PDA

View Full Version : Who are these sons of God?



luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 04:02 PM
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them". (Job 1:6)
"Where wast thou thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:4-7)

From what I see in these verses, the sons of God are around to look down on Job about 5,000 years ago, as well as being around when the Lord sets the foundations of the earth.
If so, as far as I can see this would mean one of two possibilities; either God had created other planets with individuals whom he would claim as his sons, who then came along to see how things develop on earth; or that the sons of God are those among us who have been predestined to be His sons, who when we are with God in the future, have the capacity to travel back in time to different points in the past to see how things develop.
I favor the latter perspective. Any other opinions.

exitludos
Oct 29th 2013, 04:12 PM
They are angels.

This is how the phrase has been understood, nearly unanimously, throughout history.

This is the same meaning used in Genesis 6.1-4.

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 04:28 PM
They are angels.

This is how the phrase has been understood, nearly unanimously, throughout history.

This is the same meaning used in Genesis 6.1-4.
The sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 are obviously carnal entities and not the spiritual sons of God in Job.
I see no scriptures supporting your assumption for the sons of God being angels.

exitludos
Oct 29th 2013, 05:04 PM
The same could be said about the two interpretations described in your first post; you did not provide any scriptures to support your assumptions. As a point of clarity, I am not just assuming the sons of God are angels. I am concluding the sons of God are angels, predicated upon historical and contextual points.

The difference, however, is that the one I mentioned has been the near-unanimous understanding for over 2000 years. The two you have mentioned are almost completely unknown.

This does not mean yours are wrong and the other is right. But the more ad hoc an explanation is, relying on claims that cannot be demonstrated or verified in any way (people on other planets? time travel?), the less likely it tends to be correct.



The first time we find any alternative explanation for the 'sons of God' is the middle-2nd century AD, and only for Genesis 6.1-4. Otherwise, the 'sons of God' mentioned in Job have always been understood as angels.

In Job 1-2, what we are seeing is the divine assembly (sons of God, including the satan) gathering before the throne of their king (God). The same setting of the divine assembly gathering around the heavenly throne is found in prophetic visions (1 Kings 22.19-22; Isaiah 6; Zechariah 3), poetic songs (Psalm 82.1; 89.5-7), and apocalyptic symbolism (Daniel 7.9-10; Revelation 4-5). Typically, we find references to the divine assembly praising God. Sometimes they are assembling to receive commands from God, as administrators of his sovereign will.

While humans -- usually royalty -- in ancient near eastern culture are identified as children of God or the gods in a relational sense (for example, King Solomon was a son of God, in 2 Samuel 7.14), the setting of Job 1-2 would have been very obvious to anyone from that same ancient near eastern culture. They had no such concept of time traveling saints. They had no such concept of people on alien planets. Instead, they all understood Job 1-2 (and Genesis 6.1-4) to be describing the divine assembly gathering before the throne of God. Why? Because they were the ones who wrote it.

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 05:33 PM
The same could be said about the two interpretations described in your first post; you did not provide any scriptures to support your assumptions. As a point of clarity, I am not just assuming the sons of God are angels. I am concluding the sons of God are angels, predicated upon historical and contextual points.


The difference, however, is that the one I mentioned has been the near-unanimous understanding for over 2000 years. The two you have mentioned are almost completely unknown.

This does not mean yours are wrong and the other is right. But the more ad hoc an explanation is, relying on claims that cannot be demonstrated or verified in any way (people on other planets? time travel?), the less likely it tends to be correct.

.[/I]
Just because the sons of God in Genesis has had a near-unanimous understanding for over 2,000 years as representing angels does not mean it is correct.
I find it very difficult to believe that angels came down from heaven and put on a physical form so that they could have sex with the locals.

In regards to the two options that I gave for whom the sons of God in the book of Job represent, I too do not believe the sons of God in the book of Job as beings from other earlier planets that the Lord may have created.
Time travel, however, is found throughout the Bible (most of it in a future perspective). I therefore favor my hypothesis of the predestined whom the Lord chose beforehand as representing the sons of God in the book of Job, from our future who travel back in time to see how things go during Jobs day and during the creation of the earth.

There is even a science show I've seen which states that if someone were on the other side of the universe and they had a powerful enough telescope they could see the earth both in the past and the future.

exitludos
Oct 29th 2013, 06:30 PM
Just because the sons of God in Genesis has had a near-unanimous understanding for over 2,000 years as representing angels does not mean it is correct.
This is why I originally said: 'This does not mean yours are wrong and the other is right.'


I find it very difficult to believe that angels came down from heaven and put on a physical form so that they could have sex with the locals.
I find it difficult to believe, too, actually. But I follow the historical and contextual evidence where it takes me. I do not make up alternative interpretations just to make it a text more comfortable to my senses. From all the evidence we have, this interpretation of Genesis 6.1-4 was the earliest and only existing interpretation, until the late first century or early second century.


Time travel, however, is found throughout the Bible (most of it in a future perspective).
Interpreting prophetic predictions as 'time travel' is a very, very select way of reading the text. The same with my objections above, this is a very recent, very minority, very ad hoc opinion, which makes it very questionable.


There is even a science show I've seen which states that if someone were on the other side of the universe and they had a powerful enough telescope they could see the earth both in the past and the future.
No, there is not. I wonder if perhaps you are mistaking a figure of speech. When we look at the stars in the sky, we are technically 'seeing the past', because the light from those stars takes years, thousands of years, millions of years, to reach earth. But no scientific discipline says we can literally see the past (let alone the future) just by using a telescope.

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 06:55 PM
This is why I originally said: 'This does not mean yours are wrong and the other is right.'


I find it difficult to believe, too, actually. But I follow the historical and contextual evidence where it takes me. I do not make up alternative interpretations just to make it a text more comfortable to my senses. From all the evidence we have, this interpretation of Genesis 6.1-4 was the earliest and only existing interpretation, until the late first century or early second century. Even if it is the earliest and only existing interpretation for who the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 are; if it is not in the bible it is only eschatology, and should therefore be weighed carefully before taking it as Gods Word.


Interpreting prophetic predictions as 'time travel' is a very, very select way of reading the text. The same with my objections above, this is a very recent, very minority, very ad hoc opinion, which makes it very questionable. Therefore, weigh it against all the data you have in the Bible to see if it stands as a reasonable perspective; especially in comparison to angels having sex with humans.


No, there is not. I wonder if perhaps you are mistaking a figure of speech. When we look at the stars in the sky, we are technically 'seeing the past', because the light from those stars takes years, thousands of years, millions of years, to reach earth. But no scientific discipline says we can literally see the past (let alone the future) just by using a telescope. Yes, there is a current science show (with Morgan Freeman narrating I believe) that shows that if you were on the other side of the universe and the beings there had a powerful enough telescope that could see across the universe to the earth, that they would be able to see the earth at different points in history as well as into its future. I don't know how, but that's the hypothesis.



Until I learn how to use the responding features here as you have, I have to highlight my responses to your statements.

Oregongrown
Oct 29th 2013, 07:07 PM
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them". (Job 1:6)
"Where wast thou thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:4-7)

From what I see in these verses, the sons of God are around to look down on Job about 5,000 years ago, as well as being around when the Lord sets the foundations of the earth.
If so, as far as I can see this would mean one of two possibilities; either God had created other planets with individuals whom he would claim as his sons, who then came along to see how things develop on earth; or that the sons of God are those among us who have been predestined to be His sons, who when we are with God in the future, have the capacity to travel back in time to different points in the past to see how things develop.
I favor the latter perspective. Any other opinions.

My understanding so far is that they were also angels, it says satan was among them and he was an angel. I wonder if God called them sons because they were His Creation, but also, I thought angels were not male or female. But I did think satan a male? I obviously don't have a clear understand, yet;)

exitludos
Oct 29th 2013, 07:22 PM
The Hebrew and Greek words for 'sons' can also be properly translated as the gender-neuter 'children'. Masculinity or femininity or lack thereof needs to be determined by context.

What little we see of angels, they are typically portrayed as masculine (Daniel describes one as looking like a 'man'), and have masculine names (Gabriel and Michael in canonical books, Raphael and more in others). This suggests that 'sons' is probably the intended meaning, rather than 'children'.

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 07:23 PM
My understanding so far is that they were also angels

That is the predominant dogma.

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 07:34 PM
The Hebrew and Greek words for 'sons' can also be properly translated as the gender-neuter 'children'. Masculinity or femininity or lack thereof needs to be determined by context.

What little we see of angels, they are typically portrayed as masculine (Daniel describes one as looking like a 'man'), and have masculine names (Gabriel and Michael in canonical books, Raphael and more in others). This suggests that 'sons' is probably the intended meaning, rather than 'children'.
I could go along with children of God rather than just sons of God, as there are females among those predestined to be Gods children.
And as Gods sons/children to be, will be spiritual and not corporal beings, they are therefore neither male nor female.

Oregongrown
Oct 29th 2013, 07:37 PM
That is the predominant dogma.

I don't think I am one to accept anything until I research God's Word, so if you mean I am part of a group that doesn't question or doubt, no I am not.

Aviyah
Oct 29th 2013, 07:48 PM
The sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 are obviously carnal entities and not the spiritual sons of God in Job.
I see no scriptures supporting your assumption for the sons of God being angels.

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city .... He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. (Gen 19:1,3)

Angels can eat food - which is normally understood to be a carnal act.

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 07:56 PM
I don't think I am one to accept anything until I research God's Word, so if you mean I am part of a group that doesn't question or doubt, no I am not.
What isn't in the bible (Gods Word), you are supposed to weigh to see if it stands.
So you are to have doubts about what is not in the bible.

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 08:06 PM
The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city .... He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. (Gen 19:1,3)

Angels can eat food - which is normally understood to be a carnal act.
I agree that angels can take human form, as well as other forms (UFOs).
Does this mean that some angels took human form and had sex and made babies with the locals in Genesis 6:1-4?

pekoe
Oct 29th 2013, 08:13 PM
Hello luigi.

I find it very difficult to believe that angels came down from heaven and put on a physical form so that they could have sex with the locals.
I've always had a problem with that story too, but that's what the Book of Enoch says.

divaD
Oct 29th 2013, 08:17 PM
Does this mean that some angels took human form and had sex and made babies with the locals in Genesis 6:1-4?



Since I myself like to try and be logical about things, if the above is true, then that simply means God designed angels with the ability to procreate with humans. Why in the world would He do that, and when they allegedly take advantage of this, they then get punished big time for it? And if they had this ability all along, why did they wait so long to use it? And what about from the women's perspective, assuming this is to be understood literally? Does not the account say they were fair, IOW likely gorgeous? If these sons of God are actual fallen angels, what are the chances that they were fair as well? Is one to believe that literally gorgeous women were attracted big time to literally hideous creatures back then, and couldn't wait to have their babies?

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 08:29 PM
Hello luigi.

I've always had a problem with that story too, but that's what the Book of Enoch says.
The book of Enoch is not part of the accepted Bible.
Enoch was also a very early man of God; so one has to weigh whatever someone may have written about Enoch's acts and words, when they were probably scribed several centuries after his being taken by God.

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 08:39 PM
Since I myself like to try and be logical about things, if the above is true, then that simply means God designed angels with the ability to procreate with humans. Why in the world would He do that, and when they allegedly take advantage of this, they then get punished big time for it? And if they had this ability all along, why did they wait so long to use it? And what about from the women's perspective, assuming this is to be understood literally? Does not the account say they were fair, IOW likely gorgeous? If these sons of God are actual fallen angels, what are the chances that they were fair as well? Is one to believe that literally gorgeous women were attracted big time to literally hideous creatures back then, and couldn't wait to have their babies?
You're assuming that I said that some angels had sex with humans and made babies in Genesis 6:1-4.
If you start from the beginning of this post you will see that I did not state this.
I also did not state that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 were angels.
I am on record on another thread "I have a doubt on Adam and Eve" on this forum that I believe Eve was the mother of all spiritually born of God, those of whom constitute the sons of God.

pekoe
Oct 29th 2013, 08:40 PM
Hi luigi.

The book of Enoch is not part of the accepted Bible.
Enoch was also a very early man of God; so one has to weigh whatever someone may have written about Enoch's acts and words, when they were probably scribed several centuries after his being taken by God.
Those are good points, but Enoch is quoted by Jude, so we do have an Apostle of Jesus who lends credence to the book.

pekoe
Oct 29th 2013, 08:50 PM
Hello divaD.

And if they had this ability all along, why did they wait so long to use it?
Maybe the angels weren't created long before the human race.

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." Gen.2:1

" For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is..." Ex.20:11

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 08:57 PM
Hi luigi.

Those are good points, but Enoch is quoted by Jude, so we do have an Apostle of Jesus who lends credence to the book.
I know Enoch is quoted in the book of Jude. And Jude lends credence to a particular verse, not a whole book.
I myself am not familiar with the book of Enoch.
I know Enoch is also mentioned in the book of Genesis, but that's about it.

Here, however, is a point to weigh: why did the religious authorities who were also aware of Enoch's mentions in the bible decide to exclude the Book of Enoch?

What about all the other non accepted books, should we accept them all as Gods Word as well?

exitludos
Oct 29th 2013, 08:59 PM
The epistle of Judah uses the whole book of 1 Enoch, not just one verse.

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 09:08 PM
The epistle of Judah uses the whole book of 1 Enoch, not just one verse.
The epistle of Judah is another book that is not part of being the accepted Word of God.
Don't get me wrong, there may very well be Gods Word in many of these texts; it's just that one who is experienced in Gods Word would have to carefully weigh the data to see if they were.
And as these texts have previously been weighed by the early church and rejected, one would have to make doubly sure before making any claims on these texts being Gods Word.

exitludos
Oct 29th 2013, 09:14 PM
The epistle of Judah is in the bible. It is between 3 John and Revelation.

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 09:28 PM
The epistle of Judah is in the bible. It is between 3 John and Revelation.
I see the epistle of Jude, not Judah.
If this is what you meant, then I stand corrected.
Now what you stated in post 23 is that the epistle of Jude quotes all of 1 Enoch, which (correct me if I'm wrong) you feel states that the angels who left their first estate, did so, so that they could have sex with humans in Genesis 6:1-4?

Oregongrown
Oct 29th 2013, 09:36 PM
there's said to be a Book of the Kings of Judah for the OT, but it's among the lost books it says, hmm:hmm: And yes, Jude is in the bible, I know that one.

pekoe
Oct 29th 2013, 09:40 PM
Hi luigi.

I know Enoch is quoted in the book of Jude. And Jude lends credence to a particular verse, not a whole book.
You're right, but wouldn't it be unlikely for a Spirit filled believer to quote from a book which contained rampant heresy?


I myself am not familiar with the book of Enoch. I know Enoch is also mentioned in the book of Genesis, but that's about it.
I read it years ago. As far as I remember, it's almost entirely about how the angels fell. Really weird celestial stuff.


Here, however, is a point to weigh: why did the religious authorities who were also aware of Enoch's mentions in the bible decide to exclude the Book of Enoch?
I guess we would have to ask a Jew, since they penned the book. It (or parts of it) were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.


What about all the other non accepted books, should we accept them all as Gods Word as well?
Maybe not, but I'm not big on censorship. Personally, I don't believe the scholars decision making for canon was inspired, although I do think they did the best they could. Do you think there couldn't be inspired writings which didn't make the cut, or haven't been found?

exitludos
Oct 29th 2013, 09:46 PM
I see the epistle of Jude, not Judah.
I am sorry if this caused confusion. I am accustomed to spelling the name 'Judah', and wrongly assumed most people were aware that Jude, Judah, and Judas are just different spellings of the same name. (No different than Jesus and Yeshua.)

By 'Judah' I refer to this epistle (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=250083227).


Now what you stated in post 23 is that the epistle of Jude quotes all of 1 Enoch, which (correct me if I'm wrong) you feel states that the angels who left their first estate, did so, so that they could have sex with humans in Genesis 6:1-4?
Correct.

Between 1 Peter 3.19-20, 2 Peter 2.4-10, and Judah 6-7, their cross-referenced contexts and wording strongly indicates they understood Genesis 6.1-4 as describing angels marrying humans women. We do not need to go outside of the bible itself to come to this conclusion.

But precisely because the epistle of Judah borrows extensively from the language and theology of 1 Enoch, it is absolutely certain that Judah understood Genesis 6.1-4 this way. In extension, it is absolutely certain that 2 Peter understood Genesis 6.1-4 this way, because 2 Peter is an expansion upon the epistle of Judah.

This is evidence from history, from context, and from grammar. It is not 'dogma', it is simply recognizing what the original authors wrote. As I said before, I also find it difficult to believe angels married human women. But I do not let my personal feelings of what is 'weird' or 'unbelievable' get in the way of what the original authors intended to say for themselves.

In contrast, ad hoc interpretations like space traveling aliens or time traveling saints necessitate serious special pleading; they require downplaying the historical foundation of this interpretation of 'sons of God', as well as ignoring the context and grammar of 2 Peter, Judah, and 1 Enoch (and to a lesser extent, 1 Peter).

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 10:04 PM
Hi luigi.

You're right, but wouldn't it be unlikely for a Spirit filled believer to quote from a book which contained rampant heresy?
Yes, it would be unlikely for a Spirit filled believer to quote from a book which contained rampant heresy.
So, maybe it would be a good idea to look into the book of Enoch further.
Nevertheless, from what I read in the epistle of Jude (specifically Jude 1:6), I do not see any compelling inference that those fallen angels had sex with mankind, or that these represent the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4.


I read it years ago. As far as I remember, it's almost entirely about how the angels fell. Really weird celestial stuff.


I guess we would have to ask a Jew, since they penned the book. It (or parts of it) were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Why ask a blind unbeliever; discern it for yourself.


Maybe not, but I'm not big on censorship. Personally, I don't believe the scholars decision making for canon was inspired, although I do think they did the best they could. Do you think there couldn't be inspired writings which didn't make the cut, or haven't been found? Yes I do think that there are verses of Gods Word out there that did not make the cut, and that's why you need to weigh and discern what stands as Gods Word, and why I now plan to look into the book of Enoch.

I am still unfamiliar with how to respond to numerous statements in one post, other than by highlighting my responses as I have done here.

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 10:22 PM
I am sorry if this caused confusion. I am accustomed to spelling the name 'Judah', and wrongly assumed most people were aware that Jude, Judah, and Judas are just different spellings of the same name. (No different than Jesus and Yeshua.)

By 'Judah' I refer to this epistle (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=250083227).


Correct.

Between 1 Peter 3.19-20, 2 Peter 2.4-10, and Judah 6-7, their cross-referenced contexts and wording strongly indicates they understood Genesis 6.1-4 as describing angels marrying humans women. We do not need to go outside of the bible itself to come to this conclusion.

But precisely because the epistle of Judah borrows extensively from the language and theology of 1 Enoch, it is absolutely certain that Judah understood Genesis 6.1-4 this way. In extension, it is absolutely certain that 2 Peter understood Genesis 6.1-4 this way, because 2 Peter is an expansion upon the epistle of Judah.

This is evidence from history, from context, and from grammar. It is not 'dogma', it is simply recognizing what the original authors wrote. As I said before, I also find it difficult to believe angels married human women. But I do not let my personal feelings of what is 'weird' or 'unbelievable' get in the way of what the original authors intended to say for themselves.

In contrast, ad hoc interpretations like space traveling aliens or time traveling saints necessitate serious special pleading; they require downplaying the historical foundation of this interpretation of 'sons of God', as well as ignoring the context and grammar of 2 Peter, Judah, and 1 Enoch (and to a lesser extent, 1 Peter).
exitludos,
As far as I can see there is only one passage, Jude 1:6 that is in direct reference to fallen angels, which does not mention the specific reason/s for their falling.
It is strictly conjecture to assume these angels as having fallen for having had sex with humans, and even more conjecture that they are the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 who had sex with the locals, made babies, and thus were cast down to hell and put in chains because of doing so.

pekoe
Oct 29th 2013, 10:31 PM
Hi luigi.

Yes I do think that there are verses of Gods Word out there that did not make the cut, and that's why you need to weigh and discern what stands as Gods Word, and why I now plan to look into the book of Enoch.
Good. It's online. As I recall, it does talk about angels with women and names a couple of the leader angels (I think).


I am still unfamiliar with how to respond to numerous statements in one post, other than by highlighting my responses as I have done here. When you bring the post box up, highlight what you want to copy and paste it. Then go to the tools bar at the top and click the QUOTE WRAP (it's the middle bar, 2nd tool from the right)

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 10:41 PM
Hi luigi.

Good. It's online. As I recall, it does talk about angels with women and names a couple of the leader angels (I think).


When you bring the post box up, highlight what you want to copy and paste it. Then go to the tools bar at the top and click the QUOTE WRAP (it's the middle bar, 2nd tool from the right)
Test response,
Thanks pekoe

divaD
Oct 29th 2013, 11:20 PM
You're assuming that I said that some angels had sex with humans and made babies in Genesis 6:1-4.
If you start from the beginning of this post you will see that I did not state this.
I also did not state that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 were angels.
I am on record on another thread "I have a doubt on Adam and Eve" on this forum that I believe Eve was the mother of all spiritually born of God, those of whom constitute the sons of God.

Sorry for the confusion then. I wasn't assuming anything like that. I was simply adding to what you had already stated, already knowing that you don't agree the sons of Gods were angels in Genesis 6. I do that a lot when I'm in agreement with folks about things, adding to what they say.

divaD
Oct 29th 2013, 11:25 PM
Hello divaD.

Maybe the angels weren't created long before the human race.

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." Gen.2:1

" For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is..." Ex.20:11

Unfortunately I'm uncertain what this would mean. What exactly are you trying to say here?

pekoe
Oct 29th 2013, 11:29 PM
Hi divaD.

Unfortunately I'm uncertain what this would mean. What exactly are you trying to say here?
Oh...never mind...silly me didn't understand you're post. Now I get it.

luigi
Oct 29th 2013, 11:41 PM
Sorry for the confusion then. I wasn't assuming anything like that. I was simply adding to what you had already stated, already knowing that you don't agree the sons of Gods were angels in Genesis 6. I do that a lot when I'm in agreement with folks about things, adding to what they say.My apologies divaD for misinterpreting your post.

exitludos
Oct 29th 2013, 11:53 PM
exitludos,
As far as I can see there is only one passage, Jude 1:6 that is in direct reference to fallen angels, which does not mention the specific reason/s for their falling.
Judah in fact does mention the specific sin the angels committed. Judah 6-7 has a very compact set of information. Each verse, as I am sure you would agree, must be read in context with the other. And what does Judah write? First, that angels were punished for 'abandoning' their home. Then, that Sodom and Gomorrah 'likewise turned to sexual immorality and followed after different flesh'.

Judah's use of the word 'lifewise' means he is comparing the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah to that of the angels. 'Likewise' to the angels who abandoned their own home (heaven), Sodom and Gomorrah 'turned to sexual immorality and followed after different flesh'. Context demands we understand that Judah understood the angels to have committed a sexual sin of 'following after different flesh'. This understanding is certain, because of Judah's linguistic dependence on the Greek version of 1 Enoch (I can provide several examples, if needed).

Second Peter 2.4-9 expands on this section of Judah's epistle, and specifically associates the sinning and subsequent imprisonment of the angels as taking place in 'the ancient world', and contrasts their fate to Noah. This is entirely consistent with Genesis 6.1-4. The epistle of 2 Peter even calls the angel's prison 'tartarus', the same as the Greek version of 1 Enoch.

This conclusion is not random 'conjecture' or merely 'assumed', it is based on the very explicit historical, contextual, and grammatical dependence of 2 Peter and Judah upon 1 Enoch.

Aviyah
Oct 30th 2013, 12:17 AM
I agree that angels can take human form, as well as other forms (UFOs).
Does this mean that some angels took human form and had sex and made babies with the locals in Genesis 6:1-4?

Well you said your problem was that the "sons of God" in Genesis must be carnal rather than spiritual because they had sex, but the angels who were sent to Lot were very clearly partaking in something considered carnal. So if angels can take on bodies capable of eating food and sleeping, why not other physical properties?

I don't see a problem with angels taking human form in Genesis, is what I mean.

luigi
Oct 30th 2013, 12:49 AM
Judah in fact does mention the specific sin the angels committed. Judah 6-7 has a very compact set of information. Each verse, as I am sure you would agree, must be read in context with the other. And what does Judah write? First, that angels were punished for 'abandoning' their home. Then, that Sodom and Gomorrah 'likewise turned to sexual immorality and followed after different flesh'. I agree that Jude 6-7 can be seen referring to the angels sin as their influencing mankind toward sexual immorality (sodomy).

Judah's use of the word 'lifewise' means he is comparing the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah to that of the angels. 'Likewise' to the angels who abandoned their own home (heaven), Sodom and Gomorrah 'turned to sexual immorality and followed after different flesh'. Context demands we understand that Judah understood the angels to have committed a sexual sin of 'following after different flesh'. The epistle of Judah is linguistically dependent on the Greek version of 1 Enoch (I can provide several examples, if needed).

Second Peter 2.4-9 expands on this section of Judah's epistle, and specifically associates the sinning and subsequent imprisonment of the angels as taking place in 'the ancient world', and contrasts their fate to Noah. This is entirely consistent with Genesis 6.1-4. The epistle of 2 Peter even calls the angel's prison 'tartarus', the same as the Greek version of 1 Enoch.

This conclusion is not random 'conjecture' or merely 'assumed', it is based on the very explicit historical, contextual, and grammatical dependence of 2 Peter and Judah upon 1 Enoch.I also agree that the 2 Peter 2:4-9 expands on Jude 6-7 description of the angels sin and subsequent imprisonment occurring in the ancient world of Noah, all of which appears in relation to their having influenced sodomistic sexual immorality among mankind.
But as far as these angels having had direct sexual contact with mankind, and propagating offspring; the scriptures cited do not describe this. In which case, for these fallen angels to be assumed as the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4, who have physical contact sex with the women in Genesis 6:1-4, and propagate offspring is an even greater stretch of the imagination, without scriptural substantiation.

luigi
Oct 30th 2013, 01:00 AM
Well you said your problem was that the "sons of God" in Genesis must be carnal rather than spiritual because they had sex, but the angels who were sent to Lot were very clearly partaking in something considered carnal. So if angels can take on bodies capable of eating food and sleeping, why not other physical properties?

I don't see a problem with angels taking human form in Genesis, is what I mean.
Hello Aviyah,
Some have entertained angels unawares (Hebrews 13:2), thereby indicating IMO these angels having taken on human form, if the individuals having contact with them were unaware they were angels.

exitludos
Oct 30th 2013, 01:04 AM
Judah writes that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was likewise the sin of the angels. You must be adding to or changing the text to interpret this to mean that the sin of the cities was merely the result of 'influence' from angels. Judah did not write that the cities were influenced by the angels. He says the cities' sin was likewise to the angels' sin. The cities' sin was sexual immorality of following after different flesh. Likewise the angels' sin was sexual immorality of following after different flesh.

You are also ignoring Judah's and 2 Peter's explicit dependence upon 1 Enoch. Since I pointed it out, you have not acknowledged this fact. Judah purposely echoes at least eight separate sections of 1 Enoch. To relegate it to pure coincidence, or to ignore it entirely, is special pleading. And you are relying on special pleading.

luigi
Oct 30th 2013, 01:16 AM
Judah writes that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was likewise the sin of the angels. You must be adding to or changing the text to interpret this to mean that the sin of the cities was merely the result of 'influence' from angels. Judah did not write that the cities were influenced by the angels. He says the cities' sin was likewise to the angels' sin. The cities' sin was sexual immorality of following after different flesh. Likewise the angels' sin was sexual immorality of following after different flesh.

You are also ignoring Judah's and 2 Peter's explicit dependence upon 1 Enoch. Since I pointed it out, you have not acknowledged this fact. Judah purposely echoes at least eight separate sections of 1 Enoch. To relegate it to pure coincidence, or to ignore it entirely, is special pleading. And you are relying on special pleading.
So you are saying some angels came down to earth, took on human form and had sodomy.
It's possible I guess, since they can take on human form.
But even if they did as you suggest, this still does not mean these angels are the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 who had sex with the daughters of men and propagated offspring.

exitludos
Oct 30th 2013, 02:55 AM
So you are saying some angels came down to earth, took on human form and had sodomy.
No. I am saying, as Judah said, that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was 'likewise' to the sin of the angels: 'sexual immorality', particularly 'following after different flesh'. For the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, this was men 'following after' men ('different flesh' from women). For the sins of the angels, it was angels going after human women ('different flesh' in the sense of angels and humans intermingling at all).


But even if they did as you suggest, this still does not mean these angels are the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 who had sex with the daughters of men and propagated offspring.
When you decide to approach this discussion with more honesty, I can continue it with you. But as long as you continue your special pleading (you insist on completely ignoring Judah's and 2 Peter's dependence upon 1 Enoch), there is nothing further to discuss.

luigi
Oct 30th 2013, 11:05 AM
No. I am saying, as Judah said, that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was 'likewise' to the sin of the angels: 'sexual immorality', particularly 'following after different flesh'. For the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, this was men 'following after' men ('different flesh' from women). For the sins of the angels, it was angels going after human women ('different flesh' in the sense of angels and humans intermingling at all).


When you decide to approach this discussion with more honesty, I can continue it with you. But as long as you continue your special pleading (you insist on completely ignoring Judah's and 2 Peter's dependence upon 1 Enoch), there is nothing further to discuss.
I understand your stance better now in relation to different flesh for the angels constituting mortal women.
I can even agree with this, as I believe there were many other homo sapiens around when Adam and Eve were around.
I still, however, do not see these fallen angels as the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4.
As I have stated in post #19 in relation to another thread on this forum titled: "I have a doubt on Adam and Eve" I am on record that I believe Eve was the mother of all spiritually born of God, those of whom constitute the sons of God.
The rest were the non spiritually alive sons and daughters of men (homo sapiens). The non spiritually alive daughters of men in Genesis 6:1, are those whom the spiritually alive sons of God (from Eve) cohabited with.

luigi
Oct 30th 2013, 04:58 PM
No. I am saying, as Judah said, that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was 'likewise' to the sin of the angels: 'sexual immorality', particularly 'following after different flesh'. For the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, this was men 'following after' men ('different flesh' from women). For the sins of the angels, it was angels going after human women ('different flesh' in the sense of angels and humans intermingling at all).


When you decide to approach this discussion with more honesty, I can continue it with you. But as long as you continue your special pleading (you insist on completely ignoring Judah's and 2 Peter's dependence upon 1 Enoch), there is nothing further to discuss.
exitludos,
I have been reading the book of Enoch online.
I am up to chapter 50, and I see that it is wholly holy apocrypha on the future.
In fact it parallels much of what is written in the book of Revelation, as well as some of the book of Daniel. I will therefore say this book is Gods Word (regarding the future).

Realizing this book is based strictly on the final period, the fallen angels in chapter eight who teach mankind various magic arts (technology), results in propagating giants (kings, great men, and rich captains of industry).
These giants are insatiable, which results in mankind being consumed by them through the various technologies the fallen angels have supplied mankind with,
such as the cutting of roots (splicing DNA and creating genetically modified organisms).

Chapter eight recapitulates chapter seven, while providing additional details on some of the additional technologies (i.e., metallurgy), which causes the downfall of mankind when nearing the end before the Lords return.

In light of this new information, I am retracting my previous statement in post #45, where I felt that the fallen angels in Jude 6-7 could represent their having had physical sex with the daughters of men. Instead, I am now more confident that it is these fallen spirits spiritual influence (intercourse) with mankind during the final period that is described in Enoch chapter seven (also Jude 6-7).
These fallen angels who are bound under darkness until the judgment of the great day, means they have no illumination from the Lord, and thus act of their own accord (and Satans) in influencing mankind today.

exitludos
Oct 30th 2013, 05:13 PM
That is not what 1 Enoch is talking about.

David Taylor
Oct 30th 2013, 05:18 PM
Hi luigi.

Those are good points, but Enoch is quoted by Jude, so we do have an Apostle of Jesus who lends credence to the book.

1) There is no evidence that the writings attributed to 'Enoch' are the same Enoch who was the father of Methuselah...only internal claims.
2) Jude doesn't credit the teaching of human/angel mating babies.
3) Jude doesn't credit the whole book of Enoch.
4) Jude credits one statement from the true Enoch son of Methuselah:
Jude 1:14 "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. "

So we shouldn't attribute any teachings of Enoch to Jude except "the teaching of the Lord coming in judgment".

Enoch was rejected from Biblical canon because of its bad teachings and unsound doctrines. (like the angel/human mating babies myth).

exitludos
Oct 30th 2013, 06:00 PM
1) There is no evidence that the writings attributed to 'Enoch' are the same Enoch who was the father of Methuselah.
Historically speaking, you are correct. As a part of the apocalyptic genre, however, because most authors wrote using the names of ancient biblical figures, this was probably not an issue to ancient readers.


2) Jude doesn't credit the teaching of human/angel mating babies.
This is circular reasoning. Judah is not talking about X because he is not talking about X.


3) Jude doesn't credit the whole book of Enoch.
Judah's epistle shows constant dependence upon 1 Enoch. He relies on at least eight separate sections of the book. In the face of this evidence, claiming otherwise is special pleading.


4) Jude credits one statement from Enoch:
Jude 1:14 "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. "
To understand Judah's dependence on 1 Enoch, we have to make something clear.

To give an example, look at the Olivet discourse. Jesus uses a very small, specific set of words and ideas in a very small, specific context: abomination of desolation, son of man, coming on the clouds of heaven, the arrival of God's kingdom. It would be absurd to say Jesus was not dependent in all these 'coincidences' with Daniel, especially when Jesus directly names Daniel as his source.

This is the case with Judah and 1 Enoch. Judah uses a very small, specific set of words and ideas in a very small, specific context. He even names Enoch as his source. So it would be absurd to say Judah was not dependent in all of these 'coincidences' with 1 Enoch, especially when Judah directly names 1 Enoch as his source.

To see Jesus' dependence upon Daniel and claim it was purely coincidence, is special pleading, and the claimant loses credibility. The dependence cannot be denied in the face of the evidence, unless the denier is more concerned with their pet doctrine than the truth.

To see Judah's dependence upon 1 Enoch and claim it was purely coincidence, is special pleading, and the claimant loses credibility. The dependence cannot be denied in the face of the evidence, unless the denier is more concerned with their pet doctrine than the truth.



Judah 1 and 1 Enoch 1.8 both use the following words in a single sentence: the 'elect/called' (related words ekletous/kletois), who 'belong/are kept' (related words sunteresei/teteremenois), 'mercy' (eleos), and 'peace' (eirene).

Judah 4 and 1 Enoch 1.9 both refer to 'judgment' (krima) of the 'irreverent' (asebeis).

Judah 4 and 1 Enoch 48.10 both refer to evildoers who 'deny' the 'Lord' and 'Messiah'.

Judah 4 and 1 Enoch 67.10 both describe the judgment' of evildoers for 'sensuality/lust', and 'denying' the 'Lord'.

Judah 6-7 and 1 Enoch 10.4-6 both describes angels who are 'binded/kept in eternal chains' (deson/desmois), and are kept in 'darkness' (synonyms skotos/zofon), until 'the great day of judgment/the day of great judgment' (krisin megales hemeras/te hemera tes megales tes kriseos), which consists of 'fire'.

Judah 6-7 and 1 Enoch 12.4 both describe 'angels/watchers of heaven' who 'abandoned' (apolipontas/apolipontes) their 'own dwelling/high heaven'. Judah 6-7 describes their sin as 'turned to sexual immorality and followed after different flesh'. 1 Enoch 12.4 describes their sin as 'defiled themselves with women' by 'acting as the sons of earth do, by taking wives for themselves'.

Judah 14 and 1 Enoch 69.8 both call Enoch 'the seventh from Adam', a phrase found nowhere else but these two books.

Balabusha
Oct 30th 2013, 06:06 PM
I can't believe what I m actually reading on a Chtistian forum, it is actually a symptom of a stagnant church that is out of touch with the Bible as a whole, and uses pre text mixed with a very fertlile imagination. More interested in exciting the senses than to spread the Gospel, I have heard alien theories,time travel theories and demons mating with people theories-this is not only theological garbage, it undermines Christianity.
1. The Bible says that the sons of God and daughters of man also happened after the flood.
-so there must have been mutant demon-men on the Ark, or the same thing happened after the flood, so God did not have the answer to this problem, a flood was not a proper solution for demon-men if it still could happen.
2. What is the plan of salvation for demon-men-we have a plan of salvation for mankind, none for fallen angels-what about a mixture.
3. If demons can become men with usable sperm-then they can create life out of nothing. Modern science should put the awe of God into our minds-one living sperm cell or ovum is a living testimony to the divine blueprint of a human embedded in a living cell.
4.If a demon can create life out of nothing, then who should I be worshipping-who is greater?maybe Gnostics and new agers are right that Lucifer is an angel of light giving us wisdom.
5.If satan can create life, maybe he was the force behind the Virgin birth, and the resurrection to keep me away from practicing Law of Moses and to decieve the world.

*the truth of the matter is that the sons of God marrying the daughters of man is about the faithful mixing with the unfaithful, marrying an unbeliever is sexual imorality in the law of Moses and the law of Christ-this prohibition has never changed. The Law of Moses is very much in part oif keeping the faithful seeperate from the unfaithful-in marriage,act and deed.

luigi
Oct 30th 2013, 06:46 PM
I can't believe what I m actually reading on a Chtistian forum, it is actually a symptom of a stagnant church that is out of touch with the Bible as a whole, and uses pre text mixed with a very fertlile imagination. More interested in exciting the senses than to spread the Gospel, I have heard alien theories,time travel theories and demons mating with people theories-this is not only theological garbage, it undermines Christianity.
1. The Bible says that the sons of God and daughters of man also happened after the flood.
-so there must have been mutant demon-men on the Ark, or the same thing happened after the flood, so God did not have the answer to this problem, a flood was not a proper solution for demon-men if it still could happen.
2. What is the plan of salvation for demon-men-we have a plan of salvation for mankind, none for fallen angels-what about a mixture.
3. If demons can become men with usable sperm-then they can create life out of nothing. Modern science should put the awe of God into our minds-one living sperm cell or ovum is a living testimony to the divine blueprint of a human embedded in a living cell.
4.If a demon can create life out of nothing, then who should I be worshipping-who is greater?maybe Gnostics and new agers are right that Lucifer is an angel of light giving us wisdom.
5.If satan can create life, maybe he was the force behind the Virgin birth, and the resurrection to keep me away from practicing Law of Moses and to decieve the world.

*the truth of the matter is that the sons of God marrying the daughters of man is about the faithful mixing with the unfaithful, marrying an unbeliever is sexual imorality in the law of Moses and the law of Christ-this prohibition has never changed. The Law of Moses is very much in part oif keeping the faithful seeperate from the unfaithful-in marriage,act and deed.
Hello Karaite,
I concur that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 are spiritual believers who married with non spiritual unbelievers.
But the original OP on this thread is on who are the sons of God in Job 1:6 & 38:7 who appear with God in heaven at the time of Job about 5000 years ago, and when God was forming the solar system way before 5000 years ago when no human was yet around.

percho
Oct 30th 2013, 07:19 PM
I can't believe what I m actually reading on a Chtistian forum, it is actually a symptom of a stagnant church that is out of touch with the Bible as a whole, and uses pre text mixed with a very fertlile imagination. More interested in exciting the senses than to spread the Gospel, I have heard alien theories,time travel theories and demons mating with people theories-this is not only theological garbage, it undermines Christianity.
1. The Bible says that the sons of God and daughters of man also happened after the flood.
-so there must have been mutant demon-men on the Ark, or the same thing happened after the flood, so God did not have the answer to this problem, a flood was not a proper solution for demon-men if it still could happen.
2. What is the plan of salvation for demon-men-we have a plan of salvation for mankind, none for fallen angels-what about a mixture.
3. If demons can become men with usable sperm-then they can create life out of nothing. Modern science should put the awe of God into our minds-one living sperm cell or ovum is a living testimony to the divine blueprint of a human embedded in a living cell.
4.If a demon can create life out of nothing, then who should I be worshipping-who is greater?maybe Gnostics and new agers are right that Lucifer is an angel of light giving us wisdom.
5.If satan can create life, maybe he was the force behind the Virgin birth, and the resurrection to keep me away from practicing Law of Moses and to decieve the world.

*the truth of the matter is that the sons of God marrying the daughters of man is about the faithful mixing with the unfaithful, marrying an unbeliever is sexual imorality in the law of Moses and the law of Christ-this prohibition has never changed. The Law of Moses is very much in part oif keeping the faithful seeperate from the unfaithful-in marriage,act and deed.

Permit me to ask you a question. First I will state I do not think it was angels mating with women.

My question. Would you agree that there is a specific line from Jesus the Christ back to the man Adam and that line went through Seth the son of Adam?

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen 3:15 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. Gen 4:25

Was there going to be only one line to Christ and that line only were the sons of God? Would that line have been through Abel the first man to suffer, "dying thou dost die," at the hands of the murderer and liar from the beginning Satan through Cain of whom this was spoken? 1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

I would also like to know if you think the following verses are relative to the discussion?

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matt 1:23
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. 1:25

Did Satan through deception thwart Eve from being the mother of the Messiah or of a pure line unto the Messiah?

Just some thoughts I have had.

Would like to know what others think.

BTW I guess relative to the above one would also have to consider; In the fullness of time God brought forth his Son, born of woman.

exitludos
Oct 30th 2013, 08:20 PM
I can't believe what I m actually reading on a Chtistian forum, it is actually a symptom of a stagnant church that is out of touch with the Bible as a whole, and uses pre text mixed with a very fertlile imagination. More interested in exciting the senses than to spread the Gospel, I have heard alien theories,time travel theories and demons mating with people theories-this is not only theological garbage, it undermines Christianity.
1. The Bible says that the sons of God and daughters of man also happened after the flood.
-so there must have been mutant demon-men on the Ark, or the same thing happened after the flood, so God did not have the answer to this problem, a flood was not a proper solution for demon-men if it still could happen.
2. What is the plan of salvation for demon-men-we have a plan of salvation for mankind, none for fallen angels-what about a mixture.
3. If demons can become men with usable sperm-then they can create life out of nothing. Modern science should put the awe of God into our minds-one living sperm cell or ovum is a living testimony to the divine blueprint of a human embedded in a living cell.
4.If a demon can create life out of nothing, then who should I be worshipping-who is greater?maybe Gnostics and new agers are right that Lucifer is an angel of light giving us wisdom.
5.If satan can create life, maybe he was the force behind the Virgin birth, and the resurrection to keep me away from practicing Law of Moses and to decieve the world.
Thoughts in response to each of these:

1. The text does not actually say the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men also happened after the flood. What it says is that their descendants, the nephilim, continued after the flood. This is verified in Numbers 13.33. In turn, the descendants of the nephilim -- the Anakim and the rephaim -- continued all the way up to the time of David. 'Nephilim' is the Aramaic word meaning 'giants'. Just about every time the nephilim, Anakim, and rephaim come up between Numbers and 2 Samuel, they are mentioned as huge, towering people. Depending on how we convert the units, Og of Bashan was between 9 and 13 feet tall; Goliath of Gath was between 6 and 12 feet tall. At most, this means the flood was regional, not global, an argument made by many Christians who don't believe the 'sons of God' were angels.

2. To be clear, the concept that the nephilim were half-demon, half-human hybrids, is more often featured in criticisms of this interpretation, than it is actually featured in the interpretation itself. 'Ancient alien' conspiracy theorists have no problem espousing the 'hybrid' theory, but this is not that. As far as the text of Genesis 6.1-4 goes, the nephilim are not 'hybrids'. The fact of 'fathered by angels' did not equate to 'demon-human hybrid' for the ancient writers. At most, we can say the nephilim were 'giants' (since that is what the Aramaic word means). They were enormous men, but nothing beyond that. They were condemned for their violence and wickedness, no different than any other human.

3. This is not a valid criticism, because the interpretation does not say they 'create life out of nothing'. A physical, human body is not 'nothing'. This would be akin to saying the angels who ate with Abraham 'created digestive acid out of nothing'. Those angels took on the form of humans, but no one thinks their ability to digest food was creation ex nihilo, because it is an absurd criticism to make of the text.

4-5. Aside from continuing the invalid criticism above, you are using the ad hominem fallacy. This interpretation was the original, historic interpretation within Judaism and Christianity; it has absolutely nothing to do with Gnostics or new agers. Claiming Christians who believe this interpretation think 'Lucifer is an angel of light giving us wisdom' is absolutely ridiculous because the whole interpretation centers around the condemnation of angels who sinned. In other words, this is mudslinging, dirty and dishonest.

pekoe
Oct 30th 2013, 08:56 PM
Hello David Taylor.

1) There is no evidence that the writings attributed to 'Enoch' are the same Enoch who was the father of Methuselah...only internal claims.
There is if any portion of Enoch has been found which predates the Epistle of Jude and Jude quoted it.


2) Jude doesn't credit the teaching of human/angel mating babies.
He wouldn't have to if the story was common knowledge.


3) Jude doesn't credit the whole book of Enoch.
Quoting it at all lends Apostolic credence to it.


4) Jude credits one statement from the true Enoch son of Methuselah:
Jude 1:14 "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. "
So we have 3 choices. 1) James agreed with the Book of Enoch.
2) James quoted Enoch knowing most of it was heresy.
3) Enoch was lost and someone wrote a fake copy, but inserted James' statement to make it sound authentic.


So we shouldn't attribute any teachings of Enoch to Jude except "the teaching of the Lord coming in judgment". Enoch was rejected from Biblical canon because of its bad teachings and unsound doctrines. (like the angel/human mating babies myth).
Why is it impossible that angels mated with women? There are myths of gods taking human form and having sex with mortal women. Maybe the stories are total fabrication. Maybe the stories were based in fact, but were corrupted over time, like flood stories with exist in every culture on earth.

Balabusha
Oct 30th 2013, 10:25 PM
Permit me to ask you a question. First I will state I do not think it was angels mating with women.

My question. Would you agree that there is a specific line from Jesus the Christ back to the man Adam and that line went through Seth the son of Adam?

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen 3:15 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. Gen 4:25

Was there going to be only one line to Christ and that line only were the sons of God? Would that line have been through Abel the first man to suffer, "dying thou dost die," at the hands of the murderer and liar from the beginning Satan through Cain of whom this was spoken? 1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

I would also like to know if you think the following verses are relative to the discussion?

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matt 1:23
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. 1:25

Did Satan through deception thwart Eve from being the mother of the Messiah or of a pure line unto the Messiah?

Just some thoughts I have had.

Would like to know what others think.

BTW I guess relative to the above one would also have to consider; In the fullness of time God brought forth his Son, born of woman.

Only a line of faith, not of heridity from Seth or Abel. The animosity of the seed of faith and the seed of rebellion starts right out of the gate between Cain and Abel. There is and has only been one community of faith connected by the cross-one church and one faith-in Messiah

Balabusha
Oct 30th 2013, 10:29 PM
Thoughts in response to each of these:

1. The text does not actually say the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men also happened after the flood. What it says is that their descendants, the nephilim, continued after the flood. This is verified in Numbers 13.33. In turn, the descendants of the nephilim -- the Anakim and the rephaim -- continued all the way up to the time of David. 'Nephilim' is the Aramaic word meaning 'giants'. Just about every time the nephilim, Anakim, and rephaim come up between Numbers and 2 Samuel, they are mentioned as huge, towering people. Depending on how we convert the units, Og of Bashan was between 9 and 13 feet tall; Goliath of Gath was between 6 and 12 feet tall. At most, this means the flood was regional, not global, an argument made by many Christians who don't believe the 'sons of God' were angels.

2. To be clear, the concept that the nephilim were half-demon, half-human hybrids, is more often featured in criticisms of this interpretation, than it is actually featured in the interpretation itself. 'Ancient alien' conspiracy theorists have no problem espousing the 'hybrid' theory, but this is not that. As far as the text of Genesis 6.1-4 goes, the nephilim are not 'hybrids'. The fact of 'fathered by angels' did not equate to 'demon-human hybrid' for the ancient writers. At most, we can say the nephilim were 'giants' (since that is what the Aramaic word means). They were enormous men, but nothing beyond that. They were condemned for their violence and wickedness, no different than any other human.

3. This is not a valid criticism, because the interpretation does not say they 'create life out of nothing'. A physical, human body is not 'nothing'. This would be akin to saying the angels who ate with Abraham 'created digestive acid out of nothing'. Those angels took on the form of humans, but no one thinks their ability to digest food was creation ex nihilo, because it is an absurd criticism to make of the text.

4-5. Aside from continuing the invalid criticism above, you are using the ad hominem fallacy. This interpretation was the original, historic interpretation within Judaism and Christianity; it has absolutely nothing to do with Gnostics or new agers. Claiming Christians who believe this interpretation think 'Lucifer is an angel of light giving us wisdom' is absolutely ridiculous because the whole interpretation centers around the condemnation of angels who sinned. In other words, this is mudslinging, dirty and dishonest.

You are wrong, human DNA found and produced in male sperm is not comparable to having a drink, this is life, and a demon that can produce this has in fact the same power as God to create life-it is inescapable.
-i can't interpret the Bible in light of Rabbis and the Church Fathers or the Catholic church-I interpret it in light of the Bible, because I can give yyou examples of each that contradict each other-even Jewish interpretations that counter your sources that this was not believed

Balabusha
Oct 30th 2013, 11:02 PM
Hello Karaite,
I concur that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 are spiritual believers who married with non spiritual unbelievers.
But the original OP on this thread is on who are the sons of God in Job 1:6 & 38:7 who appear with God in heaven at the time of Job about 5000 years ago, and when God was forming the solar system way before 5000 years ago when no human was yet around.

1 Job 1:6
Satan presented himself to God with the Sons of God-the faithful angels-notice God singles him out.
-satan had access to heaven until Messiah came, you should note in revelation 12 Satan is cast out of heaven in relation to the work of Jesus Christ, this is not a statement of the fall in the beginning of Satan.

2 Job 38
- This is again the same relation to those who love God-the faithful Angels who rejoiced with God at creation with joy.


-this is also a personification of Gods heavenly servants in relation to nature
-Psalms 104:4
He makes the winds His angels
Flames of fire his servants

Aviyah
Oct 30th 2013, 11:10 PM
Why would a marriage between a believer and nonbeliever specifically create superhuman Nephilim giants?

Also why did this not happen with the "daughters of God" and "sons of men?" Were the "daughters of God" ugly?

Balabusha
Oct 30th 2013, 11:15 PM
Why would a marriage between a believer and nonbeliever specifically create superhuman Nephilim giants?

Also why did this not happen with the daughters of God and sons of men? Were daughters of God ugly?

This is only because you are reading it this way-you are reading ancient Hebrew literature in a modern english mindet.

Aviyah
Oct 30th 2013, 11:21 PM
This is only because you are reading it this way-you are reading ancient Hebrew literature in a modern english mindet.

But I'm asking a question.

Why does male believer + female nonbeliever = superhuman Nephilim giant?
Why does male nonbeliever + female believer = regular human?

And why doesn't this happen today since there are still believers and nonbelievers?

Balabusha
Oct 30th 2013, 11:30 PM
But I'm asking a question.

Why does male believer + female nonbeliever = superhuman Nephilim giant?
Why does male nonbeliever + female believer = regular human?

And why doesn't this happen today since there are still believers and nonbelievers?

I am questioning your question-you put superhuman in the text-where does it state superhuman

Aviyah
Oct 30th 2013, 11:34 PM
I am questioning your question-you put superhuman in the text-where does it state superhuman

Well they get a special mention as 'men of renown' or 'mighty warriors' etc.

But even that aside, why would giants specifically be produced by a male believer and a female nonbeliever, yet no other combination?

Balabusha
Oct 31st 2013, 12:00 AM
Well they get a special mention as 'men of renown' or 'mighty warriors' etc.

But even that aside, why would giants specifically be produced by a male believer and a female nonbeliever, yet no other combination?

Because this is not how an ancient Hebrew idiom works, to say the sons of God and the daughters of men, and then reverse it would be contrived.
To look further the Law of Moses forbid am man to marry a non believer.
In Ezra after the return from exile the faithful gave up their unbelieving spouses according to the Law.

exitludos
Oct 31st 2013, 02:28 AM
You are wrong, human DNA found and produced in male sperm is not comparable to having a drink, this is life, and a demon that can produce this has in fact the same power as God to create life-it is inescapable.
This is purely a 'because I said so' argument, so again it is not a valid criticism.


-i can't interpret the Bible in light of Rabbis and the Church Fathers or the Catholic church-I interpret it in light of the Bible,
I did not appeal to the rabbis (who, at the time their views were written down in the second through fifth centuries AD, largely disagreed with it), nor the 'church fathers' (who disagreed with each other), nor the Roman Catholic Church (which, I think, officially rejects this interpretation).


because I can give yyou examples of each that contradict each other-even Jewish interpretations that counter your sources that this was not believed
I never said it was universally accepted by the Jews. What I said was, it was the earliest known interpretation (going back to at least 300 BC), and the only known interpretation for several centuries (roughly 300 BC to 100 AD). I specifically stated that this interpretation began to be rejected in the late first century or early second century AD.

I have shown the epistle of Judah's overall dependence upon the book 1 Enoch, which reads Genesis 6.1-4 in exactly the way I have described. No one has demonstrated that Judah was not using 1 Enoch to the extent that I have shown, so in the end, the emotionally charged rhetoric you are relying on just is not valid.

Balabusha
Oct 31st 2013, 03:58 AM
This is purely a 'because I said so' argument, so again it is not a valid criticism.
-it is not a "I sad so" argument, this is common sense, the human genetic code is the code for life, so if a demon can create a human body complete with functional sperm-then satan is the author of life-plain and simple, but your paganistic spin on the Bible does not accept this fact.
-You comparing eating to creating viable sperm out of nothing is not rooted in reality


I did not appeal to the rabbis (who, at the time their views were written down in the second through fifth centuries AD, largely disagreed with it), nor the 'church fathers' (who disagreed with each other), nor the Roman Catholic Church (which, I think, officially rejects this interpretation).
-that is good, now we have a good foundation to build on-now we just have to straighten you out on the apocrapha.


I never said it was universally accepted by the Jews. What I said was, it was the earliest known interpretation (going back to at least 300 BC), and the only known interpretation for several centuries (roughly 300 BC to 100 AD). I specifically stated that this interpretation began to be rejected in the late first century or early second century AD.
-this is debatable.


I have shown the epistle of Judah's overall dependence upon the book 1 Enoch, which reads Genesis 6.1-4 in exactly the way I have described. No one has demonstrated that Judah was not using 1 Enoch to the extent that I have shown, so in the end, the emotionally charged rhetoric you are relying on just is not valid.
-firstly you use Judah, you could speak common venacular-i would like to call the books by their hebrew names, but that is not the common venacular-if I can do it then you can do it-you are trying to give yourself an air of inteligence.
-You actually butchered the book of Jude in your exegesis, the book of jude is about sin, and it relates it to the false teachers in the church.
-you took a quote of 1 enoch and then compared verses that were not related to it, and expanded it beyond the breaking point
-if you would like to get into Jude-iam more than willing

exitludos
Oct 31st 2013, 04:05 AM
-that is good, now we have a good foundation to build on-now we just have to straighten you out on the apocrapha.

-firstly you use Judah, you could speak common venacular-i would like to call the books by their hebrew names, but that is not the common venacular-if I can do it then you can do it-you are trying to give yourself an air of inteligence.
I do not appreciate your condescension: 'straighten me out'?

Nor the petty nitpicking: you do not criticize people for saying 'messiah' instead of 'christ'. Criticizing me for 'Judah' versus 'Jude' is so trivial, and making up an analysis over why I say one instead of the other (to 'give myself an air of intelligence'?) is deceitful.

No thanks, I will not interact with someone like you. That brings this to an end for me.

Balabusha
Oct 31st 2013, 06:57 AM
That's fine with me, you seem to be able to dish it out but you can't take it.
Anyhoo, I am still going to show that your imposing the whole book of enoch into Jude is false, and that paganism forced into the text is from the fertile imagination.
Just the fact Jesus says angels don't marry should be sufficient over folk tale books from which the real author hides behind a psuedo name from great men in the Bible.
The Binle gives no plan if salvation for hybrid demons-humans.
You are making the same mistake as the saducees made towards jesus in regards to resurrection, reading the bible in light of folk tales.

luigi
Oct 31st 2013, 11:17 AM
1 Job 1:6
Satan presented himself to God with the Sons of God-the faithful angels-notice God singles him out.
-satan had access to heaven until Messiah came, you should note in revelation 12 Satan is cast out of heaven in relation to the work of Jesus Christ, this is not a statement of the fall in the beginning of Satan.

2 Job 38
- This is again the same relation to those who love God-the faithful Angels who rejoiced with God at creation with joy.


-this is also a personification of Gods heavenly servants in relation to nature
-Psalms 104:4
He makes the winds His angels
Flames of fire his servantsYou are interjecting your opinion when you state the Sons of God are the faithful angels.
Yes I see that Satan came along with the sons of God. Does this mean the sons of God are angels?
Your perspective bring up a flurry of questions.
Why did the Lord call the angels the the sons of God?
Why are the angels not referred to as the sons of God more often?
Is there any scriptural backing for angels being called sons of God?

I do concur with your opinion that for angels to have had sex with humans and produced offspring would then have had the power to create life like God. I therefore do not believe Genesis 6:1-4 refers to the fallen angels as the sons of God having sex with humans and making babies.

exitludos
Oct 31st 2013, 03:51 PM
That's fine with me, you seem to be able to dish it out but you can't take it.
To clarify, I have not 'dished' anything out. Not once have I criticized anyone for personal issues. Nor have I made outrageously false accusations about someone's beliefs. And even if I had done such a thing, acting like a self-righteous jerk is not a contest you should 'dish out' for.

But twice in a row, your posts consisted of personal attacks (over stupid, petty things like spelling a name) and vile falsehoods about my beliefs (accusations that I am a gnostic and a follower of satan).

To the point: you are a slanderer and a liar. No thanks. Blocked.

Aviyah
Oct 31st 2013, 03:58 PM
To look further the Law of Moses forbid am man to marry a non believer.

1) Cultural separation was not enforced until Isaac.
2) I haven't heard of any giant Nephilim being born from Israelites who disobeyed this.
3) Why aren't Nephilim born from Christian-NonChristians today?


Just the fact Jesus says angels don't marry

I don't think that's what Jesus was saying. He was comparing the resurrected to angels in that they are immortal. It wouldn't make sense to compare the resurrected to an attribute of angels which was entirely unknown before then.

Balabusha
Oct 31st 2013, 04:03 PM
You are interjecting your opinion when you state the Sons of God are the faithful angels.
Yes I see that Satan came along with the sons of God. Does this mean the sons of God are angels?
Your perspective bring up a flurry of questions.
Why did the Lord call the angels the the sons of God?
Why are the angels not referred to as the sons of God more often?
Is there any scriptural backing for angels being called sons of God?

I do concur with your opinion that for angels to have had sex with humans and produced offspring would then have had the power to create life like God. I therefore do not believe Genesis 6:1-4 refers to the fallen angels as the sons of God having sex with humans and making babies.

You are right it may not refer to Angels, it could be referring to an assembly of believers gathered together like Yom kippur for example(I know the predates Yom kippur-just an example). God singles out Job to the adversary in regards to his rightousness among those who worship the true God.
-the book of Job is such a treasure chest of wisdom don't you think?
It is one of my favorites

Obfuscate
Oct 31st 2013, 04:07 PM
I believe Sons of God in Job is talking about Angels.

Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 is about believers and I believe specifically about the line of Seth, whom the promised Messiah would come (Luke 3:38). Angels do not marry (Mark 12:25 - Matthew 22:30) nor do kinds mix with other kinds (Genesis 1:24-25) and angels are not the same kind as humans. To believe that Sons of God in Genesis is angels is believing in direct contadictions to what was spoken by Moses and Christ.

Sons of God (some translations such as ESV) in Deuteronomy 32:8 is about the tribes of Isreal. The Sons of God in Romans 8:14 is about those led by the Spirit.

Also, as for the book of Enoch, Scripture quotes all kinds of outside sources and writtings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

Balabusha
Oct 31st 2013, 04:13 PM
1) Cultural separation was not enforced until Isaac.
2) I haven't heard of any giant Nephilim being born from Israelites who disobeyed this.
3) Why aren't Nephilim born from Christian-NonChristians today?



I don't think that's what Jesus was saying. He was comparing the resurrected to angels in that they are immortal. It wouldn't make sense to compare the resurrected to an attribute of angels which was entirely unknown before then.

1. There. Never has been a cultural separation-there IS a separation of the faithful and unfaithful. This should not be taken to the extreme, the aliens inside Covenant Israel were to be taken care of just like their own.
2..When my computer is up and running I will finally put a rest to this marriage in heaven topic. In the meantime look at the context, the Saducees tried to forward their anti resurrection dogma by using a woman who went thru multiple husbands-the context was marriage in heaven in regards to resurrection

Balabusha
Oct 31st 2013, 04:18 PM
I believe Sons of God in Job is talking about Angels.

Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 is about believers and I believe specifically about the line of Seth, whom the promised Messiah would come (Luke 3:38). Angels do not marry (Mark 12:25 - Matthew 22:30) nor do kinds mix with other kinds (Genesis 1:24-25) and angels are not the same kind as humans. To believe that Sons of God in Genesis is angels is believing in direct contadictions to what was spoken by Moses and Christ.

Sons of God (some translations such as ESV) in Deuteronomy 32:8 is about the tribes of Isreal. The Sons of God in Romans 8:14 is about those led by the Spirit.

Also, as for the book of Enoch, Scripture quotes all kinds of outside sources and writtings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

Good job, let the Bible define what it means, not the imagination

luigi
Oct 31st 2013, 04:30 PM
You are right it may not refer to Angels, it could be referring to an assembly of believers gathered together like Yom kippur for example(I know the predates Yom kippur-just an example). God singles out Job to the adversary in regards to his rightousness among those who worship the true God.
-the book of Job is such a treasure chest of wisdom don't you think?
It is one of my favorites
The book of Job does provide a wealth of information.
I also liked your mention of Jesus' statement that angels do not marry, thereby providing scriptural confirmation that the sons of God who marry the daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4 are not angels, otherwise you would have to disbelieve the Lords statement.

Aviyah
Oct 31st 2013, 04:34 PM
1. There. Never has been a cultural separation-there IS a separation of the faithful and unfaithful. This should not be taken to the extreme, the aliens inside Covenant Israel were to be taken care of just like their own.

But you still haven't answered why a relationship between a believer and nonbeliever creates a giant/Nephilim... and also why it doesn't happen today.

Balabusha
Oct 31st 2013, 05:12 PM
To clarify, I have not 'dished' anything out. Not once have I criticized anyone for personal issues. Nor have I made outrageously false accusations about someone's beliefs. And even if I had done such a thing, acting like a self-righteous jerk is not a contest you should 'dish out' for.

But twice in a row, your posts consisted of personal attacks (over stupid, petty things like spelling a name) and vile falsehoods about my beliefs (accusations that I am a gnostic and a follower of satan).

To the point: you are a slanderer and a liar. No thanks. Blocked.

I pointed out that nobody calls it the book of Judah-even the English Bibles
Secondly, I never said anyone on here including yourself was a Gnostic or a follower of Satan-i just pointed out how this esosteric interpretation can and is used by those who oppose the Bible. This is clearly observed when a person goes out and spreads the Gospel-these fanciful interpretsations might sound cool in a bubble-but bite a person in the butt when the Gospel is projercted outside of that bubble

Balabusha
Oct 31st 2013, 06:57 PM
But you still haven't answered why a relationship between a believer and nonbeliever creates a giant/Nephilim... and also why it doesn't happen today.

This is quite easy
1 the word Nephillim does not mean giants, due to the discoveries in the dead sea, we know the hieght of these people was not "giant". It means "fallen" or to "prostrate"
2 notice in verse 2 of chapter 6 it states "they took wives for themselves whoever they chose" this is in relation to the "sons of God". These were the righteous that relied on themselves for picking their mates-they picked mates they lusted for-the spiral into evil was in full swing.
3 you will notice the word renowned, great and mighty in relation to this, this is because they relied on themselves and their own feats and became great in the world.
4.The same thing happens even greater today, we look at the feats of men as being great-going to the moon, technology-the people who made this happen are more known than God and the Bible
-sorry, I am hamstrung to get into scripture-my computer is down-i am on my bberry

Obfuscate
Oct 31st 2013, 07:20 PM
But you still haven't answered why a relationship between a believer and nonbeliever creates a giant/Nephilim... and also why it doesn't happen today.

Consider this:

Genesis 6:2 - the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose

Genesis 6:3: Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.

Why would God punish man because angels came and married whoever they chose? It makes more sense that man was being punished because even believers (Sons of God) were taking and marrying unbelievers (daughters of man).

Then here is the verse I think you conclude that nephilim were created by this relationship:

Genesis 6:4 - 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. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown

I believe it is simply saying these two scenarios happened at the same time. Believers taking unbelievers for wives and having children with them and also Nephilim (thugs and tyrants) used their size and strength for power and were considered men of renown by others, rather than the Godly.

For these reasons God says this:

Genesis 6:6 - And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

Then of course he brought the flood in Genesis 7:11-12.

After the flood when humanity was wiped out except for Noah and his family, during the time of Moses there was Nephilim around (Numbers 13:33). Now, if these were also human/angel babies then they would have descended from Noah or his wife, kids or their wives, and therefore we would have this angel DNA in us. The only other option is that Angels, even after the flood came and had more angel/human babies and therefore it’s possible even today for angels to have these relations with humans.

Balabusha
Oct 31st 2013, 07:51 PM
Thanks
I am only on my blackberry and can't really go into much detail-good job!

Aviyah
Oct 31st 2013, 08:50 PM
This is quite easy
1 the word Nephillim does not mean giants

Yes it does... that's what the Septuagint translated it to.

Are you suggesting that most people alive today are Nephilim?