Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Explantation of Gen. 6:1-6 | Gen 6:2 | tgc | 127592 | ||
Sorry I mistakenly posted this in the notes secection when it should be a question. Sorry about the mistake. I have been pondering on this question for some time. So I thought I would seek the wisdom of many of you on the forum. In Gen. 6:1-6 NKJV) Genesis 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they [were] beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3 And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he [is] indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." 4 There were giants 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. 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every intent of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. Here is the question it seems from what I can learn the classical reading of this is that "the sons of God" refered to in this passage are falling angels and that these fallen angels had relations with human women that bore children from these relationships. Here is my problem first of all Jesus Himself said angels are sexless beings in Matthew 22:29-30. Another problem I have with this is if in fact fallen angels and human women had children where would they fall in the plan of redemption. Would this not be a new ontological creation? Any help with this will be recieved thankfully. In The Love Of Christ, tgc |
||||||
2 | Explantation of Gen. 6:1-6 | Gen 6:2 | Tim3:16 | 127593 | ||
Hi tgc, following are from some of my favorite biblical commentaries, I would like to share their insight with you. The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain: They took them wives of all that they chose. -Matthew Henry And, this from David Guzik, who is the director of Calvary Chapel Bible College, Germany: "Many people have understood that the sons of God were those from the line of Seth, and the daughters of men were from the line of Cain, and this describes an intermarriage between the godly and the ungodly - something God specifically prohibits (Deuteronomy 7:1-4; 2 Corinthians 6:14) It is more accurate to see the sons of God as either demons (angels in rebellion against God) or uniquely demon possessed men, and the daughters of men as human women The phrase sons of God clearly refers to angelic creatures when it is used the three other times in the Old Testament (Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7). Why would Satan send his angels to intermarry (either directly or indirectly) with human women? Satan was trying to pollute the genetic "pool" of mankind with a satanic corruption; to put a genetic "virus" that would make the human race unfit for bringing forth the Seed of the woman - the Messiah - promised in Genesis 3:15 "The Savior could not be born of a demon-possessed mother. So if Satan could succeed in infecting the entire race, the deliverer could not come." (Boice) Blessings, tim |
||||||
3 | Explantation of Gen. 6:1-6 | Gen 6:2 | DocTrinsograce | 127599 | ||
Good answer, Tim. I can swing both ways on this question, just depending on how I look at it. Matthew Henry tends to have my vote most of the time. Welcome to the Forum, Tim! I look forward to your future postings! |
||||||