"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

Actually, Brother Edwards, we know from the many versions of gibborim ["mighty men"] in the Old Testament that the term simply meant "warrior," and could actually be applied to Nephilim (in 1 Samuel 17:51, the term is used for Goliath). The point isn't that the term is exclusive of giants, but that it isn't particularly suggestive of giants, as in the majority of instances it refers to normal human beings.

Brother Watson, usually when you and I debate, I see it as an opportunity for us to strengthen our arguments. I think we're both too bull-headed to really surrender our convictions based on the other's viewpoints, but there is always value in testing one's beliefs against honest criticism. Frankly, I think you goal was too lofty if you wanted to prove to me this angels/humans mating proposition.

 

If Enoch could prophesy the Second Coming of Christ (Jude 14) before the period of the Flood, how come the writer of Genesis 6:4 could not have written about what happened "after that," that is, after the Flood?

It's not a question of whether the writer of Genesis could have written about what happened after the Flood in Genesis 6: the record is being written after the flood, so it doesn't even require a foretelling of the future (as did the prophecy in Jude). The question is why he would do so in such ambiguous language, when he could simply write something like "after the flood, angels would again take wives of the daughters of men." That would have eliminated any controversy.

 

How come neither one of you can tell me why, in all of Scripture, and after meticulously analyzing the genealogical records, that not one time do they record a giant being produced from two human beings.

Have you ever taken a look at how few names actually appear in any given genealogy? You're too intelligent to believe that these genealogical records in the bible are all-inclusive. In the Jewish genealogies of 1 Chronicles, for example, there are only a couple of hundred personages famous or significant enough to be listed (as opposed to millions of Israelites whose names must have gone unrecorded).

 

Still, there are a few things we know from scripture and word analysis regarding the people group most identified with the Nephilim. We know that "the sons of Anak" were identified as Nephilim [Num. 13:33]. We know that the Anak's father was named Arba [Jos. 15:13], and that Arba founded the city Kirjatharba, which the Israelites later renamed Hebron [Jos. 14:15a]. We know that the inhabitants of Kirjatharba (Arba and his sons included) were Canaanites [Jgs. 1:10]. And, of course, we know Canaan, progenitor of the Canaanites, was a son of Ham and a grandson of Noah [Gen. 9:18]. So, although there isn't a genealogy, as such, that makes the connection, we can trace one important people group of Nephilim to the line of Seth.

 

However, I still say that the bible is silent about where the antediluvian Nephilim came from... and I don't worry about it either. Moreover, although I think I'm right about how to interpret Genesis 6, I know being right or wrong on this topic in no way affects my salvation, so this is just something interesting to talk about.

 

Seth's line was just as wicked as all the other lines were. Seth's line was not an exception.

I just think you're missing the impact of the correct reading of Genesis 4:26. Seth established the rudiments of prayer and worship, and taught his progeny the same godly practices. This makes Seth's line more godly than Cain's; the truth of this is evidenced by God destroying Cain's line, but sparing every patriarch mentioned in Seth's family tree a watery death. However, I in no way mean to assert that Seth's line was sinless or morally perfect. All men are born sinners, and subject to failure. Noah and his sons proved this in Genesis 9, if we ever really doubted it.

That's fine, Brother Watson; I'd never begrudge you leaving a thread. But I've come to like this one, so I'll keep posting.

 

Not all Nephilim were of the people group called Anakim, but all Anakim were Nephilim (so we understand from Numbers 13:33). So, Scripture-headed folks should at least admit that there is a connection between one of the people groups the Hebrew bible called "Nephilim" and the line of Seth. (I made just those qualifications in my last post).

 

Seems to me, to say there is no other explanation for Nephilim than angelic/human copulation ignores the elephant in the room. There are types of giants still observed in our human populations today. Their conditions are rare, but they are now known only to be genetic anomalies (caused by an overabudance of growth hormone at pivotal childhood stages of development). Gigantism, as it is called, is simply a birth defect... like all other disease, the result of the Adamic curse on the earth.

Brother Watson,

 

You reference scriptures about Og of Bashan, but I think only one, Deuteronomy 3:11, gives us measurable information about his size:

 

“For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.”

 

As most scholars attest, an ammah (or a “cubit”) was the length of an adult male’s forearm from elbow to fingertip. If this is correct, a cubit was roughly 20 inches, and the length of Og’s bed was 9 times 20, or 180 inches (~15 ft). If Og was exactly the length of his bed, then he was 15 feet tall.

 

Of course, giants come in different sizes. The formidable Goliath was 6.5 cubits, which would translate to ~11 ft tall. Obviously, whatever the calculations, there was a range in giants' sizes.

 

Since you gave short shrift to my biblical evidence of the connection between the sons of Anak and Noah's son Ham (and I only showed scripture references to illustrate the connection), I don't expect this next point to register with you. But I suspect others actually read our exchanges, so I will mention it. There is more biblical evidence suggestive that the physical condition of the giants was associated with genetic anomaly rather than angelic/human copulation:

 

"And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant." [2 Sam. 21:20]

 

One of Goliath's sons presented with polydactyly (a known and well-studied symptom of genetic disorder). Even today, polydactyly is often associated with genetic defects of size, be it gigantism or dwarfism. Observable genetic disorders presented in the giants family; anyone who respects science would say this is compelling evidence of genetic anomalies in his bloodline.

 

Now, God didn't intend the bible to be a science textbook. It doesn't surprise me that there isn't a specific discussion about the condition that gave rise to giants in Scripture. The point isn't that the bible has to explain birth defects with any specificity; what is persuasive to me is that what we have discovered in medical science corresponds so easily with the observations of the narrator of 2 Samuel. More reason I have so much confidence in this Book!

Really, Brother Watson! Halitosis may be a symptom of gingivitis, but it doesn't follow that every person with bad breath has tooth decay! You're not that naive.

 

The son of Goliath presented two symptoms of some variants of gigantism: great size and polydactyly. Any geneticist that read the scripture would say those symptoms were very suggestive.

 

Victims of giantism are still found today... they are "giants" usually born to parents of normal stature. We don't see giants 11 feet tall anymore, but we also don't see modern people living hundreds of years, like the patriarchs. Bible times saw some extreme vagaries of human biology that we no longer see in modern times.

 

Nonetheless, I'll have to forage for the post you described about Noahic legacy and respond later. Such a busy night tonight, I couldn't peruse the message board like I often do.

A major reason the "angel/human copulation" theory is popular is the influence of the noncanonical Book of Enoch:

 

[Chapter 6]
1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto

2 them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men

3 and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not

4 indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations

5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves

6 by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn

7 and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samlazaz, their leader, Araklba, Rameel, Kokablel, Tamlel, Ramlel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal, 8 Asael, Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaqiel, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomjael, Sariel. These are their chiefs of tens.


[Chapter 7]
1 And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms

2 and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they

3 became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed

4 all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against

5 them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and

6 fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

 

 

The Book of Enoch greatly affected the doctrine of early Church leaders like Clement of Rome (the 1st Century martyr):

 

"All things therefore being completed which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, and the human race also having multiplied, in the eighth generation, righteous men, who had lived the life of angels, being allured by the beauty of women, fell into promiscuous and illicit connections with these; and thenceforth acting in all things without discretion, and disorderly, they changed the state of human affairs and the divinely prescribed order of life, so that either by persuasion or force they compelled all men to sin against God their Creator. In the ninth generation are born the giants, so called from of old, not dragon-footed, as the fables of the Greeks relate, but men of immense bodies, whose bones, of enormous size, are still shown in some places for confirmation. But against these the righteous providence of God brought a flood upon the world, that t he earth might be purified from their pollution, and every place might be turned into a sea by the destruction of the wicked. Yet there was then found one righteous man, by name Noah, who, being delivered in an ark with his three sons and their wives, became the colonizer of the world after the subsiding of the waters, with those animals and seeds which he had shut up with him." ["Recognitions of Clement," Book 1, Ch. xxix]

 

There is a continuum from the Book of Enoch, through the Ante-Nicene commentators, to the modern proponents of this argument.

Anthony:
   If you believe that celestial angels copulated with human females you have fallen prey to a "Jewish Fable" of which we are to avoid.

   This ancient Jewish fable actually places God at fault for this happening, since for it to have happened it all, WHO IS AT FAULT FOR MAKING THE GENES COMPATIBLE BETWEEN HUMANS AND ANGELS so that they could reproduce?    

   So you are in essence BLAMING GOD!
    Angels are spirit, humans are flesh, therefore they cannot "reproduce together" since one of the laws of creation is that each "reproduces after it's kind.

   It could ONLY be by God's design that reproduction could occur.
   The Targums state plainly that the "sons of god" were mere men.  Would you like to see a copy or do you have a copy of the the Targums in your library?

    Also, can you tell us how tall these offspring were according to the Book of Enoch?   Do you know?
If you did, I doubt if you would be promoting this fable.

 

Anthony:
   The burden of proof is upon you, proving that the angels copulated with human females.

 Things you must prove:

1)  That the angels took human flesh

2)  That if they took human flesh, then the DNA/Genetics were HUMAN!

3)  Prove that the angels, in human flesh had babies that had DNA of the angels.

4)  The book of Enoch states that these Nephilim were 450 feet tall!  ROTFLOL

5)  Genetically, the offspring during gestation in the mother, is a certain percentage of it final   adult height.   The women of that era, were not even 5' tall, therefore they could not have carried to term any offspring that would be 450 feet tall at adulthood!  

Once again, Anthony, you have accepted a Jewish fable and man made traditions/interpretation of the scripture.


 

The True Height of Goliathn - 6 1/2 feet tall!

According to the DSS, Josephus and LXX, Goliath was

six and a half feet tall,

which at the time of David would certainly have been considered a giant stature. Human beings were generally much shorter than they are now. By the time of the Masoretes in the late first millennium C.E., almost two thousand years after the era of Goliath, six and a half feet tall was no longer so impressive. Thus the Masoretes amended the text, adding another three feet to Goliath’s stature, and that is why many Bibles today have Goliath at nine and a half feet tall. See McCarter, 1 Samuel, 286, 291.
(152, no. 1)
http://remnantofgiants.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/the-true-height-of-...

Anthony:
     You overlooked my references from the Targums.  I posted my references from the Targums on pg 4 of this discussion, which I have copied below:
~~~~~~

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. ...

~~~~~~~~~~~

The Targums plainly indicate that these "sons of god" were HUMAN.

Regarding you proving your case scripturally, that the sons of god were celestial angels, no you have not proven your case.

Also, since this discussion on Gen 6, is regarding a "biological event" then, you should expect to present scientific evidence as to why your interpretation is tenable BOTH scripturally, historically and scientifically.
 
You are trying to get us to believe that DNA of angels, was compatible with the DNA of human females, is that correct?

That is in utter conflict with the creation principle that each creature would produce "after it's kind". 

Angels are "spirit", humans are "flesh".   There can be no reproduction between the two species!

Are you expecting us to believe that "angels had semen", and that semen contained DNA compatable with human females?  Please explain...

Why would God create angels with semen, when they were not created to "marry"?

If your theory was true, you would find support, linguistically, textually, historically and scientifically.   At this point you have yet to prove your position in any of these areas.

A student of limited resources, I use a lot of online resources because I can't afford the printed ones. For the Ante-Nicene writers (as well as Josephus) I depend on the Christian Classics Etheral Library (http://www.ccel.org/). It has fine translations of these important works. Take this contribution, from Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, Chapter 3:

 

"NOW this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers; and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness, whereby they made God to be their enemy. For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land."

 

Clearly Josephus accepted the "angel/human copulation" theory (I have to regard it a theory, because of the ambiguity of the language of Genesis 6:2,4). But it is interesting you cite him as a support of the larger the thesis of angel/human copulation, but ignored his assurances that the "posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe..." when you flatly declared that Seth's line was as corrupt as any other!

 

Brother Watson, you seem also seem to be a champion of the Book of Enoch. Would you say the elements it adds to the story, like actual names of the fallen angels, are also trustworthy? Why do you think the book was left out of the biblical canon?

And yes, I did "flatly" declare that Seth's line was just as corrupt as any other line. A simple reading of the Book of Genesis from the days of Noah onward will show you that Brother Gill.

Except that Josephus contrasts Seth's line with Cain's, making it clear that while Seth and his progeny recognized God, Cain's legacy was apostate. At the end of the previous chapter, Josephus notes that "even while Adam was alive, it came to pass that the posterity of Cain became exceeding wicked, every one successively dying, one after another, more wicked than the former." Yes, while Seth's progeny were of course naturally sinful, they "continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations." Noah wasn't the only righteous person that Seth's line produced... however, Noah was the only one left after his grandfather's death, at which time God informed him that the earth would be judged.

 

RSS

© 2024   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service