"TQ" (Trivia Question) "In Genesis 6:2, are the "Sons of God" men or angels?"

Let's see what we know about "Angelology". Enjoy!

Views: 511

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Still at it huh? lol........ I agree that the sons of God are consistantly referred to as angels in the OT. (Job 1-2-38) But in Genesis 6 there's a conflict because of what we're taught concerning the nature of angels. And I don't think any of the genealogical records in the bible record every minute detail of a lineage. But I enjoyed your debate with JG!

Brother Watson,

 

I've been trying to break up some of the overall discussion, and in this portion of the thread I was examining some of the extra-biblical sources. It is those sources that explicitly teach the angel/human copulation theory, not the far more subtle verses in Genesis 6.

 

I think it important to ask ourselves what is the best way to read these extra-biblical sources. It doesn't surprise me that a supporter of the angel/human copulation argument would not immediately accept everything that Josephus says... not even everything he says in the same sections where he describes angel/human copulation. To some extent, we all intuitively know to cherry-pick our way through these commentaries. They are by no means on the same level as inspired scripture, and we all argue a little with them.

 

I have a great deal of confidence using the extra-biblical writings as a source when I want to hear the voice of the early Christian: to know what the nascent communities believed, to see how they practiced their faith, and to answer other normative questions. When I have debated folks that wanted to claim Christians worshipped on the Sabbath day until Constantine introduced Sunday worship, or folks who have asserted that early Christians did not recognize the divinity of the Messiah, I've turned to the 1st and 2nd Century writers to demonstrate what early Christians actually believed (out of their own mouths, so to speak).

 

But I don't presume the extra-biblical sources are infallible. I don't trust all of their doctrine. I am wary of their historical accuracy when discussing ancient events (like Old Testament times). I am doubtful of their scientific accuracy (consider the discourse on the phoenix in chapter 25 of the 1st Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, which purports that it is a real animal). I think these sources can be flawed, and that this angel/human copulation theory is one such instance.

Wow, I have a completely different impression of the exchange. It was extremely valuable for my understanding of the topic to engage in a spirited debate, and to receive fulsome criticism of my arguments. It is always valuable to me to practice crafting an argument, and to practice the strenuous discipline of persuasive writing. I desperately want to hone whatever natural talent I may have so that I may be used in evangelistic Christian apologetics. These exchanges with brethren on a message board are mere exercises--in a safe environment--that help me strengthen those muscles of reasoning and argumentation. They prepare me for the real challenge of engaging unbelieving and hostile audiences (in the manner of a Ravi Zacharias). They never feel like a waste. Thank you for the workout.

Genesis 6:1-4 refers to the sons of God and the daughter of men. There are three primary views on the identity of the 

sons of God) 1 they were fallen angels,2 they were powerful human rulers,3 they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendant of cain. IN The OLD TESTAMENT the phrase "sons of God" always refer to angels

(Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with this is in  MATT. 22:30, WHICH INDICATES that angels do not marry.

The Bible give us no reason to believe tha t angels have a gender or able to reproduce.The other two views do not present this problem. The weakness of views 2 and 3 is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary females does not account for why the offsprings were "giants" or heores of old,men of renown."  Furthur why would God decide to bring a flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbade powerful human males or descendant of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendant of CAIN? The oncoming judgement of Genesis (6:5-7) is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4.ONLY the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human female would seem to justify a harsh judgement.

As previously noted, the weakness of the first view is that MATTHEW 22:30 declares, "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given marriage; they will be like the angels in heavens. "However, the text does not say " angels

are not able to marry. "Rather,it indicate only that angles do not marry. Second MATTHEW 22;30 IS REFERRING TO THE "angels in heaven. "It is not referring to fallen angels,who do not care about God's created order and actively seek ways to disrupt God's plan. The fact that God's holy angels do not marry or engage in sexual relation does not mean the same is true of Satan and his demons.View )1 is the most likely position. Yes,it is interesting "contradiction" to say that angels are sexless and then say that the "sons of God" were fallen angels who procreated with human females. However,while angels are spiritual being (Hebrew 1:14), they can appear in human physical form (Mark 16:5).The mens of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1-5).It is plausible that angels are capable of taking on human form, even to the point of replicating human sexuality and possibly even reproduction. Why do the fallen angels not do this more often? It seem that God imprisoned teh fallen angels who commited this evil sin, so that the other fallen angels would not do the same(as described in( JUDE 6).Earlier Hebrew interpreter and apocryphal and pseudopigraphal writing are unanmious in holding to the view that fallen angels are the 

"sons of God ' mention in Gebesis  6;1-4.  This by no means closes the debate. However,the view that GENESIS 6 :1-4 involves angels mating with human females has a strong contextual,grammatical, and historical basis.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service