Here is an excellent, thorough, study dealing with Genesis 6, and the "sons of God" issue.
Watch before passing judgment please:
[video=youtube;eFiFcW84K_A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFiFcW84K_A&t=2835s[/video]
Okay. Chuck said to prove everything by Him, including the things that he says; so do it.
Bene HaElohim is not meaning angels; here is why.
Ben means builder of the family name. Angels are not marrying nor given in marriage so sons of God is not them.
The problem here is using the Book of Enoch for the vocabulary of what sons of God mean in the Bible. That is a mistake when the scripture has Jesus saying that angels do not marry nor are they given in marriage. They are not created to reproduce to build a family.
Matthew 22:30For in the resurrection
they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
So when we look at the references that Chuck claims are angels, we can see that it is not when you do NOT use the Book of Enoch as a vocabulary. Start with the Book of Job:
Job 1:[SUP]6 [/SUP]Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.[SUP] 7 [/SUP]And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.[SUP] 8 [/SUP]And the Lord said unto Satan,
Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
Again...
Job 2:1Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.[SUP] 2 [/SUP]And the Lord said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.[SUP]
3 [/SUP]
And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.
Now I pray God is keeping you from reading Enoch into the Book of Job.
Note how TWICE now when the sons of God presented themselves to the Lord, Satan came and God pointed out Job among them TWICE.
Job is one of the sons of God, because he was among them. There is no point in pointing out Job during the presentation of the sons of God if angels were presenting themselves to the Lord.
What need does angels have for presenting themselves to the Lord? Sinful men living a godly life to please God does.
If you want definite proof that sons of God is not referring to angels; look who Adam is.
Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
So is Adam an angel?
Even Chuck referred to John 1:12-13 in how we as a new creation, we are the sons of God, but he overlooked how the former sons of God were.
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.
John made the distinction of born again believers from how the former sons of God were; not of blood as being of the bloodline of the nation of Israel, nor of the will of the flesh or the will of man for those foreigners that converted to Judaism, but of God.
That verse Chuck pointed out proves that sons of God does not always refer to angels, and yet he still went onward.
I can see why pastors that have gone to college and universities were not taught this because Chuck is using the Book of Enoch erroneously as a vocabulary in understanding what sons of God mean in the Bible, and that is a mistake to do even after Chuck admitted that it is not inspired.
So stop reading sons of God as meaning ONLY angels. Chuck is wrong about that. Period.
The other reference is:
Luke 20:[SUP]36 [/SUP]
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.
That is using the Book of Enoch to read that verse in that way as inferring angels being the children of God, overlooking the following wording that said "being the children of the resurrection".
Angels are not children of the resurrection when that definitive phrase is attached to "are the children of God" and thus referring to those saints resurrected that cannot die any more and equal to the angels in that way; not that the angels are children of God BEING of the children of the resurrection.
Book of Enoch is a fraud and should not be used as a reference to understand the accepted scripture in the Bible.
The Septuagint LXX is of Alexandrian origin where poetic licensing and gnosticism had been known to exists.
I would rather rely on the documents origin from Antioch where the disciples were first called christians.
Anyway, Chuck had opposed himself with John 1:12-13 because sons of God does not always mean angels whereas I say it never did mean angels. The phrase "sons of God" is only referring to Israel's roots as God's people. That is all.
I cannot convince you guys so you are just going to have to go before that throne of grace and prove by Him what sons of God actually mean. It cannot mean both godly men and angels for in no way are angels are builder of a family name.
You are not called to be a disciple of Chuck; you are called to be disciples of Jesus Christ. I do not care how right he has been in other sermons; he is not right about what sons of God means since he is allowing his reading to be clouded by reading the Book of Enoch into the scripture using its vocabulary of what sons of God meaning to be as angels. So go and ask Jesus for wisdom now.
Maybe if 
