Genesis 6:1-4

I'm certainly no expert in Hebrew, but this is not the phrase "Sons of God" and it is in a completely different context.
Ps. 109 is obviously referring to humans who have been given god like authority, whereas the verses in Genesis and Job obviously mean angels.

 

I think so. They were mighty warriors.

I don't think the giants were the offspring of angels and humans. They were simply very large people.

 

Acatully, this isn't true.
You don't have the OT defining something and the NT re-defining it to something new or better distinctly different than it's orginal definition.

If it does, then please supply me with one such instance.
I am not saying this to be rude but am really asking because there are certain biblical arguments that are based specifically on this rule of interpretation.

In the OT we do see this same phrasology in various passages though not in exactly the way as was previously shown in Psalms 82.
The passage, in context, is rightly refering to these men being sons of God.
Note that in the Hebrew the word for God (as in son's of..) is 'Elohim'.
This word is not only used to describe God in the plural form but also to describe a partilcular group of men (mankind, not men only) - ye are gods.
This signifies their place and stature among men, and the next part establishes why this is so.. and all of you (all of that grouping) are sons of the most High. This reference is about Israel (also know as the children of God) and though not all of Israel was saved and actaully His children, as a people group they were cared after as if they all were. But they were all sons of God according to the context above. The psalmist is not just making a declaration that they (the nation of Israel) are sons of God but is explain their position and why it is so, because they are the son's of God.
We this same phrasology in Duet 14:1

If they are God's children then what does that make them?
Is it not - sons?
Also in Isa 43:6

Who are God's sons here? Angels
Who are the God's daughters? women?

THus the phase is NOT only used for angels but for both men and angels according to context and therefore the term has both a general and a specific meaning. General is that it refers to those whom God has aligned Himself with (a group though that group does not all have to be saved- ie. Israel), and specific with respect to those who have aligned themself to God.

In the NT the specificness of the phrase actaully becomes more (not re-defined) relating not just to working with or along side God - servant/master relationship but to an actaul Father/child relationship meaning we are one both with and IN Him therefore being OF Him.


Are the angels actaully His children as we are in Christ Jesus (brothers to Him)? No.
Then why call them son's of God?
Because like with Israel as a nation (who were called God's children) it is a term used in a general sense relating to those who are - with God.

However, it is of note that context is the most important aspect here. You have chapter 4 speaking about Seth's lingeage (God's chosen) and chapter 5 being about Cain's lineage (those not). Chosen here is not meaning to salvation just as Romans 9 isn't specifically about salvation but is refering to being chosen for/to fulfill purpose. Then we have chapter 6 speaking of both groups.

Some people try to insinuate that the line of Seth as being the son's of God does seem right because only Noah was found righteous. The line of Seth were not righteous (like Israel) but that does not negate the fact Seth's line was God's chosen lineage for purpose.
Remember, God was ready to destroy all of Israel as well if it were not for Moses. The difference is that they did repent, but the people pre-flood did not, and both were given the opportunity to do so.

 

THis is true. There were giants (men of large stature) called the Nephilim there proir to the event and they were there even after the flood

Also the the text does not state the Nephilim were offspring of thses marriages. IOW - Gen 6:4 doesn't explicitly sate the Nephilim were offspring, only that they showed up at the same time the intermarriage was happening.

This is important to understand because the Hebrew here isn't making the suggestion of them coming into being by this event but that these people were already there and became prominant or rising to power during this time. The passage actaully distinquishes between the Nephilim (giants) and those born due to the intermarriage.

Here is a good question for those who hold these Nephilim were the generation produced from these marriages..

If God wiped out all the Nephilim and mankind as judgment, with the exception of Noah, his wife and son, and son's wives (who were not apart of the abomination), and supposedly chained these demons (fallen angels) under the darkness for committing such acts. Then why do we find them on the Earth after the flood? Note the passage in Gen 6:4 states they were before and after, after what? the flood, and this is seen in Numbers

The word for 'giants' in both instances are the Hebrew word - Nephilim.


Thus, If one is to state the demons came back after the flood and cohabitated with women again, then we must conclude 2 things.
1. That God didn't in fact chain them in judgment.
Now if one states God did this after the second time it was accomplished, then we must deal with why God would choose to judge man and not the angels initially? If God would pass judgment against man, it is only just to do so against the other offending party as well. We see this with Adam and Eve where God does not just judge one party and leave the other to go about their business unjudged for their participation in the same offence.

Which brings to#2, If this was such an offence both to and against God, why then is it not mentioned again, and why did God not judge mankind again for do it all over - yet again?

 

Who says?

I say that 100 percent of the בני–האלהים (bene-haelohim) references (Gen 6:1; Job 1:6; 2:1), which all occur in narrative, refer to men, and that 100 percent of the בני אלהים (bene elohim) references (Job 38:7; Ps 82:6), which both occur in poetry, allude to angels. Incidentally, the difference between the two in Hebrew is that the definite article marker (ה) occurs before אלהים (God) in those places that refer to men, while in those places that refer to angels it is absent.

So actually there are those who say that the majority of the instances of "sons of God" in the OT refer rather to men, and not to angels. This is evident, e.g., from the notes of John Gill at Genesis 6:1 and Job 2:1.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

I believe there are some problems with saying these where fallen angels.

1. The genesis account is clear that everything procreated after its own kind. This is our major argument against evolution. If angels breed with humans this one species breeding with another.

2. Notice that there is not judgment passed upon angels in the text. Only humans are punished.

3. What is stopping this from happening now? There was nothing said on done by God to prevent this if it were in fact angels so where is the giant race of supper people now?

 

Last 3 posts are very good and contain much truth :thumbs:

 

Actually what I was saying was, 'For your information, for what it's worth. Thanks for the acronymn 'FWIW;I WILL use it in the future.......

FYIFWIW ??

 

Allan, I still think you're reading way more into this that Pink is not saying. It sounds to me that this is what Allan would have us to believe that this is what Pink would have us to believe due to Allan's presuppositions about when Satan and his angels were cast down, that Pink may or may not have agreed with. I really would like some clarification from you on this. Just when is it that you believe this incident occurred?:

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven. Lu 10:18

Or this?:

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels going forth to war with the dragon; and the dragon warred and his angels;
8 And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him. Rev 12

It is quite apparent by reasoning from these examples of heavenly dialogs that are given us in scripture, i.e., 2 Chron 18:18-22, Job 1 & 2, Lu 22:31, that Satan and his angels still had a place in heaven (or access) during the account given in Gen 6. They hadn't been kicked out yet.

Pink DID show scripture, and the supposition DOES have basis from REASONING from these scriptures. The problem is that Allan doesn't agree with Pink's REASONING from scripture, not that there's no scripture.

Pink (once again):
“....God revealed the fact that the Coming One was to be of human kind, the woman’s Seed, hence, as we shall seek to show, Satan attempted to destroy the human race. Next, God made known to Abraham that the Coming One was to be a descendant of his (Gen. 12:3; Galatians 3:18; Matthew 1:1); hence, four hundred years later, when the descendants of Abraham became numerous in Egypt Satan sought to destroy the Abrahamic stock, by moving Pharaoh to seek the destruction of all the male children (Ex. 1:15, 16). Later, God made known the fact that the Coming One was to be of the offspring of David (2 Samuel 7:12, 13); hence, the subsequent attack made upon David through Absalom (2 Samuel 15). As, then, the Coming One was to be of the seed of David, He must spring from the tribe of Judah, and hence the significance of the divided Kingdom, and the attacks of the Ten Tribes upon the Tribe of Judah!

I agree that Satan cannot directly touch one of God's own without God's express permission (or command). However, I believe Satan has free reign to do what he wants to, or through, his own. I want to remind you that Genesis 3:15 reveals 'the enmity' between Satan and 'The Woman' of Rev 12, and many, many examples are given down through the ages of attacks by Satan on 'The Woman' that were channeled through his own.

 

No presupposition on my part at all. Pink stated it and Allan recorded his folly about it. Simple as that. Nothing more and nothing less.

This is just one. Another speaks of Satan, by of illstration, walking in the garden of Eden just prior to his being cast down.

Remembering that this is speaking of/to a man, we see God equating him with Satan and all his pride, beauty, power, and position. Note the Satan walked in the garden, and was not only on the Holy Mount of God, but was one of the covering angels (see ark of the covenant) and this was what God gaven him and place him into.. that is until he sinned due to pride and was cast out of the moutain of God. So when was satan cast down? It was prior to man but after the creation event as Satan walked in the garden. We know that Satan decieved Eve and this was after he had rebelled, and thus was already cast down and was 'No Longer' abiding nor have residence in.. heaven. And if satan was cast out and having no more habitiation in heaven, then so it was with the angels who fell with him. His being cast down was with respect to his position or better their habition of their first (original) estate. but he and the other demonic host still have access though limited.

Ummm, no. The context establishes this 'casting down' happened sometime after Christ was resurrected. And the cast down was due to a great war in heaven with/against Michael and his angels. Thus Michael and his angels cast Satan and his angels down to earth, not God, here.
Acatully according to vs 4 this marks the second time they are cast down to earth (first one being at their rebellion) but on 'this' occassion (sometime after Christ's resurrection) they are no longer allowed even admittance into heaven.

Thus the text is quite apparentl they were intially cast down, having left their habition (the gentive case here, refering to the stars/angels being cast down establishes heaven to their original home or abode of which they no longer have), of which Jude tells us - to go after their sinful and pride exhualting lusts.

Access, yes. Still had a place in heaven? -Not found anywhere in these passages of scripture or elsewhere.

No, his reasoning from supposition was shown to be his flaw, and nothing more.
He gives NO scriptures which deal with his supposition that Satan angels, or had his angels mate with and marry woman to destroy the human race. This is pure conjecture outside of scripture. There is nothing in scripture to support such a notion anywhere about this incident!

EXACTLY - nothing but conjecture from outside of scripture to develope a doctrine. Nothing in any of those verse,s in context, even remotely gives pause to his postulation that these were Satans planned attackes agianst Israel or the Davidic lineage. It is a complete contrivance of his opinion.

Understand though, I do agree that Satan knowing what he knows about them, he wishes to destroy them.. I don't doubt this and we see 'this' in scripture but what we do not see is his ad-libbing of it to passages of texts.

Again, the man leaves scripture for flights of fancy. Nothing in scripture is given that states or alludes to Satan moving Pharoah to "destroy the Abrahamic stock.. by killing all males". Scripture DOES tell us however that Pharoah did order the killing of all male children because the Hebrews had become to numerious in comparison to the Egyptians and this was to - REDUSE the population. Not destroy it. We know this by the context of Ex 1 and the contents therein.

Again, flights of fancy. Please show the corrisponding passage of scripture where Satan or spirit moved or instigated Absalom for Satan's plan to kill of the lineage. We do KNOW that scripture tells us it was Absaloms desire to do what he did (his own lusts) of which corrisponded to God's plan - not Satans.

Pink has some good views and he has some serious misunderstandings, that is all I can say. Sorry but it's true. Nothing, absolutely nothing he has given "on this subject" gives any scriptural warrent for his supposition.

Now let me be clear, I do believe/understand that Satan knows that if Israel was destoyed or the lingeage of Christ, prior to His birth, were to cease, he would win out over and against God. But this knowledge of his is of no consequence to God nor of any fear to Him. Often as an instrument of God’s judgment, Satan has persecuted the Jewish people throughout their history. Again he knows that to destroy Israel would make it impossible for God to fulfill His promises to the Jewish people. But this we also know - God will not allow him to do that, but will and has used Satan to chasten Israel.

God is never surprised and what goes on or what happens. As I have said before on here - Nothing ever 'occurs' to God. Yet this is what Pink would have us to believe with respect to the supposed mating and marrying of angels and women, and Satan's plans against Israel and Christ. He has it as though Satan is attacking and God is countering. No - God is using Satan and his own desires to bring about His own plan. Nothing happens that is not under God's explicit authority and control.

Yes, he can what he like with God's permission

 

On the 'Woman' issue of Rev 12 -

I completely disagree and would like to remind you the context of Rev 12 completely stands in contradictions of the above view as even being a possiblity.

Note the woman in the passage is the Nation of Irsael and not an imagry of Eve.
From John MacAuthor:'s Commentary on Rev 12:

 

In either case on this issue Kyredneck.. we can disagree and still not be in disunity.

Peace and love toward you in Christ Jesus.

 

@ menageriekeeper

Lots of good men believe that those were angels in Gen 6. But good men can be wrong.

The fact is, they are just speculating.

"...the sons of God..." Seth's descendants. (SEE: TSK for Ge 4:26; Ex 4:22-23; De 14:1; Ps 82:6-7; Isa 63:16; Mal 2:11; Joh 8:41-42; Ro 9:7-8; 2Co 6:18)

"...the daughters of men..." were Cain's descendants (Yes, I'm assuming all this just like they are, but its less of a stretch than "angels.")

 

I know this is an older thread, but maybe I can bring a little more info & relevance to this good discussion - if anyone still checks to read it! This is about science & genetics - tho I am no expert.

"Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

As already agreed by most I think, Angels are different, for one thing, they are eternal, in the sense that they can't suffer 'death' as we know it. This is why Jesus, as stated in context above, had to be created a litle lower than angels - for the suffering of death. IOW angels are a different 'flesh' if you will. An incompatible flesh to humans and human DNA for the purpose of pro-creation. This is really brought home here:

"Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."

Christ did NOT take on the nature or seed of angels but that of man! Clearly, they are two distinct natures, seeds, or DNA. As I understand it, even a very slight difference in DNA makes creatures incompatible for pro-creation.

For Jesus to be our 'kinsman redeemer' (another important doctrine - perhaps for another thread?), He had to be 'one of us.' If Jesus became just like us, and we are also compatible with Angels, then He would be their 'kinsman redeemer' as well, wouldn't He? Nowhere is this taught or even implied in scripture -- and this context in Hebrews clearly teaches against it.

This coupled with the references from Matthew 22 & Mark 12 really make the case for angels not being able to pro-create at all -- let alone with humans. Different DNA - if you will - at least for now!

Just as an aside, personally, it is just too much for me to think that God would allow women to be violated in such a grotesque manner anyway - I do not see this as part of His nature or character.

This leaves the fairly simple conclusion (exegesis?) that the "sons of God" must refer to a Godly lineage of men, and the "daughters of men", an ungodly one. God was apparently making the case that if we disobey Him in anything, such as intermarrying with strange women, for instance, that there will always be negative consequences. God makes this same type of point in many other instances, such as only Levites touching the Ark of the Covenant, etc.