WHO IS CHRIST?

[enoob57]

As the family has brought out 'Sons of God' in Scripture refer to both angels and mankind... that is why in Genesis 6 it is impossible to distinguish which...

[other one]

3 hours ago, enoob57 said:

As the family has brought out 'Sons of God' in Scripture refer to both angels and mankind... that is why in Genesis 6 it is impossible to distinguish which...

It's only angels and Adam before Jesus resurrection from all I've read. We are referred to sons of God when we are spiritually born at salvation.

[enoob57]

Exodus 4:22 (KJV)

[22] And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

[23] And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.
and speaking of David
2 Samuel 7:14 (KJV)

[14] I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

 

[Retrobyter]

5 hours ago, kwikphilly said:

Blessings @Retrobyter

I will have to beg to differ as we see Heavenly Entities or beings or angels referenced to in the Book of Job as " the sons of God,along side satan---- could not be humans ( Job 1:6 ,2:1 ) and then again in 38:7 " all the sons of God shouting for Joy" The verse describes the morning stars singing--- must be angels,right?

With love in Christ,Kwik

Well, let's look at the phrase "the sons of God":

Genesis 6:2, 4 (KJV)

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.

...

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.

Job 1:6 (KJV)

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 (KJV)

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 (KJV)

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

John 1:12 (KJV)

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:

Romans 8:14, 19 (KJV)

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

...

19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Philippians 2:15 (KJV)

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;

1 John 3:1-2 (KJV)

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. 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.

May I suggest that "sons of God" need NEVER apply to "angels?" Have you ever considered the possibility that the sons of God mentioned in Iyov (Job) need not be "angels?" Let's look at the evidence:

Job 1:5-12 (KJV)

5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said,

"It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts."

Thus did Job continually.

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 7 And the LORD said unto Satan,

"Whence comest thou?"

Then Satan answered the LORD, and said,

"From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."

8 And the LORD said unto Satan,

"Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"

9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said,

"Doth Job fear God for nought? 10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face."

12 And the LORD said unto Satan,

"Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand."

So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

So, why would angels NEED to "present themselves before the LORD (Hebrew: # = 'YHWH')"? Frankly, if they were created as sinless creatures, and did not fall with Satan in his rebellion (as the belief goes), then why would they need to "present themselves"? On the other hand, assume for a moment that these "sons of God" were human beings. NOW why would they need to "present themselves"? The answer is in verse 5! They would need to present themselves for the same reasons that Iyov presented himself and his children before the LORD; to offer sacrifices to God and receive atonement for their sins from God through this picture of what was to come in the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. HaSatan didn't meet with God "in Heaven"; he met with God AT THE ALTAR, knowing that God would receive the sacrifices of righteous men - "sons of God!"

The assumption is, and has been, that Satan came in among the sons of God because he was of the same type of creature and was able to slip in with them. However, that conclusion is unfounded by anything said in the text. Instead, we may also consider that the presence of the LORD will be where He can be in fellowship with His creation, human beings, through the atonement. Satan, knowing that God would gladly receive sacrifices, came before Him AT THE ALTAR!

Did you know that the word for "angel" is in Job 1? It's the Aramaic word "mal'ak" translated "messenger" in verse 14! Do we assume this was an "angel?" No! We consider this to be a human person. As a matter of fact, because of verse 15, we consider him to be a servant, one of Iyov's workers who took care of the oxen and the donkeys!

14: And there came a messenger unto Job, and said,

"The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them: 15: And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee."

Now, why didn't the author of Iyov use this word instead of "sons of God" to describe angels? Could it be because these "sons of God" weren't "angels?"

I will even be so bold as to say that NOWHERE in Scripture MUST the term "sons of God" refer to "angels!" As a matter of fact, I believe that "sons of God" referring to "human beings" makes much better sense!

Furthermore, doesn’t Hebrews 1:5 say,

Heb 1:5 (KJV)

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee"? And again, "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son"?

Now, traditionally, three (or four) viewpoints have been held (mine makes a fifth): According to the PC Study Bible software, of six Bible commentaries--Wycliffe Bible Commentary; Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament; Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary; Adam Clarke's Commentary; Barnes' Notes; and Matthew Henry's Commentary--here are the viewpoints:

The traditional view is that the sons of God were princes or nobility who selected from the beautiful women of lower class to increase their harems. The list of those who believe the traditional view of the orthodox rabbinical Judaism are, of course, the orthodox rabbinical Jews, the authors of the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, and a Dr. Wall.

A second, very popular view is that the sons of God were the godly line of Seth--not that the line of Seth was entirely godly or that the line of Cain was entirely ungodly. The key word here is "godly;" members of Cain's line that were righteous may have been included in that group, while some of Seth's progeny might not have been included. The list of those who believe this view is long! A few of the members of this list are Chrysostom, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Hengstenberg, Faber, Keil, Matthew Henry's Commentary, Barnes' Notes, and Adam Clarke's Commentary.

The third and youngest of the three views is that the sons of God were angels. This list includes (according to Josephus) Justin, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Lactantius, and more recently Rosenmuller, Gesenius, Kurtz, Tuch, Knobel, Delitzsch, Govett, and Maitland.

Now, we learn from BuzzardHut there may also be a fourth viewpoint: Namely, that the “Sons of God” were a pre-Adamic race. However, such a viewpoint is unfounded in Scripture, and is almost entirely conjecture.

Consider this fifth viewpoint (mine):

May I please direct your attention to Genesis chapter 4 to the record we have of the first murder. Qayin (Cain) slew his own brother Hevel (Abel) out of envy and bitterness that he allowed to grow in his heart despite being warned of God to let it go. When God confronts Qayin about his sin, Qayin lies, and God replies,

"What hast thou done?! The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the GROUND! And now art thou cursed FROM THE EARTH, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; when thou tillest the GROUND, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a FUGITIVE and a VAGABOND shalt thou be IN THE EARTH!"

Qayin replied,

"My punishment is greater than I can bear (greater than I deserve). Behold, Thou hast driven me out this day FROM THE FACE (SURFACE) OF THE EARTH; and FROM THY FACE SHALL I BE HID; and I shall be a FUGITIVE and a VAGABOND IN THE EARTH; and it shall come to pass, that every one that FINDETH me shall slay me."

The LORD in His pity for Qayin then said, "Therefore whosoever slayeth Qayin, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD set a mark upon Qayin, “lest any FINDING him should kill him.”

Qayin then went out FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nowd (Nod, meaning "wandering"), on the east of Eden.

Then, Qayin and his wife had a son and called his name Chanokh (Enoch). Then, Qayin built a city and called the name of that city "Chanokh" after his son. Then, we are told of six more generations that his son produced. What if this city is not on the surface of the earth? What if Nowd, a place of Wandering, was a cavern system? All the clues point that way!

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. 18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. 22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and  the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

We are next told of an interesting story, the first recorded incident of killing in self-defense:

23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah,

"Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."

The problem is that God never intervened for Lemekh (Lamech) as He did for Qayin. I believe that he and his family were driven out of Chanokh and out of the cavern system at this time or they fled for their lives. In either case, they were forced out into the full sunlight which they had never had to deal with in the past. We read that Yaval (Jabal) was "the father of such as dwell in tents" and that his half-brother, Tuval-Qayin (Tubal-Cain), was "an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron." Why did they live in tents? After years without the sun, their skin was quite blanched and susceptible to sunburns. Where did Tuval-Qayin get his knowledge of brass and iron? In Chanokh within the caverns, he had learned to work metals, even in alloys since brass is an alloy.

Now, some of you are going to turn me off or may have already turned me off thinking that this is all fanciful thinking and conjecture. I don't deny that this is conjecture, but if you will bear with me, I think you will find that there is merit to this idea, and that it fits many facts.

Meanwhile, on the surface--in the light of the sun, under the blue skies (heavens), and "under the face of God"--Adam has another son and named him "Shet (Seth)" as a "substitute" for Hevel (Abel):

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. 26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Now, I've heard some preachers say that this was when people began to pray; however, Adam was already familiar with speaking to God. A few preachers will even suggest that this was when people started to "get saved." But that is not what this verse is talking about. Looking carefully at the Hebrew words, one may discover that this was when people started to use the name of the LORD as a talisman or a good-luck charm! They began to tack his name onto their own to ward off evil, and they became prideful that they were allowed to be in the LORD'S presence.

Looking again carefully at the passage in Genesis 6,

1:And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face (SURFACE) of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God (a term applied to themselves as a term of prejudice) saw the daughters of men that they were fair (Hebrew: tov "good"); and they (forcefully) took them wives of all which they chose (desired)!

3 And the LORD said,

"My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

4 There were giants (Hebrew: הַנְּפִלִים = hannfiliym = "the-fellers," "the-tyrants") 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 (Hebrew: הַגִּבֹּרִים = haggiboriym = "the-strong-ones") which were of old, men of renown (famous or popular men).

The word hannfiliym is the plural of ...

H5303 נְפִיל nᵉphîyl, nef-eel'; or נְפִל nᵉphil; from H5307; properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:—giant.

and ...

H5307 נָפַל nâphal, naw-fal'; a primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitive or causative, literal or figurative):—be accepted, cast (down, self, (lots), out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell(-ing), fugitive, have (inheritance), inferior, be judged (by mistake for 6419), lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (× hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present(-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, × surely, throw down.

This is not a "race" of people (or otherwise, such as "angels"); this is an OCCUPATION! They were WOOD-CUTTERS! LUMBERJACKS! They were the "Paul Bunyans" of their day! "Fellers" of TREES! To be lumberjacks, they may indeed have been bigger than other people or "giants," stronger than most at least!

5: And GOD saw that THE WICKEDNESS OF MAN was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6: And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7: And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8: But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Now we can see what so enraged the LORD! He hated the tyranny, the slavery ("white" slavery, if you'll forgive the pun), and injustice to fellow human beings, but when you compound that with the fact that the rest of the population made them out to be heroes and to make them popular as well, this was the last straw!

Now, granted this has been conjecture, but one may notice that it does fit the facts and gives a plausible explanation as to how these "sons of God" could be the progeny of Shet (Seth). It wasn't because they were better than other men; it was because of their strength in being lumberjacks that they were able to command respect and popularity for being ruthless and tyrannical with the pale women, daughters of mere men (from underground Chanowkh), while they were "sons of God," surface-dwellers, and they took these women by force, apparently against their will! God had had enough.

One last question: IF these "hannfiliym" were angels, why did God say "it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart"? Why is nothing said about the "angels?"

Just some food for thought. Believe what you will, but I don't think one should think "angels" when one sees the words "sons of God."

[Frits]

37 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Just some food for thought. Believe what you will, but I don't think one should think "angels" when one sees the words "sons of God."

Angels are spirits, and the Bible says that God is "the Father of spirits." If the Most High is their Father, then the angels are His sons. (Heb.12:9)

 

[kwikphilly]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Well, let's look at the phrase "the sons of God":

Genesis 6:2, 4 (KJV)

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.

...

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.

Job 1:6 (KJV)

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 (KJV)

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 (KJV)

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

John 1:12 (KJV)

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:

Romans 8:14, 19 (KJV)

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

...

19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Philippians 2:15 (KJV)

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;

1 John 3:1-2 (KJV)

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. 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.

May I suggest that "sons of God" need NEVER apply to "angels?" Have you ever considered the possibility that the sons of God mentioned in Iyov (Job) need not be "angels?" Let's look at the evidence:

Job 1:5-12 (KJV)

5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said,

"It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts."

Thus did Job continually.

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 7 And the LORD said unto Satan,

"Whence comest thou?"

Then Satan answered the LORD, and said,

"From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."

8 And the LORD said unto Satan,

"Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"

9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said,

"Doth Job fear God for nought? 10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face."

12 And the LORD said unto Satan,

"Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand."

So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

So, why would angels NEED to "present themselves before the LORD (Hebrew: # = 'YHWH')"? Frankly, if they were created as sinless creatures, and did not fall with Satan in his rebellion (as the belief goes), then why would they need to "present themselves"? On the other hand, assume for a moment that these "sons of God" were human beings. NOW why would they need to "present themselves"? The answer is in verse 5! They would need to present themselves for the same reasons that Iyov presented himself and his children before the LORD; to offer sacrifices to God and receive atonement for their sins from God through this picture of what was to come in the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. HaSatan didn't meet with God "in Heaven"; he met with God AT THE ALTAR, knowing that God would receive the sacrifices of righteous men - "sons of God!"

The assumption is, and has been, that Satan came in among the sons of God because he was of the same type of creature and was able to slip in with them. However, that conclusion is unfounded by anything said in the text. Instead, we may also consider that the presence of the LORD will be where He can be in fellowship with His creation, human beings, through the atonement. Satan, knowing that God would gladly receive sacrifices, came before Him AT THE ALTAR!

Did you know that the word for "angel" is in Job 1? It's the Aramaic word "mal'ak" translated "messenger" in verse 14! Do we assume this was an "angel?" No! We consider this to be a human person. As a matter of fact, because of verse 15, we consider him to be a servant, one of Iyov's workers who took care of the oxen and the donkeys!

14: And there came a messenger unto Job, and said,

"The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them: 15: And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee."

Now, why didn't the author of Iyov use this word instead of "sons of God" to describe angels? Could it be because these "sons of God" weren't "angels?"

I will even be so bold as to say that NOWHERE in Scripture MUST the term "sons of God" refer to "angels!" As a matter of fact, I believe that "sons of God" referring to "human beings" makes much better sense!

Furthermore, doesn’t Hebrews 1:5 say,

Heb 1:5 (KJV)

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee"? And again, "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son"?

Now, traditionally, three (or four) viewpoints have been held (mine makes a fifth): According to the PC Study Bible software, of six Bible commentaries--Wycliffe Bible Commentary; Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament; Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary; Adam Clarke's Commentary; Barnes' Notes; and Matthew Henry's Commentary--here are the viewpoints:

The traditional view is that the sons of God were princes or nobility who selected from the beautiful women of lower class to increase their harems. The list of those who believe the traditional view of the orthodox rabbinical Judaism are, of course, the orthodox rabbinical Jews, the authors of the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, and a Dr. Wall.

A second, very popular view is that the sons of God were the godly line of Seth--not that the line of Seth was entirely godly or that the line of Cain was entirely ungodly. The key word here is "godly;" members of Cain's line that were righteous may have been included in that group, while some of Seth's progeny might not have been included. The list of those who believe this view is long! A few of the members of this list are Chrysostom, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Hengstenberg, Faber, Keil, Matthew Henry's Commentary, Barnes' Notes, and Adam Clarke's Commentary.

The third and youngest of the three views is that the sons of God were angels. This list includes (according to Josephus) Justin, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Lactantius, and more recently Rosenmuller, Gesenius, Kurtz, Tuch, Knobel, Delitzsch, Govett, and Maitland.

Now, we learn from BuzzardHut there may also be a fourth viewpoint: Namely, that the “Sons of God” were a pre-Adamic race. However, such a viewpoint is unfounded in Scripture, and is almost entirely conjecture.

Consider this fifth viewpoint (mine):

May I please direct your attention to Genesis chapter 4 to the record we have of the first murder. Qayin (Cain) slew his own brother Hevel (Abel) out of envy and bitterness that he allowed to grow in his heart despite being warned of God to let it go. When God confronts Qayin about his sin, Qayin lies, and God replies,

"What hast thou done?! The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the GROUND! And now art thou cursed FROM THE EARTH, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; when thou tillest the GROUND, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a FUGITIVE and a VAGABOND shalt thou be IN THE EARTH!"

Qayin replied,

"My punishment is greater than I can bear (greater than I deserve). Behold, Thou hast driven me out this day FROM THE FACE (SURFACE) OF THE EARTH; and FROM THY FACE SHALL I BE HID; and I shall be a FUGITIVE and a VAGABOND IN THE EARTH; and it shall come to pass, that every one that FINDETH me shall slay me."

The LORD in His pity for Qayin then said, "Therefore whosoever slayeth Qayin, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD set a mark upon Qayin, “lest any FINDING him should kill him.”

Qayin then went out FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nowd (Nod, meaning "wandering"), on the east of Eden.

Then, Qayin and his wife had a son and called his name Chanokh (Enoch). Then, Qayin built a city and called the name of that city "Chanokh" after his son. Then, we are told of six more generations that his son produced. What if this city is not on the surface of the earth? What if Nowd, a place of Wandering, was a cavern system? All the clues point that way!

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. 18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. 22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and  the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

We are next told of an interesting story, the first recorded incident of killing in self-defense:

23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah,

"Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."

The problem is that God never intervened for Lemekh (Lamech) as He did for Qayin. I believe that he and his family were driven out of Chanokh and out of the cavern system at this time or they fled for their lives. In either case, they were forced out into the full sunlight which they had never had to deal with in the past. We read that Yaval (Jabal) was "the father of such as dwell in tents" and that his half-brother, Tuval-Qayin (Tubal-Cain), was "an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron." Why did they live in tents? After years without the sun, their skin was quite blanched and susceptible to sunburns. Where did Tuval-Qayin get his knowledge of brass and iron? In Chanokh within the caverns, he had learned to work metals, even in alloys since brass is an alloy.

Now, some of you are going to turn me off or may have already turned me off thinking that this is all fanciful thinking and conjecture. I don't deny that this is conjecture, but if you will bear with me, I think you will find that there is merit to this idea, and that it fits many facts.

Meanwhile, on the surface--in the light of the sun, under the blue skies (heavens), and "under the face of God"--Adam has another son and named him "Shet (Seth)" as a "substitute" for Hevel (Abel):

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. 26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Now, I've heard some preachers say that this was when people began to pray; however, Adam was already familiar with speaking to God. A few preachers will even suggest that this was when people started to "get saved." But that is not what this verse is talking about. Looking carefully at the Hebrew words, one may discover that this was when people started to use the name of the LORD as a talisman or a good-luck charm! They began to tack his name onto their own to ward off evil, and they became prideful that they were allowed to be in the LORD'S presence.

Looking again carefully at the passage in Genesis 6,

1:And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face (SURFACE) of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God (a term applied to themselves as a term of prejudice) saw the daughters of men that they were fair (Hebrew: tov "good"); and they (forcefully) took them wives of all which they chose (desired)!

3 And the LORD said,

"My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

4 There were giants (Hebrew: הַנְּפִלִים = hannfiliym = "the-fellers," "the-tyrants") 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 (Hebrew: הַגִּבֹּרִים = haggiboriym = "the-strong-ones") which were of old, men of renown (famous or popular men).

The word hannfiliym is the plural of ...

H5303 נְפִיל nᵉphîyl, nef-eel'; or נְפִל nᵉphil; from H5307; properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:—giant.

and ...

H5307 נָפַל nâphal, naw-fal'; a primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitive or causative, literal or figurative):—be accepted, cast (down, self, (lots), out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell(-ing), fugitive, have (inheritance), inferior, be judged (by mistake for 6419), lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (× hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present(-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, × surely, throw down.

This is not a "race" of people (or otherwise, such as "angels"); this is an OCCUPATION! They were WOOD-CUTTERS! LUMBERJACKS! They were the "Paul Bunyans" of their day! "Fellers" of TREES! To be lumberjacks, they may indeed have been bigger than other people or "giants," stronger than most at least!

5: And GOD saw that THE WICKEDNESS OF MAN was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6: And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7: And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8: But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Now we can see what so enraged the LORD! He hated the tyranny, the slavery ("white" slavery, if you'll forgive the pun), and injustice to fellow human beings, but when you compound that with the fact that the rest of the population made them out to be heroes and to make them popular as well, this was the last straw!

Now, granted this has been conjecture, but one may notice that it does fit the facts and gives a plausible explanation as to how these "sons of God" could be the progeny of Shet (Seth). It wasn't because they were better than other men; it was because of their strength in being lumberjacks that they were able to command respect and popularity for being ruthless and tyrannical with the pale women, daughters of mere men (from underground Chanowkh), while they were "sons of God," surface-dwellers, and they took these women by force, apparently against their will! God had had enough.

One last question: IF these "hannfiliym" were angels, why did God say "it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart"? Why is nothing said about the "angels?"

Just some food for thought. Believe what you will, but I don't think one should think "angels" when one sees the words "sons of God."

I'm sorry but I do not agree with your interpretation and imo in this instance I wouldn't even debate it because for me it's as clear as can be exactly how it is Written

Googling many single places " sons of God " is mentioned in the Bible ,posting many single verses of Scripture is out of context and in their own context and not addressing the context of the Book of Job that I gave context,specifically..... it does not negate a different application

Both humans & angels are both referred to as " sons of God" in the Written Word of God.Angels are God's Creation though not made in His Image,unlike human beings. Still,they are God's Creation and therefore referenced in Scripture are His Spiritual sons-perhaps the distinction is made when Revealed,seems obvious to me

Anyway- Im not going to go through each reference to show the different applications,it just made for a really long post and is a Topic that people seem to disagree on often

The Bible suggests Angels were Created before humans- folks even debate that( lol) - When God Laid the foundations of the earth (Job 38:7)it was a Joyous Event ,the angels were there & they were singing - man was not yet Created

With love in Christ Kwik

[kwikphilly]

6 hours ago, other one said:

It's only angels and Adam before Jesus resurrection from all I've read. We are referred to sons of God when we are spiritually born at salvation.

This would be a really good Topic as so many people thing everyone is a child of God- how often we hear people say(,people with little religion or Faith in them) " We're all God's children"  this is the furthest thing from the Truth- humans are all God's Creation

In His Love,Kwik

[other one]

5 hours ago, kwikphilly said:

This would be a really good Topic as so many people thing everyone is a child of God- how often we hear people say(,people with little religion or Faith in them) " We're all God's children"  this is the furthest thing from the Truth- humans are all God's Creation

In His Love,Kwik

We are not home and I would have to wait till later next week to get into details.

[Retrobyter]

On 4/11/2025 at 1:42 PM, Frits said:

Joh 1:18 KJV

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The “only begotten God” is found in the oldest manuscripts we have of John: Papyrus 66 (c. 225), Papyrus 75 (c. 225), codex Sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus (both c. 325).

Shalom, @Frits.

The problem with these codices is their SOURCE. Some versions were PURPOSELY altered based upon one's theological stance. This CAN happen unconsciously, of course, as one is copying or translating; HOWEVER, there was a time between the 100s A.D. and the 400s A.D. when the hierarchy of the papacy was being formed that such alterations were made with a CONSCIOUS effort in light of the many theological factions, attempting to make the alterations as unnoticeable as possible.

The wandering of eyes and thoughts while in the copying/translating process, even with the most careful scribe or translator, can easily lead to a "θεὸς" instead of a "υἱός" being placed where it didn't belong, but to do so intentionally while a long-standing debate on the nature of the "Trinity" was going on would be a HUGE temptation.

First, John gave us this within the words of Yeeshuwa`:

Revelation 2:15 (KJV)

15 "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate."

The name "Nicolaitans" is the Greek word (G3531) "Νικολαϊτῶν," stemming from (G3532) "Νικόλαος" which consists of two Greek words (G3534) "νῖκος" meaning "a conquest or victory" and (G2992) "λαός" meaning "a people": a "conquest over a people."

And, the doctrine is defined as,

'The doctrine of the Nicolaitans, mentioned in Revelation 2:15, condemned by Jesus, appears to be "a syncretistic practice that compromised Christian principles with false teachings and pagan living, potentially involving the EXALTATION OF CLERGY OVER THE LAITY or the belief in a doctrine of lawlessness."' (emphasis mine)

In the Article on the "History of Trinitarian Doctrines" in Plato - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, one will find within the section on "3.1.1 The One God in the Trinity":

'Early Christianity was theologically diverse, although as time went on a “catholic” movement, a bishop-led, developing organization which, at least from the late second century, claimed to be the true successors of Jesus’ apostles, became increasingly dominant, out-competing many gnostic and quasi-Jewish groups. Still, confining our attention to what scholars now call this “catholic” or “proto-orthodox” Christianity, it contained divergent views about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

'The terms we translate as “Trinity” (Latin: trinitas, Greek: trias) seem to have come into use only in the last two decades of the second century; but such usage doesn’t reflect trinitarian belief. These late second and third century authors use such terms not to refer to the one God, but rather to refer to the plurality of the one God, together with his Son (on Word) and his Spirit. They profess a “trinity”, triad or threesome, but not a triune or tripersonal God. Nor did they consider these to be equally divine. A common strategy for defending monotheism in this period is to emphasize the unique divinity of the Father. Thus Origen (ca. 186–255),

'"The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit…" (Origen, First, 33–4 [I.3])'

Later, in the section on "3.2 325–381: The Arian Controversy," we read:

'It was only in response to the controversy sparked by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius (ca. 256–336) that a critical mass of bishops rallied around what eventually became standard language about the Trinity. This controversy was complex, and has been much illuminated by recent historians (Ayres 2004; Freeman 2008; Hanson 1988; Pelikan 1971; Rubenstein 1999; Williams 2001). It can be briefly summarized as follows. Arius taught, in accordance with an earlier subordinationist theological tradition, that the Son of God was a creature, made by God from nothing a finite time ago. Some time around 318–21 a controversy broke out, with Arius’ teaching opposed initially by his bishop Alexander of Alexandria (d. 326). Alexander examined and excommunicated Arius. Numerous churchmen, adhering to subordinationist traditions about the Son rallied to Arius’ side, while others, favoring theologies holding to the eternal existence of the Son and his (in some sense) ontological equality with the Father, joined his opponents. The dispute threatened to split the church, and a series of councils ensued, variously excommunicating and vindicating Arius and his defenders, or their opponents. Each side successively tried to win the favor of the then-current emperor, trying to manipulate imperial power to crush its opposition.

'From the standpoint of later catholic orthodoxy, a key episode in this series occurred in 325, when a council of bishops convened by the Emperor Constantine (ca. 280–337) decreed that the Father and Son were homoousios (same substance or essence). Arius and his party were excommunicated. The intended meaning of ousia here was far from clear, given the term’s complex history and use, and the failure of the council to disambiguate it (Stead 1994, 160–72). They most likely settled on the term because it was disagreeable to the party siding with Arius. This new and ambiguous formula fanned the flames of controversy, as subordinationists and anti-subordinationists understood the phrase differently when signing on to it, and later argued for conflicting interpretations of it.

'By the time of the council of Constantinople (381 CE), an anti-subordinationist reading, vigorously championed by Alexandrian bishop Athanasius (d. 373) had the upper hand; homoousios was understood as asserting the Father and Son to not merely be similar beings, but in some sense one being. While it stopped short of saying that the Holy Spirit was homoousios with the Father and Son, the council did say that the Holy Spirit “is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son”, and added in a letter accompanying their creed that the three share “a single Godhead and power and substance” (Leith 1982, 33; Tanner 1990, 24, 28). Over the ensuing period the same sorts of arguments used to promote the divinity of the Son, were reapplied to the Holy Spirit, and eventually inhibitions to applying homoousios to the Holy Spirit evaporated.'

It is my belief that we should ALWAYS go back to "Sola Scriptura." "Only the Scriptures" should be our source for what we believe, not a creed or a doctrine of human beings.

Now, what is the CONSENSUS of the manuscripts even at the time that the "oldest" ones appeared with the substitution? Furthermore, what makes the best sense in the Greek language?

Here are two versions that use the different terms:

Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
John 1:18 Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Transliterated this becomes:

John 1:18 Theon oudeis eooraken poopote; monogenees Theos ho oon eis ton kolpon tou Patros, ekeinos exeegeesato.

Translated word for word we get:

John 1:18 God no-one has-seen at-any-time; [the] only-born God the-one-which is into the harbor of-the Father, that-one has-declared-[Him]. 

and

Greek Orthodox Church 1904
John 1:18 Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Transliterated into English characters, we get:

John 1:18 Theon oudeis eooraken poopote; ho monogenees huios ho oon eis ton kolpon tou Patros ekeinos exeegeesato.

Translated word-for-word, we get:

John 1:18 God no-one has-seen at-any-time; the only-born son the-one-which is into the harbor of-the Father that-one has-declared-[Him].

Now, think for a moment: Which one makes better sense based on what the Bible teaches about God and His attributes of omnipresence and eternality? "the only-born son" or "the only-born God?" particularly when contrasted with "the Father?"

[Anne2]

On 4/10/2025 at 3:17 PM, Retrobyter said:

The Firstborn is USUALLY the first son born to a husband and wife. He is the PRIMARY HEIR of the family's wealth

Hi Retrobyter. good points, As heirs and inheritance is a primary theme. As covenants also often being seen as wills of inheritance. The firstborn has a double portion among the other heirs.....Before the law, it was by Choice, under the law it was by nature.

Dt 20:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16  Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17  But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.