Who are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2,4?

I’m still waitin for Dr Bob to come out with his tyrant/judges/rulers theory—b/c it really is 2nd on my list (of actual possible biblical support). Personally I rate it like this-- 1st-angelic, 2nd-tyrants/judges/kings (what ever), 3rd----nothin get that archaic Sethite garbage out of here! Its not even biblical—at least the rulers theory has a biblical chance! And please don’t give me—that’s such a cocky attitude & its is non Christian—my challenge is only 4 biblical research!

 

No I don’t personally feel that way—but I’ll give u this—certain historical writings support ur idea (see Raymond E brown on John) & its not as farfetched as the Sethite theory of Gen 6-lol

 

Ok –ok—I’m challenging any Sethite supporter to step up in the name of biblical research & support their view! I want be rude—just give me legitimate biblical support.

 

Thank u 4 that question---1st more than 1 phrase or word means angel in biblical writing (just look it up in any scholarly lexicon). 2ndSome objections center on Jesus’ teaching about angels (Mt 22:30; Mk 12:25; Lk 20:35-36). In the resurrection, Jesus explains, the faithful will be like the “angels of God in heaven,” who do not marry. It is a short step to the assumption that “sons of God” could not be angels because angels do not marry. Well, the angelic beings Jesus mentions are clearly elect and holy angels, whose home is in heaven. On the other hand, evil angels of Satan are not “angels of God in heaven.” In the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, it is not the angels in heaven who marry human women but the sinful angels who “left their natural habitat” (Jude 6). The qualifying phrase “in heaven” distinguishes the two groups of angels. Angels in heaven do not marry; the angels in view in Genesis 6:1-4 as “sons of God” are no longer in heaven and may marry. Does this mean they weren’t in heaven when the event happened—no this could have been their fall—Scripture never lays out 4 us the timing or how certain angels fell—When it comes to the angelic revolt its not as clear cut as many imagine it. We know Satan fell by Gen 3—but we really are not told if other angels fell with him at his initial revolt, or if there was more than 1 angelic revolt (Even if we allow Rev 12 to be about Satan’s initial revolt it does not say when or how he influenced other angels to rebel.) Nevertheless even if these angels followed Satan in his initial rebellion & had fallen by Gen 3—they still are closer to the bene elohim term than mere humans interpretation b/c at one time they were holy or classified as bene elohim.

 

Lol some do think that—but the point of Matt 24:36-37 is not caring about godly things—being focused on the here & now—being focused on the pleasure of this life & not God’s judgment! Like the days of Noah the people who face the 2nd coming will be unaware—only focusing on fleshly pleasure! Unexpected of God’s judgment & the true power that He will reveal!.
Steve & percho thank u 4 ur continued study –I have 2 leave 4 a bit but I’ll b back soon 2 answer any questions—please keep posting

 

Really-dear brother that’s ur best answer—is “the context”—well context proves they can not be Cainite women. Adham is a Hebrew generic term sometimes used to denote mankind as a whole (Gen 6:1). It is highly unlikely that adham is used in Genesis 6:1 to mean all mankind and then restricted to one particular family in the next verse (6:2). The reference to the “daughters of man” cannot be limited to the genealogy of Seth or Cain (based on context & original language)—they simply belong to the category of humans of the female gender. Since adham cannot be limited to Cainite women (due to the use of the Adham term in Gen 6:1 then again in 6:2)—there is no hint of this being Sethite-Cainite marriages—b/c adham (daughters of men) includes both Cainite & Sethite women. Further, the introductory phrase in Gn 6:1 is a Hebrew linguistic style of summarizing the last topic & moving to the next—at best (if any connection to the previous chapters at all)—context makes the daughters of man—Sethites, that is if we allow the original Hebrew language to actually be the context. And if context is desired—we have a new starting point (ie Gen 6:1) with human females (of an undefined class-ie Gen 6:2) intermingling with the Hebrew bene elohim. (Heb: sons of God)----—please show me any where in Hebrew literature or Scripture that the exact Hebrew bene elohim phrase ever refers to Sethites & I’ll say maybe—otherwise if u want context learn the original language-(not being rude)-just pointing out__and if i do sound rude i apologize ahead of time:godisgood:

 

Steve good question but I’ve already addressed it post 47— I’ll repost it but also read post 45
—as far as the reason God destroyed the earth—Gen 6 does not specify except that man was wicked (Gen 6:5). So this was mans punishment for his part in the sin. Many object & say—what about the angels—where is the angelic punishment in Gen 6? Well in the Bible man is the focus & not angels—there are many events that angels are involved in that we are not given the full details until later. For example Moses dies (Deut 34:5-6)- but its not until Jude 9 that we find out about this controversy between Michael & Satan over his body. In Gen 3 a serpent is described-but its not until Rev12:9, 20:2 (& possibly Rom 16:20) that it is clearly referred to as Satan. David’s takes a census, while 2 Sam 24 originally does not mention Satan, 1 Chron 21 does. Although Ex 19-20 does not tell of angelic involvement with the giving of the law-- Gal 3:19, Acts 7:53, & Heb 2:2 tells us they where somehow involved. There are many times in Scripture where angels are involved & we don’t get the full details. Gen 6 is similar—although the original account doesn’t go into detail about their punishment—2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6 does. When it comes to angels we are on a need to know basis & we always don’t need to know the details, b/c the biblical focus is on man & not angels. The flood happened to punish man—but the angels for their part were put in tartarosas (from which comes the word Tartarus). While some may object & say 2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6 cannot prove Gen 6 talks of angels---maybe not—but 1 thing is for sure—these verses do refer to the angelic understanding of Gen 6--& if not I’d love to see another possible historical/biblical example that the NT authors could be referring too.

 

This & post 114 are both Very good posts!