Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

[TMarcum]

Re: Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

none of that addresses the corruption of all flesh spoken of in gen 6. yes sin did enter the world through adam and death with it but the corruption of all flesh in Gen 6 is an altogether different matter. it is talking about the DNA because Gen 6:9 tells us, Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations.

all have sinned you are right but noah was perfect in his genes so we know we are not talking about just the curse of death but a corruption of the genes.

Christ died to reconcile both men. both seed's the serpent seed and the seed of man have a chance to be saved

none of that addresses the corruption of all flesh spoken of in gen 6.

Because men's heart and their imaginations are continually evil in the sight of God, addresses the corruption. The same corruption is referenced in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah when God wiped them from the face of the earth for their sins, or the city of Nineveh that God was about to destroy before they repented in sackcloth and ashes as they heeded to the preaching of repentance of Jonah the prophet.


yes sin did enter the world through adam and death with it but the corruption of all flesh in Gen 6 is an altogether different matter.
In the eyes of God, sin is sin. Sin has always been an issue with God and has to dealt with it. In which case, we have countless examples where God directly dealt with it. We have every example imaginable throughout the old testament, as he destroyed multitudes of the children of Israel, in multiple occasions for their transgressions. One more thing, God is going to deal with it again in the end of times, and it is pointless to say to God, "but the fallen angels of the sons of God made me do it!"


Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations. all have sinned you are right but Noah was perfect in his genes so we know we are not talking about just the curse of death but a corruption of the genes.

Yes, Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations. But do you think this is the reason that God saved Noah and his family? Do you not think there was millions and millions of children and babies alive during this time, and their only sin was being born. Do you know, they were utterly destroyed by this flood? Do you think they were any less perfect than Noah?

Noah found favor in the eyes of God. But it was by God's grace that he saved Noah and his family. Salvation is all about grace.

[TMarcum]

Re: Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

This is a very strong counter argument, and I hear you. But your very (correct) argument that the same king "generate" is the solution. My answer is thus fourfold:

1. Angels have bodies. It is true that the substance of an angel is spirit, but so is God (Jn.4:24), and Mary conceived. The two angels who accompanied the "angel of the Lord" to visit Abraham had bodies, ate, and the sodomites of Sodom tried to mate with them.
2. There must be an explanation for what is recorded in Genesis Chapter 6 for the Lord Jesus says that the end days would be like the days of Noah. Matthew 24:38, Mark 12:25, Luke 17:27 and 20:34. "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, (1) marrying and (2) giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark". Why does scripture, written so economically, make a difference between "marrying" and "GIVING in marriage"? What is the difference? Two things happen!
3. The language of Genesis 6:4 CONTRASTS the two. It reads; "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." If the "sons of God" were men it should read; "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of MEN came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, ... .". And what then means "were of OLD"?
4. The reason that Noah escaped was (1) he was righteous, and (2) "his generations were perfect". Now, the Bible does use "generation" as a time for one man to "generate" the next. But overwhelmingly, the meaning of "generation" is WHAT IS GENERATED. This is most clearly seen in both John Baptist's and our Lord's statement that the Jews were a "GENERATION of vipers". Adam sinned and those who he GENERATED were headed for death (Rom.5:12). And our Lord traces this "serpent-nature", not back to Jacob, the father of Israel, but to ABEL being killed by Cain (Lk.11:51). Our Lord said that Adam's SIN-NATURE produced, or "generated" serpents. That Noah's "generations" (plural) means that among men generated by angels, Noah's fathers and Noah's sons WERE GENERATED BY MEN AND WOMEN. The devastation of the Flood was not only to eradicate evil men, BUT ALSO to eradicate IMPERFECT GENERATIONS.

Each proof above is, by itself, not conclusive. But all four together ... ?

Conversely, if I am wrong, what then could be the explanation?

• Why are the sons of MEN called the "sons of God"?
• Why are angels called this in Job?
• Why was it unnatural for the sons of God to go in unto the "daughters" of MEN?
• Why does Jude say the angels "sought strange flesh?
• Why did ONLY this union produce men of RENOWN and men of OLD
• Why was it recorded that Noah escaped because his "generations" were perfect
• Why did God order Israel to eradicate the Canaanites? Is it not because they were doing the same thing and producing "giants" (Nu.13:33)

Nothing by itself is conclusive, but all-together .... ?

1. Angels have bodies. It is true that the substance of an angel is spirit, but so is God (Jn.4:24), and Mary conceived. The two angels who accompanied the "angel of the Lord" to visit Abraham had bodies, ate, and the sodomites of Sodom tried to mate with them.

Jesus make it clear that with angels there is no such thing as marriage and I think we can assume the same applies with sexual reproduction and relationships. But on a different note, do you think that the immaculate conception of Jesus, is anyway at all comparable with the notion that angels came to earth and took women to marry?

Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.


2. There must be an explanation for what is recorded in Genesis Chapter 6 for the Lord Jesus says that the end days would be like the days of Noah. Matthew 24:38, Mark 12:25, Luke 17:27 and 20:34. "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, (1) marrying and (2) giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark". Why does scripture, written so economically, make a difference between "marrying" and "GIVING in marriage"? What is the difference? Two things happen!

In the days of Noah, the love of many waxed cold. Their destruction came as a thief in the night. People were living their lives, carrying on everyday in normal activities, until the day of the flood came. This is also described by Jesus as will be the same in the end of days.

3. The language of Genesis 6:4 CONTRASTS the two. It reads; "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." If the "sons of God" were men it should read; "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of MEN came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, ... .". And what then means "were of OLD"?

There were many other variations between the times of old and today's time, but that doesn't mean that angels had sexual relationships with women. During those days, it didn't rain. During those days, mankind lived to be a thousand years old. During those days, the whole world spoke the same language. Keep in mind, there were giants in the land as the Children of Israel wandered thru the wilderness for 40 years. There were giants in the land during the life of King David, as he fought one. But that doesn't mean Goliath's father was a son of God.


4. The reason that Noah escaped was (1) he was righteous, and (2) "his generations were perfect". Now, the Bible does use "generation" as a time for one man to "generate" the next. But overwhelmingly, the meaning of "generation" is WHAT IS GENERATED. This is most clearly seen in both John Baptist's and our Lord's statement that the Jews were a "GENERATION of vipers". Adam sinned and those who he GENERATED were headed for death (Rom.5:12). And our Lord traces this "serpent-nature", not back to Jacob, the father of Israel, but to ABEL being killed by Cain (Lk.11:51). Our Lord said that Adam's SIN-NATURE produced, or "generated" serpents. That Noah's "generations" (plural) means that among men generated by angels, Noah's fathers and Noah's sons WERE GENERATED BY MEN AND WOMEN. The devastation of the Flood was not only to eradicate evil men, BUT ALSO to eradicate IMPERFECT GENERATIONS.


Yes, Noah was a just man and his generation was perfect. But do you really think this is the reason that he escaped? Do you know there were millions and millions of children and babies that were living during the days of Noah that were drown in the flood. The only sin these babies has was being born in the flesh. Do you think they were any less just or perfect than Noah? It was God's grace that saved Noah and his family and not his works that justified him.

[Walls]

Re: Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

None of that really matters though does it. The point it illustrates is that the term is applied to men, not angels. Let me challenge you to find one single passage of scripture anywhere in the Bible that uses "sons of God" and "angel" together to describe one another. Scripture never uses these together to define one another. This definition does not come from scripture, it comes from human speculation and conjecture.

The task set before us in the OP, and fundamentally, the Bible, is to find out who the "sons of God" are in the matter of mating with the "daughters of men". We would all like things to be written plainly and simply, like a bed-time story book. But God, in His utter wisdom, has decided to write His Book to us in a special way. This special way, first of all, allows the already big Book to be concise. The grammar pushes the limits and it is up to us to get the meaning by applying rules of grammar. Secondly, God did not leave the understanding of obscure passages up to men's fallen thoughts. So the Bible is written in such a way that scripture in one place explains scripture in another. Third, God used nature and pictures to save thousands of words. We must discover when He is suing a picture or when it is literal. Example, Hebrews Chapters 3 and 4 go to lengths to describe a future Sabbath Rest for God's people. How are we to fathom what God was revealing? By studying the first Sabbath way back in the first three Chapters of the Bible. And when the answer is before our eyes shall we annul it because the Sabbath and the Millennium are never mentioned together verbally?

And so it is with the "sons of God" in Genesis Chapter 6. In a handful of postings I have laid out the evidence and answered your objections. You have the (God-given) right to accept or reject them. But, as one of God's most intellectual creatures, you have also a responsibility to the evidence. If your last bastion is that the term "sons of God" is not ever brought together with the term "angels", the suspicion arises that you have no interest in the evidence. In Job 1:6 and 2:1 it reads, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." Now, if the grammar read "Satan came ALSO", we would have the right to say that Satan was there but was not necessarily a son of God. So also if it read, "Satan was among them". We could not infer that Satan was a son of God" on that alone. But when the text reads "Satan came ALSO AMONG them", there is no option than to understand that Satan was present and Satan was ALSO a son of God. And since Satan is an angel, then the sons of God is in connection with angels.

In 2nd Corinthians 11:13-15 it reads;

13 "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

How shall we understand verse 14? Is Satan, who is not an angel, able to transform himself into an angel? Or, is Satan, who is an angle of darkness, able to transform himself into the form of an angel of light? The context tells. Both verses 13 AND 15 speak of apostles, workers and ministers who are transformed to deceive. That is, the workers are a GIVEN, but the message is transformed from truth to falsehood. Thus, the context shows Satan an angel, but one who is darkness but can TRANSFORM himself into light.

The evidence again is overwhelming. Satan is a "son of God" and Satan is an angel. Sons of God, in this context, are angels.

It is not a sin, nor is it foolishness to hold a wrong concept. We all do that all the time. But when somebody comes along and sets forth a pile of evidence that points to a certain conclusion, we are bound to consider it. If we don't, then the term "fool" draws near. Hollywood, in war films, makes the sound of a bullet passing a soldier's head a "zipping" sound. But every one of us who has ever been shot at knows that supersonic bullets make a "crack" - a sonic boom. We may believe that passing rifle bullets make a zipping sound UNTIL we have taken fire. Then we find out that the EVIDENCE is that rifle bullets make a crack like another shot. What we believe should change in that single gut-wrenching moment as you are shot at. The "sons of God" is not fatal, but the evidence should make our opinion just the same way.

[Walls]

Re: Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

1. Angels have bodies. It is true that the substance of an angel is spirit, but so is God (Jn.4:24), and Mary conceived. The two angels who accompanied the "angel of the Lord" to visit Abraham had bodies, ate, and the sodomites of Sodom tried to mate with them.

Jesus make it clear that with angels there is no such thing as marriage and I think we can assume the same applies with sexual reproduction and relationships. But on a different note, do you think that the immaculate conception of Jesus, is anyway at all comparable with the notion that angels came to earth and took women to marry?

Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

But I answered this in posting #16, point #3. What do you think of my argument?

2. There must be an explanation for what is recorded in Genesis Chapter 6 for the Lord Jesus says that the end days would be like the days of Noah. Matthew 24:38, Mark 12:25, Luke 17:27 and 20:34. "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, (1) marrying and (2) giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark". Why does scripture, written so economically, make a difference between "marrying" and "GIVING in marriage"? What is the difference? Two things happen!

In the days of Noah, the love of many waxed cold. Their destruction came as a thief in the night. People were living their lives, carrying on everyday in normal activities, until the day of the flood came. This is also described by Jesus as will be the same in the end of days.

I appreciate your taking the time to reply, but you did not address my question. What is the difference?

3. The language of Genesis 6:4 CONTRASTS the two. It reads; "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." If the "sons of God" were men it should read; "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of MEN came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, ... .". And what then means "were of OLD"?

There were many other variations between the times of old and today's time, but that doesn't mean that angels had sexual relationships with women. During those days, it didn't rain. During those days, mankind lived to be a thousand years old. During those days, the whole world spoke the same language. Keep in mind, there were giants in the land as the Children of Israel wandered thru the wilderness for 40 years. There were giants in the land during the life of King David, as he fought one. But that doesn't mean Goliath's father was a son of God.

But the grammar indicates otherwise. Genesis 6:4, reads; "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." This, you have not addressed. If the inspired record says that the same thing that happened at Noah's time happened at later dates, what are the chances that the Giants of Canaan came from this source? And what is the evidence that some new thing happened as you propose.

4. The reason that Noah escaped was (1) he was righteous, and (2) "his generations were perfect". Now, the Bible does use "generation" as a time for one man to "generate" the next. But overwhelmingly, the meaning of "generation" is WHAT IS GENERATED. This is most clearly seen in both John Baptist's and our Lord's statement that the Jews were a "GENERATION of vipers". Adam sinned and those who he GENERATED were headed for death (Rom.5:12). And our Lord traces this "serpent-nature", not back to Jacob, the father of Israel, but to ABEL being killed by Cain (Lk.11:51). Our Lord said that Adam's SIN-NATURE produced, or "generated" serpents. That Noah's "generations" (plural) means that among men generated by angels, Noah's fathers and Noah's sons WERE GENERATED BY MEN AND WOMEN. The devastation of the Flood was not only to eradicate evil men, BUT ALSO to eradicate IMPERFECT GENERATIONS.


Yes, Noah was a just man and his generation was perfect. But do you really think this is the reason that he escaped? Do you know there were millions and millions of children and babies that were living during the days of Noah that were drown in the flood. The only sin these babies has was being born in the flesh. Do you think they were any less just or perfect than Noah? It was God's grace that saved Noah and his family and not his works that justified him.

I appreciate your sentiments. Most likely there were millions of innocents drowned. But death is the wages of "sin" (singular) and babies are still dying today. Noah was God's choice. I am singularly unequipped to call that into question. But what I can do, is believe God's reasons given why. Noah's generations were perfect. It is hardly mentioned in Christian Bible studies that the main attack of Satan is against the "seed of the woman" promised in Genesis 3:15. It is the "seed of THE woman" - Eve and her following generations of women, that will bring the demise of Satan. Thus, he attacks this by murder, war, sodomy, bestiality and calling upon his minion angles to pollute the seed. The first four of these cause the seed not to reproduce. The mixing with angels causes a hybrid that in turn seems not to be able to reproduce. For sins to be put away, only a Man could die for men. If the seed of women was polluted, and our Lord Jesus' origin tampered with, He would have been unfit to be Saviour. It was vital that our Lord Jesus came from "perfect" generations (Gal.4:4).

But I dare say you are no different to God. Answer this; if the Ebola virus broke out in your town, would you quarantine every patient until the virus was dead? So also God. When men, whom He created in His image and likeness, are polluted with other designs, shall He not wipe them out like you cause the virus to die off? Have you ever wondered why some of Israel could keep the women, children and cattle of some of their vanquished enemies, while other were to be annihilated like Amalek (1st Samuel 15)? Was it not because of mating (i) angel with man, (ii) man with mankind (sodomy), (iii) women with their kind, and (iv) bestiality? Read God's thoughts on this in;

• Exodus 22:19 states, "Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death."
• Leviticus 18:23 commands, "And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion."
• Leviticus 20:15-16, found in a list of punishments for various forms of sexual immorality in the Law of Moses, records, "If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
• Deuteronomy 27:21 notes, "'Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of animal."

Finally, if you read the various postings in this thread, you will at once notice that of all the objectors, not one has put forward a coherent, logical argument, documented with scripture, as to who the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, Job, 1, 2 & 38 were. Remarkable to say the least.

[grogers]

Re: Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

The task set before us in the OP, and fundamentally, the Bible, is to find out who the "sons of God" are in the matter of mating with the "daughters of men". We would all like things to be written plainly and simply, like a bed-time story book. But God, in His utter wisdom, has decided to write His Book to us in a special way. This special way, first of all, allows the already big Book to be concise. The grammar pushes the limits and it is up to us to get the meaning by applying rules of grammar. Secondly, God did not leave the understanding of obscure passages up to men's fallen thoughts. So the Bible is written in such a way that scripture in one place explains scripture in another. Third, God used nature and pictures to save thousands of words. We must discover when He is suing a picture or when it is literal. Example, Hebrews Chapters 3 and 4 go to lengths to describe a future Sabbath Rest for God's people. How are we to fathom what God was revealing? By studying the first Sabbath way back in the first three Chapters of the Bible. And when the answer is before our eyes shall we annul it because the Sabbath and the Millennium are never mentioned together verbally?

And so it is with the "sons of God" in Genesis Chapter 6. In a handful of postings I have laid out the evidence and answered your objections. You have the (God-given) right to accept or reject them. But, as one of God's most intellectual creatures, you have also a responsibility to the evidence. If your last bastion is that the term "sons of God" is not ever brought together with the term "angels", the suspicion arises that you have no interest in the evidence. In Job 1:6 and 2:1 it reads, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." Now, if the grammar read "Satan came ALSO", we would have the right to say that Satan was there but was not necessarily a son of God. So also if it read, "Satan was among them". We could not infer that Satan was a son of God" on that alone. But when the text reads "Satan came ALSO AMONG them", there is no option than to understand that Satan was present and Satan was ALSO a son of God. And since Satan is an angel, then the sons of God is in connection with angels.

In 2nd Corinthians 11:13-15 it reads;

13 "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

How shall we understand verse 14? Is Satan, who is not an angel, able to transform himself into an angel? Or, is Satan, who is an angle of darkness, able to transform himself into the form of an angel of light? The context tells. Both verses 13 AND 15 speak of apostles, workers and ministers who are transformed to deceive. That is, the workers are a GIVEN, but the message is transformed from truth to falsehood. Thus, the context shows Satan an angel, but one who is darkness but can TRANSFORM himself into light.

The evidence again is overwhelming. Satan is a "son of God" and Satan is an angel. Sons of God, in this context, are angels.

It is not a sin, nor is it foolishness to hold a wrong concept. We all do that all the time. But when somebody comes along and sets forth a pile of evidence that points to a certain conclusion, we are bound to consider it. If we don't, then the term "fool" draws near. Hollywood, in war films, makes the sound of a bullet passing a soldier's head a "zipping" sound. But every one of us who has ever been shot at knows that supersonic bullets make a "crack" - a sonic boom. We may believe that passing rifle bullets make a zipping sound UNTIL we have taken fire. Then we find out that the EVIDENCE is that rifle bullets make a crack like another shot. What we believe should change in that single gut-wrenching moment as you are shot at. The "sons of God" is not fatal, but the evidence should make our opinion just the same way.

You are still doing the same thing. You are assuming the definition of angels where the text does not. Yes, Satan is an angel. This does not demand however, that those identified as sons of God were also angels. It merely says that whoever these sons of God are, Satan came with them. You also seem to be assuming that because Satan and God are having this conversation, this "presentation" of the sons of God is something that is taking place in heaven. This too is not stated in the text. If this scene is taking place in heaven, what could this possibly have to do with Job and why would one automatically assume that Satan must be in heaven for this conversation between Satan and God to take place? You also seem to be laboring under the impression that the presentation of these sons of God can only be the assemblage of angels before Jehovah and you are not considering that there may be another explanation of presentation that is already provided by scripture. Let me explain.

Leviticus defines the terminology for us about one's presentation to Jehovah. If Job is representing a worship scenario of the worshipers of God, then the presence of God is among his worshipers (See the examples of the offering of sacrifices in Exodus 25:22 "There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.") This, then, is an earth-bound experience. Clearly, Satan is also present. It does not necessitate that this is taking place in heaven. This is unwarranted conjecture.

The presentation of one's self before God is precisely what those in the Levitical system did who brought their sacrifices to the altar. God told them that when they brought their gifts to the altar, he would meet them there and bless them and forgive their sins. This is indicative of an act of worship. There is no reason that this is not simply referring to the worshipers of God - sons of God who lived in the time of Job. It seems rather obvious that Job is one of these and God points him out to Satan and asks have you considered my servant Job? Would this not seem to better fit the context?

[TMarcum]

Re: Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

The task set before us in the OP, and fundamentally, the Bible, is to find out who the "sons of God" are in the matter of mating with the "daughters of men". We would all like things to be written plainly and simply, like a bed-time story book. But God, in His utter wisdom, has decided to write His Book to us in a special way. This special way, first of all, allows the already big Book to be concise. The grammar pushes the limits and it is up to us to get the meaning by applying rules of grammar. Secondly, God did not leave the understanding of obscure passages up to men's fallen thoughts. So the Bible is written in such a way that scripture in one place explains scripture in another. Third, God used nature and pictures to save thousands of words. We must discover when He is suing a picture or when it is literal. Example, Hebrews Chapters 3 and 4 go to lengths to describe a future Sabbath Rest for God's people. How are we to fathom what God was revealing? By studying the first Sabbath way back in the first three Chapters of the Bible. And when the answer is before our eyes shall we annul it because the Sabbath and the Millennium are never mentioned together verbally?

And so it is with the "sons of God" in Genesis Chapter 6. In a handful of postings I have laid out the evidence and answered your objections. You have the (God-given) right to accept or reject them. But, as one of God's most intellectual creatures, you have also a responsibility to the evidence. If your last bastion is that the term "sons of God" is not ever brought together with the term "angels", the suspicion arises that you have no interest in the evidence. In Job 1:6 and 2:1 it reads, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." Now, if the grammar read "Satan came ALSO", we would have the right to say that Satan was there but was not necessarily a son of God. So also if it read, "Satan was among them". We could not infer that Satan was a son of God" on that alone. But when the text reads "Satan came ALSO AMONG them", there is no option than to understand that Satan was present and Satan was ALSO a son of God. And since Satan is an angel, then the sons of God is in connection with angels.

In 2nd Corinthians 11:13-15 it reads;

13 "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

How shall we understand verse 14? Is Satan, who is not an angel, able to transform himself into an angel? Or, is Satan, who is an angle of darkness, able to transform himself into the form of an angel of light? The context tells. Both verses 13 AND 15 speak of apostles, workers and ministers who are transformed to deceive. That is, the workers are a GIVEN, but the message is transformed from truth to falsehood. Thus, the context shows Satan an angel, but one who is darkness but can TRANSFORM himself into light.

The evidence again is overwhelming. Satan is a "son of God" and Satan is an angel. Sons of God, in this context, are angels.

It is not a sin, nor is it foolishness to hold a wrong concept. We all do that all the time. But when somebody comes along and sets forth a pile of evidence that points to a certain conclusion, we are bound to consider it. If we don't, then the term "fool" draws near. Hollywood, in war films, makes the sound of a bullet passing a soldier's head a "zipping" sound. But every one of us who has ever been shot at knows that supersonic bullets make a "crack" - a sonic boom. We may believe that passing rifle bullets make a zipping sound UNTIL we have taken fire. Then we find out that the EVIDENCE is that rifle bullets make a crack like another shot. What we believe should change in that single gut-wrenching moment as you are shot at. The "sons of God" is not fatal, but the evidence should make our opinion just the same way.

Just something to consider:

Clearly in this passage in Job 1, the sons of God were the ones that came to present themselves before the Lord. As we can see the previous verse 5 leading up to verse 6; we can read that, "Thus did Job continually".

Doesn't it make more sense to think that the "sons of God" mentioned in Job are merely holy men of God coming to worship God and to offer up burnt offering to God? Which in this instance, was Job and perhaps with him, a group of holy men who came to sanctify Job and his children, just in case they did something or perhaps even had thoughts within their hearts to curse God?

Rather than coming up with a theory that instead, these were fallen angels from heaven who decided to come and present themselves before God to offer up sacrifices? Which idea here is more sensible?

Job 1:
5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

If we can objectively make this assessment regarding the "sons of God" in Job, then why can't we make the same assessment in the book of Genesis? Why would the main default belief that we come to have to be, that these were fallen angels from heaven who decided to take up homestead. Then one day looked out and saw beautiful women of men. Then made a notion to make wives out of them? Which is contrary to the nature of angels in the 1st place to marry according to Jesus regarding marriage.

So instead of buying into this idea, why would it be so hard to accept another idea or theory that perhaps these were holy men of God? Perhaps these men were Noah and his sons, or even his grand parents, or any other group of men during that time that the author of Genesis considered to be "sons of God"?

[Jesuslovesus]

Re: Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

Just something to consider:


Clearly in this passage in Job 1, the sons of God were the ones that came to present themselves before the Lord. As we can see the previous verse 5 leading up to verse 6; we can read that, "Thus did Job continually".


Doesn't it make more sense to think that the "sons of God" mentioned in Job are merely holy men of God coming to worship God and to offer up burnt offering to God? Which in this instance, was Job and perhaps with him, a group of holy men who came to sanctify Job and his children, just in case they did something or perhaps even had thoughts within their hearts to curse God?


Rather than coming up with a theory that instead, these were fallen angels from heaven who decided to come and present themselves before God to offer up sacrifices? Which idea here is more sensible?


Job 1:
5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.


If we can objectively make this assessment regarding the "sons of God" in Job, then why can't we make the same assessment in the book of Genesis? Why would the main default belief that we come to have to be, that these were fallen angels from heaven who decided to take up homestead. Then one day looked out and saw beautiful women of men. Then made a notion to make wives out of them? Which is contrary to the nature of angels in the 1st place to marry according to Jesus regarding marriage.


So instead of buying into this idea, why would it be so hard to accept another idea or theory that perhaps these were holy men of God? Perhaps these men were Noah and his sons, or even his grand parents, or any other group of men during that time that the author of Genesis considered to be "sons of God"?

Mainly because of the Results? Have you ever heard of Men and women having Kids and them being Giants? This discussion also ignores much of the Apocrypha which clearly puts most thought during this period into the camp of Son's of God being Angels. The real question then is what is the value of assuming that the Son's of God are men, and that Men and Women relationships (as God intended) created the Nephilim?




It's clear we have 3 entities here in Genisis 6.




1. Son's of God. Either Men or Angels.
2. Daughters of Men. Uniformly agreed to be Women.
3. The Nephilim or Giants.




In your view what caused normal sexual relationships between men and women to create Giants?




Also isn't the idea of Demi-humans and "gods" mating with humans all over ancient literature? See examples like the Greek Pantheon.


Most people don't put much stock in Wiki (rightly I might add) but this would be a starting point for most people to do their own study if interested.


Quote "All early sources refer to the "sons of heaven" as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). For example: 1 Enoch 7:2 "And when the angels, (3) the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.""

Why do they believe that the Son's of God are Angels?

[TMarcum]

Re: Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

Mainly because of the Results? Have you ever heard of Men and women having Kids and them being Giants? This discussion also ignores much of the Apocrypha which clearly puts most thought during this period into the camp of Son's of God being Angels. The real question then is what is the value of assuming that the Son's of God are men, and that Men and Women relationships (as God intended) created the Nephilim?




It's clear we have 3 entities here in Genisis 6.




1. Son's of God. Either Men or Angels.
2. Daughters of Men. Uniformly agreed to be Women.
3. The Nephilim or Giants.




In your view what caused normal sexual relationships between men and women to create Giants?




Also isn't the idea of Demi-humans and "gods" mating with humans all over ancient literature? See examples like the Greek Pantheon.


Most people don't put much stock in Wiki (rightly I might add) but this would be a starting point for most people to do their own study if interested.


Quote "All early sources refer to the "sons of heaven" as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). For example: 1 Enoch 7:2 "And when the angels, (3) the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.""

Why do they believe that the Son's of God are Angels?

In your view what caused normal sexual relationships between men and women to create Giants?

I personally do not know of any giants in the land, but I do believe they existed, even many years after Genesis and the time before the flood. Even at the time of King David, they were in the land because David fought one.

But yes, I do believe the giants were born of normal size men and women. The same is true for men an women of different skin color, or shape of their eyes, or type of hair. All the DNA of each person traces back to that of Adam and Eve.

How about men living to be 1000 years old and their mother and father only lived to be 80? These must be born from fallen angels too?

The same goes for a normal size man or woman giving birth to a midget or a dwarf. Are we to say because they are different, that their fathers must have been from fallen angels who has sexual relations with women?

My wife and I have a son who is 15 years old and he is currently 6'3". My height is 5'9" and my wife id 5'6". Believe me, questions are asked all the time, what happened? But I know it's due to his DNA structure tracing back to past generations which cause it.

God said that every living thing would reproduce after its own kind. That pretty much sets the ground rules.
Genesis 1:24 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind"

Jesus is as clear spoken regarding marriage and angels. He plainly disassociates marriage with that of angels.
Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Regarding the other sources you mention, I'm sure those are great reading sources. But they are not the inspired Word of God. As far as I'm concerned, are fictional reading material.

[Jesuslovesus]

Re: Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

In your view what caused normal sexual relationships between men and women to create Giants? I personally do not know of any giants in the land, but I do believe they existed, even many years after Genesis and the time before the flood. Even at the time of King David, they were in the land because David fought one. But yes, I do believe the giants were born of normal size men and women. The same is true for men an women of different skin color, or shape of their eyes, or type of hair. All the DNA of each person traces back to that of Adam and Eve. How about men living to be 1000 years old and their mother and father only lived to be 80? These must be born from fallen angels too? The same goes for a normal size man or woman giving birth to a midget or a dwarf. Are we to say because they are different, that their fathers must have been from fallen angels who has sexual relations with women? My wife and I have a son who is 15 years old and he is currently 6'3". My height is 5'9" and my wife id 5'6". Believe me, questions are asked all the time, what happened? But I know it's due to his DNA structure tracing back to past generations which cause it.

Sounds like a lot of words to say "My view has no Answer for this". Which is to be expected, there really isn't any reason for Men and Women to randomly start giving birth to Giants.

God said that every living thing would reproduce after its own kind. That pretty much sets the ground rules. Genesis 1:24 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind"

So Nephilim and Men are the same "Kind" in your view? Also, you believe it was always Gods plan that men and women mating should produce Nephilim?

Jesus is as clear spoken regarding marriage and angels. He plainly disassociates marriage with that of angels.
Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

"Yea notice Jesus says they're like the angels in Heaven. We know once more from contemporary source material that the idea that angels "left heaven" to mate with humans would have been familiar to the Jews of Jesus's day. Even if this material in your view is "fictitious". We even have a bible passage that explicitly states as much Jude 1:6.

Regarding the other sources you mention, I'm sure those are great reading sources. But they are not the inspired Word of God. As far as I'm concerned, are fictional reading material.

Even if it is "fictitious" the question remains where did this idea come from? Also, you know that one of the four great uncial codices. Actually translates Genisis 6:2 as Angels of God instead of Sons. How do you account for that? Human error?

[David Taylor]

Re: Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

Scripture tells me the Nephilim are men, not demon hybrids.

Gen 6:4 There were giants (Nephilim) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

here are other scriptures telling us the Nephilim are men not demons or hybrid creatures.

Numbers 13:33 "But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we. And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. 3 And there we saw the giants(Nephilim), the sons of Anak, which come of the giants(Nephilim): and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. "

Those are the only two passages in scripture that use the term Nephilim.

There are other passages that mention Giants; and Anak and his children. Let's look at them to be thorough; and to see if those verses are harboring demon/hybrids; or simply human men.

Numbers 13:28 "the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. "

Deut 1:28 Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there.

Deut 2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites called them Emims.

Deut 2:20 " (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;"

Deut 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man. And this land, which we possessed at that time, from Aroer, which is by the river Arnon, and half mount Gilead, and the cities thereof, gave I unto the Reubenites and to the Gadites. And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants.

(the kingdoms of Og, Gilead, and Bashan, and Argob, (and later the Philistines) were all from other verses, contextually given as kindgoms of men; no mention of them being demon/hybrid creatures)

Deut 9:2 A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the children of Anak!

Deut 14;15 "Arba(the father of Anak) was a great man among the Anakims"

2 Samuels 21; we see giants again, used to describe the human Philistine warrior people.

2 Samuel 21:16 And Ishbibenob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him. Then the men of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel. And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant. And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimeah the brother of David slew him. 2 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.


As seen in the context of the 2 passages that mention ‘Nephilim’, and other passages describing giants, the context is always, men, man, people, children, fathers, brothers, etc.

Never mentions of angels or demons or hybrids.

Let the scriptures tell the careful reader ‘who’ the Nephilim are; or specifically as Moses defined them: “men of a great stature”.

[TMarcum]

Re: Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

Sounds like a lot of words to say "My view has no Answer for this". Which is to be expected, there really isn't any reason for Men and Women to randomly start giving birth to Giants.

God said that every living thing would reproduce after its own kind. That pretty much sets the ground rules.
Genesis 1:24 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind"

So Nephim and Men are the same "Kind" in your view?

Yea notice Jesus says they're like the angels in Heaven

Even if it is "fictitious" the question remains where did this idea come from? Also you know that one of the four great uncial codices. Actually tranlates Genisis 6:2 as Angels of God instead of Sons. How do you account for that?[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a lot of words to say "My view has no Answer for this".
You are correct, my view has no answer from where giants came from. But my view does answer where they "did not" come, which is anything other than that of their own kind. Which excludes fallen angels.

Which is to be expected, there really isn't any reason for Men and Women to randomly start giving birth to Giants.
Well, there really isn't any reason for men and women to randomly start giving birth to midgets either, so where does that leave us? Then there is only one explanation. They came from monkeys having sex with women. I mean they are smaller than women right. So yep, that's it.

Yea notice Jesus says they're like the angels in Heaven

Yes, like the angels in the resurrection regarding marriage. Angels do not marry. And neither do fallen ones.
Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

I have a question. Is this how you treat all the mysteries in your life and things that you do not understand? Welp, I don't know understand it, therefore it must have come from a fallen angel. If not from fallen angel, then it was from monkeys.

But no way could they have ever come from Adam and Eve.

[TMarcum]

Re: Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

Scripture tells me the Nephilim are men, not demon hybrids.

Gen 6:4 There were giants (Nephilim) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

here are other scriptures telling us the Nephilim are men not demons or hybrid creatures.

Numbers 13:33 "But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we. And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. 3 And there we saw the giants(Nephilim), the sons of Anak, which come of the giants(Nephilim): and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. "

Those are the only two passages in scripture that use the term Nephilim.

There are other passages that mention Giants; and Anak and his children. Let's look at them to be thorough; and to see if those verses are harboring demon/hybrids; or simply human men.

Numbers 13:28 "the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. "

Deut 1:28 Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there.

Deut 2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites called them Emims.

Deut 2:20 " (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;"

Deut 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man. And this land, which we possessed at that time, from Aroer, which is by the river Arnon, and half mount Gilead, and the cities thereof, gave I unto the Reubenites and to the Gadites. And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants.

(the kingdoms of Og, Gilead, and Bashan, and Argob, (and later the Philistines) were all from other verses, contextually given as kindgoms of men; no mention of them being demon/hybrid creatures)

Deut 9:2 A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the children of Anak!

Deut 14;15 "Arba(the father of Anak) was a great man among the Anakims"

2 Samuels 21; we see giants again, used to describe the human Philistine warrior people.

2 Samuel 21:16 And Ishbibenob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him. Then the men of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel. And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant. And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimeah the brother of David slew him. 2 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.


As seen in the context of the 2 passages that mention ‘Nephilim’, and other passages describing giants, the context is always, men, man, people, children, fathers, brothers, etc.

Never mentions of angels or demons or hybrids.

Let the scriptures tell the careful reader ‘who’ the Nephilim are; or specifically as Moses defined them: “men of a great stature”.

Excellent post!

[Jesuslovesus]

Re: Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

You are correct, my view has no answer from where giants came from. But my view does answer where they "did not" come, which is anything other than that of their own kind. Which excludes fallen angels.

Ok, so your view has once more no asnwer on this subject, lets just make sure that's clear.

Well, there really isn't any reason for men and women to randomly start giving birth to midgets either, so where does that leave us? Then there is only one explanation. They came from monkeys having sex with women. I mean they are smaller than women right. So yep, that's it.

I think you're trying to be amusing? But this is just a clear deflection.


Yea notice Jesus says they're like the angels in Heaven

Yes, like the angels in the resurrection regarding marriage. Angels do not marry. And neither do fallen ones.

You're clearly trying to create doctrine from what Jesus did not say.

I have a question. Is this how you treat all the mysteries in your life and things that you do not understand? Welp, I don't know understand it, therefore it must have come from a fallen angel. If not from fallen angel, then it was from monkeys. But no way could they have ever come from Adam and Eve.

These ideas didn't originate from me, which is the point i'm making, you're essentially arguing with contemporary texts Apocrypha and one of the four great uncial codices. They all believe that the Son's of God refer to angels. You're the one claimed you don't understand and have no answers to basic questions regarding your personal view. You also have no evidence to present, and instead, ask a bunch of irrelevant questions in an attempt to obfuscate the truth.


Once more I did not come up with the idea that Angels mated with Humans to make giants. I just believe it is plausible and that this is what people in the past actually did believe.

So answer your own question, Is this how you treat all the mysteries in your life and things that you do not understand? Welp, I don't know or understand it, therefore it must have come from monkeys. Let's ignore what they believed in the past and other explanations since my own opinion that offers nothing of value I can explain is better?

Maybe rethink that approach.

[TMarcum]

Re: Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

Ok, so your view has once more no asnwer on this subject, lets just make sure that's clear.


I think you're trying to be amusing? But this is just a clear deflection.


Yea notice Jesus says they're like the angels in Heaven


You're clearly trying to create doctrine from what Jesus did not say.




These ideas didn't originate from me, which is the point i'm making, you're essentially arguing with contemporary texts Apocrypha and one of the four great uncial codices. They all believe that the Son's of God refer to angels. You're the one claimed you don't understand and have no answers to basic questions regarding your personal view. You also have no evidence to present, and instead, ask a bunch of irrelevant questions in an attempt to obfuscate the truth.


Once more I did not come up with the idea that Angels mated with Humans to make giants. I just believe it is plausible and that this is what people in the past actually did believe.

So answer your own question, Is this how you treat all the mysteries in your life and things that you do not understand? Welp, I don't know or understand it, therefore it must have come from monkeys. Let's ignore what they believed in the past and other explanations since my own opinion that offers nothing of value I can explain is better?

Maybe rethink that approach.

Yes, I was being sarcastic to illustrate the ridiculousness of such beliefs. When you rely on books that are not inspired by God, to provide the hidden mysteries of the things that pertain to God, then our going to be mislead. Then you wonder why people come up with all kinds of ridiculous theories about the bible. This is the largest error anyone can make.

Put your trust in what the bible says.

[equinox]

Re: Who were The Sons of God in genesis 6?

Yes, Job 2:1 is poorly translated as angels in is some of the paraphrase versions including the NIV. It is also translated as angels in at least one version of the LXX.
But the Hebrew word for angel - mal-awk, does not appear in the Hebrew text. This is a misrepresentation of the language of the Hebrew text.

Yes, angel does mean messenger and is at times applied to men who serve as messengers of God. This defines function, not nature. The second person of the triadic Unity is referred to many times in the OT as "The Angel of Jehovah." This does not define his nature but is function as the spokesman of deity. The word angel and the phrase "sons of God" never appear together anywhere in scripture.

As I said earlier, the covenant has nothing to do with it because Adam was called the son of God before the covenant was ever established.



Yes, Job 2:1 is poorly translated as angels in is some of the paraphrase versions including the NIV. It is also translated as angels in at least one version of the LXX.
But the Hebrew word for angel - mal-awk, does not appear in the Hebrew text. This is a misrepresentation of the language of the Hebrew text.

Yes, angel does mean messenger and is at times applied to men who serve as messengers of God. This defines function, not nature. The second person of the triadic Unity is referred to many times in the OT as "The Angel of Jehovah." This does not define his nature but is function as the spokesman of deity. The word angel and the phrase "sons of God" never appear together anywhere in scripture.

As I said earlier, the covenant has nothing to do with it because Adam was called the son of God before the covenant was ever established.



Yes, Job 2:1 is poorly translated as angels in is some of the paraphrase versions including the NIV. It is also translated as angels in at least one version of the LXX.
But the Hebrew word for angel - mal-awk, does not appear in the Hebrew text. This is a misrepresentation of the language of the Hebrew text.

Yes, angel does mean messenger and is at times applied to men who serve as messengers of God. This defines function, not nature. The second person of the triadic Unity is referred to many times in the OT as "The Angel of Jehovah." This does not define his nature but is function as the spokesman of deity. The word angel and the phrase "sons of God" never appear together anywhere in scripture.

As I said earlier, the covenant has nothing to do with it because Adam was called the son of God before the covenant was ever established.



Yes, Job 2:1 is poorly translated as angels in is some of the paraphrase versions including the NIV. It is also translated as angels in at least one version of the LXX.
But the Hebrew word for angel - mal-awk, does not appear in the Hebrew text. This is a misrepresentation of the language of the Hebrew text.

Yes, angel does mean messenger and is at times applied to men who serve as messengers of God. This defines function, not nature. The second person of the triadic Unity is referred to many times in the OT as "The Angel of Jehovah." This does not define his nature but is function as the spokesman of deity. The word angel and the phrase "sons of God" never appear together anywhere in scripture.

As I said earlier, the covenant has nothing to do with it because Adam was called the son of God before the covenant was ever established.



Yes, Job 2:1 is poorly translated as angels in is some of the paraphrase versions including the NIV. It is also translated as angels in at least one version of the LXX.
But the Hebrew word for angel - mal-awk, does not appear in the Hebrew text. This is a misrepresentation of the language of the Hebrew text.

Yes, angel does mean messenger and is at times applied to men who serve as messengers of God. This defines function, not nature. The second person of the triadic Unity is referred to many times in the OT as "The Angel of Jehovah." This does not define his nature but is function as the spokesman of deity. The word angel and the phrase "sons of God" never appear together anywhere in scripture.

As I said earlier, the covenant has nothing to do with it because Adam was called the son of God before the covenant was ever established.

it has everything to do with the covenant adam was a son of God as he was a direct creation of God. he did not need to be adopted but this is true for no one else of his time. i dont know what makes you think they covenants dont matter. that is the basis for adoption. we are children of God through the covenant of Abraham and jesus so thats what it , period and i can post scriptures to back that up. you however can not post scripture that says covenants dont matter.