Genesis 6:1-4

[mizzdy]

although i present the words "sons of God "as "beni-ah-Elohim" I have yet to hear

a good reason why it would be the sons of Seth. Actually isnt there an error because Noah was a son

of Seth yet he didn't take in wives which is what the scripture just stated. I also have not read anything

stating that Noah was a "son a Elohim." I think we take for granted that title.

From what I understand is that the phrase 'son of or sonship' is a phrase reflected in the NT and not attributed to man in the OT. If I remember right someone was called son of man, Job maybe? We only qualify becoming sons of God through Christs sacrifice then we are new beings in Him, having a new heart becoming firstfruits and a new creation. No one in the OT was saved by Christ's blood by faith yes, I do believe. And the standard statement how God saw nothing but wickedness that every hearts intent was evil yet no mention of these sons of seth as being set apart anywhere. And after the flood God makes a convenant with the creation that He will never destroy it again because of man.

If seth lines continues with Noah we don't see a lot of evidence that it carried on for any length of time after the flood. Not having any other nations or peoples to contend with I would think that the godliness would be so evident after the flood through out at least the first generations. The two men in Gen. before the flood that was attributed godliness was Enoch and Noah wouldn't it make sense if seth was so godly and favored somehow more would have been said about it, thats a question that won't go away for me, amoung many others.

[Guest shiloh357]

The word divine came from the JPS translation of the Tanakh so please inform them they are wrong in their wordings I was referring to extrabiblical sources, not the JPS translation.

So when I say that God is talking to Himself in Ps. 82 its ok with you but if I say God is talking to His divine council, His sons of God I am somehow wrong. This is how the JPS Tanakh shows the wording of Ps. 82

1. God stands in the divine assembly; 2. amoung divine beings He pronounces judgement....6. I had taken you for divine beings, sons of the Most High, all of you; 7. but you shall die as men do, fall like any prince.

Ok looking at the last verse why would God tell them they are going to die as men if they already are men? Tell me why then does the words get translated as divine beings calling them sons of the most high, men were never called that from what I have read.

The NKJV has it this way:

1. God stands in the congregation of the mighty; 2. He judges amoung the gods.... 6. I said, You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High. 7. But you shall die like men; And fall like one of the princes.

There seems to be some confusion then about men and falling like the princes which are mere men but the ones God is addressing are angels, sons of God. The same translation here as in Gen. 6 elhoim/mighty ones or gods. What does bene 'elohim mean to you? I believe I read somwhere the word elohim is written over two thousand times in the OT and point to a singular God, other times its ha-elohim and when denoting the sons of God, beney elim or beney ha-elohim is used with no difference in their meanings. I undertand there was a controversy about sons of God meaning polytheism but clearly these beings are not God but created ones belonging to Him. Why is that we all can believe sin was found in satan, that there are powers and principalites that control this world as we are warned about who try and go around corrupting man but when it comes to Gen. 6 and other passages most cannot accept that it is as it is written?

This is really much ado about nothing. Here is the thing. THIS is what makes or breaks this assertion that "sons of God" refer to angels. All you have to do is show from Scripture where angels are said to be able to procreate. Until you can demonstrate conclusively that to be FACT, then you don't really have a case.

If angels do not have the power to procreate, then this entire assertion about angels mating with women and these women giving birth to human/angel hybrids and such comes crashing down around your ears.

[exrockstar]

More to the point angels, falling or otherwise never reproduced with women, and it is absurd to believe so.

i have yet to hear anyone give convincing evidence that sons of God are the sons of Seth.

1. It is nonsense to say that God is preserving "Seth's godly line" because that doesnt start til Abraham. Everyone pre-Abraham is in the bloodline of Adam. If you want scriptural support then I'm going to say that God said "Genesis 1:22

God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." There isn't any blood preservation because there werent any Jews before Abraham.

2. I have not heard one shred of evidence that "beni-ah-Elohim" is a general term used for humans that were present on earth in those days. The term "sons of Elohim" explains either divinity or literally means what it says. If the sons of Seth are "sons of Elohim" then everyone else on the earth are "sons of Elohim" since they are all from Adam.

3. The book of Genesis and the book of Job have been been dated within 150 years of one another. They are similar in writing that even biblical historians claim that Moses wrote Job.

4. Concerning the Neph: Numbers 13:33

We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

Either God must of been exaggerating or he must of meant these "people" were bigger than your average. unless one feels that the spies were a group of little people?

so far. i'm just reading criticism but have yet to read any scripture that states that sons of Elohim are decendants of Seth.

"preserving" a bloodline matters after Abraham. it's not that difficult to say Christ came from Adam because we are all from Adam. are we not?

God bless

[Leonard]

I myself did what is probably the largest study ever done on this topic as my Dissertation. After most thorough research I was forced ineluctably to the conclusion that angelic beings of some stripe cohabited with human women, and produced monstrous offspring.

[mizzdy]

I can see where this thread might be going and instead of trying to 'duke' it out like some of the threads I think I will just bow out of it. As with threads of this nature it always comes down to two camps one that believes Gen. 6 and the sons of God have had children with human woman and those who don't. When it starts coming down to the camps circling I don't see a lot of real dialogue happening anymore. I would just like to say this, in every instance I can find in the OT, whether with my KJV on through everything else I have read it shows that the words sons of God are the angels, watchers, and divine beings the scriptures are clear on that. Yet it is true it doesn't say sexual intercourse just that they saw the woman and had children with them, whatever you take from that is what you take from that.

Blessing to all,

Mizzdy

[mizzdy]

I myself did what is probably the largest study ever done on this topic as my Dissertation. After most thorough research I was forced ineluctably to the conclusion that angelic beings of some stripe cohabited with human women, and produced monstrous offspring.

Yes that was what I came up with also, even if it seemed to me impossible that happened, I just couldn't come up with any other conclusion myself. Have you ever read any of Michael Heiser's work? There are a few more really good scholars out there that have written about this area also.

[exrockstar]

I can see where this thread might be going and instead of trying to 'duke' it out like some of the threads I think I will just bow out of it. As with threads of this nature it always comes down to two camps one that believes Gen. 6 and the sons of God have had children with human woman and those who don't. When it starts coming down to the camps circling I don't see a lot of real dialogue happening anymore. I would just like to say this, in every instance I can find in the OT, whether with my KJV on through everything else I have read it shows that the words sons of God are the angels, watchers, and divine beings the scriptures are clear on that. Yet it is true it doesn't say sexual intercourse just that they saw the woman and had children with them, whatever you take from that is what you take from that.

Blessing to all,

Mizzdy

Well, I was trying to get out of the "duking out" and just post some points that lead to a possible conclusion.

[mizzdy]

I can see where this thread might be going and instead of trying to 'duke' it out like some of the threads I think I will just bow out of it. As with threads of this nature it always comes down to two camps one that believes Gen. 6 and the sons of God have had children with human woman and those who don't. When it starts coming down to the camps circling I don't see a lot of real dialogue happening anymore. I would just like to say this, in every instance I can find in the OT, whether with my KJV on through everything else I have read it shows that the words sons of God are the angels, watchers, and divine beings the scriptures are clear on that. Yet it is true it doesn't say sexual intercourse just that they saw the woman and had children with them, whatever you take from that is what you take from that.

Blessing to all,

Mizzdy

Well, I was trying to get out of the "duking out" and just post some points that lead to a possible conclusion.

It always seems with post such as this the gloves are laced and readied for battle and I would just like to avoid that nastiness. And for the most part no matter how many scriptures are used someone has the other side and wants to argue until words are spoken in haste. Like I said this is what I have studied and believe and if others believe differently thats their right also, posting scriptures back and forth with people who have already made up their minds isn't very edifying or constructive. It is an interesting topic though isn't it.

[Botz]

Mizzdy/Rockstar and others...Apologies I have been rather tied up with things the last few days, and didn't get to keep in on the discussions. Yes I do think this is a very interesting topic, and quite honestly I don't take a blind bit of notice if someone gets a bit hot under the collar about anything that is discussed, that is their problem, I just try and make sure I do not answer in kind...not always easy mind you...but more productive

I can see that similar to quite a few biblical passages there are two major camps on this issue, as we have said before, it is not on the surface, some major doctrinal issue, and in no way affects a person's walk with G-d....but I wonder what the implications are in the long run...

Maybe it challenges us on the way we look at Scripture, and perhaps demonstrates that we could use greater flexibility in our approach, or even a more disciplined one?

Personally I can see no problem with giant beings, either before or after the flood...and Rockstar you are quite correct in pointing out that the Israelites were as grasshoppers in their own sight when compared to the enormous race of people they saw dwelling in Canaan.... but it is a huge jump to then equate their huge size with inter-breeding with angels, and others have brought up the points:-

1. Where does it clearly show one such incident occuring?

2. Where does it clearly intimate that such a thing is possible?

3. If it is possible, then why isn't it still happening now?

When you think of the potential power an angelic being has...why when fused with human dna would this just produce giants...why not beings that can fly, or become invisible or....hmmm Superman and X-men... seriously I can't really understand it, or does 'power and reknown' refer to more than we think?

Rockstar I have not ignored what you said about the hebrew for sons of G-d...I just don't have an explanation, and I bear it in mind, but in conjunction with what I have understood so far.

In Messiah. Botz

[EricH]

Moved from General Discussion to Doctrinal Questions