Sons of God

Seems once upon a time you argued they were angels. I could be wrong?

 

It would have had to have been a long time ago..
I now believe they were men... Influential men, rulers of the land... Just as the word "gods" were used in the Psalms to refer to judges and rulers.. I believe that "sons of God" refers to the same thing here... and it would make sense...

Just look at the general population today.. there are leaders and followers.
The same would have been the case then. And some leaders become very powerful...

This phrase holds a key... "and they took them wives of all which they chose." It sounds as if the sons of God were forceful...

Notice they "took" whom they "chose".
This means that they were more powerful than the daughters of men.


I also wonder if the word "took" refers to rape? or rape and forced marriage, or possibly just went around raping anyone they wanted... Notice it said "all they chose" which seems to infer a great amount.


To me, it sounds as if the pre-flood world was one big orgy, where the powerful had their way. No wonder this would have made God mad...


To me this is the simplest explanation.
Angels (or aliens... lol) seem too mystical
Seth's descendants doesn't make sense because godliness is not connected to biological heritage....
If so, all of the Apostles descendants would have been holiness..
But Paul touches on not giving too much credence on genealogical lines.


If I ever argued for angels... I was wrong.

 

tinytim

I see your point regarding Seth....I'm in agreement with your post.

 

Because violence and other wickedness had increased upon the earth, causing God to be grieved and sorrowful that He had created mankind.

 

Because there were "giants" on the earth does not prove that they were the product of fallen angels and human women. My question: How did angels (who are spiritual beings) come up with physical bodies that were able to procreate with humans?

I believe in comparing Scripture with Scripture, such as the Scripture given in the OP with the few mentions of "sons of God" in Genesis. God has not indicated that these "sons of God" were angelic beings and He has provided no knowledge of how they could have taken on human form, with which to procreate, so it's best not to build on this teaching, no matter who teaches it to you. Angels would need DNA to pass on to and combine with the DNA of the women, and nowhere are we told that angels have DNA. DNA is a necessary hereditary component of the physical body, not the spiritual. Much more, angels do not have the procreative "parts" necessary for procreation. Besides, even if it were true that angels had offspring with humans, it has no relevance to the world today.

From Scripture, it is clear to me that the "sons of God" were the godly line of Seth who revered God in their minds and consciences, of which Noah was descended. In the same way, I also believe that the "daughters of men" (as in "sons of men") referred to ungodly line descended from Cain in his disobedience to God. Cain's ancestors followed in his footsteps and it appears that it was his direct lineage that were totally destroyed in the flood.

 

In Jewish tradition, it is not always genetic sonship that makes one a "son". many times it is following that teacher in their trade or similar.

The godly line of Seth holds much more credence than anything else due to the fantastical ideal suggested any other way.

It has always been the curse of God towards those who rebelled against His command to not take daughters of the heathen or outcast.

This thinking would conclude the idea that this is exactly what was taking place in that followers of God gave in to lust after the ungodly.:godisgood:

 

Also, it may seem a far stretch, but not really though, that the same idea given as if Adam had taken of the tree of life that he would have had the knowledge disallowed by God in that the Sethites would also have the worldly knowledge of the line of Cain in relation to knowing good and evil.

Our Bible is very deep and alive. Making it "simple" is a grave mistake.:godisgood:

 

Sal, we both agree that it means men... but why the line of Seth?


IOWs, what made, say the great grandson of Seth Godly?

 

In that he followed the leadership of the Lord as his grandfather had also done.

But also, anyone who got under the teaching of Seth could very well also be considerd in his lineage, though not an actual decendent, but under that authority to merit sonship.

In one sense, and not in disagreement with position within the Godhead, Jesus followed the teachings of His father that made Him "son". In this thought: Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of the Father, but never is Jesus another God separate from God as if there is more than one God.

I hope I was clear enough. It is much like a carpenter has apprentices which can be called "sons" of the trade. Even the carpenter's own son could fit the description of a son of the trade.

 

Sorry if I'm breaking in on a closed conversation. I'm interested in how ya'll would view the men of Sodom desiring the angels in Gen 19?

 

This sounds like it would make a good separate thread. Why don't you start it, so this one won't get sidetracked? And may I suggest you put it up in the General category, or even in the Theology and Bible Study. I think it'd work either place.

Welcome, by the way.

 

Actually, I think it's relative to this conversation as another proof against the fantastical view about the sons of God being angels.

In a study of the regular appearance of the angels, we woulde find them in their spectacular state and not easily looked upon by mere moratls, per se.

These angels were in human form and lusted after by sodomistic men. No account is there given that any sexual act could have actually taken place, but only that the anegls smote them with blindness and they groped about burning in their unnatural affections; thus the term: blinded by lust.

Only conjecture can follow the fantasies alluded to in Biblical passages when a simple adherence to reality is what remains best.

 

Biblical basis or human inferences?

When one has preconceived ideas, the results pretty clearly match the presuppositions. It appears that you have made a logical inference which carries no more weight than your logic (i.e. pattern of reasoning) and your inference (i.e. opinion). From Scripture itself, how do you know that "[t]he sons of God are the Sethites?"

 

I doubt that you can call it "unbiased reading." To say such is just rhetoric.

 

How do you know?

 

God created each "kind" separate. The "kinds" can't reproduce with each other, including angels and humans. That's God's science.

 

Because of the definition of "son" in the sense of one who follows his teacher, as in an apprentice of sorts.

Also it is of the Jewish tradition which of whom we have received the Scriptures .

 

To espouse rhetoric in a way to condemn rhetoric is just plain silly.

 

I can answer that by angels aren't still reproducing with daughters of men, or would you say women in genearl are uglier than then?

 

I can't believe I am openly agreeing with you.:laugh: