ECT Are The Sons of God Angels or Men?

[7djengo7]

As from what I am able to discern, the one linguistic connection between "sons of God" and angels comes in Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7, where we observe what presumably are angels presenting themselves before God.

There we also find Satan come in before the Lord. But note here that a quite natural reading of the passage separates Satan from these "sons of God;" he is said to come also. So, is it natural (on the basis of Job 38:7) to say that angels both unfallen and fallen are properly designated "sons of God?" Job 38:7 points to a time before rebellion in heaven (Revelation 12:7).

What is proposed, on the basis of the theory of angelic and human interspecial sexual relations, or even demonic possession theory, is that a name of glory, sons of God, is put upon the evilest of personalities whose aim is to destroy the work of God and overthrow his intent to save. As charitably as I am able to state, this is a very curious expectation from reading the text or having it read to the hearing.

It is far more natural a reading—given the immediate background of two separate genealogies: the first of an ungodly sort; the second of the godly—that those who were constituted adopted sons, even Israel's new self-awareness (see Isaiah 43:6; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:18), that they should identify the "sons of God" with the godly heritage of Seth (also adopted), over against those whose identity was purely of the earth (1 Corinthians 15:47) and of mankind in general condemned to sink forever back into the dust from which he was raised.

In short, the notion of angelic-human interbreeding is quite speculative. It certainly seems to contradict a very clear teaching of our Lord on marriage and the nature of angels, Matthew 22:30, forcing an attenuated sense upon one Scripture or another for harmonious interpretation. Whereas, the warning connection between the times past and present (to the Exodus)—intermarriage with idolatrous neighbors—and the connection to the immediate context require no gymnastics, nor contextual appeal to the book of Job.

In Genesis 6:2-4, there is no causative relation established in the text between the "sons of God" and the giants, Numbers 13:33 (Nephilim). All the text establishes is that both a) the relations between "sons" and "daughters," and b) the existence of giants (Nephilim), are concurrent.

There is no reason to make an identification between the Nephilim and the offspring of the sons of God. The sons of God are pointed out in the previous chapter of Genesis as the line of believers who sprung from Adam's likeness as one made in the likeness of God, and who called on the name of the Lord. Luke 3:38 interprets this as meaning that Adam was the son of God.

For that matter, the Nephilim were already in existence before the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. "After that" (Genesis 6:4) refers to a time following the period when the Nephilim are in the earth. The word "became" (became mighty men) is in italics as an attempt to fill out the contextual tense in which the pronoun is used. The Hebrew can naturally be read as simply explaining what had been brought forth as a result of the union with the daughters of men— "they were mighty men which were of old, men of renown." There is no reason to take this as referring to the Nephilim.

The Nephilim, together with the fact that the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, together with the fact that the offspring of the sons of God became men of renown like Cain and Lamech, are all part of the picture of wickedness at the time. There is no reason to make an identification between the Nephilim and the offspring of the sons of God.

The sons of God are pointed out in the previous chapter of Genesis as the line of believers who sprung from Adam's likeness as one made in the likeness of God, and who called on the name of the Lord. Luke 3:38 interprets this as meaning that Adam was the son of God.

AMR

Well, AMR, with this truthful, and exquisitely written, post, you've summarily disqualified yourself from ever being a guest on George Noory's Coast To Coast AM radio program.

 

[iamaberean]

Yet the homily about GOD's discipline of HIS LEGITIMATE children implies there are illegitimate children who are not HIS children at all, Heb 12:5-11 (v8).

That is what God says, some are bastards.
Heb 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
Then God says:
Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
Heb 12:10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
Heb 12:11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

And now, the example of one child of God who would not take instructions:
Heb 12:16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
Heb 12:17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

Follow the children of Esau and you will see those who opposed Jesus, Herod the (sic) Great, the scribes and Pharisees, just to name a few.

 

[oatmeal]

I have been told that the sons of God were angels, let's see what scripture says.

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.
Satan was an angel, so maybe the sons of God are too.

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.
Looks like every time the sons of God come, so does Satan.

Now, we'll take a look at the rest of the scriptures that have sons of God in them.
Job_38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Joh_1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Rom_8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Rom_8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Php_2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
1Jn_3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1Jn_3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Now back to Genesis
Gen_6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Wait a minute, the sons of God took wives of the daughters of men. Does that mean that God did not have daughters? Of course he had daughters, but his sons started to take wives of the daughters of men.

Gen_6:4 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.

What does this mean? It means there had to be two creations of mankind. Gen 1 and Gen 2 confirms that fact.

Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

It depends on the context.

In your first verses it is referring to angels, the gospel verses refer to man

Or believers vs. unbelievers

Sometimes adopted sons sometimes sons of God by seed, I Peter 1:23

 

[ttruscott]

Cain was a child of Satan.

Some people think this means only that he chose to follow Ba'al's first fruit religion and rejected Adam's coat of skins (Christ) religion.
Others believe this means he was the child of Eve and the serpent's union.
Others believe it means he was sown into the world by his father the devil, as per Matt 13:38-39.

Are you referring to any of these or something else?

 

[ttruscott]

Angels.

Angels is not a race it is a job description, if that matters.

You only deny it refers to all the spirits created in HIS image because of your bias against our pre-conception existence and for our being created on earth at conception or birth since there is not one verse that can possibly be construed to be against our pre-conception existence.

It is a perfect way for Rom 1:20, ie proof clearly seen by what was made, to make sense since the study of nature on earth has never ever produced a a single believer.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Angels is not a race it is a job description, if that matters.

Yes.

You only deny it refers to all the spirits created in HIS image because of your bias against our pre-conception existence and for our being created on earth at conception or birth since there is not one verse that can possibly be construed to be against our pre-conception existence.

The Bible never teaches that humans have a pre-conception existence, so the burden of proof is on you to prove that we existed before our conception.

 

[andyc]

Sons of God are angels. No doubt about that. The Nephilim are the offspring of angel human relations who became demons after the flood.

 

[glorydaz]

Sons of God are angels. No doubt about that. The Nephilim are the offspring of angel human relations who became demons after the flood.

Nice to see you Andy...even if you are mistaken.

 

[andyc]

Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

If Adam was son of God, then all his children were also.

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

This really proves three points, Angels are not the sons of God, the children of God took wives from the daughters of man, and there were two creations, mankind and the man named Adam, as I have said before.

"Sons of God" and "daughters of men" really upsets peoples theology.

 

[andyc]

Nice to see you Andy...even if you are mistaken.

Hiya

Where is STP and Chickenman these days?
This subject was one of the few instance where we agreed, but I can't remember what the madist angle was on this.

 

[iamaberean]

In Gen 6:1-7, who is GOD holding accountable, Angels or men?


Does it say that GOD regrets creating Angels or is it man?

Several places here in this forum, I explained that there were two separate creations. In Gen 1 God and his angels, who had to make suggestions since they could not create, created man, male and female God created them. He then told them to go and replenish the earth.

In Gen 2, LORD God (the Covenant God) with no input from the angels, created a man who he called Adam. Adam was placed in a garden and there God created domestic animals. Adam named all of these domestic animals.

Then the LORD God took Adam out to find a help meet, but they did not find a suitable female mate. So LORD God put Adam to sleep and took one of his rids and made a woman, Eve.

So, one has to understand that there were many people on the earth but Adam was the only Son of God. Later on Adam and Eve had children and that made them the children of God.
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Sons of God, children of Adam and Eve. Daughters of men, those females who were children of mankind that was created in Gen 1.

For what ever reason, LORD God did not approve it.

I couldn't find any scripture that says the angels are the sons of God, it isn't there.

Joh_1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Rom_8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Rom_8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Php_2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
1Jn_3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1Jn_3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

 

[glorydaz]

Hiya

Where is STP and Chickenman these days?
This subject was one of the few instance where we agreed, but I can't remember what the madist angle was on this.

Not sure....I think we have them on both sides of the fence on this one.

STP and Chickenman both stop by periodically. :idunno:

 

[andyc]

IAAB

The first man (Adam) was made of the dust of the ground. The second man was spiritual.
Adam was the first of all those who are of flesh. The entire human race.

 

[andyc]

The reason why this subject is difficult is because it involves a physical and spiritual hybrid. However, Jesus is both human and Spirit. That which was born of Mary was not from man, but the Holy Spirit. We can accept this, so it shouldn't be difficult to accept that there was once an unholy alliance between spiritual beings and human women. This union was condemned by God.

 

[iamaberean]

IAAB

The first man (Adam) was made of the dust of the ground. The second man was spiritual.
Adam was the first of all those who are of flesh. The entire human race.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Let us relate the difference between those two scriptures.

Gen 1
God created
Gen 2
God formed

Gen 1
God created male and female
Gen 2
God doesn't mention female until later on and when He did, she was made from the rib of Adam.

The last and very important difference was this:
Gen 2 He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;

This is still required today if we are to have eternal life, it is called the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[ttruscott]

Yes.
The Bible never teaches that humans have a pre-conception existence, so the burden of proof is on you to prove that we existed before our conception.

I find the scripture attesting to our pre-conception existence everywhere...and I will prove it to you that my interpretation is the correct one when you prove all your favourite doctrines that are rejected by other churches, faiths, etc are the true interpretations... Oh my, I forgot, we live by faith, not proof and what is proven is not of faith...you are not trying to trick me are you?

Let's say 95 % of my interpretations are based upon a corresponding particular verse...the other 5% are based upon logical implications and necessities of the interpretation of other verses...such as, "GOD is light in whom is no darkness at all." means GOD cannot create evil since light by nature destroys evil and dark is created when a non-light object is placed before the light and casts a shadow by impeding the light.

Some others might interpret this verse in such a way that their GOD can create evil and...so be it, but it is not proof I am wrong.

 

[ttruscott]

Sons of God are angels. No doubt about that. The Nephilim are the offspring of angel human relations who became demons after the flood.

Adam was a son of GOD...does this mean he was an angel before he was sown by the breath of GOD into his body of dust as per Mat 13:38-39? This would also imply that sons of GOD can take many forms from spirits working for HIM to men on earth proving the phrase has nothing to do with racial or specie characteristics but only to their relationship with HIM as in HIS family, ie, elect.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The Bible never teaches that humans have a pre-conception existence, so the burden of proof is on you to prove that we existed before our conception.

I will prove it to you that my interpretation is the correct one when you prove all your favourite doctrines that are rejected by other churches, faiths, etc are the true interpretations

If there are no passages in the Bible that clearly teach that humans have a pre-conception existence, you are talking about a doctrine of men.
It does not matter whether any particular church, faith, denomination, etc. teach that doctrine, it only matters whether it is a clear teaching of the Bible.

Let's say 95 % of my interpretations are based upon a corresponding particular verse...the other 5% are based upon logical implications and necessities of the interpretation of other verses...such as, "GOD is light in whom is no darkness at all." means GOD cannot create evil since light by nature destroys evil and dark is created when a non-light object is placed before the light and casts a shadow by impeding the light.

Some others might interpret this verse in such a way that their GOD can create evil and...so be it, but it is not proof I am wrong.

That example looks like your doctrines are based on 5% verses and 95% inference based on what you assume are the logical implications.
The problem is that there are other verses in the Bible that clearly and directly contradict your stated interpretation, like this one:

Isaiah 45:7 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.​

You claim that God cannot create evil, but God Himself declares that He does create evil.
Should I believe your doctrine based on inference of a verse that is a bit vague or should I believe God Himself in a very clear verse that contradicts your doctrine?

The words of God in Isaiah 45:7 is proof that your doctrine is wrong.

 

[ttruscott]

If there are no passages in the Bible that clearly teach that humans have a pre-conception existence, you are talking about a doctrine of men.

Indeed. But what does clearly mean - that it is right in your opinion? If you asked anyone who was not a Christian with no theological bone to pick what was meant in Jer 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..." they would say, Clearly person I knew the person he was talking to, You, before that person You was conceived in the womb..." but a theological bias against such an idea makes such this clear and straightforward interpretation wrong wrong wrong so it must mean something else entirely. This is often what happens to the clear meaning of scripture when it runs afoul of theology...

It does not matter whether any particular church, faith, denomination, etc. teach that doctrine, it only matters whether it is a clear teaching of the Bible.

And you of course are the arbiter of what is and is not a clear teaching of the bible according to your favourite theological system, eh?

I don't think so...

That example looks like your doctrines are based on 5% verses and 95% inference based on what you assume are the logical implications.
The problem is that there are other verses in the Bible that clearly and directly contradict your stated interpretation, like this one:

Isaiah 45:7 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.​

You claim that God cannot create evil, but God Himself declares that He does create evil.
Should I believe your doctrine based on inference of a verse that is a bit vague or should I believe God Himself in a very clear verse that contradicts your doctrine? The words of God in Isaiah 45:7 is proof that your doctrine is wrong.

Here's where we are different... I accept that ra`, evil in this verse can be rendered by the English world 'evil.' But I also know that it can also be rendered as: unpleasant, disagreeable, sad, unhappy, misery, distress etc, etc or calamity, disaster or adversity!!

So I am not forced by this verse to believe GOD creates evil when it is just as clear that it can follow my thesis that GOD cannot create evil by knowing that this verse means that HE creates calamity, disaster and adversity. I don't have to cheat the language to force a theological point...