Son's of God Genesis 6:1-8

jaybird88 · May 7, 2017

the angel view has three witnesses, Gen6, Peter and Jude. your sethite view has zero. there is not one scripture that refers to sons of Seth as righteous and sons of the Most High.

why do you think the sons of seth, the ones that profaned the name of the Most High, would be given the title of sons of the Most High? how does that work? sounds very far from what Jesus taught

John146 · May 7, 2017

oldhermit said:

Yes, they did and this is the whole point. This represents a change of status. In Gen 4:25-26, we are told that, "Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, 'God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him.'To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD." Here we see the beginning of the flourishing of the God culture through the line of Seth. We already know the culture of Cain. This God culture seems to have still been in place some 400 years later when Enoch was born and he was a product of this culture. Yet, even in his time Enoch was able to see the rapid disintegration of godliness in the land, and this was almost 400 years before Noah was born. By Gen 6, both lines had descended into a totally derived state and only Noah was left of the line of Seth in whom God found righteousness.

It is not possible for Seth and his descendants to be "sons of God." Man can only be called the "sons of God" through the new birth being made new creatures in Christ. This is only possible through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Johnny_B · May 7, 2017

jaybird88 said:

Show us in context, but you won't because it's not there or you don't know how.

samuel23 · May 7, 2017

Hey Allen, You see like a real nut with an ego complex, I think I have enough evidence from your posts to prove it, ha,ha.

oldhermit · May 7, 2017

John146 said:

Hosea 2:10, “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.'"
Psa. 82, “You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.”
Luke 3:38, "the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."
Prov. 7:1, "My son, keep my words, and treasure my commandments within you."
Prov. 7:24, "Now therefore, my sons, listen to me, and pay attention to the words of my mouth."

jaybird88 · May 7, 2017

Johnny_B said:

show you what. that sons of the Most High are heavenly beings and not earthly beings?

Job 2.1, Job 2.6, Psalm 82, psalm 89.

Johnny_B · May 8, 2017

jaybird88 said:

I get it you don't understand what context means or you would of already taken my post showing from Genesis 4:11-5:32 two genealogies, that 6:1 is the multiplying of 4:11-24 and that Genesis 6:2 are those two genealogies marrying and show how each point I made was wrong and how in that context fallen angels are the sons of God and why God would see it as man be wicked 6:5 and pronounce judgement on man for the sins of fallen angels in Genesis 6:3, 6-7. All you've done is try to bring up other verses that have nothing to do with the context of Genesis 4:11-6:2 or 6:3, 5-7.

So the only conclusion is that it's not there and you know it, that is why you keep trying to introduce rabbit trails because that's all you know how to do or you don't know how to exegete the Scriptures. The only other reason would be, is you didn't learn this by just reading the Word in context, someone either taught you this or since it didn't make since to you, you started looking else where for the answer, instead of getting the answer from the context of the history being presented.

So show that I'm wrong, I would love to read it and as I've said I'll repent of my exegete of those Scriptures.

jaybird88 · May 8, 2017

Johnny_B said:

lets forget context, exegeses, this that and all the rest and try out some common sense. lets go back to the beginning, the source of your sethite theory. according to you, they have to be sons of the Most High, why, because they are godly and righteous.

"godly and righteous"

lets focus on this, there is nothing in scripture saying they were godly and righteous, scripture says the opposite, the sons of seth began to profane the name of the Most High.
the foundation of your theory is in error so how do you expect the theory to hold water?

88 · May 8, 2017

Mother5 said:

*** fallen angels*** Check Chuck Missler's teaching on YouTube...

Johnny_B · May 8, 2017

jaybird88 said:

lets forget context, exegeses, this that and all the rest and try out some common sense. lets go back to the beginning, the source of your sethite theory. according to you, they have to be sons of the Most High, why, because they are godly and righteous.

"godly and righteous"

lets focus on this, there is nothing in scripture saying they were godly and righteous, scripture says the opposite, the sons of seth began to profane the name of the Most High.
the foundation of your theory is in error so how do you expect the theory to hold water?

So you can not exegete the Scripture, okay I understand.

jaybird88 · May 8, 2017

Johnny_B said:

what are you going on about??? profaning the name of the Most High is a bad thing, how can you not know that. holy is His name remember.

Johnny_B · May 8, 2017

88 said:

Are kidding, you have to be joking, he lies about what K & D OT commentary says and about others he quotes as believing what he teaches. Check it out for yourself, listen to what he say about K & D then read what they say, he stopped reading after the presentation of his way of thinking, when if he would read what they say to it's final concultion. They disagree with him and come to a totally different conclusion. I read others he quoted and they all present all the views of these verses and come to a conclusion that was not what he is teaching, but he didn't read them to their conclusion, but says they support his view. He changes words, saying that 4:26 "men began to call on the name of the Lord" means men began to profane the name of the Lord. If he does that with these verses what has or will he do with others.

jaybird88 · May 8, 2017

88 said:

i dont always agree with Chuck but i agree he does a good presentation on the subject. Michael heiser also does some good lectures on this.

Johnny_B · May 8, 2017

jaybird88 said:

Are you kidding me, you let Missler teach you that garbage, I just post how Missler lied and changed that very word to support his teach. My assumption was right, you did not learn this on your own by reading the Word in context, you let some one team you what you believe because you can't exegete the Scriptures or you would of already brought. And again more rabbit trails, let's get with the Scriptures man.

Johnny_B · May 8, 2017

jaybird88 said:

I knew you let someone teach you this stuff, because a reading of the verses in context, there is no way anyone could come to the conclusion you have. That angels are the sons of God in Genesis 6.

Ahwatukee · May 8, 2017

Johnny_B said:

Hello Johnny_B,

That is not a true saying, for no one ever taught me this information. I have always known from the beginning that Gen.6:1,4 Job 1:6, 2:1 was referring to angels as the sons of God. The prophesies of Enoch, which was itself apart of the scriptures up to the 3rd century, is a detailed account of exactly what who this came about with the angels and why the flood came about.

The fact that Jude quotes from the prophesies of Enoch demonstrates that they are God-breathed.

Johnny_B · May 8, 2017

Ahwatukee said:

You just proved my point, that you can not stay in the context of Genesis 4:11-6:1, 6:3, 5-7 and prove that fallen angels are the sons of God. Since you've jumped in here, will you exegete the context of those Scripture to show how fallen angels come into play, in the historical setting of two genealogies being presented?

jaybird88 · May 8, 2017

Johnny_B said:

[men] began הוּחַ֔ל hu·chal,
2490c. chalal
Strong's Concordance
chalal: to pollute, defile, profane

Leviticus 19 12
You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.

2455. chol
from chalal

same word

are you saying Chuck went back in time and changed the meaning of biblical hebrew?

Ahwatukee · May 8, 2017

Johnny_B said:

Your point has not been proven at all, so relax. The reference to Enoch was in addition to those scriptures. But the fact remains that Enoch was apart of the scriptures and it sheds a great amount of light on this topic. But I can stay within the scriptures you mentioned and demonstrate that "the sons of God" are referring to angels:

=======================================

“Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that [the sons of God] saw that [the daughters of men] were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.” - Gen.6:1

“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when [the sons of God] came in to [the daughters of men], and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” - Gen.6:4

========================================

In both the scriptures above, a grammatical distinction is being made between "the sons of God" and "the daughters of mankind," ergo, the sons of God are a different group from mankind who are bearing beautiful daughters. If the sons of God was referring to men, the scripture would have said:

"Now it came about, when the sons of God began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them ..."

However, the structure of the scripture demonstrates that there is a distinction being made between the sons of God and mankind who are bearing beautiful daughters.

===================================

“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.”

===================================

In both the scriptures above from Job, "the sons of God" present themselves before the Lord and Satan is among them and presents himself to the Lord as well. The scripture infers that the sons of God are angels presenting themselves to the Lord and not men, as Oldhermit would have us believe. It infers that both the sons of God and Satan are of the same genre and that their appearing is in heaven and not on the earth.

In order to suggest that the sons of God are men, how could Satan appear with them? There is nothing in the context that infers this. And there is nothing in the context that would suggest that Satan appeared with them invisibly in the spiritual realm. In addition, in Job 1:7 and 2:2, the Lord asks Satan "From where have you come?" and Satan's response is "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." This demonstrates that where the sons of God and Satan were appearing before the Lord was not on the earth but in the heavenly realms in God's immediate presence, which would make the idea of the sons of God as representing men as being false. For men would not be appearing before God in the heavenly realms.

trofimus · May 8, 2017

oldhermit said:

None of these is the same use like in Gen 6 or Job 1:6...

Psalm 82 can be possibly also about angels, depends on the theological view.

Son's of God Genesis 6:1-8

jaybird88

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

jaybird88

Guest

Senior Member

jaybird88

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

jaybird88

Guest

Senior Member

jaybird88

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

jaybird88

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member