I think the responses above deal with the issue well (as in being not mortal), but I'll also point out that you're assuming that:
1. You must refer to an angel as a demon in any context where he does something wrong.
2. Demons are fallen angels.
I don't think either assumption is purely scriptural. There's no scriptural rule that if an angel rebels, it must be referred to as a demon.
As for assumption #2, most people assume demons are fallen angels, but the Bible never says that. We don't really know for sure where demons come from. The only thing the Bible says about them that we know for sure is that they are bad, that some demons are more potent than others, and that they seem to be obsessed with possessing flesh in some way or another. While it seems reasonable to assume that demons are fallen angels (since there is a hierarchy among angels as well as demons), the Bible doesn't come right out and say they're fallen angels.
See my other thread for a speculation that demons are the result of dead offspring of angels/women. Is that what demons are? I have no idea, but it's a thought.
Genesis 6:1-4, who are the "sons of God"?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by webdog, Mar 5, 2007.
?
Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4?
Poll closed May 4, 2007.
-
Angels
1 vote(s)3.0% -
Fallen Angels
10 vote(s)30.3% -
Line of Seth
14 vote(s)42.4% -
Righteous men from another geneology line
2 vote(s)6.1% -
another form of creation
1 vote(s)3.0% -
none of the above
5 vote(s)15.2%
Page 2 of 2
-
Inadequate in Myself MemberSite Supporter
-
Here's another problem:
-
-
Think of it this way...
-
Inadequate in Myself MemberSite Supporter
As to the Hebrew it is not to be broken up as sons is unquestionably in the construct form which means it can ONLY be read in relation to God/god/god (depending on the translation). The question then becomes what the phrase means. I agree with Mathews that the construct in the case forces the absolute to be read almost adjectively - "godly sons." However, there is a good case to be made given the numerous examples of "son of" being the introduction of an idiom.
It is a little circular to argue it ONLY refers to un-fallen angels to exclude a case where it might not be - when you have so few examples to work from. Especially when one of the very few examples you have is the Job passage that could very well (linguistically speaking) include Satan as one of them.
Other matters way into the discussion. I was only speaking from a linguistic point of view. and linguistically you absolutely cannot exclude the possibility of it referring to heavenly beings. In fact, the linguistic argument is by far the strongest argument for it being "angels" of some sort. -
One thing I'm not understanding is where we see in Scripture the fact that angels are attracted to humans. If this happened then, who is to say this isn't still happening today? Maybe we are descended from angel / human hybrids still?
I also don't see where an angel / human offspring would be referred to by God as "human". If humans could intermate with canine's, we wouldn't refer to the hybrid created as humans.
Also, where do we find either scripturally or scientifically where a species can intermate with other species? -
I think the point that Dr. Pettingill was making is that the demons or fallen angels were possibly possessing other human males, and then in that state mating with the women, who were worshiping demons or the devil. That would account for the need of the destruction in the flood. Of course, I've thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. :laugh:
-
-
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 man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
Barnes' comments on 6:4
Two classes of men, with strong hand and strong will, are here described. "The giants," the well-known men of great stature, physical force, and violent will, who were enabled by these qualities to claim and secure the supremacy over their fellow-men. "Had been in the land in those days." In the days when those intermarriages were beginning to take place, the warriors were asserting the claim of might. Violence and rapine were becoming rampant in the land. "And after that." The progeny of the mixed marriages were the second and subsequent class of leading men. "The sons of God" are here contradistinguished from the "nephilim, or giants," who appear therefore to have belonged to the Cainites. The offspring of these unhallowed unions were the heroes, the gallants, the mighty men, the men of renown. They were probably more refined in manners and exalted in thought than their predecessors of pure Cainite descent. "Men of name," whose names are often in men’s mouths, because they either deserved or required to be named frequently on account of their influential or representative character. Being distinguished from the common herd by prominent qualities or memorable exploits, they were also frequently marked out by a special name or surname, derived from such trait of character or deed of notoriety. "Of old" (מעולם mē'ôlām). This has been sometimes explained "of the world," in the sense of αἰών aiōn; but the meaning is too late for the present passage. The phrase uniformly means "of old," covering a more or less extensive length of time. This note of time implies a writer probably after the deluge, who could speak of antediluvian affairs, as happening of old.
Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years."
-
I'm curious about those who voted "none of the above" and "another form of creation". Who do you think they are?
-
None of the above.
I realize that I have a very minority view, but I think "sons of God" is some sort of hyperbole for just plain old "men". They looked on the daughters and lusted after their beauty. Fill in the rest from there and you have the pre-flood corrupt society. And you also have the western world of 2007. -
* The angels in heaven can’t marry they are all masculine.!!!
Mt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
* The angles in Gen 6 were not in heaven when they took wives.
Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
* The term sons of God in the bible refers to someone who is perfect when the were created, or created new .
For example.
ADAM
Lu 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
BORN AGAIN BELIEVERS.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
ANGELS
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Eze 28:15 Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
REPENTANT ISRAEL
Isa 43:6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth;
The fallen angels were perfect when created -
I think this is referring to the leaders, judges, or mighty men of old, that decided to take what they wanted because they had the authority.
There are other places in the Bible that speaks of humans as gods... meaning judges, or leaders....
John 10:34-35
(34) Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
(35) If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
I believe this statement in Genesis is referring to the men of old that had God-given authority to lead.
BTW, the extra-biblical book of Jasher says about the same thing... they were judges.
"18 And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force
from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from
the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture
of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw
the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men
and all animals."
Of course this is just my opinion, and I refuse to be dogmatic over it, so disagree all you want.
-
What I really wanted to address, however, was that if you're going to go by what science teaches us, your conclusions will be based on the most flimsy foundation. Science teaches us whatever is necessary to support materialism and evolution.
For example, there is a documented case where a colony of mosquitoes in a London subway split into two colonies. After a number of generations, the second colony mutated in such a way that they could not reproduce with the first colony. Scientists call this "speciation", and claim that the second colony is now a new species of mosquito, which "proves" evolution. Yet they're all mosquitoes, right?
Then you have the case of the Lion and Tiger, which science considers to be two different species. Yet they can mate and produce offspring. What's the scientific rationale? That they're both branches off a single line of evolution, and thus are related. So they have their cake and eat it, too. When two mosquitoes can't mate, that proves evolution. When a Lion and Tiger can mate, that proves evolution.
Warning: When you talk to someone who believes this stuff, don't mention plant life, which allows for all kinds of bizarre hybrids and cross-species offshoots. That totally screws up their idea of speciation and you get nothing but gobbledy gook double-speak for answers as to how this fits into their theory. ;) -
Second, it is pure speculation that angels can change their dna into that of ours. That would almost make them quasi-gods. They are a created species like all of God's creation. We have no proof (biblical or otheriwise) that any creation can change their dna into that of another species.
I'm really liking the idea the TinyTim put forth from the book of Jasher. I will have to study that one more. Where in Jasher is that from? -
I'm done with the topic, though. It's not important, and it's impossible to reach a firm conclusion either way, so I'm all argued out about it. -
Page 2 of 2