The fallen ones of Genesis 6

[Boash]

We read of the Nephilim again in Numbers 13:33 : " We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak2 come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers3 in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." How could this be if they were all destroyed in the Flood? The answer is contained in Genesis 6:4, where we read: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days (that is to say, in the days of Noah); 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 [the] mighty men which were of old, men of renown"

So that "after that", that is to say, after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels, evidently smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were in fact known as "the nations of Canaan". It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Could it be that the the wife of Ham carried the genetic material that was passed on to the Canaanites?

Could it also be that the phrase, "and also after that," meant that in the Antedulivian period there were Giants, (fiece men/large in stature and nature), and that after the Lord had determined that his Spirit would not strive with them in the previous verse. That the sons of God began to intermingle with these firece men's daughters. Thus leaving God no choice as explained by prior posters but to remedy the situation with the flood lest there not be a line of Righteous men left?

Peace,

Davd

[Boash]

You could argue it either way, the interpretation you gather all comes about depending how you interpret what it means by saying "the sons of god." How you view the meaning of that pretty much determines whether or not you take the Seth line of view or the angel line of view. My view is that sons of god speaks of a direct creation of god, which means adam would be referred to as a son of god, angels would be sons of god and then following the death and resurrection of Christ all believers become a new creation and are referred to as sons of god. All others would be termed as sons or daughters of men.

[Matthitjah]

You could argue it either way, the interpretation you gather all comes about depending how you interpret what it means by saying "the sons of god." How you view the meaning of that pretty much determines whether or not you take the Seth line of view or the angel line of view. My view is that sons of god speaks of a direct creation of god, which means adam would be referred to as a son of god, angels would be sons of god and then following the death and resurrection of Christ all believers become a new creation and are referred to as sons of god. All others would be termed as sons or daughters of men.

Amen, I agree and afetr researching this some more I find that some of the early Church Fathers appear to take your side in the argument.

[Boash]

It's not really an arguement persey as there are very good people on both sides of the aisle on this issue. I just feel it fits to a more literal interpretation. It also helps to grasp a little better why God ordered the total annihilation of some groups of people and not others when the Jews entered into the land God had given them.

[lekh l'kha]

According to the Orthodox Rabbinical commentary in a Jewish Pentateuch and Haftorahs Bible I have a copy of, the idea that "the sons of God" refers to angels impregnating human women was popularized by the 1st century Jewish philosopher, Philo.

Philo "... used allegory to fuse and harmonize Greek philosophy and Judaism. His method followed the practices of both Jewish exegesis and Stoic philosophy. His work was not widely accepted. "The sophists of literalness," as he calls them..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo )

The commentary states that the pagan notion of the gods impregnating human women was what inspired this idea, and that Josephus (who also interprets the sons of God as fallen angels) got his ideas from Philo and others.

The Orthodox Rabbis in this commentary, however, refute the idea and state that the sons of God were the descendants of Seth, while the daughters of men were the descendants of Cain.

J. Sidlow Baxter points out that in Genesis 4 we read of the line of Cain, and in Genesis 5 of the line of Seth, and in Genesis 6, the two lines merge, and in Genesis 7 we read of judgment (the flood).

With regard to Job, Exodus says, "Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord God." (Exo 23:17).

In Job we read, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." (Job 1:6).

In Revelation 12, Satan is revealed as the accuser of the brethren who accused them before God day and night, but they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony and so their accuser was cast out of heaven.

Again in Job we read a second time:

"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 2:1)

And then the last time in the Old Testament we read the term "sons of God is the last verse in Jobh which contains it:

The only other Old Testament verse where the term "sons of God" appears is also in Job:

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

But the problem with the above verse is that the term "sons of God" actually appears in the singular in the Hebrew of that verse - ben elohiym (son of God), and likewise with the words translated as "morning stars" (Hebrew: boqer kokab). The word "together" ("sang together") is from the Hebrew word Yachad. And the Hebrew word kol ("all") could apply in the singular (in fact the Strong's Dictionary states that it normally does - H3605).

Depending on interpretation, the verse could actually read, "When the morning star sang in unity, and the son of God shouted in fullness of joy"

I don't know how the verse should be translated, but the point I'm trying to make is that IMO there is no reason to assume that the term "sons of God" in the Old Testament or New Testament ever refers to FALLEN angels, and angels don't have physical reproductive ... how shall we say...neccesities?

With pagan religion being full of myths of the gods impregnating human women, it's easy to see how Jewish philopsophers like Philo (who mixed pagan Greek ideas with Biblical accounts) could carry the idea over to angels and women.

So the question IMO is, does the Bible directly tell us that the sons of God were fallen angels? And of course the answer is, No, the Bible doesn't say so directly.

So the next question IMO is, is there enough Biblical reason to infer that the sons of God refers to FALLEN angels? And again, IMO the answer is, No.

[Matthitjah]

According to the Orthodox Rabbinical commentary in a Jewish Pentateuch and Haftorahs Bible I have a copy of, the idea that "the sons of God" refers to angels impregnating human women was popularized by the 1st century Jewish philosopher, Philo.

Philo "... used allegory to fuse and harmonize Greek philosophy and Judaism. His method followed the practices of both Jewish exegesis and Stoic philosophy. His work was not widely accepted. "The sophists of literalness," as he calls them..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo )

The commentary states that the pagan notion of the gods impregnating human women was what inspired this idea, and that Josephus (who also interprets the sons of God as fallen angels) got his ideas from Philo and others.

The Orthodox Rabbis in this commentary, however, refute the idea and state that the sons of God were the descendants of Seth, while the daughters of men were the descendants of Cain.

J. Sidlow Baxter points out that in Genesis 4 we read of the line of Cain, and in Genesis 5 of the line of Seth, and in Genesis 6, the two lines merge, and in Genesis 7 we read of judgment (the flood).

With regard to Job, Exodus says, "Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord God." (Exo 23:17).

In Job we read, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." (Job 1:6).

In Revelation 12, Satan is revealed as the accuser of the brethren who accused them before God day and night, but they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony and so their accuser was cast out of heaven.

Again in Job we read a second time:

"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 2:1)

And then the last time in the Old Testament we read the term "sons of God is the last verse in Jobh which contains it:

The only other Old Testament verse where the term "sons of God" appears is also in Job:

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

But the problem with the above verse is that the term "sons of God" actually appears in the singular in the Hebrew of that verse - ben elohiym (son of God), and likewise with the words translated as "morning stars" (Hebrew: boqer kokab). The word "together" ("sang together") is from the Hebrew word Yachad. And the Hebrew word kol ("all") could apply in the singular (in fact the Strong's Dictionary states that it normally does - H3605).

Depending on interpretation, the verse could actually read, "When the morning star sang in unity, and the son of God shouted in fullness of joy"

I don't know how the verse should be translated, but the point I'm trying to make is that IMO there is no reason to assume that the term "sons of God" in the Old Testament or New Testament ever refers to FALLEN angels, and angels don't have physical reproductive ... how shall we say...neccesities?

With pagan religion being full of myths of the gods impregnating human women, it's easy to see how Jewish philopsophers like Philo (who mixed pagan Greek ideas with Biblical accounts) could carry the idea over to angels and women.

So the question IMO is, does the Bible directly tell us that the sons of God were fallen angels? And of course the answer is, No, the Bible doesn't say so directly.

So the next question IMO is, is there enough Biblical reason to infer that the sons of God refers to FALLEN angels? And again, IMO the answer is, No.

Which is exactly why I hold the position that I do being a Berean.

[Boash]

I don't know how the verse should be translated, but the point I'm trying to make is that IMO there is no reason to assume that the term "sons of God" in the Old Testament or New Testament ever refers to FALLEN angels, and angels don't have physical reproductive ... how shall we say...neccesities?

With pagan religion being full of myths of the gods impregnating human women, it's easy to see how Jewish philopsophers like Philo (who mixed pagan Greek ideas with Biblical accounts) could carry the idea over to angels and women.

So the question IMO is, does the Bible directly tell us that the sons of God were fallen angels? And of course the answer is, No, the Bible doesn't say so directly.

So the next question IMO is, is there enough Biblical reason to infer that the sons of God refers to FALLEN angels? And again, IMO the answer is, No.

Where is this description listed in the bible? All I have see is that they do not marry nor are they given in marriage. That does not say they are not gender specific nor incapable?

Jude 6-7 states:

"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. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh..."

This would seem to imply that they can

[Bold Believer]

Well it seems that no one read the original post. I've already mentioned that it's impossible for angels to father children. They're neuter beings.

The bene Elohim are righteous men; the Nephilim are fallen. The two categories are not even mentioned as being the same. Again, read the ORIGINAL POST.

As for Peter's comment read it again, There are two separate things being said here.

Jud 1:6 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.

The angels didn't keep their first beginning-place (arche') but left their dwellingplace (oikētērion) and are punished being chained in darkness until judgment day.

They left heaven and joined Satan in the air (Satan is the prince of the power of the air).

Jud 1:7 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.

The second thing Peter says is that Sodom and Gomorrha and the other cities around them in the same way(remember the original story, there are actually more than just two cities), gave themselves over to fornication and seeking strange flesh (homosexuality) and are suffering eternal fire for that sin.

It's a three fold thought line:

1. Angels who left heaven are being punished

2, Sodom and Gomorrah are being punished

3. The people who are the subject of the letter will be punished

[Boash]

Well it seems that no one read the original post. I've already mentioned that it's impossible for angels to father children. They're neuter beings.

It's a three fold thought line:

1. Angels who left heaven are being punished

2, Sodom and Gomorrah are being punished

3. The people who are the subject of the letter will be punished

That is your opinion, I read it differently. placing that that aside as people can interpret things differently. Please list scripture that tells us where it identifies Seth to whom it is speaking of.