Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Genesis 6:1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Genesis 6:1 Now it happened, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, |
Bible Question: Thank you for your thoughts. This may be a little doctrinally contentious so we may need to end agreeing to differ. I have some regard for the respected C.I.Schofield and his study of the KJV Bible and I tend to agree with his conclusions here: "Some hold that these sons of God were the angels which kept not their first estate (Jude 6). It is asserted that the title is in the OT exclusively used of angels. But this is an error (Isa 43:6). Angels are spoken of in a sexless way. No female angels are mentioned in scripture and we are expressly told that marriage is unknown among angels (Mat 22:30). The uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that verse 2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain, and so the failure of the testimony to Jehovah committed to the line of Seth (Gen 4:26). For apostasy there is no remedy but judgment (Isa 1:2-7, 24, 25; Heb 6:4-8; 10:26-31). Noah, "a preacher of righteousness" is given 120 yrs but he won no convert and the judgment predicted by his great grandfather fell (Jude 14, 15; Gen 7:11)." That is Schofield's note on the subject, I see no reason to differ with him. |
Bible Answer: While I have great respect for Dr Scofield (as a newborn Christian with no evangelical church known to me I seized on his notes as a Godsend, although I have subsequently discovered their many flaws). But he tends to be inaccurate in his general statements. To say that 'the uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that Gen 6.2 marks the breaking down of the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain' is simply untrue. It is the worst kind of misstatement taking advantage of people's ignorance. The 1st century Jewish philosopher Philo following LXX as known to him translated bene elohim (sons of God) as aggeloi tou theou (angels of God). And he was hugely influential among the Jews. And this translation is found in Eusebius and Ambrose. Josephus states that Gen 6.2 referred to angels. Enoch 6.2 refers it to 'the angels, the children of heaven'. Jubilees 5.1 refers it to 'angels of God'. The Genesis Apocryphon sees it as a union between angels and earthly women. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras and Commodianus all held this view. Delitzsch in his commentary says 'it is most obvious to think here of angels' and cites many sources. Taking bene elohim as 'sons of princes' (many ancient kings were seen as sons of the gods) is the traditional one in orthodox Rabbinical Judaism, and was established in order to counter the prevailing view that the passage referred to angels. But they too did not see it as referring to the line of Seth. Thus Scofield's statement is not only misleading, it is false. But in the Old Testament bene elohim always means angels (Job 1.6; 2.1; 38.7; Psalm 29.1 in Hebrew; 89.6 in Hebrew; Daniel 3.25). In contrast Isaiah 43.6 does not use the phrase bene elohim and reference to it is thus misleading. With regard to Daniel 3.25 the ben elohim mentioned there is in verse 28 specifically called 'His angel'. The fact that angels are spoken of as neither marrying nor giving in marriage indicates the norm. But that is the point. These angels had 'left their first estate' (Jude 6). The 'godly line of Seth' did not exist and is an invention of Bible students (I will not say scholars). Seth and his son were godly. Note that in Genesis 4.25 it was men in general who began to call on the Name of YHWH, not just Sethites. There is no indication that Sethites were generally more godly, apart from Enoch. To me the most obvious interpretation explains why the Flood was necessary and why man had become so totally evil (including the line of Seth). I am still waiting to learn why the lines of the other sons of Adam are not mentioned in arguments. Did they not exist? |