Son's of God Genesis 6:1-8

[garee]

​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.

Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed(Christ) “instead of Abel”, whom Cain slew. Gen 4:24

Seth, named meaning; hath appointed me another. It is in respect to the seed (singular) Christ.

Abel was the first in that line of the spiritual seed (Chrsit ) Seth’s name implies; has appointed me another .Abel the first and after Seth, Enos again representing the seed Christ, as the generation of Christ and not the generation of Adam pertaining to the flesh of Adam Abel or Seth.

Calling on means that had communion with God not seen, because of the seed(Christ) . They did not call on the name of of the sinners Seth or Enoch

Gen 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

It’s really much simpler. Eternal God cannot (impossible) create another God that has no beginning of days and no end of Spirit life .God is Spirit. He remains without mother or father beginning of day or end of Spirit life.

God is not a man as us never was never could be. He is Emanuel (God with us) like no other.

 

[Johnny_B]

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.

Actually 'enosh means 'man'.

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

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


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.

That is mere assumption. Seed merely indicated offspring.

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

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.


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)

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

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

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

No one is reading what I posted or they just don't understand, I never said that the birth of Enosh was about worship or that if it was that it's about one of the genealogies and not the other. What I said was that with the name Seth meaning "Put; who puts; fixed" and Enosh means "Dedicated; disciplined" Quoted from the 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." And I quoted my source, which you need to do.

quoted from the original post and it says nothing about, Seth or Enosh being holy or worshipping God, here's how it should read without name after Seth "did Seth that brought back the line to carry her Seed, name Enosh-dedicated, because with him the line would continue to be dedicated to the Lord, to carry her Seed." But again it says nothing about what I said above. Which makes my wonder if you are not understanding or your just not reading the post.


You joking right, you don't know that Genesis 3:15 is of Jesus "her Seed" and you still didn't not show how angels are introduced after giving the history of the genealogies of Cain and Adam or Seth, again because Seth was another seed because Cain killed Able. You were only supposed to use one book of the Bible to prove your point, so I'll answer one.

You said that no one is called bene Elohim except those approaching the throne of God in Job, yet out of the these two genealogies one of them is being called bene Elohim. Because in the context of these Scriptures there is no lead in to angels and fallen ones at that. So you still not shown how in the context of the history of the two genealogies being presented in Genesis 4:11-6:1, 3, 5-7, how 6:2, 4 are fallen angels. In Job satan is separated from the sons of God because it says in Job 1:7, "and satan also came in among them." Job 2:1 it further separate satan from the sons of God, "and satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord." Why is satan there? Because he accuses the brothers as he is doing with Job, accusing him before God.

The part that is the most puzzling is that you do not know that Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy about Jesus, that it is a mere assumption, then you say that the whole story is an attempt of satan to destroy the Messiah. Which one is it?

You like the word assumption, but you never prove anything, like what dictionary or lexicon are you quoting that says that Enosh means "man" and please do not say Missler said that and if that is where you got your information, quote where he got it from so we can look it up. I listed all my sources.

Here's the problem you did not go from Genesis 4:11-6:1 to Genesis 6:3, 5-7 to show how fallen angels are introduced in Genesis 6:2, 4. I like the way you LOL when you said you favorite word assumption. Yet everything you post is your assumption. Because you did not do the contextual exegete of the Scriptures in question. Quote your sources so I can look them up and others can as well, again I quoted mine.

 

[garee]

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

No extra tall men are usually large men. Believers can be extra tall. No height requirement to believe

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

Shem is a believer it does not make his sons one

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.

Not sure what you are getting at?

Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the giants(Nephilim), the sons of Anak, which come of the giants Nephilim) 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.

No those extra tall men all perished.

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?

They had no authority power over a unbeliever. They should not of married the daughters of men. Its what the subject matter is about .Do not be unevenly yoked. Especially before the seed of Christ became sight.

And why were they so obsessed with beauty?

They were sinners subject to the lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of this life

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

Noah and His family are used as a type. I am sure there were those who found grace in the eyes of the LORD other than Noah. They perished in the flood.

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?

Sons of god as those who are lead by the Spirit of Christ are typfied as beleivers

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

.

They became saved and were called mighty me .I believe it does not inform it was the result of the fall of the born again believer 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?

Extra tall men are no more likely to become born again believers than would a extra small man. Again it has nothing to do with the fall of beleivers

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

Daughters of men speaks to our first birth and not sons of God, the second birth of God

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


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

Some did. Scripture does not inform us that Noah was the only one that God looked to with favor(grace).


That seed Christ was commanded to keep separate from the seeds of man. (Daughters of men)as those 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

.

The protecting of the spiritual seed (Christ) from being unevenly yoked is shown in other ways. For instance he protected the seed of Christ from the Pharaoh when Abraham was in Egypt .or the spilling of the seed of Onan they were not to be unevenly yoked

 

[garee]

What I said was that with the name Seth meaning "Put; who puts; fixed" and Enosh means "Dedicated; disciplined"

Seth means "compensation" he compensated the loss of the first (Abel) in the line of the seed (Christ) For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.Enoch the third used to pass the seed (christ)


Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Strongs lexicon.08352 Sheth {shayth}
from 07896;; pr n m
AV - Seth 7, Sheth 2; 9
Seth = "compensation" 1) the 3rd son of Adam by Eve 1a) also 'Sheth'

 

[Johnny_B]

Seth means "compensation" he compensated the loss of the first (Abel) in the line of the seed (Christ) For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.Enoch the third used to pass the seed (christ)


Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Strongs lexicon.08352 Sheth {shayth}
from 07896;; pr n m
AV - Seth 7, Sheth 2; 9
Seth = "compensation" 1) the 3rd son of Adam by Eve 1a) also 'Sheth'

Thanks we are saying the same thing.

 

[Johnny_B]

​Found something of interest, that could be the separation of the two genealogies. Genesis 4:16 "Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden." Interest also is that the small reference after Nod, says it means wandering.

Genesis 4:26 "To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord." If you go to this book Calling on the Name of the Lord the very first page of chapter one talks about, Genesis 4:25-26 as being the first mention of prayer.

With what Genesis 4:16 says and the above, I'm wondering if this is a separation of the two genealogies, something to think about.

 

[Gabriel2020]

People have always made up stories about the bible about what they can't see and don't understand. Angels are not mentioned in The sons of God anywhere. God did not put giants and small people on the same planet,if so small people did not have a chance in hell of survival. when God made Adam and Eve, they were the same size as angels,but only in the flesh from the dust of the earth.

 

[valiant]

​Found something of interest, that could be the separation of the two genealogies. Genesis 4:16 "Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden." Interest also is that the small reference after Nod, says it means wandering.

In other words he settled away from men in the desert where men wander.

Genesis 4:26 "

To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord." If you go to this book Calling on the Name of the Lord the very first page of chapter one talks about, Genesis 4:25-26 as being the first mention of prayer.

So Adam and Eve didn't pray, Abel didn't pray in spite of offering offerings acceptable to God. It sounds ridiculous. No, it was formal worship that began at that time.

With what Genesis 4:16 says and the above, I'm wondering if this is a separation of the two genealogies, something to think about.

there is no 'formal' separation. Cain's was given first, then Seth's (in two separate covenant narratives).

 

[valiant]

No one is reading what I posted or they just don't understand, I never said that the birth of Enosh was about worship or that if it was that it's about one of the genealogies and not the other.

If nobody understands that would seem to be your fault.

What I said was that with the name Seth meaning "Put; who puts; fixed" and Enosh means "

Dedicated; disciplined" Quoted from the Hitchcock's Bible names - Bible Dictionary

.ׁ

ׁ
'ĕnôsh
en-oshe'
From
H605; properly a mortal (and thus differeing from the more dignified H120); hence a man in general (singly or collectively)

seems that names mean anything you want them to mean

 

[valiant]

quoted from the original post and it says nothing about, Seth or Enosh being holy or worshipping God,

were did I say that? have you been drinking?

here's how it should read without name after Seth "did Seth that brought back the line to carry her Seed, name Enosh-dedicated, because with him the line would continue to be dedicated to the Lord, to carry her Seed." But again it says nothing about what I said above.

as I have shown the 'meaning' of the names is anyone's guess.

Which makes my

wonder if you are not understanding or your just not reading the post.

definitely been drinking.

You joking right, you don't know that Genesis 3:15 is of Jesus "her Seed"

actually it is not originally, that was a later reinterpretation. Originally it means the battle between man and snakes,

and you still didn't not show how angels are introduced after giving the history of the genealogies of Cain and Adam or Seth, again because Seth was another seed because Cain killed Able.

angels are introduced in Genesis 2 ('us' = elohim) then in chapter 3 (cherubim).They appear as necessary without special introduction. Just as Satan and his attack on Messiah appears in chapter 3, then again in chapter 6.

You were only supposed to use one book of the Bible to prove your point, so I'll answer one.

Lol and who makes the rules?

You said that no one is called bene Elohim except those approaching the throne of God in Job, yet out of the these two genealogies one of them is being called bene Elohim.

which one? LOL

Obviously the present narrative is excepted. You are nit picking

Because in the context of these Scriptures there is no lead in to angels and fallen ones at that.

apart from Gen 2 & 3 lol

So you still not shown how in the context of the history of the two genealogies being presented in Genesis 4:11-6:1, 3, 5-7, how 6:2, 4 are fallen angels.

Firstly chapter 6 is a different context as is clear from style and content. But are you doubting a fallen angel 'appeared' in ch 3?

In Job satan is

separated from the sons of God because it says in Job 1:7, "and satan also came in among them."

The 'also' shows he was INCLUDED among them. Who do you think the others were?

Job 2:1 it further separate satan from the sons of God, "and satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord."

LOL you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Also means 'as well as the others'

Why is satan there? Because he accuses the brothers as he is doing with Job, accusing him before God.

they are all there for that reason, to draw attention to the behaviour of men on earth.

The part that is the most puzzling is that you do not know that Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy about Jesus, that it is a mere assumption, then you say that the whole story is an attempt of satan to destroy the Messiah. Which one is it?

Satan has been out to destroy Messiah from the beginning, by destroying first Adam, then the human race, then Israel, then the Jews. Or didn't you know.

Genesis 3.15 is a general prophecy about man and snakes that later came to be interpreted in terms of Messiah. He was necessarily included.

You like the word assumption, but you never prove anything, like what dictionary or

lexicon are you quoting that says that Enosh means "man"

I expect you to have the intelligence to consult Strong. Sorry about that.

and please do not say Missler said that and if that is where you got your information, quote where he got it from so we can look it up. I listed all my sources.

try Strong

Here's the problem you did not go from Genesis 4:11-6:1 to Genesis 6:3, 5-7 to show how fallen angels are introduced in Genesis 6:2, 4.

why should I?. 4 , 5 & 6 are completely separate narratives. Even a simple mind can see that from the different styles in which they are written. Like everyone else fallen angels are introduced when they appear.

I like the way you LOL when you said you favorite word assumption. Yet everything you post is your assumption.

so you think I invented it ? LOL Dream on

Because you did not do the contextual exegete of the Scriptures in question.

neither did you LOL you just assumed. The only context for chapter 6 (apart from the whole Bible) is chapter 6.

Quote your sources so I can look them up and others can as well, again I quoted mine.

You quoted no sources. You just assume.

 

[Johnny_B]

In other words he settled away from men in the desert where men wander.



So Adam and Eve didn't pray, Abel didn't pray in spite of offering offerings acceptable to God. It sounds ridiculous. No, it was formal worship that began at that time.



there is no 'formal' separation. Cain's was given first, then Seth's (in two separate covenant narratives).

Again you are reading into what I posted all I said was I found something interesting. As far as no formal separation. Why the mention that Cain went out of the presence of the Lord and wandered? Which the city Nod means, wandering. Or in other words wandering outside of the presence of the Lord.

All I was saying is that this is the first mention of prayer, I never said that no one ever prayed before this. Yet there is no mention of Cain or his family praying or calling on the name go the Lord, in fact 4:23 shows that Cain's sin was committed by one of his sons again. With 4:16 and 4:23 it seems that Cain's genealogy was wandering out of the presence of the Lord and continued with Cain's character of murdering. With Adam and his genealogy beginning to call on the Lord or praying, no mention of Cain's genealogy doing that or do you have a verse that show that Cain's genealogy began to call on the name of the lord?

Who said anything about two covenant's? And to that point that you bring up, is 4:26 saying that Adam's genealogy is following the covenant that Adam has with the Lord, that sounds like it could very well be saying just that. Which would go to your idea of Adam and Eve praying and their genealogy following that example, as did Lamech by murdering a young man, followed Cain's example. Which shows that the two genealogies are heading in two deferent direction. One wandering outside the presence of the Lord and the other calling on the name of the Lord.

Another thing of interest, is that all through out the genealogy of Adam form Genesis 4:25-5:32, there is the mention of sons and daughters being born to them all but Noah, it just mentions his three sons. Which leads to my point in the contextual exegete of Genesis 4:9-5:32, that Genesis 6:1 being the mentions of daughters being born to Cain's genealogy, with 6:2, 4 being the marriage of those two genealogies, not fallen angels. With the judgement of 6:3, 5-7 being on those two genealogies.

Thanks for your ideas they have helped my further my thoughts on all of this, especially how 4:26 could mean the following of Adam's covenant with the Lord, by his genealogy.

 

[Denadii]

In the Old Covenant the Sons of God refers to the fallen angels. There were NO other sons of God at the time. In the New Covenant born again folk are the sons of God. By adoption. The fallen took any woman they chose and bred with her, bringing forth Giants. The sons of Seth were, guess what?, the sons of Seth

 

[Denadii]

Uh....Yeah. What scripture can you back this up with?

 

[Denadii]

LOL Samuel23 What people think does not make a thing true. The angels bred with human women....I guess they can then, right?

 

[Denadii]

Sons of God only applies to men that are born again. That means, my friend, that there were no men that were sons of God in the Old Covenant. The only sons of God were those made by God in the beginning.

 

[Denadii]

Oldhermit...Please tell me how men breeding with women produces giant offspring. Have you seen it happen? Where does it happen. If it happened in Genesis 6 why does it not happen now? What is the difference. Men with women then vs men with women now. Where are the giants?

 

[followjesus]

"Sons of God" is a term that seems to always applied to men. There does not seem to be any place in scripture where this term is ever applied to angels as many suppose with one possible exception and that is Job 38:6-7 but even this is inconclusive. Scripture must ALWAYS be allowed to define its own use of language.

the difference may be between translations. niv says " the angels came to present themselves before God in Job 1 and 2, but the Kjv says " the sons of God came to present themselves" it seems apparent that the sons of God were able to go into the presence of God to present themselves and satan came with them.

but in Genesis 6 which the op is about the niv says "sons of God came to the daughters of humans" and the Kjv says " sons of God came to the daughters of men"

Which translations we use matter when it comes to details and causes alot of disagreements.

 

[Denadii]

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 seek a definition of the term 'sons of God' so, the question is, what definition do we assign to the meaning of this term? /there are only two options - imagination or scripture. If we assign angelic beings to this term then we must then find where scripture itself assigns such a definition to this term. This presents a problem since no such scripture exists. On the other hand, we see repeated passages where 'sons of God' is used to describe men as the subject but there is no text that ever defines angels in this way.

Sir We can also 'interpret' by results What happened? What was the result. Humans breeding with humans produces humans...Humans breeding with something else produces something else. Please excuse my abruptness. I hate cranial interpretations of the Word.

 

[followjesus]

Who are the sons of God described in Genesis 6:1-8?

sons of God the phrase is found only in the place you mention and in job 1 and 2 and also job 38:7. but isreal is refered to as children, and also as the son of God a few times such as

Hosea 11:1 , " when isreal was a child, i loved Him, and led my son out of egypt" ( also a prophecy of Jesus)

isaiah 43:6 He says speaking of isreal " bring my sons from afar from the ends of the earth. "

exodus 4:22-23 "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: 23And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn."

deuteronomy 14:1 "Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. ( children would be sons and daughters)

psalm 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High., peter makes reference to this in acts speaking of men, as does Jesus in the Gospel. there are other references Like this referring to isreal as the children or sons of God. I cant remember ever reading of the angels named children of God, remember that mankind was originally made in His image, is i believe where the reference comes from. im not sure ive read angels being made in His image. cain was sent away from Gods presence, and seths line wasnt, to me this is really the distinction found.

I think according to what the Kjv says the scripture seems to point to men from the Line of seth, which became the Line of noah and then abraham and on and on to Christ. from the start the line of seth were forbidden to marry the daughters of cain. and the issue that is addressed in your op, was that "the sons of God, married the daughters of men" and even when the Law came about isrealites were forbidden from marrying women of other nations because it would cause idolatry.


seths line in the beginning produced those who are memorialized and cain disappears from the lineage after Killing abel. im not sure anyone can prove wither way, but much more scripture points to Gods People even then being called His sons, and angels are always referred to as angels, or men dressed in white to my own Knowledge unless we look at different translations.

 

[Denadii]

sons of God the phrase is found only in the place you mention and in job 1 and 2 and also job 38:7. but isreal is refered to as children, and also as the son of God a few times such as

Hosea 11:1 , " when isreal was a child, i loved Him, and led my son out of egypt" ( also a prophecy of Jesus)

isaiah 43:6 He says speaking of isreal " bring my sons from afar from the ends of the earth. "

exodus 4:22-23 "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: 23And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn."

deuteronomy 14:1 "Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. ( children would be sons and daughters)

psalm 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High., peter makes reference to this in acts speaking of men, as does Jesus in the Gospel. there are other references Like this referring to isreal as the children or sons of God. I cant remember ever reading of the angels named children of God, remember that mankind was originally made in His image, is i believe where the reference comes from. im not sure ive read angels being made in His image. cain was sent away from Gods presence, and seths line wasnt, to me this is really the distinction found.

I think according to what the Kjv says the scripture seems to point to men from the Line of seth, which became the Line of noah and then abraham and on and on to Christ. from the start the line of seth were forbidden to marry the daughters of cain. and the issue that is addressed in your op, was that "the sons of God, married the daughters of men" and even when the Law came about isrealites were forbidden from marrying women of other nations because it would cause idolatry.


seths line in the beginning produced those who are memorialized and cain disappears from the lineage after Killing abel. im not sure anyone can prove wither way, but much more scripture points to Gods People even then being called His sons, and angels are always referred to as angels, or men dressed in white to my own Knowledge unless we look at different translations.

What scriptures?