-
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.
Chapter XII in the book of Enoch talks about Watchers who left their habitation in heaven to mate with women on earth.
Its not in the bible I know, but its referenced in the book of Jude iirc, so its pretty reliable (?) Atleast I dont see any big problems with it, I think its an interesting book.
What Ahwatukee posted earlier is my stance as welll, based on what ive been taught by my Pastor and also by reading the genesis and book of Enoch for myself.
Enoch chapter XV:
[FONT="]2. And go, say to [/FONT][FONT="]⌈⌈[/FONT][FONT="]the Watchers of heaven[/FONT][FONT="]⌉⌉[/FONT][FONT="], who have sent thee to intercede [/FONT][FONT="]⌈⌈[/FONT][FONT="]for them: "You should intercede"[/FONT][FONT="]⌉⌉[/FONT][FONT="] for men, and not men for you: 3. Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons[/FONT]
Its not in the bible I know, but its referenced in the book of Jude iirc, so its pretty reliable (?) Atleast I dont see any big problems with it, I think its an interesting book.
What Ahwatukee posted earlier is my stance as welll, based on what ive been taught by my Pastor and also by reading the genesis and book of Enoch for myself.
Enoch chapter XV:
[FONT="]2. And go, say to [/FONT][FONT="]⌈⌈[/FONT][FONT="]the Watchers of heaven[/FONT][FONT="]⌉⌉[/FONT][FONT="], who have sent thee to intercede [/FONT][FONT="]⌈⌈[/FONT][FONT="]for them: "You should intercede"[/FONT][FONT="]⌉⌉[/FONT][FONT="] for men, and not men for you: 3. Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons[/FONT]
Last edited:
Well, I must say, this is one I have not heard before. If this is true then I do not know from which documents they may have translated from so I have no way to verify the legitimacy of such a rendering. I do know that the word used in the Mesoretic text is bə-nê which means son. I was unable to find any example of where this word is ever translated as 'angel'. Not even Strong, who often tends to be overly generous in giving definitions to words, does not offer angel as a possibility.
[TABLE="class: maintext, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: translit"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: maintext, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: translit"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The so-called book of Enoch is no more inspired than the Sears catalogue. That is evidence of nothing. However, Jude does quote from Enoch himself who declared that, "The Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” His holy ones here could be a reference to angels but is could also refer to the saints of God. But this has nothing to do with suggesting that angels are referred to as sons.
In Exodus 4:22–23, Moses’ audience, Israel, is identified by God as “My son, My first-born.” These sons of God were about to enter the Promised Land, which was populated with people who were not part of the Abrahamic covenant. God warned Israel not to take foreign wives (Deut. 7:3). This would become a recurring problem for Israel. Moses used this story in Genesis 6 to warn Israel not to abandon God’s instruction. God is the one who determines what is good, and Israel was to be on guard against the enticement of the world that would lead them away from the pure worship and dedication to the God of Israel. http://www.equip.org/article/who-were-the-sons-of-god-in-genesis-6/
Look people, I have very much enjoyed this conversation but I now have a class to prepare for.
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 apply a definition to the 'sons of God' so, the question is what definition do we assign to the 'sons of God'? There are only two possibilities for assigning meaning - human imagination or scripture. If we assign angelic beings to this term then we must then find where scripture itself assigns such a definition to 'sons of God'. We see repeated passages where 'sons of God' is used to describe men as the subject both in the old and new testament, but there is no text that ever defines angels in this way. The only possible passage that may indicate that this refers to angels is Job 38:6-7 but even this is inconclusive because the text does not mention antels. Scripture must ALWAYS be allowed to define its own use of language. We are not free to assign our own definitions to biblical terms.
Insisting that these are angels and could not possibly be anything else makes a number of unwarranted assumptions. This assumes that the term 'sons of god' must only refer to angels here. 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 supported by any biblical text. This was simply a matter of human genetics, nothing more. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that angels can reproduce after any fashion much less reproduce the human gene code. In fact, Jesus tells us that angels neither marry nor are they given in marriage. Since this is true, it is quite contradictory to read Gen. 6:2 and conclude that angels did precisely what Jesus said they do not do. The term sons of God must be understood according to the pattern of its usage in scripture. Every other time this phrase is used, it refers to man. That being true, by what rule of interpretation does one assign some other definition to this term?
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 apply a definition to the 'sons of God' so, the question is what definition do we assign to the 'sons of God'? There are only two possibilities for assigning meaning - human imagination or scripture. If we assign angelic beings to this term then we must then find where scripture itself assigns such a definition to 'sons of God'. We see repeated passages where 'sons of God' is used to describe men as the subject both in the old and new testament, but there is no text that ever defines angels in this way. The only possible passage that may indicate that this refers to angels is Job 38:6-7 but even this is inconclusive because the text does not mention antels. Scripture must ALWAYS be allowed to define its own use of language. We are not free to assign our own definitions to biblical terms.
Insisting that these are angels and could not possibly be anything else makes a number of unwarranted assumptions. This assumes that the term 'sons of god' must only refer to angels here. 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 supported by any biblical text. This was simply a matter of human genetics, nothing more. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that angels can reproduce after any fashion much less reproduce the human gene code. In fact, Jesus tells us that angels neither marry nor are they given in marriage. Since this is true, it is quite contradictory to read Gen. 6:2 and conclude that angels did precisely what Jesus said they do not do. The term sons of God must be understood according to the pattern of its usage in scripture. Every other time this phrase is used, it refers to man. That being true, by what rule of interpretation does one assign some other definition to this term?
Last edited:
The most disturbing thing that people seem to overlook is that each reproduces after their own kind. Angels and humans are definitely not of the same kind, and Scripture is very clear about this, also! So they could not produce progeny. Also there is absolutely no mention anywhere in Scripture of an angel manifesting as a human being aside from at those that were performing the express will of God. Hopefully nobody would distort the Word of God so much to say that angels and humans copulating was His will. That would be a very alarming conjecture.
I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. (Psalms 82:6)
Yet the number of the sons of Israel Will be like the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered; And in the place Where it is said to them, "You are not My people," It will be said to them, "You are the sons of the living God." (Hosea 1:10)
I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. (Psalms 82:6)
Yet the number of the sons of Israel Will be like the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered; And in the place Where it is said to them, "You are not My people," It will be said to them, "You are the sons of the living God." (Hosea 1:10)
1. Implicit evidence in Genesis 6 - sons of God vs daughters of humans, this is quite hard to see like "men and women".
2. Extrabiblical evidence in the Septuagint - the way how the LXX translators translated this phrase to Greek.
3. Implicit evidence in Job 38:7 - sons of God praised God when stars were made, humans are not created in that time, only higher(angelic) beings
4. Extrabiblical evidence in ancient apocrypha - also explaining Gen 6 like angels
5. Implicit evidence
- where are demons from? They are not fallen angels, because the fallen angels are kept in prison in the darkness (as Jude says)
- demons are the descendants of angels and women
And there are probably many more, I just do not have any written list of them right now
And it simply makes more sense. If we say they are normal people, whole the story in Genesis does not make a good sense.
There is also no logic in calling some line in those times "sons of God", because as the Bible says, only Noah was righteous, everybody else was wicked. There were not any "two genealogic lines", one good and one evil.
2. Extrabiblical evidence in the Septuagint - the way how the LXX translators translated this phrase to Greek.
3. Implicit evidence in Job 38:7 - sons of God praised God when stars were made, humans are not created in that time, only higher(angelic) beings
4. Extrabiblical evidence in ancient apocrypha - also explaining Gen 6 like angels
5. Implicit evidence
- where are demons from? They are not fallen angels, because the fallen angels are kept in prison in the darkness (as Jude says)
- demons are the descendants of angels and women
And there are probably many more, I just do not have any written list of them right now
And it simply makes more sense. If we say they are normal people, whole the story in Genesis does not make a good sense.
There is also no logic in calling some line in those times "sons of God", because as the Bible says, only Noah was righteous, everybody else was wicked. There were not any "two genealogic lines", one good and one evil.
And you are a teacher? Jude quoted from the book of Enoch and it is well known that the prophecies of Enoch was apart of the scriptures up to the third century. They shed much light on the Gen.6:1-4 event and the reason for the resulting flood. So, you are also incorrect in this respect.
In addition, you tried to use the following scripture to discount the angels as those being referred to as the sons of God:
"For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
The scripture above is not saying that angels are not the sons of God, but are not the Begotten Son of God in the same capacity as Christ. The fact is that both angels and mankind are referred to as the sons of God in scripture.
Furthermore, you are claiming that the angels cannot be the sons of God because of the scripture above, but are assigning that designation as referring to the son's of Seth, as I recall. Well then, if we were to use your reasoning regarding the angels, I would also use your same reasoning, "to which of the offspring of men did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? To use your answer that would be, never. Therefore using your own example, neither could any of those scriptures in Gen.6:1,4, Job 1:6, and 2:1 be referring to men.
The angels are the sons of God in a lesser or different capacity than Christ. For angels and mankind are created beings, where Jesus being God himself and was with God in the beginning, took on a body of flesh and being conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. So the scripture is not saying that the angels are not sons of God, but that they are not what Jesus is, unique, begotten through the Holy Spirit.
This is also interesting in that, you admit that Jude quoted from Enoch, yet you disqualify the rest of Enoch's writing's in regards to the angels, as the sons of heaven, taking wives and the woman conceiving and bringing for giants. Since Enoch was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what Jude quoted, then the rest of what Enoch wrote, including all the information regarding the angels who took wives, must also be inspired by the Holy Spirit. you can't pick and choose what you deem to be inspired and what isn't. Either all of the prophesies of Enoch are inspired or none of it.
"When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose."
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them."
In the two scriptures above, there is a distinction being made between the "sons of God" and "man who bore daughters." That the sons of God came to the daughters of men, demonstrates a difference in type or genre, i.e. the sons of God who went to the daughters of men, are not men.
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[SUP]b[/SUP] also came among them[/quote]
The scripture above demonstrates that the sons of God and Satan to be of the same type, i.e. angels. There is nothing in the context that would suggest that the sons of God as referring to men. you would be saying that men were physically appearing before God as in a temple setting and that Satan was appearing with them in a spiritual/invisible capacity.
What the scripture does demonstrate is that these angelic beings, designated as the sons of God, were appearing before God and Satan joined them at that meeting.
In addition, you tried to use the following scripture to discount the angels as those being referred to as the sons of God:
"For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
The scripture above is not saying that angels are not the sons of God, but are not the Begotten Son of God in the same capacity as Christ. The fact is that both angels and mankind are referred to as the sons of God in scripture.
Furthermore, you are claiming that the angels cannot be the sons of God because of the scripture above, but are assigning that designation as referring to the son's of Seth, as I recall. Well then, if we were to use your reasoning regarding the angels, I would also use your same reasoning, "to which of the offspring of men did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? To use your answer that would be, never. Therefore using your own example, neither could any of those scriptures in Gen.6:1,4, Job 1:6, and 2:1 be referring to men.
The angels are the sons of God in a lesser or different capacity than Christ. For angels and mankind are created beings, where Jesus being God himself and was with God in the beginning, took on a body of flesh and being conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. So the scripture is not saying that the angels are not sons of God, but that they are not what Jesus is, unique, begotten through the Holy Spirit.
This is also interesting in that, you admit that Jude quoted from Enoch, yet you disqualify the rest of Enoch's writing's in regards to the angels, as the sons of heaven, taking wives and the woman conceiving and bringing for giants. Since Enoch was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what Jude quoted, then the rest of what Enoch wrote, including all the information regarding the angels who took wives, must also be inspired by the Holy Spirit. you can't pick and choose what you deem to be inspired and what isn't. Either all of the prophesies of Enoch are inspired or none of it.
"When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose."
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them."
In the two scriptures above, there is a distinction being made between the "sons of God" and "man who bore daughters." That the sons of God came to the daughters of men, demonstrates a difference in type or genre, i.e. the sons of God who went to the daughters of men, are not men.
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[SUP]b[/SUP] also came among them[/quote]
The scripture above demonstrates that the sons of God and Satan to be of the same type, i.e. angels. There is nothing in the context that would suggest that the sons of God as referring to men. you would be saying that men were physically appearing before God as in a temple setting and that Satan was appearing with them in a spiritual/invisible capacity.
What the scripture does demonstrate is that these angelic beings, designated as the sons of God, were appearing before God and Satan joined them at that meeting.
Last edited:
I will respond to this statement and then I have to get back to work. Enoch never wrote anything. This pseudo document was written many hundreds of years after Enoch. Enoch lived about a 1000 years before the formation of any written language forms. The fact that Jude quotes from Enoch by inspiration does not imply that he is quoting from the so-called book of Enoch.