fun topic. I don’t have time right now to put together all my scriptural basis (though I have before), but suffice it to say, even if they weren’t part of Jewish Mysticism and really were the giants of Genesis, then they wouldn’t have survived the flood and became the Goliath’s of the world. the sons of God rather than angels, are the line of Seth, the ‘daughters of men’, are the decendents of Cain. Angels can’t procreate (at least there’s no scriptural basis for it), and giants is interpreted literally in the same sentence the word is used in as men of renown, in the same way we use the term today. He was a ‘giant’ of the faith, it wasn’t meant a physically large, half-angel, demonic creature.
As odd as it sounds to us, the original text literally describes a union between the “sons of God” (always angels in the Old Testament) and the “daughters of Adam” (in Hebrew “men”=Adam). Even the daughters of Seth would be considered daughters of Adam. When you consider Satan’s motive behind such an action, one need only look at the first prophecy of a Messiah:Genesis 3:15(KJV) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.At this point all Satan knows is that his defeat will come by means of the “seed of the woman”. To corrupt the genetics of humanity would be a means of stopping the prophecy dead in its tracks. It seems outrageous to us, but this is the way the apostles would have interpreted Genesis 6
No Sir, in my earlier post I mentioned that sons of God is an Old Testament designation used of angels exclusively. They are sons in the sense that they were directly created by God. In the NT, the Greek term sons of God is applied to other entities besides angels, but the common element is that of being directly created by God. I assume you’re quoting from Luke 3:38. Adam was directly created by God. If you notice in the same passage, Seth is the son of Adam (as are all subsequent humans by birth). Christ is the only begotten Son of God. Believers are called children of God by means of regeneration, not by natural birth. The Flood was a unique judgment in the history of mankind. It was not the result of the marriage of believers and unbelievers. If that were the case, we would expect a worldwide deluge (or similar destructive event) in each subsequent generation. The text does not say the sons of Seth married the daughters of Cain. The sons of God saw the daughters of Adam, that they were fair.
I suppose it was because they looked on the daughters of man, etc… I was taught there was a single thread of redemption from Adam to Christ, so yeah, most of Seth’s sons fell away except Noah’s lineI guess my problem with the angels thing is why would demons be called sons of God when its convenient to a story, but not at other times? Why wouldn’t the demons do it today? If they were suddenly forbidden to after the flood, then why wouldn’t God have known they were going to do it earlier and forbid it then? To me, it has always seemed like a house of cards and seems to always be peddled by shock-jocks wanting to sell a book or at least get some buzz going.
I appreciate that, and same here. When you connect the Genesis account with passages in I Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude you can begin to connect all the dots and realize that something sinister (satanic) was at work in this story. This was something far beyond the normal realm of sinful activity. This was so diabolical that God had to drown the whole world. In my research, I was astonished to learn that the Sons of God as angels was the dominant interpretation of Genesis 6until men like Augustine and Chrysostom. The phrase the daughters of men in English is in Hebrew bnot ha-adam. This is a generic term for women in general that would encompass both Cainites and female Sethites. There is no justification for interpreting the phrase to mean ungodly women. The reference is simply womankind.
The original post alluded to the Nephilim and I have yet to address that. We have to ascertain how the Nephilim came into being. The obvious clue is within the context of the passage :“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.”Genesis 6:4NASB1995
If angels are spirits (Psalm 104:4; quoted in the NT in Heb. 1:7), and, according to the very Son of God Himself, angels neither marry nor are given in marriage, and further, according to Jesus’ own words (which He said shall never pass away), people were “marrying and being given in marriage” before the Flood, until it came and they perished (Matt 24:37-39), how then can we say angels, which are spirits, actually did become flesh and blood and did in fact marry, and the entire reason for the Flood was this supposed hybridization with fallen angels and not mankind’s own wickedness and rebellion? Further, as Jesus said the time around His second coming would be “as it was in the days of Noah,” and only warns His disciples to watch and be alert spiritually so that those days do not come upon them unaware, why didn’t He at least say anything like, “And make sure you don’t ever mate with angels, because that’s what brought the judgment of the Great Flood?”
To work, your argument must say that there were angels who didn’t originate in Heaven, and thus don’t fall into the category of which Christ said neither marry nor are given in marriage, or, it must say that once they sinned and fell from Heaven, they somehow became flesh and blood and able to marry and procreate with humans. Not sure where your comment about angels not being female is coming from. I know I have never made the assertion that angels ever appear as females in the Bible.
It is standard Christian tradition to affirm that a number of the angels sinned with Satan in his original rebellion. It is not universal Christian tradition to say that a subsequent fall occurred in Noah’s time and involved fallen spirit beings becoming capable of procreating with humans. The ideas of the early church fathers were not inspired like Scripture, and for Protestants especially, sola scriptura is crucially important. Augustine was quite capable of fanciful gnostic absurdities contrary to scripture, such as the idea that married sex was still sinful, though ‘venially’, that sin is natural and is passed down genetically except in the case of Mary, that all is predetermined by God (thus making God the biggest hypocrite possible), etc. I am definitely no fan of Augustine and would never appeal to his authority as a ‘doctor of the Church.’
Why did God say in Genesis 6that He was sorry that he had made *mankind* because *mankind* had become thoroughly wicked by that time, and not, “I am sorry that I made these angels who turned wicked and corrupted mankind?” And why is God’s judgment pronounced and executed solely upon mankind in Genesis 6?
Unless I missed something, I never cited the Book of Enoch as a source, I simply used Scripture. You’ve gone into rapid fire mode so it’s almost impossible to dialogue with that approach. As to the culpability of mankind, the Flood was God’s judgment upon them. The judgment of the fallen angels I mentioned earlier- those that participated in the act are held in Tartaros- that’s not Book of Enoch, that’s the second epistle of Peter and Jude. You can’t drown angels or demons.As to Sola Scriptura- the Hebrew text of the bible very plainly makes the dichotomy between the sons of God (benei Elohim) and the daughters of men (bnot- ha Adam). You choose to make it read sons of Seth and daughters of Cain but that simply won’t do my friend. Both Seth’s daughters and Cain’s are the daughters of Adam. The term sons of God in the Old Testament is a technical term reserved for angels and never used of human in the OT. The OT bible of the early Church was the Septuagint. This is the version the Apostles would have used and been familiar with. Notice how the Septuagint renders texts that refer to the sons of God in the Book of Job:Job 1:6 And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them.Job 2:1 And it came to pass on a certain day, that the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came among them to stand before the Lord.Job 38:7
fun topic. I don’t have time right now to put together all my scriptural basis (though I have before), but suffice it to say, even if they weren’t part of Jewish Mysticism and really were the giants of Genesis, then they wouldn’t have survived the flood and became the Goliath’s of the world. the sons of God rather than angels, are the line of Seth, the ‘daughters of men’, are the decendents of Cain. Angels can’t procreate (at least there’s no scriptural basis for it), and giants is interpreted literally in the same sentence the word is used in as men of renown, in the same way we use the term today. He was a ‘giant’ of the faith, it wasn’t meant a physically large, half-angel, demonic creature.
Re: Those Rascally Nephilim
At ain’t what Chuck Missler or Perry Stone said…
As odd as it sounds to us, the original text literally describes a union between the “sons of God” (always angels in the Old Testament) and the “daughters of Adam” (in Hebrew “men”=Adam). Even the daughters of Seth would be considered daughters of Adam. When you consider Satan’s motive behind such an action, one need only look at the first prophecy of a Messiah:Genesis 3:15(KJV) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.At this point all Satan knows is that his defeat will come by means of the “seed of the woman”. To corrupt the genetics of humanity would be a means of stopping the prophecy dead in its tracks. It seems outrageous to us, but this is the way the apostles would have interpreted Genesis 6
No Sir, in my earlier post I mentioned that sons of God is an Old Testament designation used of angels exclusively. They are sons in the sense that they were directly created by God. In the NT, the Greek term sons of God is applied to other entities besides angels, but the common element is that of being directly created by God. I assume you’re quoting from Luke 3:38. Adam was directly created by God. If you notice in the same passage, Seth is the son of Adam (as are all subsequent humans by birth). Christ is the only begotten Son of God. Believers are called children of God by means of regeneration, not by natural birth. The Flood was a unique judgment in the history of mankind. It was not the result of the marriage of believers and unbelievers. If that were the case, we would expect a worldwide deluge (or similar destructive event) in each subsequent generation. The text does not say the sons of Seth married the daughters of Cain. The sons of God saw the daughters of Adam, that they were fair.
I suppose it was because they looked on the daughters of man, etc… I was taught there was a single thread of redemption from Adam to Christ, so yeah, most of Seth’s sons fell away except Noah’s lineI guess my problem with the angels thing is why would demons be called sons of God when its convenient to a story, but not at other times? Why wouldn’t the demons do it today? If they were suddenly forbidden to after the flood, then why wouldn’t God have known they were going to do it earlier and forbid it then? To me, it has always seemed like a house of cards and seems to always be peddled by shock-jocks wanting to sell a book or at least get some buzz going.
I appreciate that, and same here. When you connect the Genesis account with passages in I Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude you can begin to connect all the dots and realize that something sinister (satanic) was at work in this story. This was something far beyond the normal realm of sinful activity. This was so diabolical that God had to drown the whole world. In my research, I was astonished to learn that the Sons of God as angels was the dominant interpretation of Genesis 6until men like Augustine and Chrysostom. The phrase the daughters of men in English is in Hebrew bnot ha-adam. This is a generic term for women in general that would encompass both Cainites and female Sethites. There is no justification for interpreting the phrase to mean ungodly women. The reference is simply womankind.
The original post alluded to the Nephilim and I have yet to address that. We have to ascertain how the Nephilim came into being. The obvious clue is within the context of the passage :“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.”Genesis 6:4NASB1995
If angels are spirits (Psalm 104:4; quoted in the NT in Heb. 1:7), and, according to the very Son of God Himself, angels neither marry nor are given in marriage, and further, according to Jesus’ own words (which He said shall never pass away), people were “marrying and being given in marriage” before the Flood, until it came and they perished (Matt 24:37-39), how then can we say angels, which are spirits, actually did become flesh and blood and did in fact marry, and the entire reason for the Flood was this supposed hybridization with fallen angels and not mankind’s own wickedness and rebellion? Further, as Jesus said the time around His second coming would be “as it was in the days of Noah,” and only warns His disciples to watch and be alert spiritually so that those days do not come upon them unaware, why didn’t He at least say anything like, “And make sure you don’t ever mate with angels, because that’s what brought the judgment of the Great Flood?”
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God
To work, your argument must say that there were angels who didn’t originate in Heaven, and thus don’t fall into the category of which Christ said neither marry nor are given in marriage, or, it must say that once they sinned and fell from Heaven, they somehow became flesh and blood and able to marry and procreate with humans. Not sure where your comment about angels not being female is coming from. I know I have never made the assertion that angels ever appear as females in the Bible.
It is standard Christian tradition to affirm that a number of the angels sinned with Satan in his original rebellion. It is not universal Christian tradition to say that a subsequent fall occurred in Noah’s time and involved fallen spirit beings becoming capable of procreating with humans. The ideas of the early church fathers were not inspired like Scripture, and for Protestants especially, sola scriptura is crucially important. Augustine was quite capable of fanciful gnostic absurdities contrary to scripture, such as the idea that married sex was still sinful, though ‘venially’, that sin is natural and is passed down genetically except in the case of Mary, that all is predetermined by God (thus making God the biggest hypocrite possible), etc. I am definitely no fan of Augustine and would never appeal to his authority as a ‘doctor of the Church.’
Why did God say in Genesis 6that He was sorry that he had made *mankind* because *mankind* had become thoroughly wicked by that time, and not, “I am sorry that I made these angels who turned wicked and corrupted mankind?” And why is God’s judgment pronounced and executed solely upon mankind in Genesis 6?
In the first 8 verses of Genesis 6
Unless I missed something, I never cited the Book of Enoch as a source, I simply used Scripture. You’ve gone into rapid fire mode so it’s almost impossible to dialogue with that approach. As to the culpability of mankind, the Flood was God’s judgment upon them. The judgment of the fallen angels I mentioned earlier- those that participated in the act are held in Tartaros- that’s not Book of Enoch, that’s the second epistle of Peter and Jude. You can’t drown angels or demons.As to Sola Scriptura- the Hebrew text of the bible very plainly makes the dichotomy between the sons of God (benei Elohim) and the daughters of men (bnot- ha Adam). You choose to make it read sons of Seth and daughters of Cain but that simply won’t do my friend. Both Seth’s daughters and Cain’s are the daughters of Adam. The term sons of God in the Old Testament is a technical term reserved for angels and never used of human in the OT. The OT bible of the early Church was the Septuagint. This is the version the Apostles would have used and been familiar with. Notice how the Septuagint renders texts that refer to the sons of God in the Book of Job:Job 1:6 And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them.Job 2:1 And it came to pass on a certain day, that the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came among them to stand before the Lord.Job 38:7