Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Genesis 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. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Genesis 6:4 There were Nephilim (men of stature, notorious men) on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God lived with the daughters of men, and they gave birth to their children. These were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown (great reputation, fame). [Num 13:33] |
Bible Question: The problem with interpreting 'sons of God' as angels in Genesis 6:4 stems not from Job 4:18, but with the fall of satan and his unholy angels itself. Angels are referred to in Jude 6-7 with Sodom and Gomorrah, but the 'gross immorality' with 'strange flesh' is not at all referring to angels here but to Sodom and Gomorrah- both cities that practiced homosexuality (Gen. 19:5). Angels are referred to in 2 Peter 2:4-5 which explains how the angels fell from grace, speaking of a once and for all judgment on the unholy angels. Now are angels permitted to continually sin to this day? I don't think so. If you also believe that angels cannot perpetually sin, then you also believe that satan and his angels fell ONCE from grace, that there was ONE time when iniquity was found in the angelic realm. Now the first recorded sin that we know of in history occurred in Genesis 3:6-7. If you believe that satan and his angels fell from grace only once, then he had to have already fallen from grace with his unholy angels at this time or THIS occurrence itself is the fall of satan and his angels- by enticing mankind to sin. Support for this view can be found in Ezekiel 28:12-18 where it is thought to refer to the fall of satan here. Also, Isaiah 14:12-15 is also recited as referring to the fall of satan. In verse 13 (and in the passage in Ezekiel), this is referring to a sin of 'haughtiness' and exultation rather than the sin of lust. Haughtiness is a sin of the spirit whereas lust is a sin of the flesh. This explains how the angels cannot be given in marriage (Matt. 22:30), but were susceptible to the sin of pride at one time and one time only. (their fall) Now if the first recorded sin is in Gen. 3:6 then how can Gen. 6:4 be referring to angels if they had already fallen from grace? There was a considerable amount of time between Gen. 3:6 and 6:4. I believe that since the angels were not given fleshly bodies then they would not be able to commit a sin of the flesh, since our deliverance from the sins of the flesh is a mystery to angels! (1 Peter 1:12). This is why I believe that they had to commit a sin of the spirit, and that sin being pride, with satan as their leader (Isaiah 14:13). For it was out of pride and envy that satan rebelled against God- to have His throne, and it was also out of envy that the Scribes and the Pharisees handed Jesus over to be crucified (Matt 27:18). When satan fell, he took a third of the angels of heaven with him (Rev. 12:4, 7-9). satan and his angels did not do this out of lust for the daughters of men, but because of their rebellion against God. So in result, the fall of satan and his angels had long occurred by the time of Genesis 6:4, when the line of Seth (the "Seed" in Gen. 4:25-26), who began to call upon the name of the Lord, began to intermarry with the daughters of men, being led astray by their own fleshly lust in Genesis 6:4. This is the reason why the 'sons of God' refers to the line of Seth rather than the angels of heaven. Note: I have chosen not to glorify the name of 'satan' to the point of violating grammatical rules.. |
Bible Answer: Nolan, your answer is a very reasonable, well thought out one. The following is in no way intended as a criticism of you or your writing. . . . My problem is with all the endless debate over this verse, a verse that doesn't have a thing in the world to do with the doctrine of Christ, Salvation or anything else that has any impact on our daily lives. Under questions on Gen 6:4, I counted 29 postings since Feb. 27, 2001. . . . I point this out only as an example of the many questions that have been debated to death on this Forum. People at the Forum have a real knack for asking questions for which no clear verse of Scripture exists to provide an answer. That may be kicks for some, but how are we edified, how are we benefited, by all this idle coffee shop chatter? . . . Surely we can find questions that do have a Biblical answer. Does EVERY question have to be highly controversial and speculative in nature? It would be nice for a change if we at the Forum would address questions that do have an answer. Questions that do not divide people. . . . I'm not totally against controversial topics, but do we have to major on them? Is that the main reason this Forum exists -- to argue, insinuate, insult, and criticize one another? (Again, Nolan, none of this is directed at you personally or at the reply you gave re the question on Gen 6:4.) |