Son's of God Genesis 6:1-8

[Johnny_B]

you can name call from here to Christmas but its still not gonna make sons of the Most High show up in that scripture, it has to be read in from thin air.

Name calling, was not my intention. When I said all you have are rabbit trails, you read it as, you are rabbit trails, which would be name calling, believe me that is not my intent. Please forgive my if it came across as name calling.

As for thin air, you really need to think about who is reaching into it, go read Genesis 4:11-24 and who that's talking about. Then Genesis 4:25-5:32 and who they are, then 6:1, 3, 5-8. Then you can show how fallen angels fits into the middle of all those Scriptures, on humans and their genealogies, to see who is reaching into that air for their interpretation of who the sons of God are. Share it with us, it will be the contextual exegete of those Scriptures in question.

 

[jaybird88]

Name calling, was not my intention. When I said all you have are rabbit trails, you read it as, you are rabbit trails, which would be name calling, believe me that is not my intent. Please forgive my if it came across as name calling.

it sounded as if you were mocking my statements. these debates can ruffle feathers, no hard feelings my brother.

As for thin air, you really need to think about who is reaching into it, go read Genesis 4:11-24 and who that's talking about. Then Genesis 4:25-5:32 and who they are, then 6:1, 3, 5-8. Then you can show how fallen angels fits into the middle of all those Scriptures, on humans and their genealogies, to see who is reaching into that air for their interpretation of who the sons of God are. Share it with us, it will be the contextual exegete of those Scriptures in question.

the sethite theory does not work for me.
we have godly and ungodly people today and they are not creating giants.
there is a godly line from seth i agree but the descendants of seth were full of many ungodly as well, and they were all sons of seth.
the theory never existed until 400 AD.
multiple ancient cultures from around the world confirm the same story.
sons of the Most High are heavenly beings that do not die, the sons of seth had a limited lifetime like all other living creatures of this world.
there are multiple references in scripture of angels human union.

 

[garee]

The word son, in the phrase "sons of God" characterizes “of the same group”, nothing more and nothing less.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Seth is simply reckoned as one of the many that can be used as an outward representive of that not seen (the spiritual seed by which all men are born from above, Christ...that make up the spiritual incorruptible seed, Christ.This is according to the spirit not seen, and not the flesh as human seeds, seen.

alatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed (Christ) were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Flesh give birth to flesh. The Spirit of Chrsit gives brith to a new eternal spirit that will never die .

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

For as many that are led by the Spirit of Christ are sons of God.

Some of those take are led fall away crucifying the son of man over and over as if one demonstration was not enough and Christ must be recruicifed over and over. Being led by the Spirit of Christ they refused to follow at that point.

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. Heb 6:4

The angel (messengers) are not subject to salvationare not included. They who have no form (sinful flesh )are not subject to the gospel .

 

[Johnny_B]

it sounded as if you were mocking my statements. these debates can ruffle feathers, no hard feelings my brother.



the sethite theory does not work for me.
we have godly and ungodly people today and they are not creating giants.
there is a godly line from seth i agree but the descendants of seth were full of many ungodly as well, and they were all sons of seth.
the theory never existed until 400 AD.
multiple ancient cultures from around the world confirm the same story.
sons of the Most High are heavenly beings that do not die, the sons of seth had a limited lifetime like all other living creatures of this world.
there are multiple references in scripture of angels human union.

No mocking, I'm just not going down any rabbit trails. I've shown by the contextual exegete of the Scriptures how I've come to believe that 6:2, 4, is the coming together of the two genealogies. Never said one was holy and the other wicked, someone else said that and you are thinking I said it, which makes me wonder if you even read what I posted fully, plus I've already answered your question, in that post.

Since you or anyone else have not taken apart what I posted, my guess is no one is. Because it is impossible to do, other wise someone would of jumped all over it. Because there are some very strong believers in the fallen angel theory. I'll go down a trail, forget about outside information about 400 A. D. what I've shown has been in the Bible since 1400 to 1440 B. C. when it is projected the the book of Genesis was written.

The offer still stands, it's not that hard and just because it doesn't work for you does not make it not true. It's the Word of God, you should believe it and be able to rightly divided the Word of God, to prove your point.

 

[garee]

The Nephilim were the sons of God. If not, why are they mentioned at all.

I would offer. God made giants in order to intimate a believer while at the same time encouraged them who have no faith. This is so that the believers, those who do have the faith of Christ would "walk by faith" and not by sight. (fearing Him not seen)

He could have designed them to be fifty feet tall basket ball players. The size of a human is irrelvant when it comes to faith(the unseen).

Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the giants(Nephilim), the sons of Anak, which come of the giantsNephilim) and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

That the sons of God (the believers)saw the daughters of men (not converted,natural man , not born again ) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.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.There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God(the believers) came in unto the daughters of men(not converted,natural man , not born again ), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown Gen 6:2

The Nephilim (larger humans) as unbelievers were with the sons of God.

Unbelievers are reckoned as daughters of men.

That portion of scriptures is simply one of the; do not be unevenly yoked with unbelievers…. in order to protect the seed, Christ.

Daughters of men are used as objects (that seen) for lying spirits (we do not wrestles against flesh and blood ). The lying spirtits(demon) that worked in the unbelivers were created as sons of God but left their first place of habitation, the Spirit of God, or the Bosom of Abraham, as the very presence of the Holy Spirit.

Sons of God would be the believers that have the incorruptible seed Christ, the Holy Spirit of God living in them. That seed Christ was commanded to keep separate from the seeds of man. (Daughters of men)as having no faith of Christ. The believers were being unevenly yoked and put into a place of unbelief (no faith of Christ) as that which alone comes from hearing God. This was jeopardizing the seed (Christ) as far as being passed on to the next generation. It was like Onan spilling his seed not wanting to keep the commandment not to be unevenly yoked .

And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.
en 38:7

In the end of the matter the Genesis 6 it is simply a parallel of the verse below..

2Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

 

[valiant]

As for thin air, you really need to think about who is reaching into it, go read Genesis 4:11-24 and who that's talking about. Then Genesis 4:25-5:32 and who they are, then 6:1, 3, 5-8.

They are all 'men and women'. Two of the Cainites have 'El' = 'God' in their names. Why is that if not that they worshipped God. Their names were similar to those in chapter 5. Nowhere is there a distinction between the two.

It is quite obvious that Gen 6.1-4 was a new section, and a new covenant narrative,. Therefore a separate source. The daughters of MEN separates out who were being talked about. Both groups. They WERE the daughters of both sections. There is previously NO MENTION of bene Elohim. It thus comes as a stark surprise.

And then it introduces remarkable births, which are to say the least unusual. These are not 'men'
but supermen. It suggests the bene Elohim were beyond the ordinary. Indeed they could take their pick of the women. Furthermore they introduced a period of excessive evil. All this points to more than just men

Then you can show how fallen angels fits into the middle of all those Scriptures, on humans and their genealogies, to see who is reaching into that air for their interpretation of who the sons of God are. Share it with us, it will be the contextual exegete of those Scriptures in question.

But the point is that excessive evil was introduced from somewhere. Firstly we have two lines of descendants, both equally with GOD in their names, and then the sons of the elohim introducing this excessive evil.

 

[valiant]

I would offer. God made giants in order to intimate a believer while at the same time encouraged them who have no faith.

Are you suggesting that the believers were all unusually large men?

And why should the sons of Shem be believers? They did not behave like it. Indeed most of them died in the Flood.

This is so that the believers, those who do have the faith of Christ would "walk by faith" and not by sight. (fearing Him not seen)

But most were NOT believers. That is obvious. Besides, both Cainites and Sethites included el in their names.

Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the giants(Nephilim), the sons of Anak, which come of the giantsNephilim) and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Are you suggesting that the Nephilim had survived the Flood? These are different Nephilim.

That the sons of God (the believers)saw the daughters of men (not converted,natural man , not born again ) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Why should your so-called believers (most of whom died in the Flood) have such power over the womenfolk of Cain? And why were they so obsessed with beauty? Besides one might have expected that their womenfolk were even more beautiful.

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.

So ALL the believers apart from Noah and his family have suddenly become unbelievers?

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God(the believers)

but now shown to be unbelievers?.

came in unto the daughters of men

(not converted,natural man , not born again ), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown Gen 6:2

Why should the fall of the believers result in mighty men of renown? We would expect the opposite.

The Nephilim (larger humans) as unbelievers were with the sons of God.

But surely the Nephilim were more likely to produce men of renown than believers who fell?

Unbelievers are reckoned as daughters of men.

There is not the slightest hint beforehand that this is so. Why should 'men' have become so derogatory a word? And indeed they follow immediately after the sethite genealogy, where the birth of daughters IS mentioned

That portion of scriptures is simply one of the; do not be unevenly yoked with unbelievers…. in order to protect the seed, Christ

.

and it led to the destruction of all but eight?

Sons of God would be the believers that have the incorruptible seed Christ, the Holy Spirit of God living in them.

so they perished in the Flood? lol

That seed Christ was commanded to keep separate from the seeds of man. (Daughters of men)as having no faith of Christ.
In the end of the matter the Genesis 6 it is simply a parallel of the verse below..

2Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

and never mentioned again in the OT? The idea is absurd.

 

[samuel23]

This post is a testimonial as to how far some folks will go in order to attempt to prove that which cannot be proven. I have no side in this issue, if the scriptural evidence promoted the idea that the "sons of God" in Genesis where simply sons of Adam, I would gladly believe it, however the evidence is totally the other way. I believe this is the reason that Christians differ so much on scripture. The context in Job clearly shows us that the expression "sons of God" meant angels, the context in Gen clearly shows the expression "sons of God" meant angels. There is no scripture that tells us that any of Adams children were called sons of God, in fact it is written that they were sons of men, all of them. Gen is backed up by Jude and Peter...to argue against such overwhelming evidence is dangerous because such an attitude can change anything into anything.

 

[Johnny_B]

it sounded as if you were mocking my statements. these debates can ruffle feathers, no hard feelings my brother.



the sethite theory does not work for me.
we have godly and ungodly people today and they are not creating giants.
there is a godly line from seth i agree but the descendants of seth were full of many ungodly as well, and they were all sons of seth.
the theory never existed until 400 AD.
multiple ancient cultures from around the world confirm the same story.
sons of the Most High are heavenly beings that do not die, the sons of seth had a limited lifetime like all other living creatures of this world.
there are multiple references in scripture of angels human union.

Found something interesting Calling on the name of the Lord this is a book on prayer and the author writes that it is the mention of prayer. I found it interesting that the author wrote a book on prayer and he mentions Genesis 4:26 as the mention of pray in the Bible.

 

[Johnny_B]

They are all 'men and women'. Two of the Cainites have 'El' = 'God' in their names. Why is that if not that they worshipped God. Their names were similar to those in chapter 5. Nowhere is there a distinction between the two.

It is quite obvious that Gen 6.1-4 was a new section, and a new covenant narrative,. Therefore a separate source. The daughters of MEN separates out who were being talked about. Both groups. They WERE the daughters of both sections. There is previously NO MENTION of bene Elohim. It thus comes as a stark surprise.

And then it introduces remarkable births, which are to say the least unusual. These are not 'men'
but supermen. It suggests the bene Elohim were beyond the ordinary. Indeed they could take their pick of the women. Furthermore they introduced a period of excessive evil. All this points to more than just men




But the point is that excessive evil was introduced from somewhere. Firstly we have two lines of descendants, both equally with GOD in their names, and then the sons of the elohim introducing this excessive evil.

How many times will I have to say this, it is obvious that you did not read my contextual exegete of the Scriptures in question, because I never said anything about one line being righteous/godly and the other being wicked. You are already reading into what I said and you have not even made an attempt at a contextual exegete of the Scriptures in question. Plus I've already shown how the idea that the giants are the result of the two genealogies coming together, is wrong. The children born to the union of Genesis 6:2, 4 are "Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

I'll brake it down for you and again I will repost my contextual exegete of the Scriptures in question (this is getting old, having to repeat myself because people will not read, they assume), Genesis 6:4 "There were giants 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."

In those days, and also afterwards, what days and also afterwards of what days? When the sons of God came into the daughters of men and they bore children to them, who were the children from that marriage? Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. No giants from the marriages, they were already on the earth in those days and after as well, again after what days? When the two genealogies married and had children, again who were those children? Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. That's who the children were, not giants or niphilim they were already on the earth, when those marriages were taking place.

Now I will repost my post so you can contextually exegete it to show how in the context of the history of the two genealogies from Genesis 4:11-6:1 with Genesis 6:3, 5-7 being that result of Genesis 6:2, 4. How Genesis 6:2, 4 are fallen angels. The guidelines are in the post, it's so we don't get anymore rabbit trails, because I'm not going down any, I will simply repeat the saying, another rabbit trail, if another rabbit trail is presented. Rabbit trails are anything that is not a contextual exegete of the Scriptures in question. I only keep repeating it because no one seems to understand what the task is. Please read it all, because so far every question or statement made I've already covered in the post I'm going to repost.

 

[Johnny_B]

Jaybird88 and valiant, I stand corrected, you are both right I did post Godly, someone else posted it and I repeated it. So I will correct it.

I am sorry for saying that I did not post it when I did, the reason I was saying I did not post it is because I don't believe the line of Adam through Seth were called the sons of God because they were Godly. I believe they are called the sons of God because Adam is called the son of God in Luke 3:38. Basically the are called the sons of God because they are the line of Adam, so it that way they are identified as the sons of God, like a last name. The greater reason being that the line needed to stay intact because of the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 about satan's seed and Eve's Seed and Noah is in that line, in Genesis 5:29 and Luke 3:36. That Seed is Jesus who is identified as a being in the line of Adam in Luke 3:23 tracing His linage back to Adam 3:38, in Matthew 1:2-16 is the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham to Jesus slip up into groups of 14 generations. Notice in Luke 3:34 has Abraham, but Matthew starts with Abraham. I'm sorry I was going on a rabbit trail. Both genealogies have line of Adam in them, because Abraham was in the line of Noah, who is in the line of Adam.

Again, I am sorry that I accused you of putting words in my mouth, please accept my apology.

 

[Johnny_B]

Contextual exegete of Genesis 4:11-6:8​

As mentioned the line is Adam, the son of God, with Abel to carry out that line. Since Cain killed Able, "And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth,“For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” Genesis 4:25 in verses 26 "And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord." The word men is added, Enosh means "Dedicated; disciplined", Seth, "Put; who puts; fixed" (Hitchcock's Bible names - Bible Dictionary) Eve name Seth-fixed, what Cain destroyed, for her Seed to be carried on, was fixed in Seth. Did Seth that brought back the line to carry her Seed, name his son Enosh-dedicated, because with him the line would continue to be dedicated to the Lord, to carry her Seed.

Seth carries on the son of God line of Adam Luke 3:23, 36-38 "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,.................the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." No mention of Cain, why? Because Cain was not the son to carry the line to, "her Seed" as in "between your seed and her Seed." Her Seed, is Jesus, which is traced back to Adam the son of God and that line were the sons of God and Cain his line being men, which Genesis 4:16-24 gives Cain's line, from Genesis 4:25 through 5:32 gives the line of Adam/Seth.

Genesis 6:1 says "Now it came to pass, when men (line of Cain) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them (the line of Cain)," verve 2 "that the sons of God (line of Adam) saw the daughters of men (line of Cain), that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose"

Where are angels introduced in the lines of Adam and Cain in the context of the history of man before the flood? With the Seed being the main story line, From Genesis to Revelation the Bible is about Jesus, His coming, His life, His return. Noah is in the line from Adam to Jesus or from Jesus to Adam, with all that being in the overall context of the Bible and chapter 4 and 5, Cain's line and Adam's line with Adam's line to carry on the Seed (Jesus). Why would the Holy Spirit introduce fallen angels into the context of the immediate story and the overall story?

The book of Enoch chapter 10 has nothing to do with the story, because it talks about angels and their crime (sin) being charged to azazeal, there is no mention of anyone other then man be charged with the crime (sins/wickedness) that were committed and the judgement in Genesis 6:5, which were the result of Genesis 6:1-4. (edit 6:3 should be with 6:5, it was a judgement of time and 6:1 is the multiplication of Cain's genealogy as mentioned above)

Genesis 6:5-8 "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord."

With the context of Genesis 4:16-24 the line of Cain, men, his lines women, daughters of men. Genesis 4:25-5:32 the line of Adam the son of God, his line (of men) sons of God. With the two lines marrying in Genesis 6:1-4 (edit above), the results of those unions Genesis 6:5 (edit below), the Lord's reaction to the wickedness of man, Genesis 6:6-7, with one man finding grace with the Lord, Noah, part of the line from Adam to Jesus, Genesis 6:8. (edit 6:4 are the children of 6:2 the giants were already in the earth, in those days, and also after, (what days?) when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them (who were these children?). These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.)

How did angels get into that context, if the sons of God are not the line of Adam and Cain's women are not the daughters of men? The immediate context of Genesis 4:16-5:32 and Genesis 6:5-8, it doesn't fit, nor the overall context, with "her Seed" being the coming Messiah and Adam's genealogy goes to Jesus with Noah in that line.

Angel (edit fallen angels) do not fit the context, you have to read into the story, out of context, pull verse out of context and go outside of the Bible, to try and make a case that the "sons of God" as being fallen angels and to say they are not fallen, is even harder to prove. Because once they leave their first estate, they were cast into tartarus and are reserved in eternal chains of darkness until judgement, that does sound like an angel that is in good standing with God, to be called His son.

 

[jaybird88]

Jaybird88 and valiant, I stand corrected, you are both right I did post Godly, someone else posted it and I repeated it. So I will correct it.

no worries JB

Basically the are called the sons of God because they are the line of Adam

that would make them sons of Adam. just like cain was.

I am sorry for saying that I did not post it when I did, the reason I was saying I did not post it is because I don't believe the line of Adam through Seth were called the sons of God because they were Godly. I believe they are called the sons of God because Adam is called the son of God in Luke 3:38. Basically the are called the sons of God because they are the line of Adam, so it that way they are identified as the sons of God, like a last name.

Adam was called a son of the Most High because the Most High was his Father.

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

those after Adam were not made this way.

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

and the other problem you have is cain is just as much a son of Adam as Seth is.

 

[Johnny_B]

no worries JB


that would make them sons of Adam. just like cain was.






Adam was called a son of the Most High because the Most High was his Father.

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

those after Adam were not made this way.

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

and the other problem you have is cain is just as much a son of Adam as Seth is.

Okay, you misread what I said, "it's like a last name", not it is Adam's last name.

I still do see anyone jumping in here to brake down the Scriptures and you had a new recruit this morning, until I post the offer or challenge, than no more. Jaybird88 have you for a minute stopped to think about this? You know that this topic is a hot one, like Calvinism and eschatology and everyone that believe as you do, always jumps on any post that believes as I do, where are they now? Why do you think that is?

We'll see what happens tonight I'm sure someone will come up with a rabbit trail and I have to repost the contextual exegete of the Scriptures in question and we'll see if they take the challenge or slip into darkness, not in a bad way, just disappeared. Because it obvious that you are not going to do it and I'm tired of posting rabbit trail to you, but if you can view this for what it is, you'll realize that the angels/fallen angels does not work or someone would of worked it already.

I'm not saying this in cockiness, I'm accutally starting to feel bad and at the same time I remember how I was attacked the first time I post in a thread on this topic. But I did my home work and now I will refine my position, so when this comes up again, I'll repost again. Not because I've won, because what Missler said was right out of all the things he said in his video on the subject. If you can't exegete these Scriptures, you can't exegete the rest of the Scriptures and he is right, because it so easy if you just follow the context. The ironic part is he didn't follow the story line, the simplest thing to do.

It's like reading a spy novel the chapter ends, after a chapter and a half of setting up these two factions, the chapter ends leaving you in suspense and we'll know what happens in the next chapter, it starts out talking about how to put a bike together, but is put together wrong. Then the two factions are blamed for the bike not be built right, how is that? In the same way these two genealogies are being presented and out of no where the Holy Spirit starts talking about angels, marrying the women of the two genealogies and they are being blamed for what the angel have done, how is that?

 

[jaybird88]

Okay, you misread what I said, "it's like a last name", not it is Adam's last name.

its not a last name. sons of the Most High mean something.

Luke 20:36
for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
were the sons of seth equal to angels? did they live forever? they did not. they were not sons of the Most High.

[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

Jaybird88 have you for a minute stopped to think about this?

yes i have and the more i think on it the more and more mindboggling it is that people cling to this sethite theory when it has no scripture basis.

where are they now? Why do you think that is?

maybe because me and others have presented many facts and scripture references and you always dodge them. i have responded to you points yet you will not do the same, why is that?

its not that hard, Adam had no earthly father, his Father was the Most High making him a son of the Most High, seth and the sons of seth all had earthly fathers, making them sons of man.
if you going to say seth was a son of the Most High because he descended from Adam, then this would make cain a son of the Most High. this theory does not work

 

[valiant]

Contextual exegete of Genesis 4:11-6:8​

As mentioned the line is Adam, the son of God, with Abel to carry out that line.

1. Adam is never called ben Elohim.
2. Adam is called 'man' regularly(1,26-27; 2.18, 22-23, 25; 3.18; 5.1).
3. It was Cain of whom Eve said, 'I have gotten a man ('ish) from YHWH.' Why was ABEL then the carrying on of Adam's line? Surely it was Cain as well.

Since Cain killed Abel, "And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth,“For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.”

Seth replaced Abel as Another son of Adam. In 6.1 it was daughters of 'adam that are spoken of. That included both Abel and Seth (but not Cain). Indeed we are ONLY told of daughters borne to Seth and his line.

Genesis 4:25 in verses 26 "And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord."

This is merely stating that formal worship began at this stage. But Cain also had on him the mark of YHWH. And both in their lineage had names which included El.

The word men is added, Enosh means "

Dedicated; disciplined",

Actually 'enosh means 'man'.

Seth, "Put; who puts; fixed" (Hitchcock's Bible names - Bible Dictionary) Eve name Seth-fixed, what Cain destroyed, for her Seed to be carried on, was fixed in Seth.

But Cain was also her seed, and he bore children to her..

Did Seth that brought back the line to carry her Seed, name his son Enosh-dedicated, because with him the line would continue to be dedicated to the Lord, to carry her Seed.

'enosh means MAN. Cain and Abel had also brought offerings to YHWH. All that Seth and 'enosh did was establish formal worship.

Seth carries on the son of God line of Adam Luke 3:23, 36-38 "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,.................the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

LOL you leave man out of Gen 4.25 because it is just assumed, but include son in Lke 3,38 where it is equally only assumed. That is unreasonable. And it is deliberately omitted in the latter because the line was 'of God', but Adam was NOT the son of God.

No mention of Cain, why? Because Cain was not the son to carry the line to, "her Seed" as in "between your seed and her Seed."

That is mere assumption. Seed merely indicated offspring.

Her Seed, is Jesus, which is traced back to Adam the son of God

Adam is nowhere called the son of God (even in Luke 3, which anyway is irrelevant to Gen 6.1-4).

and that line were the sons of God

They are nowhere called 'bene Elohim' in the whole OT (whereas beings who meet with God ARE (Job 2.1)). But they were called 'adam, When God speaks of Israel as sons it is as sons of YHWH. The Elohim are not of this world.

and Cain his line being men,

But Cain is not 'adam (6.1), he is 'ish

Adam's line through Seth are 'men' ('adam) (5.1) and begotten in the likeness of 'men' (adam)

which Genesis 4:16-24 gives Cain's line, from Genesis 4:25 through 5:32 gives the line of Adam/Seth.

Of which only the latter (Seth's line) are called 'men' ('adam) (Gen 5-1)

Genesis 6:1 says "Now it came to pass, when men (line of Cain)

Cain is 'ish. It is Seth who is 'adam. Therefore you should say 'line of Seth'

began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them (the line of Cain)," verse 2

No, the line of Seth as in Gen 5.1.

"that the sons of God (line of Adam) saw the daughters of men (line of Cain), that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose"

No one is called bene Elohim apart from those who approach God's throne directly (Job 2.1). The phrase is kept for THEM (Job 2.1; 38.7). They are called 'sons of the elohim' because they are of the nature of the Elohim (spirits -1 Sam 28.13, gods)

Where are angels introduced in the lines of Adam and Cain in the context of the history of man before the flood?

That is the whole crux of the matter. They were foreign to them. They were Elohim. They were neither in the line of 'adam nor in the line of 'ish

With the Seed being the main story line, From Genesis to Revelation the Bible is about Jesus, His coming, His life, His return.

But seed is used regularly outside of that.

Noah is in the line from Adam to Jesus or from Jesus to Adam, with all that being in the overall context of the Bible and chapter 4 and 5, Cain's line and Adam's line with Adam's line to carry on the Seed (Jesus).

and what of his brothers and sisters who perished in the Flood (Gen 5.30).

Cain is in fact never said to be 'adam, he is 'ish.. Only Seth's line are called 'adam (5.1; 6.1-2)

Why would the Holy Spirit introduce fallen angels into the context of the immediate story and the overall story?

Because it happened?

The book of Enoch chapter 10 has nothing to do with the story, because it talks about angels and their crime (sin) being charged to azazeal,

I would not cite it. But it is evidence of inter-testamental thought. As is 2 Peter.

there is no mention of anyone other then man be charged with the crime (

sins/wickedness) that were committed and the judgement in Genesis 6:5, which were the result of Genesis 6:1-4. (edit 6:3 should be with 6:5, it was a judgement of time and 6:1 is the multiplication of Cain's genealogy as mentioned above)

it is connected with Seth not Cain (see above). They are daughters of 'adam (6.1) not of 'ish.

Genesis 6:5-8 "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord."

NONE of his brothers and sisters and their offspring.

With the context of Genesis 4:16-24 the line of Cain, men, his lines women, daughters of men. Genesis 4:25-5:32 the line of Adam the son of God, his line (of men) sons of God.

They are never called bene Elohim, but they ARE called 'adam

With the two lines marrying in Genesis 6:1-4 (edit above), the results of those unions Genesis 6:5 (edit below), the Lord's reaction to the wickedness of man, Genesis 6:6-7, with one man finding grace with the Lord,

But why should ALL the so-called sons of God fall except for Noah if it was only a question of inter-marriages? Whereas if the bene elohim are angels it is understandable.

Noah, part of the line from Adam to Jesus, Genesis 6:8.

Only Noah found grace? Did his brothers and sisters NOT find grace? Why not? It sounds like a devastating occurrence.

How did angels get into that context, if the sons of God are not the line of Adam and Cain's women are not the daughters of men?

The same as Satan in chapter 3?

The immediate context of Genesis 4:16-5:32 and Genesis 6:5-8, it doesn't fit,

It doesn't fit the fact that only Seth's line are called 'adam (Gen5.1; 6.1). Cain is called 'ish

nor the overall context, with "her Seed" being the coming Messiah and Adam's genealogy goes to Jesus with Noah in that line.

It was the second attempt of Satan to destroy the line of Messiah.?

Angel (edit fallen angels) do not fit the context

It seems to me they fit perfectly ,

you have to read into the story, out of context

YOU have to read out of context, ignoring that the daughters of 'dam are the Sethites. Satan is as much an interloper in chapter 3 as here. But you do not reject him in chapter 3.
.

, pull verse out of context and go outside of the Bible, to try and make a case that the "sons of God" as being fallen angels

so you don't have Job in your Bible?

and to say they are not fallen, is even harder to prove. Because once they leave their first estate, they were cast into tartarus and are reserved in eternal chains of darkness until judgement, +

you do recognise them in 2 Peter?

at does sound like an angel that is in good standing with God, to be called His son.

'sons of the elohim' means simply 'of like nature with the elohim.' Not men, but supernatural beings.

 

[Gabriel2020]

I have to go on what the scriptures are saying,and that is these giants are mankind. Moses saw all this with his own eyes and he never mentioned angels, just mankind. The fallen angels are those that fought against Michael and his army of angels. after they were defeated, they were gathered up and placed in gloomy dark caves. and that don't necessarily mean here on earth. But at least these topics are getting us closer to the truth as long as we keep meditating on the word.

 

[Gabriel2020]

Luke 3 : 23-38 gives you the genealogy of Jesus Christ, and it says that Adam was the son of God.

 

[Johnny_B]

its not a last name. sons of the Most High mean something.

Luke 20:36
for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
were the sons of seth equal to angels? did they live forever? they did not. they were not sons of the Most High.

[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

yes i have and the more i think on it the more and more mindboggling it is that people cling to this sethite theory when it has no scripture basis.



maybe because me and others have presented many facts and scripture references and you always dodge them. i have responded to you points yet you will not do the same, why is that?

its not that hard, Adam had no earthly father, his Father was the Most High making him a son of the Most High, seth and the sons of seth all had earthly fathers, making them sons of man.
if you going to say seth was a son of the Most High because he descended from Adam, then this would make cain a son of the Most High. this theory does not work

​Are you kidding me, you did it again, so either you are just trying to mess with me or you have a serious problem understanding what you read. So again rabbit trail.

 

[jaybird88]

​ you did it again

show you how the theory does not work? several have shown you this.

, so either you are just trying to mess with me or you have a serious problem understanding what you read. So again rabbit trail.

with due respect, at first you claimed they were sons of the Most High because they were godly and righteous, which is the mainstream sethite theory, you were given scripture that says different, then you claim its a chuck meyer conspiracy, you were given the bible concordance with the meaning of the word in question from two different passages. then its "like a last name" again you were shown its not. and rather than challenge the multiple problems i have presented on this theory or answer some very basic questions, which you obviously cant, your only response is "rabbit trails" which makes your theory look even worse.