Sons Of God ?

The context wouldn't allow for spirit beings, which good or bad angels are. So, they are from the line of Seth.

 

From the line of Seth!

Angel beings are not human---impossible to cohabitate and propagate with humans! They are not created "of the dust of the earth" and do not carry the "breath of life" They are not created "in the image of God" They are beyond redemption--cannot acquire salvation! Besides, laws of biology would prevent any sort of sexual relationship.

 

Definitely Angels.

 

Line of Seth

 

Angels having sexual relations with humans?

I don't think so.

Tim

 

I have heard the line of Seth,
and, fallen angels. One Pastor I know said he always believed it was the line of Seth, but recently seem to linger toward the fallen angel theory.
In Christ,
Peggy

 

Neither a blood line nor angels, folks. Look to the Bible to answer. Sons of God are believers, be they angelic or human. Since only humans can have babies with humans, except for the miraculous conception of our Lord Jesus Christ, then the sons of God in Genesis must be referring to human believers -- those trusting God.

This is in line not only with the way 'sons of God' is used throughout the rest of the Bible, but with the constant injunctions not to mix with unbelievers.

 

Helen, how did mix marriages warrant the flood?

Anyway, I personally hold to two possibilities:

1. Angels (well supported by the use of "sons of Elohim" and the N.T. texts about it).

2. The "Sons of Elohim" in the sense that they were judges and princes and exercised sovereignty.

There is a reason it doesn't say "sons of Jehovah".

 

In Job, the reference applies to angelic beings, so I say that it would in Genesis, also.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Mixed marriages were a symptom, not a cause, of the disregard of keeping the worship of God pure. It is verse 5 of chapter 6 that gives us the underlying problem: The Lord saw how great man's wickendness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the throughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

In other words, when the marriages became mixed in terms of the faithful and the unfaithful, it was the unfaithful who were 'contagious', not the faithful: the faithful did not convert the unfaithful, but rather it appears it was the other way around.

We have seen this historically even with the Puritans in America. Whether or not anyone agrees with their doctrines, the fact is that by the third generation here in America, the Halfway Covenant had to be instituted because there were not enough true believers. We see in the New Testament how quickly spurious doctrines started infiltrating the new churches. There is nothing new under the sun -- it was the same before the Flood.

Angelic beings do not have human DNA and cannot breed with humans. That part is simple. What about demonically possessed people? Sure, but they are still people! A demonically possessed woman could still appear very alluring to a godly man and if he gave into that, the next generation would be essentially lost. It is interesting that it was the SONS of God who found the DAUGHTERS of men attractive, for it is the mothers who do most of the child raising in most cultures. It is the mother who can run down what the father says in subtle ways and turn the children against him quietly. And then his beliefs are also disregarded.

That is how it can happen.

There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that bloodline is indicative of godliness. Nor is there any indication in the Bible or in genetics that it is possible for a non-human to breed successfully with a human.

Thus, we are left with the believers falling for rather nasty, pagan women, and thus losing the generations that followed to crime and violence and rebellion against God.

 

Helen's gotcha DD.

If the "sons of God" were angels and saw the daughters of men were "fair", then women must be getting uglier for them not to think any more of them today. So I can conclude that not only are they of the godly line of Seth, but if they were angels, they aren't very smart, women as a whole are prettier than ever before!

IOW, if they were angels, then wouldn't there still be occurances of intermingling? The "fallen" angels weren't destroyed from the face of the earth, they are the demons that help ol"slewfoot torment people.

Use "some" common since.

 

Nor is there any indication that it isn't possible, Helen. It is true if "sons of Elohim" mean angels. I don't have to explain everything about it.

Angels are not genderless, they are always masculine, that is why they don't marry are don't reproduce.

Besides, the other view I gave is still more believable than the "godly line of seth" argument, which is really just a reaction to the angel idea.

 

QS, once again, you apparently don't understand the issues at hand.

1. Actually, no.

2. Please stick to the discussion and stop with your fillibuster.

3. Wait, you CONCLUDE it is the line of seth because you don't understand the angel view? Nice. It is always better to let the text decide the issue.

2 Peter and Jude could each be referring to Genesis 6.

4. No, it was a certain group during a certain time. They don't have to still be able to do it.

5. Yes, thank you. I think we all know that.

6. Common sense doesn't prove anything in Scripture. It isn't common sense that God would redeem rebellious people through the death of his son. Next.

 

I could just as easily say that about the other ideas. There is a reason we study.

 

Nor is there any indication that it isn't possible, Helen. It is true if "sons of Elohim" mean angels. I don't have to explain everything about it.</font>[/QUOTE]Well, it would certainly be miraculous, then! Non-human and human combination on a regular basis? I thought miracles were from God....

Excuse me, but 'angel' simply means messenger. It is the word 'malak' and is used in the following passages as well:

He makes winds his messengers [malak], flames of fire his servants.
Psalm 104:4

Some of the passages referring to people as messengers for other people are

Gen 32:3, 32:6
Numbers 20:14, 21:21, 22:5
Joshua 7:22
Judges 6:35, 7:24, 9:31

it goes on and on, even including its use that way in some of the prophetic books.

"Malak", meaning "angel" or "angels" has nothing to do with the identification of what or whom the messenger is, actually, including any sexual connotation. Or are all winds masculine?

I still prefer to let Bible explain Bible. Human 'sons of God' are always believers. Mixed marriages are spoken against, in terms of believer to unbeliever, from start to finish. We do not need to figure some genetic line is godly while another isn't. That is completely against the message of the Bible, including the lineage of Christ! Nor do we need to figure some strange human-non-human mutants were involved anywhere. Methinks those who believe this have been too deeply immersed in science fiction and Superman stories for too long...

 

So, Helen, it appears you will be masculine when you get to heaven. Remember that passage about children of God neither marrying nor giving in marriage, but, being as the angels in heaven ?

 

aaaggghhhhhh!

PLEASE don't tell Barry!