The lies about gen 6

[Moriah's Song]

But that is not even in the Bible text. Instead "the sons of God" (angels) are contrasted with "the daughters of men". Therefore both Peter and Jude tell us the fate of these angels "which sinned" and "kept not their first estate". Both times they are connected to "going after strange flesh" and "fornication".

But it is in the Bible text. The context of Jude speaks of several periods of ancient times of major disobedience that brought down the justice of God upon them. Context! Context! Context!

Jde 1:4...For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Jde 1:5...Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Jde 1:6...And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day;

Jde 1:7...just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Jde 1:8...Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones.

Jde 1:9...But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."

Jde 1:10...But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.

Jde 1:11...Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error, and perish in Korah's rebellion.

Jde 1:12...These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, carried along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;

Jde 1:13...wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever.

Jde 1:14-15...It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Jde 1:16...These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own passions, loud-mouthed boasters, flattering people to gain advantage.
​

LOOK AT THE CHART ABOVE. Adam had Seth and Cain of which both brothers are described in scripture as Seth representing the line of Jesus while Cain represents the line of Satin's people. The line of Seth is the line of "the Sons of God"while the line of Cain is "the daughters of men." As I see it.

 

[Moriah's Song]

"kept not their first estate".

And where was the angels "first estate?" HEAVEN! In their "desire to be God, they were committed to the "neither gloom." And what is meant by the "nether gloom?"......Let scripture speak for itself.

2Pe 2:4...For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment;

2Pe 2:17...These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm; for them the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved.

Jde 1:6...And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day;

Jde 1:13...wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever.​

Wandering stars: Thayer's Greek Lexicon
ἀστέρες πλανῆται, wandering stars, Jude 1:13 (these are not planets, the motion of which is scarcely noticed by the commonalty, but far more probably comets, which Jude regards as stars which have left the course prescribed them by God, and wander about at will — cf. Enoch 18:15, and so are a fit symbol of men πλανῶντες καὶ πλανώμενοι, 2 Timothy 3:13).

 

[Timtofly]

So you believe Adam and Eve were not the only humans created by God as it says in Scripture on the sixth day?

Eve was not created on the 6th day according to Genesis 2. Eve was taken out of Adam after the 7th "day of rest". Even the Garden of Eden was planted after the 7th "day of rest".

Adam was a son of God created on day 6. And Genesis 1:27-28 declares plural created people, not just a singular Adam.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

This covers the whole earth. Only after the day of rest did God plant the Garden.

"And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."

In Genesis 1 the sons of God were to fill the whole earth. When God came back after the 7th day of rest, God then put Adam into this singular place God just planted after He had rested.

The Garden/Paradise came after the 7th Day. Adam named the animals after the Garden was planted. Eve was taken out of Adam after the animals were named. This all did not happen in 12 hours. This all happened in the days, months, even years after the 7th Day of rest.

The Day of rest itself was the first Sabbath of 1,000 years. The reign of Christ is the second Day of rest a Sabbath of 1000 years. The punishment of Adam would only last 6 days, no longer than the 6 days it took to create. But sin was not here for 6 literal days, neither was the day of rest a literal day, and the Second Coming Day of the Lord is not a literal day. The reign of Christ and the Day of the Lord in Genesis 2 are 1000 years each. Just like Adam's punishment would be 6 days or 6000 years. Only those living in the last 100 years of Adam's punishment would fully understand it, even though some claim it was already taught in the first century. Some thought the 6,000 years were over then. They were off by 2,000 years. Then many today reject God's time table outright and accept Satan's billion years of life in a virtual cgi universe.

Exodus 20 has a command to Remember the Sabbath. No one does remember that it was 1,000 years in length. Satan made sure of that by feeding western science to the Greeks starting 2,500 years ago. Satan was already at work destroying God's Word and teaching men a false history of creation. That is what Paul claimed in 2 Thessalonians 2. The falling away is not just about the gospel. It is the whole counsel of God's Word including the creation account in Genesis. The knowledge of God's Word has been replaced by the science of fallen humanity.

 

[Timtofly]

Once again every other reference of bene-elohim is angels and there is no term "children of God" found in the OT. These things make powerful prima facie evidence.

What references?

If they appear as men, perhaps, but appearing as men is not the same as being men. The sons of God in the OT are always men, not angels. Just like all the stars are literal angels, and not humans, except the stars in Joseph's dream that symbolized his 11 brothers. Those were not literal created stars/angels. They were symbols of men in a dream.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I've already answered this. The use of one form of a term does not mean it can be distinguished from other terms with the same meaning. That is, a term that is not identical with another related term does not mean they are not generally synonymous in meaning. It requires a deeper understanding of the language and grammatical matters, and I don't have that. I don't think you do either.

And I showed you that no where else in the OT do we see bene elohim , or children of God used at all!. In the NT believers are called children of god for NT believers are adopted.

And yes a term does not by itself mean exclusivity. but when you fail to show an alternative, and th eonly other appearance of that phrase is used exclusively it is powerful.

Since Jesus is the Word of God, I see little difference between being the wife of God and being the bride of Christ.

Well seeing as jesus spoke and lived in a culture and used terms understandable by that culture there is a world of difference. A wife was a woman who had been formally wed (had intercourse) for at least a year, where as a bride is one who is either espoused or married for under a year! Remember God is not going to speak to people in terms completely un-understandable to them.

Since God inserted His Kingdom into Israel in the OT, and transferred that Kingdom to other nations in the NT, I see no significant difference. God remains the same in both testaments.

Yes God is god in both testaments, but how He deals with His people in differing times has varied greatly. Israel was under a theocracy, the church is not, to name just one of many differences.

Again, you're *assuming* that the term in Gen 6 refers to angels. That is an *assumption!* If it referred to men, then your argument fails!

Yes it would! but as you have failed to provide any empirical biblical evidence to say your assumption they are men, under than unsupported hypotheses, I will let the fact that the phrase "bene-elohim" means angels as it does the other 3 times it is used in the OT.

You OTOH require multiple suppositions in yo0ur hypotheses to support that bene elohim is some righteous line of Seth (like there were no unrigfhteous in Seth).

YOU assume sons of God has to refer to a righteous line
YOu assume daughters of men is an unrighteous line. There is no support for that.
YOu have to assume why the union produced the nephilim, gibborim and sem as unique and noted in Scripture


And can you show that worship is corrupted by marrying pretty women? Can you also shjow that marrying pretty women is a sin? Can you show that not onew of these women were daughters of Seth?

All I assume is God is consistent in His use of teh term bene-elohim. YOu have failed to prove differently All you have done is promoted possibilities without showing acualitites.

My arguments do not rest on the righteousness of the sons of God through Seth's line. The whole point is that they corrupted their worship of God, choosing to contaminate it with their lust for beautiful women.

So be it!
.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Eve was not created on the 6th day according to Genesis 2. Eve was taken out of Adam after the 7th "day of rest". Even the Garden of Eden was planted after the 7th "day of rest".

Adam was a son of God created on day 6. And Genesis 1:27-28 declares plural created people, not just a singular Adam.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

This covers the whole earth. Only after the day of rest did God plant the Garden.

"And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."

In Genesis 1 the sons of God were to fill the whole earth. When God came back after the 7th day of rest, God then put Adam into this singular place God just planted after He had rested.

The Garden/Paradise came after the 7th Day. Adam named the animals after the Garden was planted. Eve was taken out of Adam after the animals were named. This all did not happen in 12 hours. This all happened in the days, months, even years after the 7th Day of rest.

The Day of rest itself was the first Sabbath of 1,000 years. The reign of Christ is the second Day of rest a Sabbath of 1000 years. The punishment of Adam would only last 6 days, no longer than the 6 days it took to create. But sin was not here for 6 literal days, neither was the day of rest a literal day, and the Second Coming Day of the Lord is not a literal day. The reign of Christ and the Day of the Lord in Genesis 2 are 1000 years each. Just like Adam's punishment would be 6 days or 6000 years. Only those living in the last 100 years of Adam's punishment would fully understand it, even though some claim it was already taught in the first century. Some thought the 6,000 years were over then. They were off by 2,000 years. Then many today reject God's time table outright and accept Satan's billion years of life in a virtual cgi universe.

Exodus 20 has a command to Remember the Sabbath. No one does remember that it was 1,000 years in length. Satan made sure of that by feeding western science to the Greeks starting 2,500 years ago. Satan was already at work destroying God's Word and teaching men a false history of creation. That is what Paul claimed in 2 Thessalonians 2. The falling away is not just about the gospel. It is the whole counsel of God's Word including the creation account in Genesis. The knowledge of God's Word has been replaced by the science of fallen humanity.

So much wrong in so little space.

Adam and Eve were created on day six:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The them of verse 27 goes back to the male and female creating man! Genesis 2 is a review of Gensis 1 adding facts not told in chapter 1.

YOur 1,000 years is a false analogy in saying a day is 1,000 years based on a false understanding of Peter and applying it all over the place arbitrarily. So do you think Jesus was resurrected on the the third 1,000 years?

So when Adam fell in the garden were all the other made human beings you hypothesize also become sinners? Were they still perfect and fell one by one? How do you know? Where does it say anything even remotely to that hypothetical you propose.

did God make them in just one location and then scattered them? Why did He just choose one man and woman for the garden?

Your reinterpretation of Scripture here leaves everything to be desired. But then of course you protect your reasoning's like all cults do by saying that some would believe this in the final days and everyone else is using human reasoning. Why should I believe you r reinterpretation more than the Watchtowers or Mormons. They make the same kind of claims as you? what makes you more right in your reinterpretation than them?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

If they appear as men, perhaps, but appearing as men is not the same as being men. The sons of God in the OT are always men, not angels. Just like all the stars are literal angels, and not humans, except the stars in Joseph's dream that symbolized his 11 brothers. Those were not literal created stars/angels. They were symbols of men in a dream.

Well this will be my last post to you here. Because you are obviously ignorant of Scripture about the "bene-elohim".

It appears exactly and only four times in the OT and the other three times are definitively angels.

Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:1
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

Job 38:7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

You forget that Job is the oldest written book of the OT and Genesis 6 prior to the flood ! The first time angels are called angels in teh bible is during the life of Abraham and lot- centuries after the flood. So we see from Job that bene-elohim are what we call angels and from Noah, bene elohim. as there are no other occurrences of bene-elohim or even children of God in the OT this is powerful powerful evidence that Gen.,6 is angels.

Also As God took teh time to inform mankind that the union of these bene elohim and human women produced a very notable series of offspring that is also powerful prima facie evidence we must consider these angels and not mere men.

 

[Timtofly]

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Genesis six, if we take language used as was the rest of the times it was used shows the only time angels went after strange flesh. And this is without finding possibilities, probabilities, logical errors or anything else. Just taking Scripture and comparing it with Scripture.

This is an erroneous comparison. The angels rebelled. They literally "sat down" on the job. Their job title was being a star. This certainly does not indicate they came to earth. Sounds like science fiction and alien conspiracy, not the Word of God. Since they left their post as a star, they were bound in chains of darkness, meaning they lost their natural ability to be a star in the heavens. When they are loosed in Revelation 8, they are described as locust. They really lost their original estate. They do eventually invade heaven again, because by the 7th Trumpet, they have to be kicked out of heaven once more. So these rebellious angels cannot ever be said to come to earth as aliens and procreate with humans. Not then, not when they are loosed.

Those wicked males in Sodom did not know they were angels. They appeared in human form, not actually having any sexual ability to interact with those of Sodom. It was their eyes that betrayed them and the angels took away their sight. Then they took away their life and city. How is this any proof angels were mentioned in Genesis 6?

Also conflating Cain and Seth is not correct either. I think Cain was a son of God even contrary to popular belief. He was born before Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Of course it is hard to prove, because many take the first 4 chapters as Chronological, yet those same people think Revelation is not chronological. It is baffling to me why one and not the other?

Revelation is way more clearly chronological over the first 4 chapters of Genesis. Even the list of genealogies, there are two of them in Genesis, are as complex in nature as the two genealogies in the Gospels. They give us two different narratives with different associations.

What many miss is the fact there were many sons of God, and they had multiplied all over the earth. I do not think they all rebelled either. Here is my reasoning.

Compare to Revelation 20. We have a thousand years of sons of God once again living on a perfect earth. Does any one claim they all rebel at the end? We are not told what happens to the vast majority. We are only told that many were consumed by fire. The Flood would not have destroyed all the sons of God in like manner. However they were all taken off the earth either in death or just not allowed to live on earth any more. We are never told what happened to them, because only Noah a fallen human who was found righteous in God's eyes, saved Adam's flesh and blood from total annihilation. Adam's flesh and blood then multiplied and filled the earth.

Now we still have Job, and the assumption is post Flood existence. We still have sons of God alive, and not destroyed in the Flood. We have proof that not all rebelled, but that does not turn those created on the 6th day into angels. It is like Jesus claimed, in the resurrection even humans are as the angels. So even some sons of God did not rebel and were taken to heaven and also were as the angels. They no longer multiplied nor procreated. Which is the opposite connotation from human failed understanding that angels sudddenly start procreating out of the blue. God declares the opposite that sons of God are taken to heaven and are as the angels. No way, shape or form does God ever state angels were allowed to procreate. We do have the exact opposite where procreating sons of God, and humans can no longer procreate but are like the angels.

The issue could be can God clone Himself and create a physical image of Himself. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Is not being in the image of God, literally the same thing as a son of God? Are angels the image of God, or are humans? Genesis 1 was written to show the human perspective, angels not really mentioned at all. Why would any just suddenly insert angels into the narrative? It was not until Jesus and two angels appeared to Abraham, that angels were even addressed as angels. The text says three men, it certainly did not say 3 sons of God appeared to Abraham. In the next chapter it states they are angels, still not calling them sons of God.

So in Genesis 6, the contrast is not between one genealogy of Adam and another genealogy of Adam. It was between those created on day 6 and Adam's corruptible flesh and blood. The context paints Cain as an outcast and the sons of God would not even go near Cain's family. However Seth and his offspring were clearly different from them and sin is always more attractive than perfection at times. It was Seth's corruptible flesh that led many of the sons of God into deplorable evil, that God could no longer put up with. I do not think 100% of humanity rebelled, just like at the end of the millennium not all of humanity will rebel. But neither are explicit in Scripture, just like sons of God are not explicitly angels in Scripture.

 

[Timtofly]

But it is in the Bible text. The context of Jude speaks of several periods of ancient times of major disobedience that brought down the justice of God upon them. Context! Context! Context!

Jde 1:4...For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Jde 1:5...Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Jde 1:6...And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day;

Jde 1:7...just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Jde 1:8...Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones.

Jde 1:9...But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."

Jde 1:10...But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.

Jde 1:11...Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error, and perish in Korah's rebellion.

Jde 1:12...These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, carried along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;

Jde 1:13...wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever.

Jde 1:14-15...It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Jde 1:16...These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own passions, loud-mouthed boasters, flattering people to gain advantage.
​

LOOK AT THE CHART ABOVE. Adam had Seth and Cain of which both brothers are described in scripture as Seth representing the line of Jesus while Cain represents the line of Satin's people. The line of Seth is the line of "the Sons of God"while the line of Cain is "the daughters of men." As I see it.

Is there supposed to be some chronological order to Jude? Could you place this chronology into a more specific context. Obviously it is not the chronology of Genesis. Do you think Adam disobeyed before even the angels did?

 

[Timtofly]

So much wrong in so little space.

Adam and Eve were created on day six:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The them of verse 27 goes back to the male and female creating man! Genesis 2 is a review of Gensis 1 adding facts not told in chapter 1.

YOur 1,000 years is a false analogy in saying a day is 1,000 years based on a false understanding of Peter and applying it all over the place arbitrarily. So do you think Jesus was resurrected on the the third 1,000 years?

So when Adam fell in the garden were all the other made human beings you hypothesize also become sinners? Were they still perfect and fell one by one? How do you know? Where does it say anything even remotely to that hypothetical you propose.

did God make them in just one location and then scattered them? Why did He just choose one man and woman for the garden?

Your reinterpretation of Scripture here leaves everything to be desired. But then of course you protect your reasoning's like all cults do by saying that some would believe this in the final days and everyone else is using human reasoning. Why should I believe you r reinterpretation more than the Watchtowers or Mormons. They make the same kind of claims as you? what makes you more right in your reinterpretation than them?

So Eve was not taken out of Adam literally? You just symbolize it all away Iike Amil do to Revelation 20. You claim Adam sinned on the 6th day as well then. When God came back from resting the whole creation had already fallen apart and the angels rebelled. You can admit that, since you seem to reject actual Scripture.

That is the history all the cults give. It all happened before the 7th Day of rest. You seem to agree with them.

 

[Timtofly]

So when Adam fell in the garden were all the other made human beings you hypothesize also become sinners? Were they still perfect and fell one by one? How do you know? Where does it say anything even remotely to that hypothetical you propose.

No, Adam did not immediately send the sons of God into a tail spin.

This thread is about Genesis 6. Does it state 100% of the sons of God rebelled? The general statement, since you generalize Genesis 2 back into Genesis 1:27-28, is not necessarily 100% free fall. Do you rule out that some females considered sons of God were not also attracted to the males? Did Noah marry a female who was not biological descendant of Adam even through a female descendant. Do you just assume incest was mandatory in Genesis? What if there was literally no incest at all in Genesis 1-6? Would that literally destroy Scripture? You deny God the ability prior to the Flood of creating without the need of incest until the Flood? Why is incest frowned upon if that is literally your pronunciation of God's intended creation? Did incest only become sin with the law of Moses? Obviously with only 8 souls after the Flood, it was a necessary evil. That does not mean God purposely needed it prior to the Flood. We even see Noah had to curse sexual immorality at the get go.

Cain had no issues leaving Eden and finding a wife and having a huge extended family. Not sure why modern humans have so much trouble with Genesis 1 and 2. It did not say that God created Adam and Eve on the 6th day, and then boom, some miraculous population boom in 24 hours. But if that symbolism or figment of human imagination works for you, go for it.

 

[Timtofly]

Your reinterpretation of Scripture here leaves everything to be desired. But then of course you protect your reasoning's like all cults do by saying that some would believe this in the final days and everyone else is using human reasoning. Why should I believe you r reinterpretation more than the Watchtowers or Mormons. They make the same kind of claims as you? what makes you more right in your reinterpretation than them?

Why is it a reinterpretation? I never accepted the interpretation of the cults. So not literally reinterpreting their erroneous interpretation. I am not correcting the cults. That is a strawman argument you brought up to distract from the point.

Any one who accepts the earth is a planet in a solar system in a billions of years old universe has accepted Satan's virtual reality, hook line and sinker. Remember that before Christopher Columbus the general consensus was not even aware of the notion of a planet, that could be sailed around. Even on a flat earth one still goes around the continents in a circle, just the perception of the circle has changed.

Is is still only an argument of perspective. It has nothing to do with reinterpretation. If pointing out Scripture is reinterpretation, then interpretation itself does not exist. Who can prove they have the original interpretation?

 

[Timtofly]

Well this will be my last post to you here. Because you are obviously ignorant of Scripture about the "bene-elohim".

It appears exactly and only four times in the OT and the other three times are definitively angels.

Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:1
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

Job 38:7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

You forget that Job is the oldest written book of the OT and Genesis 6 prior to the flood ! The first time angels are called angels in teh bible is during the life of Abraham and lot- centuries after the flood. So we see from Job that bene-elohim are what we call angels and from Noah, bene elohim. as there are no other occurrences of bene-elohim or even children of God in the OT this is powerful powerful evidence that Gen.,6 is angels.

Also As God took teh time to inform mankind that the union of these bene elohim and human women produced a very notable series of offspring that is also powerful prima facie evidence we must consider these angels and not mere men.

Nope! Not angels. Job contrast the angels and humans in Job 38:7

"When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

Do you think angels are both stars and sons of God. No, a thousand times no!

The angels are represented by the morning stars. Humans are represented by the sons of God.

Do you realize that your whole argument rest on Jude 1:6?

One day some theologian decided that was referring to Genesis 6, when clearly it does not have to at all, neither literally nor figuratively. Does correcting a false thought define reinterpretation? Why claim Jude was talking about Genesis 6 at all? Why could humans not sin all on their own?

What in this verse mandates the sons of God have to be angels:

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them."

"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord."

There is totally nothing in the text or context pointing to angels. Neither is there anything pointing to them as humans. But should we just jump to conclusions?

All we have in Job is that these sons of God are contrasted with the angels. Job tells us who the angels are, the morning stars. Who was referred to as a star? Revelation uses stars as symbolism for angels as well as messengers, which is the accepted form of angel since the general consensus is that angels are messengers rather than ordinary stars. Calling the stars created on the 4th day the angels is not a reinterpretation. Seems it is an original interpretation that is no longer considered, because science has changed the whole perception of reality in the last 400 years.

If you do a Hebrew word study of "star", Scripture is constantly contrasting humans to the stars. So even Jesus in contrasting resurrected humans to the angels was using a Scriptural concept. It was given to Abraham that his human offspring would rival that of the stars, ie the angels themselves. So Job was stating a difference between angels and humans in Job 38:7. Job was not comparing stars with angels. It was God actually pointing out that many angels and many humans were created together at the same time. One on day 4, the other 2 days later on day 6. Yet no one points that out, because all are biased with an erroneous theological statement rendered to Jude 1:6

The prema facie of Genesis 6 is not angels at all! It is about perfect humans in incorruptible permanent physical bodies having natural procreation with humans in temporal corruptible physical bodies of Adam's fallen offspring. But you do not even interpret Genesis 1:27-28 correctly, but is that because of the bad interpretation of Genesis 6, I have no clue? It all stems from an erroneous view of Jude 1:6.

That and the fact the Babylonians were already presenting alien conspiracy theories into history. Then Satan fed the Greeks the whole wrong mythology of gods and humans coexisting together in contrast to Babylonian conspiracy theories. Even the Greeks did not call them angels, but gods differing from fallen mortal humans. Paul explains all of this, but the early church fathers infused erroneous Greek philosophy into the NT and thus we have erroneous modern science instead of God's Word governing the theology of the church.

 

[Moriah's Song]

Is there supposed to be some chronological order to Jude?

No.

 

[Taken]

Who are the sons of God?

~ sons of God are always “spirits” that are holy.
~ created angels, created holy and that remain “holy” are sons of God.
~ mans spirit, that is born again is reborn “holy” are sons of God.

 

[Taken]

Can angels be married and have sex?

Sure. But then they are banned/exiled from Heaven.

 

[Moriah's Song]

~ sons of God are always “spirits” that are holy.
~ created angels, created holy and that remain “holy” are sons of God.
~ mans spirit, that is born again is reborn “holy” are sons of God.

And the scriptural proof of your "opinions" are what?....

In reference to "theefaith's" question: Can angels be married and have sex?

Your reply to that was....

Sure. But then they are banned/exiled from Heaven.

Again neither one of you have provided verses to back up your statements. Opinions are like "reeds blowing in the wind" meaning they are always unstable, most of the time untruthful and ususally unreliable. Only God's word in context is stable, truthful and reliable.

 

[Enoch111]

Again neither one of you have provided verses to back up your statements.

You have ignored the verses or misrepresented them. That's not how it works.

 

[Enoch111]

The line of Seth is the line of "the Sons of God" while the line of Cain is "the daughters of men." As I see it.

There is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible that says that godly fathers have only godly sons or vice versa. Indeed the history of the kings of Judah and Israel proves that there is no such thing as an imaginary and fantastical "line of Seth". As noted in Job and in Genesis "sons of God" simple means direct creations of God, and since the offspring of angels and human were gigantic, that in itself is proof that the "sons of God" were NOT human but angelic. Gigantism is a genetic aberration!

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. (Gen 6:4)
*הַנְּפִלִ֞ים (han-nə-p̄i-lîm) = the Nephilim. Gesenius acknowledges that some interpret these as the offspring of "fallen angels".

 

[Moriah's Song]

"the sons of the Elohim"

Bene-elohim
Bene-Elohim an expression which occurs only in Ge 6:2,4 (Heb. beney' ha- Elohim, בּנֵי הָאֵֹלהַי, sons of God; Sept. υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ; Vulg. filii Dei), and in Job 1:6; Job 2:1 (Sept. οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ; Vulg.W& ii .: ),. Dei); for the words so rendered elsewhere in the A. V. are somewhat different (Job 38:7, beney' Elohim, בּנֵי אֵֹלחַי Sept. ἄγγελοί μου; Vulg. fiii Dei: — Ho 1:10 [Heb 2:1], beney' il, בּנֵי אֵל Sept. υἱοὶ θεοῦ; Vulg. filii Dei: — Ps 89:6 [Hebrews 7], beney' elim, בּנֵי אֵלַי Sept. υἱοὶ θεοῦ; Vulg.filii Dei; A. "sons of the mighty").

I. Sons of God and Daughters of Men.
1. The "sons of Elohim" were explained to mean sons of princes, or men of high rank (as in Ps 82:6, bene 'Elyon, sons of the Most High) who degraded themselves by contracting marriages with "the daughters of men," i.e. with women of inferior position. This interpretation was defended by Ps 49:3, where "sons of men," bene adam, means; "men of low degree," as opposed to bene ish, "men of high degree." Here, however, the opposition is with bene ha-,Elohin, and not with bene ish, and therefore the passages are not parallel. This is the interpretation of the Targum of Onkelos, following the oldest Palestinian Kabbala, of the later Targum, and of the Samaritan Vers. So also Symmachus, Saadia, and the Arabic of Erpenius, Aben Ezra, and R. Sol. Isaaki. In recent times this view has been elaborated and put in the most favorable light by Schiller (Werke, 10:401, etc.); but it has been entirely abandoned by every modern commentator of any note.

2. A second interpretation, perhaps not less ancient, understands by the "sons of Elohim," angels. So some MSS. of the Sept., which, according to Procopius and Augustine (De Civit. Dei, 15:23), had the reading ῎Αγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, while others had υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, the last having been generally preferred since Cyril and Augustine; so Josephus, Ant. i, 3; - Philo, De Gigantibus; perhaps Aquila, who has υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ; of which, however, Jerome says, "Deos intelligens angelos sive sanctos;" the book of Enoch as quoted by Georgius Syncellus in his Chronographia, where they are termed οἱ ἐγρήγοροι, "the watchers" (as in Daniel); the book of Jubilees (translated by Dillmann from the Ethiopic); the later Jewish Hagalda, whence we have the story of the fall of Shamchazai and Azazel, given by Jellinek in the Midrash Abchir; and most of the older fathers of the Church, finding probably in their Greek MSS. ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ., as Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Clemens Alex., Tertullian, and Lactantius. This view, however, seemed in later times to be too monstrous to be entertained. R. Simon ben-Jochai anathematized it. Cyril calls it ἀτοπώτατον. Theodoret (Quaest. in Genesis): declares the maintainers of it to have lost their senses; ἐμβρόντητοι καὶ ἄγαν ἠλίθιοι; Philastrius numbers it among heresies, Chrysostom among blasphemies. Finally, Calvin says of it, "Vetus illud commentum de angelorum concubitu cum mulieribus sua absurditate abulide refellitur, ac mirum est doctos viros tam crassis et prodigiosis deliriis fuisse olim fascinatos." Notwithstanding all this, however, many modern German commentators very strenuously assert this view. They rest their argument in favor of it mainly on these two particulars; first, that "sons of God" is everywhere else in the Old Testament a name of the angels; and next, that St. Jude seems to lend the sanction of his authority to this interpretation. With regard to the. first of these reasons, it is not even certain that in all other passages of Scripture where "the sons of God" are mentioned angels are meant. It is not absolutely necessary so to understand the designation either in Ps 29:1 or 89:6, or even in Job 1:2. In any of these passages it might mean holy men. Job 38:7, and Da 3:25, are the only places in which it certainly means angels. The argument from St. Jude is of more force; for he does compare the sin of the angels to that of Sodom and Gomorrha (τούτοις in ver. 7 must refer to the angels mentioned in ver. 6), as if it were of a like unnatural kind. That this was the meaning of St. Jude is rendered the more probable when we recollect his quotation from the book of Enoch where the same view is taken. Further, that the angels had the power of assuming a corporeal form seems clear from many parts of the Old Testament All that can be urged in support of this view has been said by Delitzsch in his Die Genesis ausgelegt, and by Kurtz, Gesch. des AIten Bundes, and his treatise, Die Ehen der Sohne Gottes. It must be confessed that their arguments are not without weight. The early existence of such an interpretation seems, at any rate, to indicate a starting-point for the heathen mythologies. The fact, too, that from such an intercourse "the mighty men" were born, points in the same direction. The Greek "'heroes" were sons of the gods; οὐκ οισθα, says Plato in the Cratylus, ὅτι ἡμίθεοι οἰ ἡρῶες; πάντες δήπου γεγόνασιν ἐρασθέντες ἢ θεὸς θνητῆς ἢ θνητοὶ θεᾶς. Even Hesiod's account of the birth of the giants, monstrous and fantastic as it is, bears tokens of having originated in the same belief. In like manner it may be remarked that the stories of incubi and succubi, so commonly believed in the Middle Ages, and which even Heidegger (Hist. Sacr. i, 289) does not discredit, had reference to a commerce between daemons and mortals of the same kind as that narrated in Genesis. Thomas Aquinas (pars i, qu. 51, art. 3) argues that it was possible for angels to have children by mortal women. This theory, however, must be abandoned as scientifically preposterous. Two modern poets, Byron (in his drama of Cain) and Moore (in his Loves of the Angels), have nevertheless availed themselves of this last interpretation for the purpose of their poems.

3. The interpretation, however, which is now most generally received is that which understands by "the sons of the Elohim" the family and descendants of Seth, and by "the daughters of man (Adam)," the women of the family of Cain. So the Clementine Recognitions interpret "the sons of the Elohim" as "homines justi qui angelorum vixerant vitam." So Ephrem, and the Christian Adam-book of the East; so also Theodoret, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine, and others; and in later times Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and a whole host of recent commentators. They all suppose that whereas the two lines of descent from Adam — the family of Seth who preserved their faith in God, and the family of Cain who lived only for this world — had hitherto kept distinct, now a mingling of the two races took place which resulted in the thorough corruption of the former, who. falling away, plunged into the deepest abyss of wickedness, and that it was this universal corruption which provoked the judgment of the Flood.

Whichever of these interpretations we adopt (the third, perhaps, is the most probable), one thing at least is clear, that the writer intends to describe a fusion of races hitherto distinct, and to connect with this two other facts: the one that the offspring of these mixed marriages were men remarkable for strength and prowess (which is only in accordance with what has often been observed since — viz. the superiority of the mixed race as compared with either of the parent stocks); the other, that the result of this intercourse was the thorough and hopeless corruption of both families alike. SEE SON OF GOD.