Son's of God Genesis 6:1-8

[jaybird88]

Your point has not been proven at all, so relax. . . .

AW i read a whil back that "daughters of men" translates literally to daughters of Adam. you know anymore about this?

 

[jaybird88]

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.

IMO Ps 82 is angels/heavenly beings and Ps 89 confirms it.

 

[jaybird88]

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.

DSS translation of Gen 4 26

To (la) Seth (sheth - six, the base and foundation) also (gam) a son (ben) was born (yalad). He called (qara') his name (shem) Enosh (`enowsh - mortal humankind). At that time (`az - it was then that) the defiled and profane (halal - contemptible and degraded, once proud but now humbled and wounded, polluted and corrupted) called out (qara' - summoned or cried out) in (ba) the name (shem) of Yahowah.

 

[Ahwatukee]

AW i read a whil back that "daughters of men" translates literally to daughters of Adam. you know anymore about this?

Hello jaybird88,

Yes, you are correct. Here is the definition of "men" as in "daughters of men"

adam: man, mankind​

​

​

Original Word: [FONT=&quot]אָדָם[/FONT]
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: adam
Phonetic Spelling: (aw-dawm')
Short Definition: man

So the scripture could say "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of Adam" ergo mankind.

 

[Ahwatukee]

AW i read a whil back that "daughters of men" translates literally to daughters of Adam. you know anymore about this?

By the way Jaybird88, Enoch's version of Gen.6:1 is more revealing:

"when the angels, the sons of heaven saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."

I don't know if you have ever read what is designated as "Ethiopic Enoch" but it goes into great detail regarding this subject of the angels selecting wives for themselves and all the things of heaven that they disclosed, which was the reason that the earth and mankind was corrupted.

I wholeheartedly believe that these angels who cohabited with women are those being referred to in 2 Pet.2:4 and Jude 6. Within Enoch it even describes God's command to bind these angels under the earth (Tartarus) until the time of great white throne judgment.

 

[jaybird88]

Hello jaybird88,

Yes, you are correct. Here is the definition of "men" as in "daughters of men"

adam: man, mankind​

Original Word: אָדָם
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: adam
Phonetic Spelling: (aw-dawm')
Short Definition: man

So the scripture could say "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of Adam" ergo mankind.

thanks AH i thought it was there somewhere. Gen 6 makes a distinction between these two, sons of Adam and sons of the Most High. seth and his sons were still sons of Adam. these are two different beings.
where is mankind refereed to as sons of the Most High?

 

[jaybird88]

By the way Jaybird88, Enoch's version of Gen.6:1 is more revealing:

"when the angels, the sons of heaven saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."

I don't know if you have ever read what is designated as "Ethiopic Enoch" but it goes into great detail regarding this subject of the angels selecting wives for themselves and all the things of heaven that they disclosed, which was the reason that the earth and mankind was corrupted.

I wholeheartedly believe that these angels who cohabited with women are those being referred to in 2 Pet.2:4 and Jude 6. Within Enoch it even describes God's command to bind these angels under the earth (Tartarus) until the time of great white throne judgment.

i agree with Enoch but you know how it is these days, you have to make your point with the "official" canon.

did you know the Qumran writers quoted Enoch more times in their theology than any other scripture. it was a highly revered scripture to those guys.

 

[oldhermit]

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.

Attempting to play semantics here just simply isn't going to cut it. If God says "you are sons of the living God, sons of the Most High, My son, as he does in Exodus 4:22, “Thus says the LORD, 'Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I said to you, Let My son go that he may serve Me,” there is no difference in these meaning of these phrases and "sons of God." If they are sons of the Most High, then they are by definition, "sons of God." Just as he confirms in Hosea 1:20 in speaking to Israel, "you are sons of the living God."

 

[trofimus]

Attempting to play semantics here just simply isn't going to cut it. If God says "you are sons of the living God, sons of the Most High, My son, as he does in Exodus 4:22, “Thus says the LORD, 'Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I said to you, Let My son go that he may serve Me,” there is no difference in these meaning of these phrases and "sons of God." If they are sons of the Most High, then they are by definition, "sons of God." Just as he confirms in Hosea 1:20 in speaking to Israel, "you are sons of the living God."

Even though in English it can sound the same to you, in Hebrew and/or in Greek the difference between the sons of God and the sons of Adam/humans is really apparent...

1) Look at Gen 6 in the original languages (Hebrew or Greek, as you wish) - why are the women called "daughters of Adam" or "the daughters of humans"?

2) Also, how could Sethithes sing when stars were made before the foundation of the world?

 

[popeye]

And you are a teacher? Jude quoted from the book of Enoch and it is well known that the prophecies of Enoch was apart of the scriptures up to the third century. They shed much light on the Gen.6:1-4 event and the reason for the resulting flood. So, you are also incorrect in this respect.

In addition, you tried to use the following scripture to discount the angels as those being referred to as the sons of God:

"For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?

The scripture above is not saying that angels are not the sons of God, but are not the Begotten Son of God in the same capacity as Christ. The fact is that both angels and mankind are referred to as the sons of God in scripture.

Furthermore, you are claiming that the angels cannot be the sons of God because of the scripture above, but are assigning that designation as referring to the son's of Seth, as I recall. Well then, if we were to use your reasoning regarding the angels, I would also use your same reasoning, "to which of the offspring of men did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? To use your answer that would be, never. Therefore using your own example, neither could any of those scriptures in Gen.6:1,4, Job 1:6, and 2:1 be referring to men.

The angels are the sons of God in a lesser or different capacity than Christ. For angels and mankind are created beings, where Jesus being God himself and was with God in the beginning, took on a body of flesh and being conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. So the scripture is not saying that the angels are not sons of God, but that they are not what Jesus is, unique, begotten through the Holy Spirit.

This is also interesting in that, you admit that Jude quoted from Enoch, yet you disqualify the rest of Enoch's writing's in regards to the angels, as the sons of heaven, taking wives and the woman conceiving and bringing for giants. Since Enoch was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what Jude quoted, then the rest of what Enoch wrote, including all the information regarding the angels who took wives, must also be inspired by the Holy Spirit. you can't pick and choose what you deem to be inspired and what isn't. Either all of the prophesies of Enoch are inspired or none of it.

"When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose."

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them."

In the two scriptures above, there is a distinction being made between the "sons of God" and "man who bore daughters." That the sons of God came to the daughters of men, demonstrates a difference in type or genre, i.e. the sons of God who went to the daughters of men, are not men.

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[SUP]b[/SUP] also came among them

The scripture above demonstrates that the sons of God and Satan to be of the same type, i.e. angels. There is nothing in the context that would suggest that the sons of God as referring to men. you would be saying that men were physically appearing before God as in a temple setting and that Satan was appearing with them in a spiritual/invisible capacity.

What the scripture does demonstrate is that these angelic beings, designated as the sons of God, were appearing before God and Satan joined them at that meeting.[/QUOTE]

I would say this is probably correct.

Chuck Missler has some info on this subject.

 

[oldhermit]

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

No, Psa 82 is not about angels and its meaning is not dependent upon one's point of view. Jesus explains the meaning and application of this passage in Jon 10. Sons of the Most High was directed to the people of Israel.

 

[oldhermit]

Even though in English it can sound the same to you, in Hebrew and/or in Greek the difference between the sons of God and the sons of Adam/humans is really apparent...

1) Look at Gen 6 in the original languages (Hebrew or Greek, as you wish) - why are the women called "daughters of Adam" or "the daughters of humans"?

2) Also, how could Sethithes sing when stars were made before the foundation of the world?

No, there is no more difference between the meaning of the terms in English than there is in Hebrew. Let me ask you a couple of very simple questions. I am sure you will give me an honest answer.
Do you believe that term 'sons of God' cannot be applied to the sons of Seth because they were wicked?
Do you believe that the 'sons of God' in Job 1 & 2 and Gen 6 are both speaking of angels?

 

[trofimus]

No, Psa 82 is not about angels and its meaning is not dependent upon one's point of view. Jesus explains the meaning and application of this passage in Jon 10. Sons of the Most High was directed to the people of Israel.

Or to angels What specifically makes the "angels theory" impossible, in John 10?

 

[Ahwatukee]

The scripture above demonstrates that the sons of God and Satan to be of the same type, i.e. angels. There is nothing in the context that would suggest that the sons of God as referring to men. you would be saying that men were physically appearing before God as in a temple setting and that Satan was appearing with them in a spiritual/invisible capacity.

What the scripture does demonstrate is that these angelic beings, designated as the sons of God, were appearing before God and Satan joined them at that meeting.

I would say this is probably correct.

Chuck Missler has some info on this subject.

Morning Popeye,

Yeah, I'm sure that he does, but I just prefer to do my own studies and come to my own conclusions. The scriptures that we have in Genesis and Job point to the sons of God as referring to angels and not the offspring of mankind. There is a noticeable distinction between the two within the scripture.

 

[popeye]

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.

Chuck most ALWAYS SAYS " Do your own research".

You are" conjecting" on his conjecture.

All any of this is is conjecture. Goliath was a nephalim freak. A " super human". Those giants were a genetic perversion.

What everyone must ask is where and when did that happen.(gene pool polution)

Most likely the fallen angels.

"how" did they,the angels sire offspring? That is debatable,but All sides run out of gas rather quickly.

 

[oldhermit]

Or to angels What specifically makes the "angels theory" impossible, in John 10?

No. trofimus. Jesus says this referred to the sons of Israel. He mentions absolutely nothing about angels. You are refusing to allow scripture to define its own use of terms.

 

[trofimus]

Do you believe that term 'sons of God' cannot be applied to the sons of Seth because they were wicked?

Hey, I am not as clever as st. Augustin was and he thought that they were the sons of Seth. So "cannot be applied" is too much to say.
I just do not see how it is possible to apply it in this way in the context of "vs the daughters of Adam", because Adam would have to also be in the line of Seth.
There are also many other problems like giants etc.

So I am not saying "it can never be!", but I think it is a very, very low probability and that there must be some inner motivation for this theory (like "angels and humans? impossible..."

Do you believe that the 'sons of God' in Job 1 & 2 and Gen 6 are both speaking of angels?

Job 1:6: "One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them."
Job 2:1: "On another day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord..."

Uhm... yes? Even your English translations have it in this way...?

 

[trofimus]

No. trofimus. Jesus says this referred to the sons of Israel. He mentions absolutely nothing about angels. You are refusing to allow scripture to define its own use of terms.

What verse, specifically?

 

[oldhermit]

Hey, I am not as clever as st. Augustin was and he thought that they were the sons of Seth. So "cannot be applied" is too much to say.
I just do not see how it is possible to apply it in this way in the context of "vs the daughters of Adam", because Adam would have to also be in the line of Seth.
There are also many other problems like giants etc.
So I am not saying "it can never be!", but I think it is a very, very low probability and that there must be some inner motivation for this theory (like "angels and humans? impossible..."

What you are missing in Gen 6 is the fact that the Nephalim were already in the land. They were not the result of a union between angels and women. Read verse 4. "The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown."

Job 1:6: "One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them."
Job 2:1: "On another day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord..."

Uhm... yes? Even your English translations have it in this way...?

What on earth translation are you reading from? If you are attempting to quote from the LXX, you are misquoting it. If this is from a Masoretic text then this is a blatant mistranslation. Bene never means angel. Here is the translation from the LXX.
"1And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. 3And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown."

You still have not answered my questions. Do you believe that the term 'sons of God' cannot be applied to the sons of Seth because they were wicked?
Do you believe that the 'sons of God' in Job 1 & 2 and Gen 6 are both speaking of angels?

 

[oldhermit]

What verse, specifically?

34Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’? 35“If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),"