Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | who are the sons of God | Gen 6:2 | muller | 182841 | ||
who are the sons of God | ||||||
2 | who are the sons of God | Gen 6:2 | mark d seyler | 182849 | ||
Some considerations when examining the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 These are some things to keep in mind when seeking to understand what actually happened before (and after) the flood. Terminology - - - Sons of God The term "sons of God" is used in a technical sense throughout the Bible, referring to those who are created by God, as opposed to whe are born from another: Adam (Luke 3), angels (fallen and not)(Gen, Job), and Christians (John 1 and others). A simple word search will verify this. Is there a Biblical reason to define "sons of God" in this passage as different from all other usages in the Bible, which all agree with each other? Is there anything that tells us that the "sons of God" in Gen. 6 refers to a particular group of people, to the exclusion of another group of people? Daughters of Men What about the "daughters of men”? This is an unspecified classification, beyond that they were the daughters of men. Since the text does not add additional qualifiers, such as “the daughters of (ungodly) men”, or “the daughters of (Cain’s descendant’s) men”, then should we add those qualifiers? I would not add what is not found in the text. And if we are talking about a “Godly line of Seth”, they had to all disappear for it to be true that only Noah was found righteous. Outcome- - - Giants If the "sons of God" were the sons of Seth, and the "daughters of men" were the daughters of Cain, then why would their children be any different than any others? The indication is that these children shared common traits that set them apart from the other children. When did a believer marrying a non-believer cause their children to be born "giants", or whatever else the "nephilim" were? Teachings of Angels- - - In Jesus’ discussion with the Saducees, Jesus specifically said "angels in heaven" neither marry nor are given in marraige. Why was this distinction needed? Jude 1:6-7 "And those angels not having kept their first place, but having deserted their dwelling-place, He has kept in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of a great Day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, committing fornication, and going away after other flesh, laid down an example before-times, undergoing vengeance of everlasting fire." This passage tells us that there were angels that left their "dwelling place", or in the Greek, "oiketerion". This word is used only one other time in the New Testament, in 2 Cor. 5:2 "For also in this we groan, greatly desiring to be clothed with our dwelling place out of Heaven," speaking of our heavenly body. So these angels somehow left their heavenly bodies, apparently. Jude goes on to tell us about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, and that they "went after other flesh", "sarkos heteros", or "flesh of a different kind". We know that just before the destruction of Sodom, the men of Sodom demanded that Lot hand over the two angels, that they might have sex with them. So it would seem from Jude that there were angels who left their heavenly bodies, who went after others who were not angels, to have sex with. For this sin, they were placed in chains, held for judgment. Peter also wrote of angels that would seem to be the same ones: 2 Peter 2:4 "For if God did not spare sinning angels, but delivered them to chains of darkness, thrust down into Tartarus, having been kept to judgment;" If the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are fallen angels, we have the story behind these passages. If not, we can only wonder when it was that angels did these things. For me, this is the kind of harmony I look for in Biblical interpretation. The "sons of God" fathered children with the "daughters of men". Angels who left their own dwelling and went after different flesh are chained awaiting judgment. |
||||||
3 | how do you feel about my previous postin | Gen 6:2 | kw5kw | 183076 | ||
Greetings Mark, How do you feel about my post #182845 on this subject? (It's found just above under "hlavie's" question.) Russ |
||||||
4 | how do you feel about my previous postin | Gen 6:2 | mark d seyler | 183082 | ||
Hi Russ, This is a response concerning your previous post. What happens in the future concerning faithful angels or faithful resurrected humanity does not determine what may or may not have happened concerning unfaithful angels in the past. The argument that angels procreating with humans is outside of the natural order agrees with Scripture, and that is why they are punished. The “biology” or workmanship of angels is not explained in Scripture. I disagree that the Book of Enoch is required to show this understanding. I believe that it is fully supported by Scripture alone, and I never referrence the Book of Enoch as substantiation of any teaching, aside from the small portion quoted by Jude. Satan is said to be able to “transform himself into an angel of light.” Angels have often appeared as men, sometimes eating our food with us. The Bible does not specifiy what powers or abilities angels do or don’t have, beyond certain limited referrences that are not presented as exhaustive. Fallen angels have deceived mankind in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Jesus prophesied that many false christs shall appear and will deceive many. But Jesus died, and rose again, and that is presented in the Bible as something only He will do. He fulfilled prophecies that were not able to be fulfilled by anyone other than the Messiah. Jesus was attested to in ways that no other man or spirit can be. Many agree with your view concerning this incident. But none (that I am aware of) agreed with it prior to around 300 AD, when the historical-grammatical literal interpretation of Scripture began to be abandoned for a more interpretive, allegorical style. This incident in particular was deemed difficult to defend to the scoffers, and so it’s defense was discarded. There is not, again, to my knowledge, any record prior to this time that these “sons of God” were any other than fallen angels, and were actually the “sons of Seth.” I hope this will serve as an adequate answer for you. Thank you for asking! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||