-
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.
Nay, for the text says specifically what they are and why they fell. Even the NT scriptures posted on the last page support this. Genesis 6 is the only part in the OT that correlates to the NT scriptures about fallen angels (excepting for the Revelation prophecy about the 2nd fall for to come). Likewise the NT scriptures about them are the only places in the Bible that allude to that episode in Genesis 6.
We have all ready covered that the NT clearly says angels left their first estate. We have covered that Paul believe women should have power on their heads because of the angels. We have all ready covered that in Job 1 the angels are called sons of God. The only event in the OT that corresponds to all these verses is this.
Genesis 6:1-4
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
[SUP]2 [/SUP]That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Genesis 6:1-4
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
[SUP]2 [/SUP]That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
This is complicated unless you follow a click-able chart of events by century 14th Century BC - Ancient History Timeline (Bible History Online) ,,,,there are many times Egyptian writings speak of the same giants The Name Yahweh in Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts and from Papyrus Anastasi I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I really don't find the argument against them being angels convincing either. I'm with GodIs and many others, and think it clearly is talking about angels. It's just one of those things we will have to respectfully disagree on. Defiantly is nothing worth arguing about (not saying anyone is arguing now, just in general), and also something I personally am not done learning about so only God knows the truth until he lets us in on it. Very interesting topic and I appreciate hearing all perspectives, so thanks to everyone that contributed.
I find two things or statments which throw light into the Genesis account which tells me it is something above normal....
1. The SONS of GOD taking the DAUGHTERS of ADAM<---The SONS of GOD is consistently used in the OT and is applicable unto ANGELS as the concept of the Son of God and or sons of God being applied unto man is not fully realized until the N.T.
2. My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that HE ALSO IS FLESH<-----God does not strive with his creation so why the statement about MAN ALSO BEING FLESH and made with the context of God striving with SOMETHING that is ALSO flesh besides MAN.....
Those two statements conbined with NOAH being pure in a FORENSIC SENSE testify that something bigger is going on here....
Obviously not a basis of fellowship and or salvation, but three clues that shed light on the subjest at hand!
1. The SONS of GOD taking the DAUGHTERS of ADAM<---The SONS of GOD is consistently used in the OT and is applicable unto ANGELS as the concept of the Son of God and or sons of God being applied unto man is not fully realized until the N.T.
2. My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that HE ALSO IS FLESH<-----God does not strive with his creation so why the statement about MAN ALSO BEING FLESH and made with the context of God striving with SOMETHING that is ALSO flesh besides MAN.....
Those two statements conbined with NOAH being pure in a FORENSIC SENSE testify that something bigger is going on here....
Obviously not a basis of fellowship and or salvation, but three clues that shed light on the subjest at hand!
Again, in Job 1 we see the angels are referred to as sons of God.
The three points from Peter, Paul, and Jude:
1. Angels fell from heaven (left their first estate)
2. A connection to human women (women should have power on their head because of angels)
3. The event happened prior to the writings of Peter, Paul, and Jude (the fallen angels are bound in chains of darkness until judgement day.)
So what event in the Bible fulfill all three conditions? Only event I am aware of is Genesis 6.
The three points from Peter, Paul, and Jude:
1. Angels fell from heaven (left their first estate)
2. A connection to human women (women should have power on their head because of angels)
3. The event happened prior to the writings of Peter, Paul, and Jude (the fallen angels are bound in chains of darkness until judgement day.)
So what event in the Bible fulfill all three conditions? Only event I am aware of is Genesis 6.
Tintin,we share in a fascinating subject in that we are compelled to ponder the issue of these sons of God and the giants. It I notice is an difficult thing to express the details of a subject to another in an "letter". We all I think would agree that in person a thought or meaning is by far more easy to be conveyed,and as it is also seen the many of us daily reason the "true meaning" of any scripture,we also see that anyone of us will say it almost means that "but!...". As proof we will all require scriptures to support an idea of many subjects in the scriptures,and I agree we should remain captive in them.
Take a chart of the timelines of the events in the scriptures/history,look at the order of events and let them fall where they fall.,,,
Approximately,,,
2000 bce,,,Abram
19th
18th
17th
16th it is written in Job "sons of God"
15th,Moses writes gen.exodus,lev. ect. "gen. 6:4,sons of God"
14th
13th
12th
11th
10thbce David,Solomon
So we read the very scriptures the way they are presented to us beginning at genesis 1:1,,,and across to Job. We ponder the term "sons of God" and compare it to Gen.6:4 and we scratch our heads and at the end we think "hmm,we have a little more information about the sons of God Moses spoke of",,,but this is incorrect.
In the timeline,if we follow the genealogies of the friends of Job we find that they were born very close to the same time(or a little before) Moses. So then it's the same as "the chicken or the egg,which came first",,the book of Job or the book of Genesis? Seeing that the people who are in Job used the wording "son's of God" before Moses wrote it in Genesis 6:4,then in fact Job is not giving us extra information about the sons of God Moses wrote about(Moses had not written Genesis yet). So in conclusion setting these books in their correct order as to time we find that in fact the sons of God who are mentioned in Job years later in time Moses is actually the one who is giving the "extra information" about these "sons of God".So Moses is actually telling us that the "sons of God" that are mentioned in the book of Job(the first time it is mentioned),,,"took themselves the daughters of men and bore children with them".
Take a chart of the timelines of the events in the scriptures/history,look at the order of events and let them fall where they fall.,,,
Approximately,,,
2000 bce,,,Abram
19th
18th
17th
16th it is written in Job "sons of God"
15th,Moses writes gen.exodus,lev. ect. "gen. 6:4,sons of God"
14th
13th
12th
11th
10thbce David,Solomon
So we read the very scriptures the way they are presented to us beginning at genesis 1:1,,,and across to Job. We ponder the term "sons of God" and compare it to Gen.6:4 and we scratch our heads and at the end we think "hmm,we have a little more information about the sons of God Moses spoke of",,,but this is incorrect.
In the timeline,if we follow the genealogies of the friends of Job we find that they were born very close to the same time(or a little before) Moses. So then it's the same as "the chicken or the egg,which came first",,the book of Job or the book of Genesis? Seeing that the people who are in Job used the wording "son's of God" before Moses wrote it in Genesis 6:4,then in fact Job is not giving us extra information about the sons of God Moses wrote about(Moses had not written Genesis yet). So in conclusion setting these books in their correct order as to time we find that in fact the sons of God who are mentioned in Job years later in time Moses is actually the one who is giving the "extra information" about these "sons of God".So Moses is actually telling us that the "sons of God" that are mentioned in the book of Job(the first time it is mentioned),,,"took themselves the daughters of men and bore children with them".
Key words....SONS of God<-----consistently applied unto the ANGELS in the O.T.
Sons of God not fully recognized until the N.T.
And the above points made in my post above stand....
Accurately interpret God not stiving with man always for HE ALSO IS FLESH!
And then go translate the word pure as applied unto NOAH
And then understand that to corrupt the BLOOD LINE if POSSIBLE would ALTER the blood line that JESUS would eventually come from...........!
Sons of God not fully recognized until the N.T.
And the above points made in my post above stand....
Accurately interpret God not stiving with man always for HE ALSO IS FLESH!
And then go translate the word pure as applied unto NOAH
And then understand that to corrupt the BLOOD LINE if POSSIBLE would ALTER the blood line that JESUS would eventually come from...........!
R
since moses is the one who wrote about the 'sons of God' in genesis 6...it would make sense to first look for other passages that might indicate who -moses- thought God's sons were...
such verses exist...one is in exodus where God says that israel is his firstborn son...another is in the song in deuteronomy where moses calls the israelites God's sons and daughters...
so in moses' view...the sons of God are God's people...
such verses exist...one is in exodus where God says that israel is his firstborn son...another is in the song in deuteronomy where moses calls the israelites God's sons and daughters...
so in moses' view...the sons of God are God's people...
T
Moses didn't necessarily write Genesis. He certainly compiled the 11 separate accounts, either from existing documents or from oral history or by divine intervention from Holy Spirit (or a combination of two or three). Who's to say that Noah didn't write his account, or his son, Shem? It's quite possible. I don't think the 'sons of God' are angels (any more).
this is why I keep bringing up the dating of the book of Job. Many books in our modern bible are in an order by "Groups". If we took the old testament and put it in the order of which one was written first ,Job would be the first book in our bible because it pre dates the book of Genesis. So Moses was explaining the "sons of God that was written in the book of Job",,,(Moses did not write Genesis until AFTER Job was written),,,