Son's of God Genesis 6:1-8

[CeileDe]

Show me a text that shows that sngels can't have sexual intercourse.

Sorry, I thought you said somewhere that they couldn't. My mistake.

 

[oldhermit]

if the sons of the Elohim were angels we would not expect them to be mentioned together. One used one description, the other another.

If men are sons of God then why does he then mention them as such together? This is a silly argument.

Job describes Satan as one of the sons of the Elohim (Job 2.1) in a context were he appears to be speaking of angels.

No, it simply says that the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord and that Satan came with the. It does not call Satan a son of God. That is not what the text says. He came in addition to the sons of God.

 

[oldhermit]

Sorry, I thought you said somewhere that they couldn't. My mistake.

Sorry. Typo. That should say "Show me a text that shows that angels can have sexual intercourse."

 

[CeileDe]

Sorry. Typo. That should say "Show me a text that shows that angels can have sexual intercourse."

I'm not sure if it specifically does, but why would a woman need to cover herself from angels? Is there some sort of temptation form Angles? And if there is what would they be tempted of if it isn't sexual in nature?

 

[oldhermit]

I'm not sure if it specifically does, but why would a woman need to cover herself from angels? Is there some sort of temptation form Angles? And if there is what would they be tempted of if it isn't sexual in nature?

Simply out of respect for the presence of superior beings.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by valiant if the sons of the Elohim were angels we would not expect them to be mentioned together. One used one description, the other another.

If men are sons of God then why does he then mention them as such together? This is a silly argument.

But I did not say it. See above. My argument is quite sensible. In one context they are called 'sons of the elohim' in another 'angels'.

But men are never in the OT called 'sons of the elohim'.

No, it simply says that the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord and that Satan came with the. It does not call Satan a son of God. That is not what the text says. He came in addition to the sons of God.

Who else would approach God but an angelic being? It makes more sense than your arguments.

 

[CeileDe]

Simply out of respect for the presence of superior beings.

Then why wouldn't man have to cover himself? Aren't angels superior to man as well?

 

[dcontroversal]

I'm not sure if it specifically does, but why would a woman need to cover herself from angels? Is there some sort of temptation form Angles? And if there is what would they be tempted of if it isn't sexual in nature?

The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the angels....so much so that LOT offered his virgin daughters if the men would not rape the angels....

MANY miss the fact that there is a CELESTIAL BODY and an EARTHLY BODY.........just saying......

 

[oldhermit]

Then why wouldn't man have to cover himself? Aren't angels superior to man as well?

Because of the symbolism represented. Man is the head of the woman just as Christ is the head of the Church. As such he forbidden to cover his head in the assembly and the woman is commanded to cover her head when she prays.

 

[oldhermit]

But I did not say it. See above. My argument is quite sensible. In one context they are called 'sons of the elohim' in another 'angels'.

But men are never in the OT called 'sons of the elohim'.

"the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." Luke 3:38 Though the statement appears in the NT, the designation is still valid.

Who else would approach God but an angelic being? It makes more sense than your arguments.

See posts #19 and 23.

 

[Mother5]

I guess God leaves some things vague to give us something to discuss in Christian chat rooms. I loved the imput from you all.
God bless you all!

 

[oldhermit]

The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the angels....so much so that LOT offered his virgin daughters if the men would not rape the angels....

MANY miss the fact that there is a CELESTIAL BODY and an EARTHLY BODY.........just saying......

That is true but, you do not see the angels wanting to have sex with them not does it even imply the possibility.

 

[trofimus]

"the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." Luke 3:38 Though the statement appears in the NT, the designation is still valid.


See posts #19 and 23.

There is no "Adam, the son of God" in Luke 3:38, look at Greek.

Ἀδὰμ τοῦ Θεοῦ

So it is not anything similar to Gen 6

 

[oldhermit]

There is no "Adam, the son of God" in Luke 3:38, look at Greek.

Ἀδὰμ τοῦ Θεοῦ

So it is not anything similar to Gen 6

"Son" is supplied in verse 23 for all the following verses. Notice that it begins in the Greek with
υἱὸς Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ Ἡλί, 24τοῦ Ματθάτ, τοῦ Λευΐ, τοῦ Μελχί, τοῦ Ἰαννά, τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, 25τοῦ Ματταθίου, τοῦ Ἀμώς, τοῦ Ναούμ, τοῦ Ἐσλί, τοῦ Ναγγαί, 26τοῦ Μαάθ, τοῦ Ματταθίου, τοῦ Σεμεΐ, τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ Ἰούδα, 27τοῦ Ἰωανάν, τοῦ Ῥησά, τοῦ Ζοροβάβελ, τοῦ Σαλαθιήλ, τοῦ Νηρί, 28τοῦ Μελχί, τοῦ Ἀδδί, τοῦ Κωσάμ, τοῦ Ἐλμωδάμ, τοῦ Ἤρ, 29τοῦ Ἰωσή, τοῦ Ἐλιέζερ, τοῦ Ἰωρείμ, τοῦ Ματθάτ, τοῦ Λευΐ, 30τοῦ Συμεών, τοῦ Ἰούδα, τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ Ἰωνάν, τοῦ Ἐλιακείμ, 31τοῦ Μελεᾶ, τοῦ Μαϊνάν, τοῦ Ματταθά, τοῦ Ναθάν, τοῦ Δαυίδ, 32τοῦ Ἰεσσαί, τοῦ Ὠβήδ, τοῦ Βόοζ, τοῦ Σαλμών, τοῦ Ναασσών, 33τοῦ Ἀμιναδάβ, τοῦ Ἀράμ, τοῦ Ἑσρώμ, τοῦ Φάρες, τοῦ Ἰούδα, 34τοῦ Ἰακώβ, τοῦ Ἰσαάκ, τοῦ Ἀβραάμ, τοῦ Θάρα, τοῦ Ναχώρ, 35τοῦ Σερούχ, τοῦ Ῥαγαῦ, τοῦ Φάλεγ, τοῦ Ἑβέρ, τοῦ Σαλά, 36τοῦ Καϊνάν, τοῦ Ἀρφαξάδ, τοῦ Σήμ, τοῦ Νῶε, τοῦ Λάμεχ, 37τοῦ Μαθουσάλα, τοῦ Ἐνώχ, τοῦ Ἰαρέδ, τοῦ Μαλελεήλ, τοῦ Καϊνάν, 38τοῦ Ἐνώς, τοῦ Σήθ, τοῦ Ἀδάμ, τοῦ θεοῦ.

"Son" is thus assumed in every genealogical connection although it is only supplied at the beginning of verse 23, and that is the only place it appears in this entire pericope so that what you have is "son of Joseph, of Eli, 24 of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi, of Jannai, of Joseph, 25 of Mattathias, of Amos, of Nahum, of Hesli, of Naggai, and so on until verse 38of Enosh, of Seth, of Adam, of God.

 

[valiant]

"the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." Luke 3:38 Though the statement appears in the NT, the designation is still valid.

A son of the Elohim is not the same as a son of theos. The elohim are the unseen world, eg 1 Samuel 28.13. The NT opens up a whole new ball game.

 

[valiant]

"Son" is supplied in verse 23 for all the following verses. Notice that it begins in the Greek with
υἱὸς Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ Ἡλί, 24τοῦ Ματθάτ, τοῦ Λευΐ, τοῦ Μελχί, τοῦ Ἰαννά, τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, 25τοῦ Ματταθίου, τοῦ Ἀμώς, τοῦ Ναούμ, τοῦ Ἐσλί, τοῦ Ναγγαί, 26τοῦ Μαάθ, τοῦ Ματταθίου, τοῦ Σεμεΐ, τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ Ἰούδα, 27τοῦ Ἰωανάν, τοῦ Ῥησά, τοῦ Ζοροβάβελ, τοῦ Σαλαθιήλ, τοῦ Νηρί, 28τοῦ Μελχί, τοῦ Ἀδδί, τοῦ Κωσάμ, τοῦ Ἐλμωδάμ, τοῦ Ἤρ, 29τοῦ Ἰωσή, τοῦ Ἐλιέζερ, τοῦ Ἰωρείμ, τοῦ Ματθάτ, τοῦ Λευΐ, 30τοῦ Συμεών, τοῦ Ἰούδα, τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ Ἰωνάν, τοῦ Ἐλιακείμ, 31τοῦ Μελεᾶ, τοῦ Μαϊνάν, τοῦ Ματταθά, τοῦ Ναθάν, τοῦ Δαυίδ, 32τοῦ Ἰεσσαί, τοῦ Ὠβήδ, τοῦ Βόοζ, τοῦ Σαλμών, τοῦ Ναασσών, 33τοῦ Ἀμιναδάβ, τοῦ Ἀράμ, τοῦ Ἑσρώμ, τοῦ Φάρες, τοῦ Ἰούδα, 34τοῦ Ἰακώβ, τοῦ Ἰσαάκ, τοῦ Ἀβραάμ, τοῦ Θάρα, τοῦ Ναχώρ, 35τοῦ Σερούχ, τοῦ Ῥαγαῦ, τοῦ Φάλεγ, τοῦ Ἑβέρ, τοῦ Σαλά, 36τοῦ Καϊνάν, τοῦ Ἀρφαξάδ, τοῦ Σήμ, τοῦ Νῶε, τοῦ Λάμεχ, 37τοῦ Μαθουσάλα, τοῦ Ἐνώχ, τοῦ Ἰαρέδ, τοῦ Μαλελεήλ, τοῦ Καϊνάν, 38τοῦ Ἐνώς, τοῦ Σήθ, τοῦ Ἀδάμ, τοῦ θεοῦ.

"Son" is thus assumed in every genealogical connection although it is only supplied at the beginning of verse 23, and that is the only place it appears in this entire pericope so that what you have is "son of Joseph, of Eli, 24 of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi, of Jannai, of Joseph, 25 of Mattathias, of Amos, of Nahum, of Hesli, of Naggai, and so on until verse 38of Enosh, of Seth, of Adam, of God.

so it DOESN'T say son of God lol

 

[oldhermit]

A son of the Elohim is not the same as a son of theos. The elohim are the unseen world, eg 1 Samuel 28.13. The NT opens up a whole new ball game.

That is nonsense and you know it.

 

[oldhermit]

so it DOESN'T say son of God lol

I guess you do not know so much about Greek after all.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by valiant
A son of the Elohim is not the same as a son of theos. The elohim are the unseen world, eg 1 Samuel 28.13. The NT opens up a whole new ball game.

That is nonsense and you know it.

Far from being nonsense it makes very good sense. The sons of the Elohim in OT are always shown in a heavenly environment with the possible exception of Gen 6.1-4. But there it fits in nicely as well. 'Sons of' in OT means 'ones like'.

In OT the humans are described as 'the children of YHWH your God' (Deut 14.1) a very different description.

I suggest the nonsense is yours.

 

[trofimus]

"Son" is supplied in verse 23 for all the following verses. Notice that it begins in the Greek with
υἱὸς Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ Ἡλί, 24τοῦ Ματθάτ, τοῦ Λευΐ, τοῦ Μελχί, τοῦ Ἰαννά, τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, 25τοῦ Ματταθίου, τοῦ Ἀμώς, τοῦ Ναούμ, τοῦ Ἐσλί, τοῦ Ναγγαί, 26τοῦ Μαάθ, τοῦ Ματταθίου, τοῦ Σεμεΐ, τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ Ἰούδα, 27τοῦ Ἰωανάν, τοῦ Ῥησά, τοῦ Ζοροβάβελ, τοῦ Σαλαθιήλ, τοῦ Νηρί, 28τοῦ Μελχί, τοῦ Ἀδδί, τοῦ Κωσάμ, τοῦ Ἐλμωδάμ, τοῦ Ἤρ, 29τοῦ Ἰωσή, τοῦ Ἐλιέζερ, τοῦ Ἰωρείμ, τοῦ Ματθάτ, τοῦ Λευΐ, 30τοῦ Συμεών, τοῦ Ἰούδα, τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ Ἰωνάν, τοῦ Ἐλιακείμ, 31τοῦ Μελεᾶ, τοῦ Μαϊνάν, τοῦ Ματταθά, τοῦ Ναθάν, τοῦ Δαυίδ, 32τοῦ Ἰεσσαί, τοῦ Ὠβήδ, τοῦ Βόοζ, τοῦ Σαλμών, τοῦ Ναασσών, 33τοῦ Ἀμιναδάβ, τοῦ Ἀράμ, τοῦ Ἑσρώμ, τοῦ Φάρες, τοῦ Ἰούδα, 34τοῦ Ἰακώβ, τοῦ Ἰσαάκ, τοῦ Ἀβραάμ, τοῦ Θάρα, τοῦ Ναχώρ, 35τοῦ Σερούχ, τοῦ Ῥαγαῦ, τοῦ Φάλεγ, τοῦ Ἑβέρ, τοῦ Σαλά, 36τοῦ Καϊνάν, τοῦ Ἀρφαξάδ, τοῦ Σήμ, τοῦ Νῶε, τοῦ Λάμεχ, 37τοῦ Μαθουσάλα, τοῦ Ἐνώχ, τοῦ Ἰαρέδ, τοῦ Μαλελεήλ, τοῦ Καϊνάν, 38τοῦ Ἐνώς, τοῦ Σήθ, τοῦ Ἀδάμ, τοῦ θεοῦ.

"Son" is thus assumed in every genealogical connection although it is only supplied at the beginning of verse 23, and that is the only place it appears in this entire pericope so that what you have is "son of Joseph, of Eli, 24 of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi, of Jannai, of Joseph, 25 of Mattathias, of Amos, of Nahum, of Hesli, of Naggai, and so on until verse 38of Enosh, of Seth, of Adam, of God.

But in Genesis it is not "assumed", it is how they are named. "The son of God" is not a title for Adam. It is just a genealogical construction as you said.

But for angels, they are called "the sons of God" and it does not mean any genealogical construction. It means their nature that is not "from dust" like we are.