just WHO were sons of god in Genesis who co mingled with Women ?

I believe the "Sons of God" in this passage are wicked human rulers (city kings) who considered themselves divine. They used their control to take women from their subjects by force (whether they were virgin or married).

http://davelivingston.com/sonsofgod.htm


One of the book of Jasher candidates explains it this way:

"Jasher" 4:16-19
16 And all the sons of men departed from the ways of the Lord in those days as they multiplied upon the face of the earth with sons and daughters, and they taught one another their evil practices and they continued sinning against the Lord.
17 And every man made unto himself a god, and they robbed and plundered every man his neighbor as well as his relative, and they corrupted the earth, and the earth was filled with violence.

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.

19 And the Lord said, I will blot out man that I created from the face of the earth, yea from man to the birds of the air, together with cattle and beasts that are in the field for I repent that I made them.

 

So it that how Job meant the term also?

 

Where do you get that Job was written 400 years before Genesis??
At most I can't find a reputable scholar who places it 100 years or less but a great many put the date AFTER the books of Moses, and few attribute the author to be Moses as well

Again, there is no proof sons of God refers to angels. In fact the OT along with the NT disproves this theory completely.

Second, while I don't agree, it is argued that in the book of Job where the sons of God who presented themselves before God were in fact men and Satan came among them. In this view, it is the reason the discussion of God's most faithful even comes up. And later, sons of God represents angels as well. This is found both in Jewish literature as being a divided topic. And while it is feasible, I personally don't agree there.

No, in fact it DOES represent the rebellion in which the fell, and not sexual relations, the language just doesn't call for it. Their first estate or original place of position (referring properly to these particular angels being either of highest rank or simply of their established positions) they left the habituation (or native abode) why... for s*x, or like Satan for greater and higher standing. This is what we find in scripture and as Satan's reason for rebellion. Scripture actually doesn't tell us specifically why these particular ones are chained, except for the allusions that they are either the worst of those who fell or, more probable, those who helped spread and initiate others into the rebellion.

You seem to make an extreme leap to try to connect their leaving their first estate or original place/position just to have s*x with women. Also another point you seem to loose site of is that these sons of God MARRIED these women. They didn't just copulate with the women but married them and became husbands to them.

Anyway.. those are my thoughts.. whatever .. enjoy

 

Satan in His battle to keep the saviour of man from being born has resorted to many devices, the killing of the Jewish babies in Egypt, Herod having the young ones killed off, could satan have had some of his angels take on human form and marry (copulate) with the daughters of men in order to kill off the saviour who was coming? It was just for having marital relations satan had a plan but it failed. Just as all his plans have failed.

 

Allan—let me first begin by saying—I’ve really come to respect your posts lately & enjoy the fact your educated, but still have the ability to think outside the 5-point box. Now with the niceties being stated, let me be as blunt as possible about this post------you could not be any further from understanding this topic-- if your analysis rests on your misunderstanding of Matt 22:30!

Lets begin by noting that eisegesis must be practiced to reach the conclusion that angels cannot reproduce based on what is said in Matt. (Not accusing you of being a heretic or anything friend-lol—it’s a common mistake on this passage). The fact is all Jesus says in his rebuke against the Sadducees is that people, like angels, do not live as married couples in the afterlife. Not one thing is mentioned about angelic sexual capability. In fact the whole issue in Matthew is limited to holy or elect angels, thus the modifying clause “in heaven” limits the statement to this particular kind of angel. As you know all angels are not in heaven (jude 6, 2 pet 2:4) so the marriage capability of unholy celestial beings is not even being addressed. Moreover, the only angelology issue dealt with by Matthew 22 (or any related Gospel texts) is the inability of holy angels to marry, to deduce that unholy angels live by these standards or have limited sexual capability, based on these Gospel texts alone, is simply adding to Scripture. Keep in mind—with Gen 6—its unholy fallen angels we are talking about or angels who by this act fell (ie the cohabitation with women)—thus neither group can be classified as those who live by God’s standards (thus cannot be described as angels in heaven).

You over look the fact that many believe that it is these exact boundaries being crossed that caused the act to be so atrocious. When unholy angels engaged in sexual relations with human women, they breached God’s creation order which separated the physical realm from the spiritual, and ignored His command for creating after one’s own kind as stated in Gen 1:11, 21, 24, and 25. And has already been mentioned, angels during an angelophany do take on the form of men, & during possession have the ability to control men (or at least use their bodies). Thus, this situation is unique & is incomparable to anything else--- b/c a cat cannot take the form of a dog; a horse cannot take the form of a bird; and a frog cannot take the form of a flower. But an Angel can take the form of a human—whether it be in an angelophany on in possession.

This statement is highly debatable based on the original Hebrew. But as I addressed several times in the other older thread—this is not the deciding issue, b/c many scholars limit the angelic hybrid baby to the men of renown & not the Nephilim—but if you’d like I can repost some of my older material that gets into detail about this.

You neglect the meaning of the Hebrew bene elohim (ie son of God in Gen 6), which is Hebrew idiom for angels. You cannot compare Hebrew to Greek & expect to get the proper interpretation. I’d love to keep going, but I’ll wait for the real fun to begin if you really want to keep this going. God bless Allan--& despite this miscalculation of yours on Gen 6—I have honestly come to enjoy your posts as a whole!

 

There is absolutely nothing in scripture that says this one of the ways Satan tried to keep Jesus from being born.That is purely and only presumed if one desires to make the 'se*ual union' argument seemingly stronger.

While I understand the argument for angels copulating with woman, 'that' piece has no valid portion in the argument as it is purely suppositional.

 

Everyone I have ever looked at says Job was a contemporary of Abraham, the book of Job was written in that time frame. The Jews were in captivity for 400+ years therefore if Job lived around the time of Abraham over 400 years had past between the writting of Gensis by Moses from what I have heard was the family staff. I have heard and haven't researched that the family information was written on the end of a sheperd like staff and transfered from head of household to head of house hold and that is how Moses transfered it to writting. Not sure that is how it occured but sounds reasonable, just as many families have a family bible with that information in them.

 

Quote the whole verse, please.

30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

"In the resurrection" and "in heaven" are clearly different from "during Noah's time" and "on earth". Big difference.

No, they don't marry in the resurrection nor in Heaven. Anything else is conjecture.

 

First let me express that I am not a Calvinist nor Reformed

Thus we must also note why marriage is important as it is the central subject combining the aspects together. So why is marriage important?
1. It establishes a covenant unity between two parties (male and female).
2. which really is a continuation of #1.. that it is for godly procreation.

God created Male and Female for the purpose of procreation and thus His command multiply and fill the earth. In that design God, not the creation, determined that each group can ONLY procreate after it's own kind.

Interestingly enough we do not find any female angels recorded in scripture.

Angelic beings do not change except to continue in Holiness or be in sinfulness but they still maintain their essence and being. However nothing in scripture, no where declares there was any change to their being. And while they can take the 'form' of a person, does not mean they actually become one nor that they can procreate as one, since procreation is ONLY done after it's own kind.

Actually not only is it but it is the dominant portion of the discussion which I raised in Jesus statement. Though it is not specifically concerning s*xual relations, the necessity regarding it in the discussion can not be avoided as that is one of the primary reasons for it is procreation.

No. It is implicitly holding to the text alone.
Either God lied when scripture states all things that procreate only bring forth after it's OWN kind.. or He didn't.

Secondly it is not that holy angel have the inability to marry but that we will become like they are, not married nor given in marriage. There is more to the argument than they can't marry so they can't copulate.

Uh.. no.. they didn't 'fall' by committing that act. They fell prior to this event (regardless of which view one holds to).
It is not only the standard of living, but why marriage was necessary AND that every creature produces after it's own Kind.

Note also that these 'sons of God' MARRIED these woman. Thus took on the role of being their husband and taking care of them and the children. If they were fallen angels, why marry them? What is the purpose? There is none. They were fallen and didn't need to marry them, but could have taken them without any difficulty. Thus they would not be worried about breaking God's law of the need to be married. However it is apparent that Marriage was a Necessity since ALL married the women they choose.

No I don't, but it doesn't make it correct just because they do, anymore than just because the majority holds a view it makes it any more correct.

When God sets a boundary no one can breach it, neither man nor angelic being You make the presumption they could violate God's decree and create a being from two separate kinds. There is no feasibility to 'this' specific argument.

So know we have gone from, they can take on human form AND create (apparently human sperm), to now possessing someone to do this. And while I would agree the later is more bibically feasible, it does not give any evidence that they 'somehow' manipulated human DNA to create a super being as some presume.

However on that last note, their offspring was not super being but were great men or men or renown and status, not giants.

Being in the form of, does not make one that thing.
For example the Christophanies where by Jesus came in the form of a man as well as an angel, but in the NT we find that only THEN did He take on actual flesh and thus become man, and not prior.
However, possession still does not allow the angel to procreate with man and create and half breed of men and angelic being

No need.

Thanks for the interaction.. I agree it is fun

 

Please deal with the whole thing, and you see why I speak to that portion.
No, it is strictly biblical, to presume angels can procreate with another and different creation to produce and mingling of the two (and violate God's decree regarding how His creation can interact) is conjecture.

 

I do agree that your reasoning behind marriage is a valid argument, but nothing stated really furthers your argument that Gen 6 is not about angelic beings. As for female angels in the Bible, 1st angels are neuter but when they appear in visible form it is almost always as males. The only possible exception is Zec 5:9, where theologians such as Ryrie deduce that this could be an example of a female angelophany.

The point I made was the limitation of the modifying clause “in heaven”, causing the statement to be a reference to angels that are holy. The fact is Scripture is silent about a lot of things concerning angels, including if there was a change in their capabilities when they fell. Further, one cannot deny the similarities between humans & angels & in many ancient texts humans & angels are compared or described similarly (cf 1 Sam 29:9; 2 Sam 14:17; 19:27; Lk 24:4; Acts 12:15; non-biblical texts such as 1 En 104:1-6; 2 Bar 51.5, 10; 1QH 3.21-23; 6.13; 1QS 11.7-8; 1QSb 4.25, ect). C Fred Dickason even goes so far as to say that angels were also created in the image of God. (see Angels: Elect & Evil, p125). The point is angels are the closest thing to humans in the created order, & just b/c one is commanded to create according to kind, does not mean that this commandment is always followed. Simply put if fallen angels always followed God’s rules they would have never sinned to begin with would they. Further, To argue that Gen 6 cannot be about angels based on the silence in Scripture about their ability to reproduce is honestly conjecture.

Actually God has said many things, that sinful men & sinful angels went against. The 10 commandments are statements of declaration, but that does not mean men cannot go against them. And you are right there is more to the argument than are ability to copulate in heaven, b/c that issue is not even addressed-lol. But to be honest—I think ur last statement actually gives support to the angelic Gen 6 interpretation.

Good luck proving when the angels fell with clear biblical support, all we know is that Satan fell either before or during Gen 3. If you want to see the argument for angels falling during Gen 6—read Sydney HT Page; Powers of Evil: A biblical Study of Satan & Demons, p 53. Who breaks down biblically speaking—why this could have been the cause of certain angels to fall. The Bible is not clear how many angelic rebellions there where, the timing of them, or what role Satan clearly played in causing it all to happen---good luck getn Rev 12 to prove anything with certainty.

Not sure how this even begins to disprove that Gen 6 is not about angelic beings. There are so many whys & how comes—when it comes to angels we could write a whole dictionary on the topic—when it comes to angels we are on a need to know basis & there a majority of things we just don’t know biblically speaking.

I find that statement amusing—b/c if it could actually hold up there would be no angelic rebellion-lol

[

A very good question—but one that really does little to disprove the angelic understanding of Gen 6. There are a lot of biblical truths that manipulate logic—ever seen a virgin give birth (apart from artificial insemination), or someone feed 5,000 with only a few pieces or food, or 3 actually only existing as 1 (ie the Trinity), ect. The ability to logically perceive something is not a requirement for biblical truth.

My friend once again your going on conjecture—if Gen 6 is about angels—then this is exactly what did happen.

Yes my friend this is fun & I love the debate, but let me repost an issue all those who disagree with angels cohabitating with women before the flood must deal with-

“there is clear historical evidence that the angelic theory of Gen 6 existed during the NT (cf 1 Enoch 6-19; Jubilees 4: 15, 22; 5: 1; Damascus Document 2: 17-19; 1QapGen 2: 1; Testament of Reuben 5: -7; Testament of Naphtali 3:5; 2 Barach 56: 10-14)—further some of these same writings describes the angels as being locked away in chains (similar to 2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6)—could someone—anyone please give another possible idea (biblical or historical example) of angels being locked in chains besides the ones from Gen 6 in historical/biblical thought that would have been relevant to the NT audience. As Thomas R. Schreiner explains in regard to 2 Peter 2:4, “Peter’s readers would naturally have understood the account in terms of such tradition unless Peter indicated clearly that he was departing from the common understanding of his day.” In addition, the simple fact that Peter followed his account of the sinning angels with a description of the flood, allows a natural connection to be drawn between 2 Pet 2:4-5 and Gen 6:1-4. Are we to imagine that Peter just coincidently makes this connection & that there is this “unknown” group of chained angels that the NT audience knew about that has no historical evidence what so ever? Even more to the point (as Amy mentioned) Like 2 Peter, Jude also gives a biblical account of certain angels that rebelled against God and received as their punishment imprisonment. Although Jude does not follow his description of the sinning angels with a reference to the flood, he does show familiarity with 1 Enoch by quoting the work in Jude 14-15. This is important because 1 Enoch treats Genesis 6:1-4 as the sin of the angels. 1 Enoch also describes the fallen angels from Genesis 6 as imprisoned (e.g. 1 En 10:4-7, 12-14; 19:1; 20:2-3; 21:10). Based on his reference, Jude should offer an explanation to his readers if he holds any other view. Basically—if there is a possible alternative historical example that the NT audience would have known about (in regards to chained angels)—I’d request someone show me—or we’re left with a hypothetical unknown group of chained angels that are not related to Gen 6, that the NT writers refer to without explanation.”

This is a very abbreviated version of my argument--& I’d love to get into more detail about it if u like—but regardless—I’ve really enjoyed this interaction Allan-it is really fun & has made my day lot more enjoyable—thanx! :thumbs:

 

The own kind, we have an example of the crossing of similar kinds in our world today. When a horse and donkey have an offspring. We get a mule there is one thing of that mule that makes it very unique from the crossing of two similar but different kinds, they are sterile, they cannot reproduce, but they are strong work animals and carry heavier loads than either the horse or the donkey, they become a super beast of burden. That ws the Nephelim or giant of the Noahic period, we have nothing that says it that I have found but I have heard it taught that these Giants (Nephalims) were sterile. The example the Mule.

 

The female notation I made was just an interesting observation.

OK, but to presume there 'was' a change without direct revelation of such, is just postulation though. Not a firm place to begin.

Similarities and closeness a human does not make. In fact, we are genetically more similar to pigs than any other animal yet we still can not produce a hybrid... though pigmy's might be the exception to the rule :laugh:

Here is where you are misunderstanding the point. God did not command His creatures or man NOT to procreate to produce after their own kind. It was law He established IN creation that none can produce but after their own kind. It is a law that is followed because it is one of the foundational laws of creation such as gravity, thermodynamics, ect...

The argument that is from silence is not my position but yours brother. Mine is established already in scripture concerning angels.. but nothing in scripture says there was a change made to those who fell. That is the argument from silence .. we know what they are/were, but nothing states there was a change. Thus the conjecture lies on your view.

Agreed because you are confusing His commands to be kept, with those that establish His creation... I spoke to this above.

So you contend that Satan fell alone and that some time later other angels fell? If so, that is well outside historic Christian views. And it is not hard in the least proving it.

Ok, now you are stepping well outside the bounds of historic Christian views. There has only been one rebellion, and not multiple ones. That is something scripture does not speak to. Never does it allude to multiple angelic rebellions.

And ALL of these done are speaking of God, not angels.
However, biblical truth IS expressed in scripture so we can logically perceive it. Where is speaks we speak, and where it is silent we should be as well. Since all that we are discussing is revealed we can speak to it logically and not presume from silence other argument that go against other established biblical points.

None of these hold any biblical authority nor are they even credible sources, but in fact extra-biblical.

If this is where you get the main idea of your view I can see why you step so far outside of mainline historic christian views on this subject. That is not speaking negatively against you, but stating I see why you go outside the historic view on the subject. However, I have already briefly addressed the rest of your post in my other posting.

Anyway.. that is about as much as I desire to continue this discussion as it is not really a fellowship breaker.. and the fun is running out as I am getting extremely tired Thanks again and have fun.. I'm now going to bed :sleeping_2:



This is a very abbreviated version of my argument--& I’d love to get into more detail about it if u like—but regardless—I’ve really enjoyed this interaction Allan-it is really fun & has made my day lot more enjoyable—thanx! :thumbs:[/QUOTE]

 

But they are of their own kind.
You can not breed a cow with a horse and produce offspring.

A horse and donkey come from the same kind (scientifically known as genus/ NOT species). Both are of the same genus and thus can procreate but if they are of different genus no procreation can take place.

 

If they were true kinds then their offspring would be able to reproduce and they can't. They are similar but the genetic makeup is a big difference.

 

I feel ya brother—I bet you do need some sleep—I’ve seen the times of some of your posts--& I’ve often wondered if you were an insomniac & how in the world you can think as clearly as you do considering the little sleep you seems to get. And this is not a 1st rate doctrine so it really means little in the overall scheme of things---except in the field of accurate biblical demonology & demonology. This being said, church history has been divided over what should be considered legitimate biblical demonology for centuries, & if its history you wont—you might want to ask how come the angelic theory was so dominate in Jewish thought & patristic Christian thought. Notice the Sethite theory does not even come to play until Julias Africanas, who admits the angelic theory was the most accepted. For a survey of the history of the angelic theory see: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_...6-GTJ-1984.pdf

But if you really want to know where I get my understanding I’ll repost a quick summary of proof points on the topic from the old thread—that will save us both time & allow you to see where I’m coming from—
“First—let me begin by saying—I’m not so naïve as to believe I am going to convince everyone of the angelic understanding of Gen 6. As long as the time & effort is put into an explanation with evidence to the contrary of my angelic Gen 6 understanding—I’m perfectly fine with saying we can agree to disagree (especially considering that this is not a first-rate doctrine). Its those who simply say-- it couldn’t be angels b/c of Matt 22, or the context is clearly about Sethite-Cainite marriages, or I just don’t see how that’s possible (ie doesn’t make logical sense)—that I classify as oversimplifying the issue without putting in the needed study to prove their points.

First I’m not saying that bene ha elohim is always angels in Hebrew writings, just limited to the use of angels when the exact Hebrew phrase is used in the OT. While the phrase is clearly Hebrew idiom for angels (based on the OT & other Jewish writings)—I’ve seen some scholars insist that it must always be limited to angels, while others say it doesn’t have to be b/c there are similar phrases (although not exact) that do refer to humans. It was this very issue that two of my professors disagreed with each other on, when I was researching my thesis. To be honest, many who support the angelic view insist that since the bene ha elohim phrase is limited to only angels in Scripture it must also be limited to angels in Gen 6:2, 4. While I think this is a noteworthy point—I don’t base my whole premise on this issue, & only use this particular evidence as a stepping stone to begin my argument. Ie-while it is true that the exact bene ha elohim phrase only appears in Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1 & without the article in Job 38:7—the Job evidence simply demonstrates that the phrase is in fact Hebrew idiom for angels--& by itself should not be used as the only evidence for an angelic understanding of Gen 6.
When it comes to the fact that you have 2 different writers in 2 different time periods—I’d caution you not stress that to much—b/c the same Holy Spirit was inspiring both authors & there are some who believe Job was the oldest book in the OT (a whole other topic in itself)—but would object to what you are saying b/c it is assumed that if it is the oldest, Moses would have known the use of Job’s bene elohim & would actually be referring to it. Now I surely don’t take it that far, but just letting you know.

As far as context is concerned in Gen 6:1-4-- Well I’ve already addressed this topic before & don’t want to sound like a broken record. Further I feel that I kinda sound like I’m trying to talk above peoples heads when I give my explanation—so I’ll try & put it into the easiest terms as possible—b/c if I don’t-- I’m really not doing anything but blowing hot air. But I always begin with 2 points—1st how Gen 6:1—linguistically is a summary statement that moves onto a new motif. 2nd-how the daughters of men should not be limited to Cainities based on the context & original language.
First in regard to Gen 6:1—I was going to copy & paste two summary statement about the introductory phrase from the articles: Helge S Kvanvig, “Gen 6,1-4 as an Antediluvian event” (2002) & Willem A Van Gemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 (An example of Evangelical Demythologization?)”-but they really sounded wordy & confusing for those unfamiliar with the argument as a whole---I remember when I first read them I had to sit down with a professor & go over them to make sure I understood everything that was being said—so in summary—they talk about the introductory phrase being used as a as a macro-syntactic sign introducing the whole story, which sets a new time when humans began to multiply. Ie it is a transition from one theme to a different motif. While it certainly could be seen as summarizing & connecting to chapt 5, the important part is it is introducing a new focus—ie the daughters of men & the sons of God. Does this by itself prove that the sons of God are angels—no! But it shows that what’s important to the context is what is about to be said—not what was previously said.

Second-the daughters of men should not be limited to the Cainites. I’ve already gone over this argument several times-- but Ill try to summarize quickly—
Adham (the term used in the daughters of men phrase) 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. (although some have actually connected the phrase to Sethite women, due to possible context). 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. This is a problem that rulers/tyrants & angelic supporters are quick to point out. Even modern Sethite supporters are steering away from the Cainite women identification due to this dilemma (see Mathews, Genesis 1-11, New American Commentary).

So at this point what we have is Gen 6:1-introducing a new motif (not necessarily related to the previous chapters) that focuses on the daughters of men & sons of God, with the daughters of men being a group that are limited to females with no exact lineage described, but simply belong to the category of mankind as a whole (ie humans in general). This brings us to the sons of God identification. Well what is obvious from the context is that who ever they were—their interaction with the daughters of men was forbidden & considered a sin. The problem is—no matter what view you support (angelic, rulers/tyrants, Sethite)—nothing in Genesis up to this point has demonstrated what type of sin this could be. So we are left with a sin that is being introduced for the first time in Gen 6:2. So if it’s the context of previous Genesis description that is desired, the interpreter will be left wanting—b/c nothing is clearly defined in the preceding chapters. Now due to the lack of time—I’m not going to lay out support for all the other possible interpretations, but will simply focus on the evidence for an angelic understanding. First, there is nothing sinful about humans marrying & procreating. God has already ordained it. However, if
Angels (whether they be fallen or angels that fall at this time) marry and engage in sexual relations with human women, they breach God’s marriage ordinance (Gn 2:24) and ignore His command for multiplying according to kind (Gn 1:11, 21, 24, 25). What Matt 22 does demonstrate is that holy angels do not marry (at least they are not suppose to) & it says nothing about their ability to procreate. So if these angels do marry they would be sinning by doing something God does not allow them to do & if they did procreate with humans they would be breaking God’s command for multiplying according to kind. ----(i'll continue n next post)

 

Allan cont

The question often comes up well how is this possible that angels could even have intercourse with human women—well its possible by angels possessing men or by angels taking the form of men in an aneglophany. Further, this is the Bible we’re talking about—events that supersede human logic often take place (ie the virgin birth of Jesus, miracles in general, & the resurrection of Christ from the dead—to name a few). The inability to logically perceive an event should not limit ones possible interpretation. Next, the fact is the bene ha elohim phrase is limited to angels in Scripture, could it be a human interpretation here—that’s possible—but if we want Scripture to interpret Scripture—then the limited use of this Hebrew phrase to angels—certainly favors an angelic understanding. Further, the history of the exegesis of Gen 6:2, 4 favors an angelic understanding. (see again the article I posted for you). Sometimes people will say—well this angel theory started with 1 Enoch, but this doesn’t have to be the case—all 1 Enoch does is show that this is the oldest interpretation of the “sons of God” & gives historical evidence that this interpretation is very ancient. While the book of Jasher’s interpretation could give favor to the ruler/tyrants theory being old (the reliability of the modern translations we have on this book is debated) it does not have the supporting evidence of other Jewish writings that agree with its understanding as the angelic theory has. Further, the first clear reference to the Sethite theory does not come until Julius Africanus in the 3rd century AD. Who admitted the angel view prevailed in his day, but that he could not personally accept it. Another piece of evidence that supports the angelic view is the NT evidence & this gets to your next question.”
Quote:

First lets get into 1 Enoch as a whole—for anyone interested I’d suggest George W E Nickelsburg’s commentary on 1 Enoch & various articles that have been written on the subject by scholars. But in sum, no the Enoch from Gen 5 is not the writer of the book—he is simply the main character. The book itself was written in 5 different sections, by possibly (and even likely) by more than one author over a period of time. But what’s important to the Gen 6 debate is the sections initially describing the “sons of God” interpretation, which Nickelsburg in an article titled, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11,” Journal of Biblical Literature 96, no. 3 (1977), suggests that portions of 1 Enoch relevant to Genesis 6:1-4 existed around the end of the fourth century B. C. (not 1 Enoch as a whole, just this particular section). And that this must be based on an older tradition to have been relevant enough for the author to use it. But what 1 Enoch is in general—is an explanation for the evil that has befallen the Jews. Ie that there was other spiritual forces that were attacking them & causing their enemies to treat them so badly. But there is are reasons why 1 Enoch is not in Scripture—first it was written in sections & everything in the book is not necessarily reliable, but for the purpose of Gen 6—it does show the old age of the angelic understanding. Second, 1 Enoch pays much attention & has as its focus the spiritual realm of angels & demons, while the Bible focuses on man & his relationship to God, not necessarily man’s relationship to angels or even detailed angelic activity. Third, and this is just a personal opinion, when it comes to angels & demons we are on a need to know basis, & there are some things we just don’t need to know—1 Enoch encourages one to focus on angels & demons & not God or mans relationship to Him. This being said, 1 Enoch was popular among many Jewish groups (as the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate) & was read by many early Christians (as the book of Jude & early Patristic theology shows). But it is nonetheless not a biblical book & should not be treated as such (although there are certain Christians who did canonize it). While there are spiritual truths in other Jewish literature (ie they as a whole are not inaccurate), we can only know what these truths are when the Bible affirms them in other places. In my personal opinion, the truth of 1 Enoch interpretation of Gen 6 can be demonstrated by Jude & Peter, but this does not mean I think every detail of the book is as reliable (such as the angel names & all of the detailed wickedness they taught man), b/c I cannot show it with other Scripture. It does not mean I rule it out completely, but I would never personally insist that it has to be accepted.
But its usage by Jude does demonstrate its popularity during the time of NT authorship. What the book as a whole meant to Jude, I cannot be sure of-but I do know his quote of it proves that at least some of it is valid. Further, it shows that he was familiar with 1 Enoch’s understanding of the fallen angels of Gen 6 being locked away in chains. What makes this interesting is that there are no other historical examples of sinning angels being locked in chains, except those in Gen 6. Are we to assume that Jude knows of another group of sinning angels not related to the Gen 6 that are imprisoned, with no historical evidence, when he clearly shows that he knew of 1 Enoch’s description? 1 Enoch as a whole does not have to be biblical to support this, b/c Jude shows that there are portions of the book worthy of Scriptural quoting. I know some will say—well the Bible quotes other sources that are not biblical—this is true—but Jude quotes a book that deals in detail about a statement that he has just made in verse 6. If he truly disagreed with 1 Enoch’s understanding of these chained angels, then why quote the book so soon after verse 6 & not give an explanation about how he has another view of chained angels that disagrees with 1 Enoch’s Gen 6 connection. This along with the fact, that no other historical reference is known about chained angels besides 1 Enoch, favors that Jude is referencing the fallen angel view of Gen 6 described in 1 Enoch. If not, another historical example should be given that would allow for an alternative understanding that Jude could be referring to. Further as I showed earlier, the Greek of Jude 6 & 7 seems to compare the sexual sin of the Sodomites with the sin of the angels in verse 6.

In addition, keep in mind that Peter follows his reference of imprisoned angels with a description of the flood. This draws a natural connection to the Gen 6 angelic understanding. While there’s more that needs to be said about this—I’m running out of time—lol- but hope this clears some things up & have enjoyed your inquisitive questions & will do my best to answer any further questions. God Bless! "

Allen-Just so you'll know--I'm cool if one doesn't agree---but at the very least it can be admitted that the angelic view is biblically plausible.

 

"Son of God" can have different meanings in different contexts.
It could mean Jesus Christ.
It could mean a righteous/redeemed human who serves God.
It could mean an angel.
It could mean a pagan ruler regarded by his subjects as divine.

 

But job said and Satan was amoung them. It is fairly clear they came to the throne of God to present themselves. Then how did Moses use it in the Noahic time?