Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189174 | ||
Hopalong, As I indicated earlier, here is the traditional position on the matter: "Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?” Answer: Genesis 6:1-4 tells us, "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." There have been several suggestions as to who the sons of God were, and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants (that is what the word Nephilim seems to indicate). The three primary views on the identity of the "sons of God" are that (1) they were fallen angels, or (2) they were powerful human rulers, or (3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to (1) is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase "sons of God" always refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with (1) is the fact that Matthew 22:30 indicates that angels do not marry. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that angels have a gender, or are able to reproduce. Views (2) and (3) do not have this problem. The weakness of views (2) and (3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were "giants" or "heroes of old, men of renown." Further, why would God decide to bring the Flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbidden powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain. The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4. Only the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment. The weakness of view (1) is that Matthew 22:30 declares, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” However, this weakness can be overcome by noting that the text does not say “angels are not able to marry.” Rather, it indicates only that angels do not marry. Secondly, Matthew 22:30 is referring to the “angels in heaven.” It is not referring to fallen angels, who do not care about God’s created order and actively seek ways to disrupt God’s plan. The fact that God’s holy angels do not marry or engage in sexual relations does not mean the same is true of Satan and his demons. View (1) is the most likely position. Yes, it is an interesting “contradiction” to say that angels are sexless and then to say that the “sons of God” were fallen angels who procreated with human females. However, while angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5). The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1-5). It is plausible that angels are capable of taking on human form, even to the point of replicating human sexuality and possibly even reproduction. Why do the fallen angels not do this more often? It seems that God imprisoned the fallen angels who committed this evil sin, so that the other fallen angels would not do the same (as described in Jude 6). Earlier Hebrew interpreters, apocryphal, and pseudopigriphal writings are unanimous in holding to the view that fallen angels are the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. This by no means closes the debate. However, the view that Genesis 6:1-4 involves fallen angels mating with human females has a strong contextual, grammatical, and historical basis. I rest my case, although it probibly won't sit still! InGodITrust |
||||||
2 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | OldPilgrim | 189224 | ||
Hello Rick. Thank you for your post, which I find most informative. It is possible that with your Jewish background, and scholarship, you might be able to help me. I have been told that the word "Nephilim", at (Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were 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.) Is translated in the Septuagint with the Greek word "Titans", and that In Greek mythology the Titans were a family of giants, the children of Uranus and Gaia, who sought to rule the heavens but were overthrown and supplanted by the family of Zeus. Is one able I wonder to conclude from this that when the translators of about 300 BC, were looking for a suitable Greek word to represent Nephilim, they chose Titans, as this was the one word which gave some idea of what they the translators understood the word Nephilim to mean, that is to say, a life form resulting "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men," I look forward to reading your comments. OldPilgrim. |
||||||
3 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189226 | ||
Greetings OldPilgrim, You got me "flat-footed." My knowledge and studies are confined to New Testament doctrine. I am very weak in the Old Testament. Found out about my Jewish heritage only 5 months ago. I am anything but a scholar, but thank you for the thought!! Also, it is my understanding that the Jewish authorities did not translate the Septuagint into Greek until sometime around 500-600 bc. As far as a suitable Greek word one can only speculate. Right or wrong, whenever I am trying to draw a conclusion to controversial Scriptural issues, I try to look back through history to what those of reputation interpreted it to be. That, in light of what modern scholars of good reputation have found discovered in their studies. With all the technology we have today it behoves us to compare that with history. Usually, if a present day Bible teacher or scholar does not have "most all of his ducks in a row," I don't consider them necessarily reliable. A big mistake Bible students make is that they don't compare "the source." Just because so and so said it, does not make it worthy of consideration. We live in a day and age where "every Tom, Dick, and Harry," have their own opinion. Usually to the great detriment of Scriptural accuracy. Unfortunately, here on the Forum, that is too ofton the case. My opinion or yours or anyone else's is not worth much if we do not balance everything out and consider, most of all, the source in which we conclude our opinion. Wow, I did not mean to get on my high horse, guess I did so as I just came in from church! Sorry I could not be of help in your sincere quest to find an answer. Frankly when it concerns this subject, there may not be one. You have a really good point though, one should very seriously consider Jewish sources, no matter if Messianic or not, when it concerns Old Testament interpretation. Much blessings to you my friend, InGodITrust |
||||||