"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

If you can explain how Anak's race of giant people (Rephaites) arose after the flood, I'll be impressed. Og the King of Bashan, was one of the last survivors of the Rephaim. Explain this according to your Genesis 6 view.

I'll do you one better...... This commentator describes my view the best.

He appeals, therefore, to the case of the angels that had revolted. Neither their former rank, their dignity, nor their holiness, saved them from being thrust down to hell; and if God punished them so severely, then false teachers could not hope to escape. The apostle, by the "angels" here, refers undoubtedly to a revolt in heaven - an event referred to in Jde 1:6, and everywhere implied in the Scriptures. When that occurred, however - why they revolted, or what was the number of the apostates - we have not the slightest information, and on these points conjecture would be useless. In the supposition that it occurred, there is no improbability; for there is nothing more absurd in the belief that angels have revolted than that men have; and if there are evil angels, as there is no more reason to doubt than that there are evil men, it is morally certain that they must have fallen at some period from a state of holiness, for it cannot be believed that God made them wicked.

But cast them down to hell - Greek ταρταρώσας tartarōsas - "thrusting them down to Tartarus." The word here used occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, though it is common in the Classical writers. It is a verb formed from Τάρταρος Tartaros, Tartarus, which in Greek mythology was the lower part, or abyss of Hades, ᾍδης Hadēs, where the shades of the wicked were supposed to be imprisoned and tormented, and corresponded to the Jewish word Γεέννα Geenna - "Gehenna." It was regarded, commonly, as beneath the earth; as entered through the grave; as dark, dismal, gloomy; and as a place of punishment. Compare the Job 10:21-22 notes, and Matthew 5:22note. The word here is one that properly refers to a place of punishment, since the whole argument relates to that, and since it cannot be pretended that the "angels that sinned" were removed to a place of happiness on account of their transgression. It must also refer to punishment in some other world than this, for there is no evidence that This world is made a place of punishment for fallen angels.

And delivered them into chains of darkness - "Where darkness lies like chains upon them" - Robinson, Lexicon. The meaning seems to be, that they are confined in that dark prisonhouse as if by chains. We are not to suppose that spirits are literally bound; but it was common to bind or fetter prisoners who were in dungeons, and the representation here is taken from that fact. This representation that the mass of fallen angels are confined in "Tartarus," or in hell, is not inconsistent with the representations which elsewhere occur that their leader is permitted to roam the earth, and that even many of those spirits are allowed to tempt men. It may be still true that the mass are con fined within the limits of their dark abode; and it may even be true also that Satan and those who axe permitted to roam the earth are under bondage, and are permitted to range only within certain bounds, and that they are so secured that they will be brought to trial at the last day.

To be reserved unto judgment - Jde 1:6, "to the judgment of the great day." They will then, with the revolted inhabitants of this world, be brought to trial for their crimes. That the fallen angels will be punished after the judgment is apparent from Revelation 20:10. The argument in this verse is, that if God punished the angels who revolted from Him, it is a fair inference that He will punish wicked people, though they were once professors of religion.

I see the whole angelic encounter before and after the flood a "huge"eisegesis and I'm still not convinced, though I appreciate your attempt. I have another post on Matthew 14:26. Enjoy!

Can't deny it could be possible that there was distinction intended by the addition of "in heaven."

 

I am more persuaded, like Brother Edwards, that "the sons of God" represent the genealogical line of Seth. When you read from the end of chapter 4 to chapter six, the passage reads as a contrast of Seth's line and Cain's. 

Finding your discussion of Seth's line, nestled as it was in one of your long responses to our friend Edwards, was only a little easier than finding a needle in a haystack. Here is your discourse, annotated as I thought helpful.

 

The time of the marriages of the sons of God disproves the theory that they were the sons of Seth. Marriages of Seth's son could not have taken place during the first 325 years, for he had only one son of marriagable age up to that time (See: Genesis 5:1-8) and Enos was not godly. Enos was not godly because Seth's line was just as ungodly as all others.

I don't see what you see that is dating the union of "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men." Obviously, this intermarriage problem predated the flood, but by years? decades? centuries? How do we possibly know, so how do we discount Seth's sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, great-great-grandsons, etc., as the ones who married "the daughters of men"? On this timing point, you just make assertions that cannot be proven or disproven, because there is no specific dating of the union.

 

Abel, Enoch, and Noah were the only godly people mentioned in this period of all the race!

 

We are to assume from this that there were no other godly people on the face of the earth? Enoch was righteous, but not his wife, since she was not mentioned by name as godly? This is argument by absence, a fallacy in your reasoning.

 

Apostasy began in Seth's line with his firstborn (Genesis 4:26). This verse literally reads, "then men began to call themselves by the name of Jehovah," or "call upon their gods by the name of Jevohah."

You do realize how marginal your translation of that verse is, don't you? I cannot find a translation (not even Young's Literal) that renders the Hebrew this way. I cannot find a commentator that sees this verse as describing idolatry... to the contrary, everyone I consulted reads this as either the begining or the revival of prayer to and praise of God. The phrase is basically the same in Psalm 116:17 and Zephaniah 3:9, and in both those instances the only way to read "call upon the name of the LORD" is in the positive sense of faithful prayer.

 

Seth's line was so ungodly that at the time of Enoch that he prophesied of their destruction (See: Jude 14). Enoch also foretold the Flood, for he called his son Methuselah, which means, "when he is dead it (the Flood) shall come."

Jude 14,15 reads: And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

How do we know that he is talking about his own generation, rather than prophesying in the future (for example, about our generation)? I think the plainest way to read this is that Enoch  "saw" those upon whom he saw judgment being executed--that is, the generation that is on the earth when Jesus returns.

Furthermore, such marriages between godly sons and ungodly daughters could not have been during the last 600 years before the Flood, because Noah was the only son of God by righteousness during this time (Proof: Genesis 6:8-9; 7:1; 2 Peter 2:4-5).

I have some thoughts about this, but have to table the discussion for a little while. I'll hopefully pick it up again from this point.

You're writing too fast for me to responsibly and fully answer (lol, you must be on vacation this week)! I will get back to completing my earlier post a little later, and then maybe try to address the more interesting statements in this one. But I had to make two comments quickly:

 

First, don't feel insulted by the observation that you have reasoned through a logical fallacy ("fallacy" singular... I don't see multiple of "fallacies" in your argument). "Argument from absence" is a common mistake; we have to continually remind ourselves that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," as the truism goes.

 

Second, I would appreciate you citing one source I could check that translates Genesis 4:26 the way you did. That's far more useful that assertions that you haven't "made up" the translation, or your encouragement to "dig deeper." Look at any of the most popular translations, and you see how they disagree with this reading:

 

New International Version (©1984)
Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD.

New Living Translation (©2007)
When Seth grew up, he had a son and named him Enosh. At that time people first began to worship the LORD by name.

English Standard Version (©2001)
To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
A son was also born to Seth, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to worship the LORD.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

American King James Version
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call on the name of the LORD.

American Standard Version
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh. Then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah.

Douay-Rheims Bible
But to Seth also was born a son, whom he called Enos; this man began to call upon the name of the Lord.

Darby Bible Translation
And to Seth, to him also was born a son; and he called his name Enosh. Then people began to call on the name of Jehovah.

English Revised Version
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Webster's Bible Translation
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

World English Bible
There was also born a son to Seth, and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on Yahweh's name.

 

 

Besides, it would be useful to know if you would translate the phrase the same way in Psalm 116:17 and Zephaniah 3:9.

Thank you, Brother Watson, for clearing that up. We've all been there... putting confidence in a resource only to find out that it missed the mark.

Anthony:
   Here is the refutation of your theory that the "sons of god" in Gen 6, were celestial angels from ancient Jewish and Greek sources:

1)Hard Sayings of the Bible - Google Books Result Walter C. Kaiser, Frederick Fyvie Bruce - 1996 - Religion - 808 pages  The ancient Aramaic Targums render            "sons of God" as "sons of nobles" ( Targums of Onke- los), and the Greek translation of Sym- machus reads "the sons of Kings or Lords"

2)
Genesis 6 - Navigating the Bible II - World ORT bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?action=displayanchor&pentid...  Others translate this as 'sons of the rulers' or 'judges' (Targum, Rashi. See note on Genesis 3:5). 

3) A study of the interpretation of Noah and the flood in Jewish and ....  Jack Pearl Lewis - 1968 - Architecture - 202 pages
The Tar gum of Pseudo-Jonathan The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan represents a mixture of an ... "The sons of the great ones" (K'am 'la) for the "sons of God. ...

Anthony:

    Here is documentation of the height of the Nephilim according to the book of Enoch:

 There are different versions of the height of the "Nephilim" as stated in Enoch . One version says they are 2 miles high another says they are 450 feet tall !!!

Now based upon the truths I am sharing with you do you still believe that you are believing/teaching truth rather than error and fables??? 

Furthermore, such marriages between godly sons and ungodly daughters could not have been during the last 600 years before the Flood, because Noah was the only son of God by righteousness during this time (Proof: Genesis 6:8-9; 7:1; 2 Peter 2:4-5).

But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. [Gen. 6:8,9] And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. [Gen. 7:1]. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly... [2 Pet. 2:4,5]

 

The flood was certainly a judgment against Noah's generation [per Gen. 7:1], but it was decidedly not a judgment against the line of Seth. This is easier to see with a genealogical table that calculates the year of the deaths of Adam and his descendants:

A) Name     B) Relative Birth Death(Calculated) C) Age at Fatherhood (Cited) D) Age at Death (Cited)
 Adam 930  130 (5:3)  930 (5:5)
 Seth  1042  105 (5:6)  912 (5:8)
 Enosh  1140  90 (5:9)  905 (5:11)  
 Kenan 1235  70 (5:12)  910 (5:14)
 Mahalalel  1290  65 (5:15)  895 (5:17)
 Jared  1422  162 (5:18)  962 (5:20)
 Enoch    65 (5:21) vanished at age 365 (5:24)  
 Methuselah  1656  187 (5:25)  969 (5:27)
 Lamech  1650  182 (5:28)  777 (5:31)
 Noah  2005  500 (5:32)  950 (9:28)

 

Using this resource, and noting that the flood did not begin until Methuselah died in 1656, it strikes me as significant that no one in this genealogy suffered in the flood. God withheld the judgment against the earth until all of the patriarchs (other than Noah) had died. According to Enoch's prophetic naming of Methuselah, it appears to have been providential that the flood would not come until Methuselah had peacefully passed away. The only figure named in Seth's genealogy who was still alive when the judgment came was Noah. It is difficult for me to see how the flood could have been a judgment against these patriarchs if they were off the scene.

 

Now, I agree that Genesis chapter 5 is there to show the chosen genealogical line from Adam by which God would establish "the seed of the woman." But, as I tried to say before, I do not agree that the passage in chapter 6 is intended to show that intermarriage between "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" gave rise to giants. It is attested that Nephilim "were in the earth in those days" and then it is separately attested that "later" the godly and ungodly lines intermarried and to those unions were born "mighty men which were of old, men of renown." The origin of the Nephilim is nowhere explained; so it is impossible to prove one way or another if they were in Cain's lineage, in Seth's, or in both.

 

First of all, I never stated that the Flood was a judgment against Seth's line.

But, Brother Watson, you flatly stated that "Seth's line was so ungodly that at the time of Enoch that he prophesied of their destruction." That is the point I am countering... there is no reason to believe Enoch observed wickedness in Seth's line; instead, by naming his son Methuselah the way he did, Enoch seemed to prophesy mercy for individuals in Seth's line.

 

Since you disagree that Genesis 6:2,4 does not show that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" gave rise to giants, then who did?

As I wrote before, scripture does not tell us where the Nephilim come from. That may be a mystery, like "what animal is the 'behemoth' of Job 40:15?" There are subjects that the bible is silent about.

 

I think it highly unlikely that Genesis 6:4 can be asserting 1) that the Nephilim are the product of copulation between angels and humans, 2) that the phrase "after that" is so pregnant with meaning that it points to a time after the flood (which isn't even hinted to until verse 17 of this chapter). The acrobatic interpretation of "after that" by the "angel/human mating" proponents is meant to soften the impact of the Nephilim reappearing after the flood. But it sounds incredible to me... A terrible perversion occurred, which partly motivated God destroying the earth, and then it happened a second time!!!  That reading makes God look like He bungled the whole matter!

 

It is clear to me that Genesis 6:2, 4 concretely states that "the sons of God" (angels) had sexual intercourse with the "daughters of men" (human females). Genesis 6:4 states that "the sons of God" (angels) ---------------> "came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children." Okay Brother Gill, what does "came in unto" mean to you?

Did I deny that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" married, had intercourse and produced children? No I did not. I only told you those children are not said to be giants: The verse reads "and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." This is so clear, I don't know how you miss it: the progeny of the union of "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" were "mighty men"; they were "men of renown"'; this scripture does NOT say they were Nephilim.

You bring up a good point here! Because the Nephilim are giants, but they are most known for being mighty/strong, and skillful as warriors. I believe Ezekiel 32 talks about mighty men like this.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service