallen-angels-had-daughters-of-man---where-did-they-go-after---surely-they'd-still-be-around-till-time-of-Noah-atleast-and-were-none-of-them-any-good-at-building-boats...

 

[Magenta]

oh...question please: who is the author?

Most likely, Chuck Missler.

 

[Magenta]

well cain was also Adams son. wht makes it intriguing is their offspring who were real giants.

The giants were already in existence. The progeny were men of renown. That is quite different. The idea that angels copulated with humans comes from the apocryphal book of Enoch.

 

[emjcares]

I believe this view as well

I don't think 'stretching' scripture to fit what we can conceive of works at all

I've heard and read enough both sides of this one...in other forums as well

my personal opinion, is that MUCH is left out of scripture because God does not want us knowing the rest

God is Spirit...there is an entire spiritual realm...evil is real, but Jesus has overcome for us


oh...question please: who is the author?

Most likely, Chuck Missler.

That's a good answer. But maybe sheepman was referring to himself when he said 'the author concludes'. But idk. Sounds like Chucks stuff, tho. Do you read/like Chuck Missler?

 

[emjcares]

The giants were already in existence. The progeny were men of renown. That is quite different. The idea that angels copulated with humans comes from the apocryphal book of Enoch.

Kind of a scary read, even from the bible.

 

[emjcares]

so-if-the-fallen-angels-had-daughters-of-man---where-did-they-go-after---surely-they'd-still-be-around-till-time-of-Noah-atleast-and-were-none-of-them-any-good-at-building-boats...

What's a boat?

 

[Magenta]

That's a good answer. But maybe sheepman was referring to himself when he said 'the author concludes'. But idk. Sounds like Chucks stuff, tho. Do you read/like Chuck Missler?

I have heard his name a lot over the years but I have not
been a follower, no. So many teachers, so little time

 

[Magenta]

Kind of a scary read, even from the bible.

Yes, and I thought we collectively rejected the apocryphal books, seeing them
as uninspired. "We" being protestants, of course The RCC had them canonized
in 1546 following the Reformation. Oh, I see Martin Luther died in 1546 also

 

[resurrection33]

Mayhaps it comes from these?

Matthew 22:29) Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 .) For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Galatians 3:26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 .) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 .) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I know we have Gabriel and Michael, not sure if a female angel is named in Scripture......and can easily see both sides of this discussion about angels having a gender. Now, one can interpret the passage of Scripture from Zechariah as evidence that there are, in fact, female angels, but this is still being debated according to the studies I have done.

Zechariah 5:9) Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven.
10 .) Then said I to the angel that talked with me, Whither do these bear the ephah?
11 .) And he said unto me, To build it an house in the land of Shinar: and it shall be established, and set there upon her own base.

I do not take sides in this debate............I think there appears to be evidence for both sides of the debate......(as will many other issues from Scripture), and the reason I do not take a side is because I do not believe it is relevant to our salvation, nor our charge from Christ as to the Work of the Kingdom found in Matthew 28:19-20.

Not that others are wrong to discuss this issue, it is just that I do not want to take a side.......

(yeah, maybe fence sitting, or maybe just doing something else I believe to be more important......but, now, that's just me)

A person who doesn't marry still has gender. I have gender.

 

[RBA238]

''the daughters of men were fair to behold [exceedingly beautiful] and the sons of God came and lay with them and their offspring were great and mighty men in the land''. Angels don't have genders, so i'm asking; who's got an idea who these ones are

Very simply this: The Bible in Genesis there was no moral law. Man could do whatever he wanted. But God revealed himself unto some of these people starting in Genesis: Genesis 4 verse 26 (KJV) " And to SETH, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos (Enoch).THEN BEGAN MEN TO CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD". There, forward, are your "SONS OF GOD"..

 

[RBA238]

Gen 6 can be taken and is taught 2 different ways. Seth's blood line or demonic blood line sorta speak.

The question arises why did God choose to judge the whole world and not just a certain people?
There ways were wicked and evil continuously.
God found grace in the eyes of noah, was it because his bloodline was not tainted?
These things are not salvation issues but can form a perspective on the rest of the bible.
For the unbeliever they see 2 God's the one in the old testament killing and destroying, the one in the new loving and forgiving. Imo this causes confusion and a distrust in the whole thing. I don't think it wise to witness gen 6 to anyone who is not mature enough to understand it's meanings. I have a hard enough time considering the fact of (monsters under the bed). So with that being said let me make it clear that there are 2 ways this is taught both have there points.

Good read Sir...Actually we all need to read and study how Satan ( Once Lucifer, in heaven) got to Earth and 1/3 of once Holy Angels who followed Lucifer down to Earth where God ordered them too.
(1) Isaiah 14 verses 12-16/Eziekiel 28 verses 13-19.

 

[prins]

In conclusion to this thread, we may not have to break bounds just to unravel the identity of those men in Gen 6, one thing however should be noted like mentioned by some brethren in their thread, the era of Gen 6 will be similar to the era the Son of man shall appear the second time. so we need to know how that era fared.

 

[pottersclay]

In conclusion to this thread, we may not have to break bounds just to unravel the identity of those men in Gen 6, one thing however should be noted like mentioned by some brethren in their thread, the era of Gen 6 will be similar to the era the Son of man shall appear the second time. so we need to know how that era fared.

Absolutely God's speed in your studies. May he open your eyes to th he truth.