951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


  

Introduction

One of the more intriguing passages in Genesis is located in the first few verses of chapter 6. Here is that passage:

Genesis 6:1-4 (ESV):

1When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”

4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Genesis 6 then continues on, to describe the events of Noah and the flood.

The above passage raises a number of questions, of course. Probably the central question is: who, exactly, were the “Nephilim” that are mentioned? (Note that some Bibles render the Hebrew word Nephilim as “giants”.)

Unfortunately, Scripture does not provide a completely explicit answer to that question. The Hebrew word Nephilim basically means “fallen ones”; but that does not provide any obvious identification of them, either.

As a result, it is necessary to try to infer the identity of the Nephilim, from other passages in Scripture.

 

One doctrine about the Nephilim

First, Genesis 6 tells us that the Nephilim are the children of the “sons of God”, and the “daughters of man”. The term “daughters of man” is relatively self-explanatory – it refers to human women. However, the term “sons of God” is used several different ways in Scripture; so the meaning of that term in Genesis 6 is not immediately obvious.

In at least some cases, though, the term “sons of God” definitely refers to angelic spirit beings – i.e., angels who live with God, in heaven. Consider the following passage, in which God talks to Job:

Job 38:4-7 (ESV):

4“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

As noted above, the “sons of God” shouted for joy, while God was creating the earth. Since God was in the process of creating the earth at that time, that indicates that no humans existed at that time. (How could there be any humans then – since the earth was not even complete yet?)

So, in this case (as well as in a number of other cases) the term “sons of God” definitely refers to angelic spirit beings – rather than to human beings.

 

Another item to note is that both the Old and New Testaments indicate that some angelic spirit beings will be punished by God. In other words, those passages indicate that some angels disobeyed God – and as a result, those angels will be held accountable for their actions. Consider these passages:

Isaiah 24:21-22 (ESV):

21On that day the LORD will punish
the host of heaven, in heaven,
and the kings of the earth, on the earth.
22 They will be gathered together
as prisoners in a pit;
they will be shut up in a prison,
and after many days they will be punished.

1 Peter 3:18-20 (ESV):

18For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

2 Peter 2:4-5,9-10 (ESV):

4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 9then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.

All of the above passages state that angelic spirit beings will be punished by God – because they sinned. Those spirit beings are evidently being kept “imprisoned” in some way, until the day of judgement.

In addition, the passages in 1 Peter and 2 Peter indicate that at least some angels sinned during the time of Noah – i.e., during the time period immediately prior to the flood. Of course, the events described in Genesis 6:1-4 also occurred during the time period immediately prior to the flood.

Finally, the following passage gives us an indication of what, exactly, some angels did, when they disobeyed God:

Jude 1:6-7 (ESV):

6And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

The passage above makes the following points:

– The angels did not “stay within their own position of authority”. This indicates that the angels did things that they were not authorized to do.

– The angels “left their proper dwelling”. It occurs to me that the “proper” dwelling place for an angel is heaven. So, since these angels left their proper dwelling place, that seems to indicate that the angels went to the earth.

– The passage “links” the sin of the angels to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. The passage discusses the sin of the angels – and then it states that Sodom and Gomorrah “likewise indulged in sexual immorality”, and “pursued unnatural desire”. That certainly seems to indicate that the angels committed the sin of unnatural sexual relations.

 

All of the above information appears to state the following: Angelic spirit beings came down to the earth, took on physical forms, and had sexual relations with human women. If that is the case, then that could certainly explain why the resulting children were called the Nephilim – or “fallen ones” – and why they were “the mighty men of old, the men of renown”.

Basically, this doctrine holds that the Nephilim were a genetically corrupted race of superhuman bullies – the children of fallen angels and human women.

 

Can angels physically interact with humans?

Many people claim that the above doctrine cannot be correct; because they state that since angels are spirit beings, that means that it is not possible for angels to physically interact with humans. Of course, if angels are not capable of any physical interaction with humans, then that would prevent them from having children with humans. However, does Scripture actually state that angels are incapable of physical interaction with humans?

In almost every case in Scripture, when angels deal with humans, the angels look like men. So, the question is: are angels just appearing as men – i.e., are angels just projecting “images” of men, when they deal with humans? Or, do angels actually take on physical bodies, when they deal with people?

Let’s take a look at some examples of angels dealing with humans, to try to determine the answer to that question:

Genesis 19:15-16 (ESV):

15As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city.” 16But he lingered. So the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city.

The passage above describes angels urging Lot to flee from Sodom, before Sodom gets destroyed. However, Lot took his own sweet time getting ready to leave – i.e., he dawdled.

So, the angels grabbed Lot by the hand, and dragged him out of the city. That certainly seems to indicate that the angels physically interacted with Lot!

Also note that that passage initially refers to “angels”, but then later refers to them as “men”. This is very common in Scripture – and it seems to indicate that the angels look (and feel!) exactly like normal human men.

Here is another example:

Genesis 32:1-2,24-25,30 (ESV):

1Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him. 2And when Jacob saw them he said, “This is God’s camp!” So he called the name of that place Mahanaim.

24And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. 25When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him.

30So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”

The above passage states that Jacob wrestled with a “man”; however, the context of the passage indicates that this man was actually an angelic spirit being, who looked like a man. Hosea 12 appears to confirm this:

Hosea 12:3-4 (ESV):

3 In the womb he [Jacob] took his brother by the heel,
and in his manhood he strove with God.
4He strove with the angel and prevailed;
he wept and sought his favor.

Since this angel wrestled with Jacob – and even dislocated Jacob’s hip – that certainly seems to indicate that the angel physically interacted with Jacob!

 

Of course, the above passages do not say anything about having children. In other words, even if angels can physically touch humans, that does not necessarily mean that angels can reproduce with humans.

Nevertheless, the above passages definitely appear to contradict the idea that angels cannot physically interact with humans at all.

 

Is it possible for angels to “marry”?

Another objection to this doctrine has to do with the concept of angels getting married. Jesus told the Sadducees that when people get resurrected, they do not marry – and then he compared resurrected people to angels in heaven:

Matthew 22:30 (ESV):

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

Mark 12:25 (ESV):

25For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Of course, Genesis 6:2 states that the sons of God “took as their wives any they chose”. So, some people compare Genesis 6:2 to the above two verses, and conclude that the sons of God cannot be angelic spirit beings – because the above verses indicate that angels in heaven do not get married.

There is an issue with that conclusion, though. Notice that the above two verses refer to angels in heaven. Presumably, while angels are in heaven, they do not have physical bodies. That is, while angels are residing in heaven, they are immaterial spirit beings – and while they are in that state, they certainly cannot physically interact with humans.

In other words, in order for an angel to interact with humans, the angel needs to leave heaven – and come to the earth.

So, the above verses certainly state that an angel in heaven is not able to marry. However, those verses do not say anything about an angel who has come to the earth.

Of course, this doctrine of the Nephilim states that fallen angels came to the earth – and as a result, the above verses would not apply to those angels.

 

Why is this issue important?

If the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6 are actually the children of fallen angels and humans, then that can lead to several interesting ramifications.

For one thing, many ancient cultures contain myths about pagan gods mating with humans – and the resulting children becoming superhuman warriors. Take a look at some examples:

– In Greek mythology, the superhuman warrior Hercules is the son of the pagan god Zeus and the human woman Alcmene.

– In Indian mythology, the superhuman warrior Karna is the son of the pagan god Surya and the human woman Kunti.

– In Celtic mythology, the superhuman warrior Cu Chulainn is the son of the pagan god Lugh and the human woman Deichtine.

– There are some variations: In Babylonian mythology, the superhuman warrior Gilgamesh is the son of the pagan goddess Ninsun and the human man Lugalbanda.

So, if the Nephilim in Genesis 6 are actually the children of fallen angels and humans, then it may be that the above myths were based upon ancient memories of the Nephilim. For example, the mythological stories of Hercules might be based upon the actual son of a fallen angel, who lived in ancient times.

 

There is also another, much more important item to note about the Nephilim. First of all, Genesis 6 states that the Nephilim were on the earth “in those days, and also afterward“. That certainly seems to imply that Nephilim were on the earth both before the flood, and after the flood.

The fact that there were Nephilim present after the flood is verified by Numbers chapter 13. That chapter describes the reports that the 12 spies brought back, after they had scouted out the land of Canaan. Here is what the spies stated about Canaan, in verse 33:

Numbers 13:33 (ESV):

33And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

Also, as noted above, this doctrine holds that the Nephilim were genetically corrupt. In other words, the Nephilim possesed DNA which was significantly different than that of normal humans. If that is true, then presumably the Nephilim would pass on that corrupted DNA to their own children.

So, a summary of the above information is as follows: the Nephilim were present both before and after the flood; and the Nephilim possessed corrupted DNA. If those points are true, then that could provide an explanation for some rather “difficult” passages in the Old Testament.

Here are two examples of “difficult” passages: First, in Genesis chapter 7, God sent the flood, which killed everyone on the entire earth – every man, woman and child. (Only Noah’s family was spared.) Similarly, in Joshua chapter 6, the Israelites (with God’s help) killed everyone in the city of Jericho – every man, woman and child. (Only Rahab’s family was spared.)

Those passages have always been rather troubling to me – especially Joshua chapter 6. It is understandable that the men of Jericho would be killed, because they would be the soldiers of the city. One could make a case that the women would need to be killed as well; because if they were left alive, they might have lured the Israelites into worshiping pagan gods. (In fact, that very type of issue occurred in Numbers chapter 25.) However, why would the children need to be killed? It is quite troubling to me that even newborn babies were put to the sword.

However, those two passages make sense, if the Nephilim were present – and if they were genetically corrupted beings. For example, if the entire earth was overrun by Nephilim in Genesis chapter 7, and if the city of Jericho was populated by Nephilim in Joshua chapter 6, then it would make sense that all of those Nephilim would need to be killed. This is because if any of them had survived, then they would have passed along their corrupted DNA to their offspring – and that would eventually have caused another entire tribe of Nephilim to arise.

So, this doctrine of the Nephilim provides at least a plausible explanation for some “difficult” passages.

 

Conclusion

As noted in the introduction, Scripture does not explicitly define the identity of the Nephilim; and as a result, all we can do is try to infer their identity.

There is another item to note, however. One of the passages listed above is contained in the book of Jude – Jude 1:6-7. As it turns out, the book of Jude uses a quote from another book – the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch is not part of the accepted Biblical canon today – i.e., it is not considered an inspired book of the Bible now. However, Enoch evidently was a part of the Bible in the past – it was considered a true book of the Bible by many early Christians, until about 300 AD.

In other words, the book of Enoch apparently was part of the Bible, while the apostles were alive! This is presumably one reason why Jude was comfortable quoting from it.

As it turns out, the book of Enoch has quite a bit to say about the Nephilim. Here is an excerpt from Enoch:

And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto 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 and beget us children.’

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 and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it.  And these are the names of their leaders: Samîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. These are their chiefs of tens.

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 and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men.

If the above passage from Enoch is true, then of course that would verifiy the identity of the Nephilim as children of fallen angels and humans.

150 Responses to “Who were the “Nephilim” of Genesis 6?”

  1. on 28 Aug 2011 at 12:06 pmDoubting Thomas

    Brian,
    Thanks for another great article. I found the history of the book of Enoch especially fascinating. I’ve always enjoyed reading about ancient history… 🙂

  2. on 28 Aug 2011 at 3:43 pmAnthony Buzzard

    “Giants” were not produced by the mating of “righteous humans” with “daughters of men”, human females. As is well recognized, the phrase “sons of God”, that expression refers to angels on every occasion! The LXX even has aggelloi.

    The Apostle Peter and Jude and early Christian litearature all know the story well.

  3. on 28 Aug 2011 at 3:49 pmAnthony Buzzard

    BK

    In other words, the book of Enoch apparently was part of the Bible, while the apostles were alive! This is presumably one reason why Jude was comfortable quoting from it.

    Enoch was not part of the Bible, except for those few verses which have become inscripturated by Jude.

  4. on 28 Aug 2011 at 7:37 pmMark C.

    One thing that puzzles me. If the angels that caused such corrupted beings before the flood were imprisoned (as Peter tells us), how did the Nephilim reappear later?

  5. on 28 Aug 2011 at 7:44 pmXavier

    Mark C.

    If the angels that caused such corrupted beings before the flood were imprisoned (as Peter tells us), how did the Nephilim reappear later?

    First, we’re not told when they were “imprisoned”.

    Second, sounds like there were 2 episodes [outbreaks] so even if those of the 1st outbreak were imprisoned immediately, you could well have others who committed the same “sin/corruption”.

    Third, what does it matter?

  6. on 28 Aug 2011 at 8:25 pmRandy

    Am I the only one, but it seems always when Mark C. makes a comment, Xavier is sitting on go ready to challenge. I believe the last comment was uncalled for, arrogant, and lacking in civility.

  7. on 28 Aug 2011 at 9:30 pmXavier

    Randy

    I believe the last comment was uncalled for, arrogant, and lacking in civility.

    Uncalled for? The man is asking to the general public.

    Arrogant? Lacking in civility? It was not meant to be unless your reading it with something else in mind…as you clearly were by your first statement.

  8. on 28 Aug 2011 at 9:31 pmXavier

    Randy

    PS: yes, it is just you! 😛

  9. on 28 Aug 2011 at 9:47 pmDoubting Thomas

    Xavier,
    I agree with Randy on this. Mark C just said, “One thing that puzzles me” and you responded with “Third, what does it matter?” I believe that last comment (the third one) was uncalled for and lacking in civility. If you don’t want to discuss a topic then you just don’t respond to the comment. There is no reason to be aggressive toward Mark.

    He’s entitled to share his thoughts, just like everyone else…

  10. on 28 Aug 2011 at 9:53 pmXavier

    DT

    There is no reason to be aggressive toward Mark. He’s entitled to share his thoughts, just like everyone else…

    Agreed. Just as he is more than capable of speaking for himself if he thinks the same way.

  11. on 28 Aug 2011 at 9:56 pmMark C.

    [Randy, I get that impression too. Nevertheless, I will respond civilly to his comments.]

    First, we’re not told when they were “imprisoned”.

    I Peter 3: [Note: it was misreferenced as ch. 1 in the article]
    19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
    20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

    This tells us when they sinned and at least implies they were imprisoned at that time.

    II Peter 2:
    4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;
    5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

    This tells us specifically when God “did not spare them” but “cast them into hell” (tartaro).

    Second, sounds like there were 2 episodes [outbreaks] so even if those of the 1st outbreak were imprisoned immediately, you could well have others who committed the same “sin/corruption”.

    Which makes one wonder why the angels of the second outbreak don’t seem to have been dealt with in the same way. Or else, if they were imprisoned, why it wasn’t mentioned with the first group in the above verses.

    Third, what does it matter?

    First, see the section of the article, “Why is this issue important?”
    Second, it is one of the arguments that critics of the Bible point out as an “apparent contradiction” so it would be nice to have an answer if possible.
    I look forward to Brian K’s response.

  12. on 29 Aug 2011 at 12:16 amBrian Keating

    Hi Anthony,

    All of the references to the phrase “sons of God” that I can find in the Old Testament certainly do refer to angelic spirit beings.

    However, there are a number of places where the New Testament uses the phrase “sons of God” to refer to human beings who are either Christians, or who are doing God’s will (e.g. “peacemakers”). The reason why I bring this up is because most people who disagree with this doctrine of the Nephilim bring it up.

    The exact occurrences of the phrase “sons of God” varies with each translation, but here are all of the occurrences of that phrase in the New Testament of Young’s Literal Translation:

    Matthew 5:9, Luke 20:36, John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Romans 8:19, and Galatians 3:26.

    In addition, both Adam and Jesus are referred to as the son of God (singular). Some people that I’ve spoken to have brought up Adam in particular, to try to prove that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were actually humans.

    If anyone is interested, the following document goes into detail about the title “son of God”:

    http://ncbf.homestead.com/What_does_the_Title_Son_of_God_Mean.pdf

  13. on 29 Aug 2011 at 1:47 amBrian Keating

    Hi Mark,

    Thanks for pointing out the misreference to 1 Peter 1; I have corrected that now.

    A number of people (and some denominations) believe that the Nephilim only existed before the flood – not after it. They claim that the “and also afterward” clause in Genesis 6:4 is a spurious text, which was added later. They also claim that the Nephilim mentioned in Numbers 13:33 were actually just human beings of unusual size, rather than being the children of fallen angels.

    I haven’t seen any convincing evidence about either of the above claims, though. So, assuming that children of fallen angels existed after the flood as well, that leaves the question of how those Nephilim arose after the flood.

    The “second outbreak” theory would seem to be the most natural explanation. However, there is no explicit mention in Scripture of angels mating with humans after the flood. Also, as you pointed out, there is no mention of angels being punished for doing that after the flood.

    Some mainstream Christian groups believe that the Nephilim have “immortal souls” (just like they claim that normal humans do). As a result, they state that the bodies of the Nephilim died in the flood – but their immortal souls kept on living. Finally, they claim that the immortal souls of the Nephilim were placed into new bodies, after the flood – and that that “indwelling” caused the “host” body to gain superhuman size and strength.

    Needless to say, I do not believe in this “Nephilim immortal soul” theory. However, there is one interesting point to note about that theory. One of the groups that the Israelites had to face during the conquest of Canaan was the “Rephaim”. For example, King Og of Bashan was one of the Rephaim – he’s the guy who had the bed that was 9 cubits (over 13 feet) long.

    The proponents of this theory point out that the name Rephaim basically means “departed spirits”, or “spirits of the dead”. This is the primary reason why they claim that the immortal souls of Nephilim were placed into the Rephaim’s bodies.

    Certainly, the “immortal souls” concept doesn’t look correct to me. However, the name Rephaim is quite intriguing. Since that name means “spirits of the dead”, consider this possibility:

    1. All of the Nephilim were born prior to the flood – i.e., no angels mated with humans after the flood.

    2. The Nephilim were all killed during the flood, of course.

    3. However, at some point after the flood, at least some of the Nephilim got resurrected. Those Nephilim were then referred to as “Rephaim” – because they were killed during the flood, but the spirit (or “breath of life”) was placed back into their dead bodies, after the flood. (Note that this resurrection would be a resurrection back to mortal life – like the resurrection of Lazarus – rather than a resurrection to immortal life.)

    Of course, I am not aware of any direct reference in Scripture that would support this doctrine. This doctrine would also raise the question of how, exactly, the Nephilim got resurrected. It doesn’t seem likely that God would resurrect them; and if a rebellious angel resurrected them, then why don’t we see any reference to that?

    Nevertheless, I would say that this doctrine is at least “food for thought”…

  14. on 29 Aug 2011 at 7:37 amXavier

    Mark C.

    This tells us when they sinned and at least implies they were imprisoned at that time.

    As I said, we are not told when they were imprisoned exactly.

    …it is one of the arguments that critics of the Bible point out as an “apparent contradiction”…

    Sure, like everything else the unstable and foolhardy love to pick. Reminds me of an old Proverb that says, “If anyone digs a pit, they themselves will fall into it; if anyone rolls a stone, it will roll back on them.”

    PS: thank you for your “civility”.

  15. on 29 Aug 2011 at 7:39 amJaco

    I do agree with Anthony. The Nephilim were hybrid humans who were born from human x angelic parents. The Ancient Near East has myths and legends confirming this unmistakably historical event.

    Mark’s question is no more problematic to those who believe in the “angelic” version of the Sons of God as it is also to those who believed they were purely human. The whole lot were supposed to have drowned with the Flood so that only 7 humans survived, whether the Nephilim were human or hybrid.

    Jaco

  16. on 29 Aug 2011 at 8:25 amXavier

    BK

    …Enoch evidently was a part of the Bible in the past – it was considered a true book of the Bible by many early Christians, until about 300 AD.

    Apparently there are many other books mentioned by Biblical writers. And as you probably know books like 1Clement and Gospel of Thomas were considered scripture “by many early Christians”.

    Does this mean they were part of what we know as the Bible as well?

  17. on 29 Aug 2011 at 8:38 amMark C.

    Brian,

    I agree that the Nephilim immortal soul theory doesn’t hold water. I’m not sure the idea of a resurrection does either though. And Gen. 6:4 does say they were on the earth in those days and also afterward, when the angels came in to the daughters of men. This could be taken to mean the angels did that afterward also.

    Xavier,

    “This tells us when they sinned and at least implies they were imprisoned at that time.”

    As I said, we are not told when they were imprisoned exactly.

    If you continue reading my comment, the next verse cited narrows it down.

    I Peter 3 says that they sinned in the days of Noah, and II Peter 2 says God cast them into the pit when they sinned.

    However, having said that, perhaps the wording in II Peter and in Jude could also include other angels who sinned in a similar way at other times, which would fit with the “and also afterward” of Gen. 6.

    ” …it is one of the arguments that critics of the Bible point out as an ‘apparent contradiction’…”

    Sure, like everything else the unstable and foolhardy love to pick.

    Not every question about apparent contradictions is from the unstable and foolhardy. Some people genuinely want to know. In any case, it’s still a valid question which may have an answer, or may be one of those things we won’t fully understand till Christ returns. As Brian said, it’s at least “food for thought.”

  18. on 29 Aug 2011 at 8:50 amXavier

    Mark C.

    …perhaps the wording in II Peter and in Jude could also include other angels who sinned in a similar way at other times…

    So many “coulds” and “perhaps” and “maybes” Mark. 😛

    …it’s still a valid question which may have an answer, or may be one of those things we won’t fully understand till Christ returns. As Brian said, it’s at least “food for thought.”

    Let’s help people count to 1 when it comes to how many God is and tell them about the TRUE Gospel about the coming KOG first. Then…maybe…deal with those gripes.

  19. on 29 Aug 2011 at 9:40 amAnthony Buzzard

    Brian Keating

    All of the references to the phrase “sons of God” that I can find in the Old Testament certainly do refer to angelic spirit beings.

    Yes, and that is where to start!

    However, there are a number of places where the New Testament uses the phrase “sons of God” to refer to human beings who are either Christians, or who are doing God’s will (e.g. “peacemakers”). The reason why I bring this up is because most people who disagree with this doctrine of the Nephilim bring it up.

    That is a poor move since we are talking about Hebrew and not NT in Gen 6

    The exact occurrences of the phrase “sons of God” varies with each translation, but here are all of the occurrences of that phrase in the New Testament of Young’s Literal Translation: Matthew 5:9, Luke 20:36, John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Romans 8:19, and Galatians 3:26.

    Yes, of course but all they are doing is diverting attention from the obvious in Gen 6 distraction!

    In addition, both Adam and Jesus are referred to as the son of God (singular). Some people that I’ve spoken to have brought up Adam in particular, to try to prove that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were actually humans.

    And Jude and Peter and Jewish lit all know about the bne elohim and the giants. They miss the very obvious Sons of God are different category from human females

    If anyone is interested, the following document goes into detail about the title “son of God”: http://ncbf.homestead.com/What_does_the_Title_Son_of_God_Mean.pdf

    The standard commentary gets this right and has done for years (some dissent of course( I mention this because these days it tends to be assumed that the internet gets it right! People are not in the seminary libraries getting a historical perspective.

    Giants are the results of this awful invasion by fallen angels!

    Anthony

  20. on 29 Aug 2011 at 5:49 pmRay

    I believe context provides the answer to who the great ones were.

    I go along with the mighty men who were once God fearing, those who were promoted by the spirit of wisdom and became great. But many of those fell away from God, for the things of this world instead.

    When God’s people fall away from him, the tendency is to become the worst sort of men.

  21. on 30 Aug 2011 at 12:59 amWolfgang

    Anthony, and others,

    so angels (not being of the human kind themselves) can produce progeny of the human kind?

  22. on 30 Aug 2011 at 8:25 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    Not quite human, like you or me. The text says they were “mighty heroes…famous men.”

    The parenthetical/explanatory clause uses the word הַגִּבֹּרִים (haggibborim) to describe these Nephilim. The word means “warriors; mighty men; heroes.” The appositional statement further explains that they were “men of renown.” The text refers to superhuman beings who held the world in their power and who lived on in ancient lore outside the Bible. See E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB), 45-46; C. Westermann, Genesis, 1:379-80; and Anne D. Kilmer, “The Mesopotamian Counterparts of the Biblical Nephilim,” Perspectives on Language and Text, 39-43. NET Bible

    I guess a comparison can be made between the first and Second Adams. Where God “produced” humans who were not quite like us. “Superhuman” in their own ways [sinless, capable of immortality].

  23. on 30 Aug 2011 at 9:13 amAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang

    Thanks, the text says angels mated with humans. I first accept the text, not question it!

    Peter knew this too and Jude refers to it and also Jewish literature outside the Bible.

    The method is to see what Bne Elohim means in its other occs. i.e., angels, so the LXX (Alex).

    Then the obvious fact that these angels mated with human females.
    The product was giants. A terrible event.

  24. on 30 Aug 2011 at 11:56 amRon S.

    Great article Brian! This is a topic that is so fascinating!

    BTW, the ex-Way folks over at TruthorTradition.com have written an pretty good article along these lines on the same subject (link is: http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=626)

    To me the whole understanding of fallen angels mating with humans and producing a nasty “hybrid” race that were in danger of corrupting the earth and by extension the bloodline of the Messiah is one that really provides an honest answer to a long-standing difficult question. And that question has been why would a loving God wipe out so many people in the Flood and then later command the Israelites to wipe out every human being (men,women, AND children) of some of the people they encountered in the promised land area? It seems overly excessive and cruel for just sinful human beings. The same sinful human beings that God wanted His Messiah to ultimately save. But if they were corrupted with the hybrid angelic DNA (especially if this led to superhuman capabilities and a greater predisposition towards evil & rebellion and communication/assocation with other earth-bound fallen angels/demons), then it makes perfect sense as to why God was so thorough in wiping them out.

    So IMO, not only does the textual evidence support it (as Anthony and others here have stated), the logic fits too. God is not a monster. God did what He had to do in order to protect humanity and ultimately save it through His Messiah (whom He decreed would come through Eve).

  25. on 30 Aug 2011 at 4:16 pmWolfgang

    Anthony,

    Thanks, the text says angels mated with humans.

    Actually, I could not find even one translation in which the text says that angels mated with humans. I could read your take and interpretation of this passage and that you (and others in various works) arrive at that conclusion.
    But in your interpretation you did not touch on the question I asked and which to me is a rather obvious question in light of the biblical truth in Gen 1, that God has set up matters regarding progeny in a way in which all procreation takes place “after its kind”.

    I first accept the text, not question it!

    To clarify, I am questioning YOUR INTERPRETATION of the text … I am not questioning the text! Furthermore, I asked a question relevant to your interpretation … and was looking forward to your answer to this question, thinking that you had most likely considered this matter in light of the Gen 1 truths regarding “after its kind” and that you could therefore easily provide an answer.

    Then the obvious fact that these angels mated with human females.
    The product was giants. A terrible event.

    This may be the obvious fact as long as one does not consider the truth that God has set up things regarding progeny according to “after its kind”, and that no two different kinds will produce a “mixed-kind” progeny. Now, when we do consider this truth of “after its kind”, the question is IF your interpretation still holds true or if there has to be another understanding of the matter ?

    Now, I admit, that I do not have an answer which I would consider to be satisfactory … just as I do not consider the interpretation you give about these “mixed kind” and “more than human” beings conceived by human women, who then gave birth to these “not really humans” TO BE SATISFACTORY.

    Does Scripture not otherwise clearly indicate and consistently imply that “those born of women” are “human beings” (that is, living beings of the human kind, rather than some “mixed kind”)?

  26. on 30 Aug 2011 at 4:24 pmXavier

    Wolfgang, if I may…

    I could not find even one translation in which the text says that angels mated with humans.

    I thought that in everyone of its occurences the phrase translated “sons of God” always means “angels”.

    …that God has set up matters regarding progeny in a way in which all procreation takes place “after its kind”.

    So I guess CS Lewis was right to say “God begets God”?

  27. on 30 Aug 2011 at 6:13 pmMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    First off, I fixed the paragraph in your comment that had words missing.

    Second, regarding your comment:

    This may be the obvious fact as long as one does not consider the truth that God has set up things regarding progeny according to “after its kind”, and that no two different kinds will produce a “mixed-kind” progeny. Now, when we do consider this truth of “after its kind”, the question is IF your interpretation still holds true or if there has to be another understanding of the matter ?

    The passages in Genesis that include the phrase “after its kind” are referring to plants and animals.

    Ge 1:11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
    Ge 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
    Ge 1:21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
    Ge 1:24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.
    Ge 1:25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
    Ge 6:20 “Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.
    Ge 7:14 they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, all sorts of birds.

    However, in the case of angels and humans, we are not talking about two different kinds producing a mixed kind. We are talking about spirit beings “who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling.” The context in those and other verses referred to above also clearly indicate spirit beings who had wicked and corrupt interaction with human women, producing genetically corrupted humans. This is why it was such a grievous sin that they were imprisoned.

    Another interesting thing to consider is that the Hebrew word for “kind” is described as follows in the Online Bible Lexicon:

    Groups of living organisms belong in the same created “kind” if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new “kind” but a further partitioning of an existing “kind”.

    Thus, “kind” more closely corresponds to our word “genus” and you can have new species arise within a genus, but not crossing over to a new genus. Any number of things can cause this, from natural adaptation to engineered cross-breeding (ligers, mules, etc.)

    Therefore, if angels cohabited with humans and produced a new type of human, it would be like a new species within the same kind or genus. Thus there is no contradiction with the “after its kind” idea.

  28. on 30 Aug 2011 at 8:49 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang,

    Bne Elohim is angels and they took human daughters of men, females. They produced giants.

    That is what the Hebrew says and Jude and Peter understood it that way.

    Bne Elohim always means angels.
    Anthonhy

  29. on 31 Aug 2011 at 6:01 amWolfgang

    Anthony,

    do you not understand that your repetition of your interpretation does not answer the question I asked regarding a matter you did not address in your explanation/interpretation of the passage in Gen 6?

    Do you regard “angels” to be of the same “kind / genus” as humans? If so, why would you not want to say so? If you regard angels to be of a different “kind / genus” from humans, then how do you explain that angels can have progeny from human women?

  30. on 31 Aug 2011 at 6:08 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    First off, I fixed the paragraph in your comment that had words missing.

    Thank you very much …

    The passages in Genesis that include the phrase “after its kind” are referring to plants and animals.

    So then you think that it would be possible for humans to have progeny with partners of other “kinds/genus”?

  31. on 31 Aug 2011 at 6:12 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    forgot to ask concerning another paragraph of your earlier post:

    However, in the case of angels and humans, we are not talking about two different kinds producing a mixed kind. We are talking about spirit beings “who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling.”

    So you think that “angels” and “humans” are of the same “kind/genus” (which would be the kind/genus of “humans {homo sapiens} since this is what you clearly seem to infer in the first part of your above statement?
    Or are you saying that “angels” who left their proper dwelling somehow changed “kind/genus” in the process?

  32. on 31 Aug 2011 at 6:35 amAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang

    Do you regard “angels” to be of the same “kind / genus” as humans?

    So CS Lewis was right to say “God begets God”?

  33. on 31 Aug 2011 at 8:27 amWolfgang

    Anthony,

    So CS Lewis was right to say “God begets God”?

    what was your “return question above ” supposed to achieve, since it has little to do with the topic we are discussing here?
    I repeat my question to you “Do you regard “angels” to be of the same “kind/genus” as humans? And I will add, that I would expect from a professor or retired professor at a Bible College a better reply than what you did here with your somewhat unrelated question about C.S.Lewis …

    Nevertheless, I will answer your question regarding C.S. Lewis … my take is that he was WRONG with “God begets God”.

    On the other hand, since you import the subject of the conception of Jesus by God in Mary … did Mary give birth to a son of was of the kind/genus “human”, or did she give birth to a son of a “God-man/hybrid/double/mixed” kind/genus?

    I would say, she gave birth to a son of the kind/genus “human” {homo sapiens} … as all who are born of women are (unless your theory of women also being able to conceive and give birth to children who are of a “double/mixed” kind/genus … such as “angel-human”/”God-man”/ etc …

  34. on 31 Aug 2011 at 8:31 amWolfgang

    oops … I hit the “submit” button accidentally before completing my last sentence above

    I would say, she gave birth to a son of the kind/genus “human” {homo sapiens} … as all who are born of women are (unless your theory of women also being able to conceive and give birth to children who are of a “double/mixed” kind/genus … such as “angel-human”/”God-man”/ etc …which seems to contradict the biblical principle of “after its kind” were correct)

  35. on 31 Aug 2011 at 9:38 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    I will answer your question regarding C.S. Lewis … my take is that he was WRONG with “God begets God”.

    What we’re trying to say is that your proposition about angels being able to co-habit with humans by definition would produce some type of angel/human being.

    Same as CS Lewis’ defense of the Trinity as “God beget God”, therefore, Jesus is God.

    Capice?

  36. on 31 Aug 2011 at 10:06 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    so then, since you regard CS Lewis’ theory of “God beget God” as wrong (or do you believe it to be correct?), you logically then ought to also regard the assumption about an angel/human being to be wrong

    Also, please note:
    I am NOT the one who is proposing that angels are able to co-habit with humans producing a “dual kind/genus” or “mixed kind/genus” progeny … that idea was promoted here by others and endorsed by Prof Buzzard, to whom I had addressed my posts indicating that I see a problem with this angels/human cohabitation producing “giants” (hypbrid angels/humans?) …
    I am the one who has stated that I currently do not have an answer to the matter which would be satisfactory to me, and that the angel-human cohabitation idea propagated here by Prof Buzzard and others is also unsatisfactory to me due to the reasons stated regarding the biblical truth of “after its kind”

  37. on 31 Aug 2011 at 12:49 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    …since you regard CS Lewis’ theory of “God beget God” as wrong (or do you believe it to be correct?)

    Your not understanding the point I am trying to make. You seem to be implying that the “progeny” of the “angels” and humans is of the same “mixed kind/genus” as angels [whatever that may mean]. If this is the case, I am asking you whether you agree with CS Lewis’ statement, since he uses your same argumentation when it comes to “God begets God”. One of the ways orthodox Christians explain their Jesus “God-man” Christology.

    I am NOT the one who is proposing that angels are able to co-habit with humans producing a “dual kind/genus” or “mixed kind/genus” progeny…

    Yes I know. I agree with the mainstream interpretation since the phrase “sons of God” used in reference to these beings in Gen 6 is only used of “angels” throughout the OT. And was understood as such by mainstream Judaism as well. As is the case with Christianity in the NT [Jude; Peter].

  38. on 31 Aug 2011 at 2:56 pmWolfgang

    Xavier,

    You seem to be implying that the “progeny” of the “angels” and humans is of the same “mixed kind/genus” as angels [whatever that may mean].

    If anything, I am implying that I question — based on the truth concerning “after its kind” — that angels (whom I understand to NOT be of the kind/genus “human”) can cohabit with humans and produce offspring … since beings of 2 different kinds/genus cannot produce offspring.

    IF that truth regarding progeny applies (as I would think it does, since that truth is nowhere changed or broken in the Scriptures), then obviously the idea of angels producing offspring with humans could not be correct and there would have to be a different understanding possible … which would be in harmony with this truth as well as be in harmony with how terms are used in the Scriptures (in other words, the interpretation that “sons of God” ALWAYS in the OT refers to angels would need to be re-examined)

  39. on 31 Aug 2011 at 3:04 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    …I question — based on the truth concerning “after its kind”…since beings of 2 different kinds/genus cannot produce offspring.

    How do you explain God begetting [producing/procreating] a Son then? Hence my comment about CS Lewis since he used this self-same interpretation to argue for Jesus’ “Godhood”.

    …the interpretation that “sons of God” ALWAYS in the OT refers to angels would need to be re-examined…

    It has been. The result being that the phrase is only used in reference to angels.

  40. on 31 Aug 2011 at 10:06 pmMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    So then you think that it would be possible for humans to have progeny with partners of other “kinds/genus”?

    No. As I said in my last comment, there can be interbreeding between SPECIES, WITHIN a genus, but not between different GENUS. Thus, a horse and a donkey can produce a mule, because they are different species within the same genus. A lion and a tiger can produce a liger, because they are different species within the same genus.

    However, you missed the most important point, and that is that what the Bible says about reproducing after its kind was referring to PLANTS and ANIMALS. It says nothing about angels, or any other spirit beings.

    Thus, since we are clearly told from Scripture that angels left their proper place and cohabited with humans, we can assume that they somehow corrupted human DNA, but that the resulting Nephilim were still within the human “kind.” They were either a mutation of Homo sapiens, or possibly a different species with the genus Homo. There is nothing in the Bible that says a spirit being cannot produce offspring through humans, which also answers the question of how God could have a human Son.

  41. on 31 Aug 2011 at 11:57 pmRon S.

    Wolfgang,

    Mark is correct. There is nothing in Scripture that says a spirit being cannot produce offspring through humans.

    And your argument falls on its face with what Xaiver and Anthony have been trying to point out with the C.S. Lewis quote. If God begat a human being (Jesus) as I know you agree with us on that he was really/actually human and not God the Son posing in human form, then here is the spritual begating something different than its kind. God didn’t begat God. God begat the human Jesus. Therefore your argument that angels could not begat a hyrbrid human fails under the same analogy. Don’t you see that?

    From my viewpoint, your only rebuttal is that angels are not God and only God can create a new genus/kind. But the problem there is that Scripture doesn’t tell us that God is the only one that can do that, nor does it tell us that angel spirit beings cannot do that. Nor does it say that angels and humans are of totally different genus/kinds and therefore not capable of interbreeding (Mark C’s point).

  42. on 01 Sep 2011 at 12:24 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    However, you missed the most important point, and that is that what the Bible says about reproducing after its kind was referring to PLANTS and ANIMALS. It says nothing about angels, or any other spirit beings.

    I don’t think I missed that point at all …. because based on exactly that point of yours, it follows that humans could have progeny with partners of other kinds/genus and I then asked you about that. You denied that possibility

    No. As I said in my last comment, there can be interbreeding between SPECIES, WITHIN a genus, but not between different GENUS.

    From this it would follow, that you regard angels and humans to either be different species of the same kind/genus “human” ?

    That doesn’t seem to fit quite comfortably with your view either, so you bring up the assumption that angels might have corrupted human DNA etc. … but then, would this assumption not necessitate angels to be of the same kind/genus … since you agree that humans cannot have progeny with beings of a different kind/genus?

    Why not assume that the interpretation of a term could be incorrect and needs adjustment … especially since the Scriptures do speak of not only angels as being “sons of God” in other places?

  43. on 01 Sep 2011 at 12:47 amWolfgang

    Ron S.,

    And your argument falls on its face with what Xaiver and Anthony have been trying to point out with the C.S. Lewis quote. If God begat a human being (Jesus) as I know you agree with us on that he was really/actually human and not God the Son posing in human form, then here is the spritual begating something different than its kind.

    God did not “spiritually beget” Jesus … because Mary did NOT conceive a SPIRIT being … Women conceive “human” progeny. Thus, it follows, that the miraculous begetting / conception of Jesus was a creative act of God, in that He – by means of His holy spirit power – provided that male contribution (of the human kind/genus) necessary for a woman to conceive a child.

    From my viewpoint, your only rebuttal is that angels are not God and only God can create a new genus/kind. But the problem there is that Scripture doesn’t tell us that God is the only one that can do that, nor does it tell us that angel spirit beings cannot do that.

    Indeed, I do go by the truth that the Sciptures do tell us that God is the Creator and has created man and thus can create parts of man in order to bring about the conception of a human being in a woman. My rebuttal would be that any other idea, such as angels having the same power to produce such creative acts is unscriptural … just as you say, the Scriptures tell us nothing about that !! It is solely an assumption that they perhaps can either create or — as Mark C suggests – “corrupt human DNA”. But such an idea is also unscriptural, not found in Scripture, and it would also still need to explain where the male side contribution of that “corrupted human DNA” came from, since those women could only provide the female side of the human DNA, and a corruption of just the women’s DNA contribution would not produce an offspring …

    Would it not be more reasonable to assume that the proposed interpretation of “sons of God” as being “fallen angels” mating with humans is incorrect?

    Also, why would FALLEN angels (and I would think, that all of you who propose this idea, because those angels had already “left their place of authority” etc.) still be called “sons OF GOD”?? Are evil spirits/fallen angels really called “sons of God” in the Scriptures? Or does the term “sons of God”, when it is used in the Scriptures for angels refer to those angels who are still in their proper place and in God’s ?

  44. on 01 Sep 2011 at 3:57 amMark C.

    I don’t think I missed that point at all …. because based on exactly that point of yours, it follows that humans could have progeny with partners of other kinds/genus and I then asked you about that. You denied that possibility

    I honestly don’t see how that follows. The Bible says, in all of those occurrences quoted in comment 27, that the plants and animals which God created produce seed after their kind, or genus. As I’ve said twice already, ANIMALS CAN PRODUCE OFFSPRING WITH OTHER SPECIES WITHIN THEIR GENUS BUT NOT WITH ANOTHER GENUS.

    But all of that has to do with the plants and animals God created, and has nothing to do with angels or other spirit beings.

    From this it would follow, that you regard angels and humans to either be different species of the same kind/genus “human” ?

    That doesn’t seem to fit quite comfortably with your view either, so you bring up the assumption that angels might have corrupted human DNA etc. … but then, would this assumption not necessitate angels to be of the same kind/genus … since you agree that humans cannot have progeny with beings of a different kind/genus?

    No. Angels do not have genus or species. They are spirit beings without bodies, and are in a completely different category from physical beings such as plants and animals, which reproduce after their kind. There is nothing in the Bible that says that either God or angels cannot somehow produce offspring through humans. Applying the “after its kind” statement in Genesis to spirit beings is misinterpreting and misunderstanding the meaning of the term.

    Why not assume that the interpretation of a term could be incorrect and needs adjustment …

    Better yet, why not assume that the clear verses in Peter and Jude mean what they say?

    …especially since the Scriptures do speak of not only angels as being “sons of God” in other places?

    The only five places where “Sons of God” appear in the OT, they are the translation of the Hebrew, bne Elohim, and always refer to angels.

    When we come to the NT, we are first told that peacemakers in the coming Kingdom shall be called Sons of God (Mat. 5:9). Then in Luke 20:36 we are told that in the resurrection, “they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” Here “sons of God” is specifically linked back to the Hebrew idea that the angels were sons of God. Two other verses in Romans (8:14,19) and one in Galatians (3:26) are the only other references to “Sons of God” in the NT and they are referring to our spiritual new birth. That is all of the occurrences of “sons of God” in the Bible.

    Since the new birth did not become available till after Christ came, and then it was a spiritual birth, I think it highly unlikely that the “sons of God” referred to in Gen. 6 is talking about that. And since it was in the Hebrew Scriptures it is clearly referring to angels. Add to this the specific references to what the angels did in Peter and Jude, and it becomes quite clear what the Nephilim were.

    The only objection to this clear understanding is the claim that angels cannot cohabit with humans, which is nowhere stated in the Bible. We are not told the details of how they did it, and therein lies the speculation. But if you believe the Bible it is undeniable that they somehow produced the Nephilim and were imprisoned for it. Why fight it?

  45. on 01 Sep 2011 at 5:03 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    The only five places where “Sons of God” appear in the OT, they are the translation of the Hebrew, bne Elohim, and always refer to angels.

    This has been your and others’ claim, based on your interpretation of these passages in the OT. However, is that interpretation true?

    I would almost claim the exact opposite, namely that angels of God, whom we would regard as immortal spirit beings and who are invisible to us, are NEVER called “sons of God” in the Bible.

    Consider this:
    In Hebrews, we are given a description of the status of Jesus Christ, which is so mich higher and more powerful than that of angels (cp. Heb 1:4) Following this statement, we read the question: “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” (Heb 1:5)
    This is a quote from Psalm 2,7 … and I would think that this already together with the questions in Heb should be sufficient reason to re-think the “sons of God = fallen angels” assumption, seeing that God specifically declares that He never did consider angels to be “sons” or “the Son”. God did not to any angel at any time declare that He, God, was a Father to them and that they were His sons

    Now, the Heb “ben Elohim” (translated “sons of God”) is used in Gen 6:2,4 and in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7.

    Now, what about the “sons of God” in the book of Job (the only other places in the OT, where the expression “ben Elohim” occurs? Job was an upright man who feared God (cp Job 1:1) and who was concerned that his sons would walk in faith and in godly ways, and thus he even sent to get them and sanctify them after they had finished their feasts, for in case they could perhaps have sinned.

    Now, considering the continuation of the immediate context in the immediately following verse (Heb 1:6), we read about these god fearing men (“sons of God”) coming together as an assembly “to present themselves to the LORD” and “to come before the LORD” (1:6; 2:1). They not only “came before the {face of} the LORD”, they also then again “went forth from the LORD” (1:12; 2:7).

    When we compare this expression with similar events mentioned in the Scriptures, we can understand that this had nothing to do with immortal angels in heaven! For example, we read about Adam and Eve hiding from the face of the LORD in Eden (Gen 3:8), we read about Cain “went out from the presence of the LORD” (Gen 4:16), we read about “Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD.” (Exo 23:17 .. also cp Deu 5:4; 1Ki 18:15; Jonah 1:3)

    Contrary to this “coming before the Lord” and “parting from the face of the LORD”, we learn from Jesus’ own lips about angels in heaven “That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.”

    This should make clear, that those 5 passages where “ben Elohim” occurs in the OT does in fact NOT refer to heavenly angels, as you and Anthony and others assume and suggest.

    With your and Anthony’s ideas, the context of the passages in Job is ripped apart, in that you will well agree that the passage is speaking about Job and his sons and family who live here on earth, and then all of a sudden (without any textual indication of change of place) you change the context to a scene in heaven with angels supposedly gathering before the face of the LORD (contrary to what Jesus has to say about angels in heaven, who don’t have to come before the LORD since they are always before him!), then just as abruptly you move the context back to earth and to Job and his family and enemies etc … and then again back to heaven (ch 2) …

    Job 38:7 is the only passage where “ben Elohim” could perhaps refer to angels of God (angelic beings in heaven) is in itself somewhat difficult to understand. Yet, one still needs to consider this statement “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:7) in light of the truth from Psa 2 / Heb 1 that God has not called any of his angels “son”, nor has God said about any of the angels that He had “begotten” them … !

    Therefore, when we consider Job 38 as a whole, it becomes evident that here the believers of the beginning (“morning stars”) who are also described as “sons of God” were meant, they did in the beginning give glory to God (Father). Yet, they did not remain true in faith for very many generations, at the end there was only Noah and his family left.

  46. on 01 Sep 2011 at 6:13 amMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    Heb. 1:
    4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.
    5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?

    We are told that God did not say to the angels, “You are my son, today I have begotten you.” The angels were not begotten by God the way Jesus was. But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t be called sons of God, just as believers will be (Mat. 5:9), nor does it contradict Luke’s statement that in the resurrection believers will be “like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36).

    I have no problem with the author of Job switching back and forth between Job on earth and the sons of God in heaven. Writers do that all the time when describing two things going on in two different places. Each change of scene begins with “now…” which begins a new thought.

    Job 1:
    6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
    7 The LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?” Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.”

    Let’s think this through. Satan was “among them.” But Satan says he came “From roaming about on the earth.” Therefore he is not on earth at this point. Thus this could not be talking about Job’s sons on earth. In addition, as I mentioned before, people were not referred to as “sons of God” in the OT. That is NT language based on the new birth which is spiritual.

    Further, when Jesus said “they always behold the face of my Father…” he was referring specifically to the guardian angels of children.

    Matt 18:10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.”

    This does not say that all angels continually see the face of God, or that other angels are not able to come and go from God’s presence.

    Also, the “morning stars sang” and the “sons of God shouted for joy” when God laid the foundation of the earth. (Job 38:4-7). There were no believers or righteous men there at that time.

    But with all this discussion of what “Sons of God” means, you’re still missing the clear statements of Peter and Jude:

    I Peter 3:
    19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
    20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

    II Peter 2:
    4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;
    5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

    9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment,
    10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties,

    Jude
    6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
    7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

  47. on 01 Sep 2011 at 11:12 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    Can you provide proof that the figures referred to as “sons of God” in Gen 6 are anything but “angels”? As undertood by both Old & New Testament authors.

  48. on 01 Sep 2011 at 2:16 pmWolfgang

    Xavier,

    have you noticed that this idea about angels cohabiting with human women and producing giants as offspring is exactly the idea that is found in Babylonian and Greek mythology ?

    Scripture does not know any such concept of angelic spirit beings producing offspring with humans … and would certainly not teach that so-called “fallen angels” are actually “sons of God” …

    As for your earlier reference to NT writers (Peter and Jude), I would suggest to very carefully observe the context in those passages in their epistles, for you will find that they are NOT speaking about fallen angels either.

  49. on 01 Sep 2011 at 3:14 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    “The Hebrew phrase translated “sons of God” (בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, bÿne-ha’elohim) occurs only here (Gen 6:2, 4) and in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7…where it clearly refers to angelic beings.” NET Bible

    The Septuagint (LXX) translates the Hebrew [“sons of God”] as “angels of God.”

    Once again, can you provide any textual evidence where this is not so?

  50. on 01 Sep 2011 at 4:16 pmWolfgang

    Xavier,

    just claiming that the Hebrew expression “ben Elohim” (“sons of God”) clearly refers to “angelic beings” does not make it so … in a previous post I referred to the immediate context, various similar passages as well as some other relevant passages in Scripture relating to the same matter and showed that the claim you (and others) make about these 5 passages referring to “angelic beings” is incorrect! I already provided textual evidence from the immediate context of the passages which shows that your claim can’t be correct … but, you apparently are unable to see …

    Why do you want to adhere to concepts influenced by Babylonian and Greek mythology when interpreting the Scriptures? Why would you think that women can give birth to beings who are something different / more than human (something which would be totally against anything scripture and nature clearly teaches) ?

    Don’t you see that your assumption about angelic beings producing offspring with human women is contrary to the rest of what Scripture teaches about women, about offspring of women, etc?

    I am afraid, you are following your teacher in the very same way that he has accused others of following Wierwille or Amstrong …

  51. on 01 Sep 2011 at 5:42 pmMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    Since you haven’t responded to my comments, I’ll add a few more responses to yours.

    have you noticed that this idea about angels cohabiting with human women and producing giants as offspring is exactly the idea that is found in Babylonian and Greek mythology ?

    That was dealt with in the original article:
    So, if the Nephilim in Genesis 6 are actually the children of fallen angels and humans, then it may be that the above myths were based upon ancient memories of the Nephilim. For example, the mythological stories of Hercules might be based upon the actual son of a fallen angel, who lived in ancient times.

    Scripture does not know any such concept of angelic spirit beings producing offspring with humans … and would certainly not teach that so-called “fallen angels” are actually “sons of God” …

    The term “sons of God” referred to ALL angels in the OT. Obviously they weren’t “fallen angels” until they sinned.

    As for your earlier reference to NT writers (Peter and Jude), I would suggest to very carefully observe the context in those passages in their epistles, for you will find that they are NOT speaking about fallen angels either.

    What in the context proves they are not speaking of angels? The very word “angels” is in the verses (see above).

    just claiming that the Hebrew expression “ben Elohim” (“sons of God”) clearly refers to “angelic beings” does not make it so …

    Likewise, just claiming that it does not mean angels does not make it so. Where is your proof?

    in a previous post I referred to the immediate context, various similar passages as well as some other relevant passages in Scripture relating to the same matter and showed that the claim you (and others) make about these 5 passages referring to “angelic beings” is incorrect! I already provided textual evidence from the immediate context of the passages which shows that your claim can’t be correct … but, you apparently are unable to see …

    First of all, please refrain from personal digs such as “you are unable to see.” There is room for differing viewpoints here.

    Second, I dealt with many of your Scripture references. Why not respond to my rebuttals?

    Why do you want to adhere to concepts influenced by Babylonian and Greek mythology when interpreting the Scriptures? Why would you think that women can give birth to beings who are something different / more than human (something which would be totally against anything scripture and nature clearly teaches) ?

    Don’t you see that your assumption about angelic beings producing offspring with human women is contrary to the rest of what Scripture teaches about women, about offspring of women, etc?

    Twice you repeat your claim that it is contrary to the rest of Scripture, but I showed you every passage that mentioned “after its kind” and demonstrated that it is referring to plants and animals, not to angels or spirit beings. Do you have any other Scriptural evidence that proves that angels cannot produce offspring with humans?

    I am afraid, you are following your teacher in the very same way that he has accused others of following Wierwille or Amstrong …

    I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I’ve studied this on my own. Just because I reached the same conclusion does not mean I blindly follow someone else’s conclusion.

  52. on 01 Sep 2011 at 9:05 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang

    Do you regard “angels” to be of the same “kind / genus” as humans? If so, why would you not want to say so? If you regard angels to be of a different “kind / genus” from humans, then how do you explain that angels can have progeny from human women?

    I am reading the text in Hebrew and you can ask your question of that writer in Judgment Day. He does not share your problem. You are diverting from the main point, which is the MEANING of the actual phrase b-ne elohim

    Please consult the standard Hebrew lexicon to define the meaning of the Hebrew phrase. One cannot understand the context or any passage if one refuses the lexical meaning of the key words. You are making an elementary, hermaneutical MISTAKE! I have learned everything from scripture by defining the key words properly. And I would advice the same in your case.

    As for Wierwille and Armstrong’s competence in biblical knowledge, it was sadly lacking…as we NOW well know! This is not true of ALL THE STANDARD, RECOGNIZED Biblical lexicons. Choose your teachers carefully!

  53. on 01 Sep 2011 at 11:18 pmLORRAINE

    I never would of believed that being highly educated could actually block the brain of true knowledge. In Genesis 1: 1-25, after YHWH had created the heavens, the earth, the waters and day and night, and seasons, then he created all of the beast on the earth and birds, and the creatures and fish below the waters YHWH then says in the scripture Genesis 1:26, Let us make man, where YHWH was talking to his angels about making man into their image, and after their likeliness only confirms the scripture in Genesis 6:2 by naming the Sons of God as being the angels once again that YHWH created in the heavens, and the sons of man as being the fleshly beings (us) that YHWH created on the earth as validation of who is who here. If you read Isaiah 44: 21-28, this is where YHWH tells us Israel and Jacob to remember what he creates and does all by himself it is stated by YHWH that he is in charge and the sole creator himself the King and our only Savior in (Isaiah 43: 3,11. So, (Sons of God) are the angels he made in heaven, and (sons of man) are the people he made here on earth with Adam and Eve being the first ones. Love Lorraine.

  54. on 02 Sep 2011 at 12:10 amLORRAINE

    Genesis 6: 3-7, shows it is evident that the Sons of God desired the women of the sons of man or daughters of man, and had laid with them. This grieved YHWH’s heart so that he lessened the years to come (far future) “My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh” so the time of the life span of mankind will be shorten, and then he had to distroy the earth for this act because the children that were born unto the angels Sons of God, and the earthly women were continually wicked and evil and unbearably mighty and had to be put down banished from the earth. Peace Lorraine.

  55. on 02 Sep 2011 at 12:39 amWolfgang

    Anthony,

    Please consult the standard Hebrew lexicon to define the meaning of the Hebrew phrase. One cannot understand the context or any passage if one refuses the lexical meaning of the key words. You are making an elementary, hermaneutical MISTAKE! I have learned everything from scripture by defining the key words properly. And I would advice the same in your case.

    I have learned that the meaning of words is defined by their use in context, not necessarily by how a lexicon editor or group of editors defines them … Have you never noticed how many lexicons define certain terms in light of the trinity doctrine present in the understanding of its editors?

    You go by Hebrew lexicons … and take “sons of God” to refer to “angels”. Now then, in Gen 6, were these angels angelic beings of God’s angelic host, seeing that they are said to be “sons of God”? Or were these angels angelic beings who had sinned and does Hebrew language thus call fallen angels (evil angels) “sons of God”? in that case, are demons, devils thus called in Hebrew “sons of God”?

    Or could it be that the particular lexical definition of “sons of God” = “angelic beings” is incorrect in reference to the passages in Gen 6?

  56. on 02 Sep 2011 at 12:41 amWolfgang

    Anthony,

    As for Wierwille and Armstrong’s competence in biblical knowledge, it was sadly lacking…as we NOW well know! …
    Choose your teachers carefully!

    Did you not notice that my comment in my reply to Xavier was not about Wierwille or Armstrong’s person or competence but it was about their followers?

  57. on 02 Sep 2011 at 1:40 amMark C.

    I have learned that the meaning of words is defined by their use in context

    I showed you the context of the verses in question.

  58. on 02 Sep 2011 at 8:35 amAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang

    Show me that what you say is true: Take the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon and make your point, that the lexicon is affected by a Trinity bias. Where?

    The common sense approach is that if “SONS of God” (that precise expression) is used of angels, if Peter and Jude read it that way, and Jews and Christians, then that is the meaning.

    Would you like to argue that Job 38 (“sons of God”) are NOT angels?

    What about in Job 1? Not angels?

    The issue here is learning to listen to the text. And believing it!
    Anthony

  59. on 02 Sep 2011 at 9:41 amWolfgang

    Anthony,

    where did I say that the Briwn Driver Briggs Lexicon is affected by a Trinity bias? I certainly have read lexicons which give definitions for certain terms that reflect a trinity bias … however, you (once again?) missed the point I made, which was that word meaning does not define the context, but rather the context defines word meaning.

    As for common sense approach, would you please answer the questions I specifically asked you as one who interprets “sons of God” in Gen 6 as “angelic beings”

    You go by Hebrew lexicons … and take “sons of God” to refer to “angels”. Now then, in Gen 6, were these angels angelic beings of God’s angelic host, seeing that they are said to be “sons of God”? Or were these angels angelic beings who had sinned and does Hebrew language thus call fallen angels (evil angels) “sons of God”? in that case, are demons, devils thus called in Hebrew “sons of God”?

    Or could it be that the particular lexical definition of “sons of God” = “angelic beings” is incorrect in reference to the passages in Gen 6?

    Please, simply answer these questions …

    Also, I am quite in favor of learning to listen to the text (in particular the context and overall scope) and believing it … however, I do not necessarily accept what people interpret as “this is what the text says”, especially so if an interpretation appears to be contradictory to the overall scope / context / logic of the Scriptures … Thus, I am asking you my above questions for clarification, because your interpretation does seem to not quite fit – for example, with what I thus far have learned from the Scriptures about “angels” and what they are called in Scripture.

  60. on 02 Sep 2011 at 9:58 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    We are looking at the meaning of the phrase “sons of God”.

    And we are seeing how that phrase is used throughout the Bible, Old & New Testaments.

    Yet, you keep telling us that we are missing the “overall context” here. And as usual you do not advance the topics that you keep arguing and questioning against.

  61. on 02 Sep 2011 at 1:01 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang

    Imagine this in Webster’s.

    I have learned that words are defined by their use in context.

    There is truth in this of course. “A well” is not the same as “well” in “healthy.”

    But imagine going to Webster’s and having to argue with it about the primary meaning of table!

    I have decided that this word must be defined in context, so I have decided it really means chair!

    When all the standard Hebrew lexicons define Bne Elohim as angels, they are working from every possible sound angle, usage in the parallel passages, context and NT comment, and of course Jewish and early church history.

    Lexicography is a science, not exact, in the case of every (especially very very rare) words. What is astonishing to me is that those without the learning and scholarship of a lexicographer, have decided against them all! This implies a kind of superiority not warranted by the facts.

    Wierwile and Armstrong were signal examples of “authority” not based on sound principles. Anyone knowing Greek would be appalled and dismayed at some of the nonsense written by Wierwille on Greek words and also the nonsense written by Armstrong on Col. 2. But they secured followers in large numbers!

    Beware the amateur who outdoes all peer review and standard lexicons, and knows better!

    It is the case that sometimes when people don’t like what is the obvious sense of a verse, they appeal to philosophical reasons why it cannot be so!
    Anthony

  62. on 02 Sep 2011 at 1:08 pmWolfgang

    Anthony,

    did your comment with your answers to my questions somehow get deleted?

    I am awaiting your answers to the rather simple questions which I asked concerning your interpretation of the record in Gen 6, where you claim (in accordance with Hebrew lexicons, etc) that “sons of God” means/refers to “angels / angelic beings”

  63. on 02 Sep 2011 at 1:13 pmWolfgang

    Anthony,

    It is the case that sometimes when people don’t like what is the obvious sense of a verse, they appeal to philosophical reasons why it cannot be so!

    Just for clarification: I did not “appeal to any philosophical reasons why it cannot be so” … instead I asked questions for clarification about the simple consequences which arise from your interpretation of Gen 6.

    I am awaiting your answers …

  64. on 02 Sep 2011 at 3:27 pmMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    I find it highly ironic that you are so adamant about Anthony answering questions that have already been answered when you refuse to respond to or even acknowledge my comments.

    Maybe it needs to be put to you as a more direct question. I gave context and other Scripture references as specific rebuttal to your arguments. In addition I asked other specific questions within my comments. QUESTION : How do you respond?

    I am awaiting your answers …

  65. on 02 Sep 2011 at 6:56 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang

    Wolfgang, the premise is faulty and much too general. Words have their own inherent meaning, too, and yes, context is very important. In the case of Sons of God, the context is the use of the same expression in Scripture!

    The context of Gen 6 is not a philosophical questioning. It is the occurrence of the unique expression every where else in the Hebrew Bible and the LXX.

    I am not the one “interpreting” Sons of God of as angels, the BIble is the one so interpreting it. Hebrew lexicons, the fruit of a vast amount of expert talent, merely confirms the obvious.

    It is the solo, island approach which a Wierwille or Armstrong used to undo so many gullible people! They knew almost nothing about language and then pontificated.

    If you doubt the obvious meaning, you dismiss the context of the words in the BIble. This is your only way of understanding scripture—by seeing what it means by certain words.

    Once we see that ben elohim always means angels, all is clear. Once we stumble at the meaning, all sorts of questions may arise. Better leave the questions and believe the text.

    It is anyway rather amazing to think that righteous human beings linking up sexually with some females produced giants!

    The event in Gen 6 is one of the most awful episodes in the history of the world. It should be understood in its own biblical language context.

    I would enjoy hearing from others on facebook if they think the standard Lexicons are all wrong on this point—not to mention the clear meaning of the passage just read as Scripture compared with Scripture.
    Anthony

  66. on 03 Sep 2011 at 2:13 amWolfgang

    Anthony,

    WHY are you not answering my questions? Do I need to repeat them again for you, perhaps one by one, so you can put your “yes” or “no” plus explanatory comment to it?

    You go by Hebrew lexicons … and take “sons of God” to refer to “angels”. Now then, in Gen 6, were these angels angelic beings of God’s angelic host, seeing that they are said to be “sons of God”? Or were these angels angelic beings who had sinned and does Hebrew language thus call fallen angels (evil angels) “sons of God”? in that case, are demons, devils thus called in Hebrew “sons of God”?

    Or could it be that the particular lexical definition of “sons of God” = “angelic beings” is incorrect in reference to the passages in Gen 6?

    In case you have not noticed, I am asking my above questions on the premise of your interpretation of Gen 6 that “sons of God” = “angels”.
    So then, would you please answer the questions in order to clarify some ramifications which arise from your understanding that these “sons of God” in Gen 6 are “angels/angelic beings”?

  67. on 03 Sep 2011 at 2:17 amWolfgang

    Anthony,

    It is anyway rather amazing to think that righteous human beings linking up sexually with some females produced giants!

    perhaps it is only “rather amazing” when one uses “giants” by its lexical meaning and disregards context, which may apply the term “giant” (or “hero”, etc) with a meaning other than “extremely large in bodily size”?

    Eh, I have read about “stars” who were born by women … do you find that also “rather amazing” ?

  68. on 03 Sep 2011 at 5:54 amMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    First of all, your belligerent tone is not only unwarranted but downright rude, especially considering your continued refusal to answer or acknowledge my questions.

    Second, Anthony DID answer your questions. Perhaps some review is in order.

    Comment 21 [Wolfgang]:

    Anthony, and others,

    so angels (not being of the human kind themselves) can produce progeny of the human kind?

    Comment 23 [Anthony]:

    Thanks, the text says angels mated with humans. I first accept the text, not question it!

    Peter knew this too and Jude refers to it and also Jewish literature outside the Bible.

    The method is to see what Bne Elohim means in its other occs. i.e., angels, so the LXX (Alex).

    Then the obvious fact that these angels mated with human females.
    The product was giants. A terrible event.

    You asked if angels can produce human progeny, and he replied that that’s what the text says, therefore that’s what happened. So he answered. You didn’t quite get the answer you wanted so you reworded your question:

    Comment 25 [Wolfgang]:

    …But in your interpretation you did not touch on the question I asked and which to me is a rather obvious question in light of the biblical truth in Gen 1, that God has set up matters regarding progeny in a way in which all procreation takes place “after its kind”…
    …I asked a question relevant to your interpretation … and was looking forward to your answer to this question, thinking that you had most likely considered this matter in light of the Gen 1 truths regarding “after its kind” and that you could therefore easily provide an answer.

    First of all, as seen in the quote above, you did not mention the supposed contradiction of “after its kind” in your original question. You merely asked if angels can produce offspring of the human kind. You only brought it up in this comment. (I responded in detail to this argument in comment 27.) Anthony then responded to you:

    Comment 28 [Anthony]:

    Bne Elohim is angels and they took human daughters of men, females. They produced giants.

    That is what the Hebrew says and Jude and Peter understood it that way.

    Bne Elohim always means angels.

    In comment 29 you asked,

    Do you regard “angels” to be of the same “kind / genus” as humans?

    Comment 32 [Anthony]:

    So CS Lewis was right to say “God begets God”?

    …which you failed to understand the point of.

    Comment 33 [Wolfgang]:

    what was your “return question above ” supposed to achieve, since it has little to do with the topic we are discussing here?
    I repeat my question to you “Do you regard “angels” to be of the same “kind/genus” as humans? And I will add, that I would expect from a professor or retired professor at a Bible College a better reply than what you did here with your somewhat unrelated question about C.S.Lewis …

    The point of that question was, if a spirit being (either angel or God) can only produce “after its kind” as you suggest, then Lewis was right to say “God begets God.” If you believe that God begot his Son Jesus, a man, then why do you have a problem with angels producing human offspring? Your whole argument is based on your wrongly applying “after its kind” to spirits, when according to Genesis it was only applied to plants and animals.

    Anthony again responded in comment 52:

    I am reading the text in Hebrew and you can ask your question of that writer in Judgment Day. He does not share your problem. You are diverting from the main point, which is the MEANING of the actual phrase b-ne elohim

    So you tried again in comment 55:

    You go by Hebrew lexicons … and take “sons of God” to refer to “angels”. Now then, in Gen 6, were these angels angelic beings of God’s angelic host, seeing that they are said to be “sons of God”? Or were these angels angelic beings who had sinned and does Hebrew language thus call fallen angels (evil angels) “sons of God”? in that case, are demons, devils thus called in Hebrew “sons of God”?

    Or could it be that the particular lexical definition of “sons of God” = “angelic beings” is incorrect in reference to the passages in Gen 6?

    Comment 58 [Anthony]:

    The common sense approach is that if “SONS of God” (that precise expression) is used of angels, if Peter and Jude read it that way, and Jews and Christians, then that is the meaning.

    Would you like to argue that Job 38 (“sons of God”) are NOT angels?

    What about in Job 1? Not angels?

    The issue here is learning to listen to the text. And believing it!

    I don’t know how much clearer he could make it. You asked if the “Sons of God” in Gen. 6 were angels or fallen angels, i.e. demons. He responded that the phrase is used in the OT for angels, Peter and Jude read it that way, as well as most Jews and Christians. Therefore that is the meaning. (He even specifically cited Job 38 and Job 1, which you didn’t respond to.)

    Comment 55 [Wolfgang]:

    I have learned that the meaning of words is defined by their use in context, not necessarily by how a lexicon editor or group of editors defines them … Have you never noticed how many lexicons define certain terms in light of the trinity doctrine present in the understanding of its editors?

    Comment 58 [Anthony]:

    Show me that what you say is true: Take the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon and make your point, that the lexicon is affected by a Trinity bias. Where?

    Comment 59 [Wolfgang]:

    where did I say that the Briwn Driver Briggs Lexicon is affected by a Trinity bias? I certainly have read lexicons which give definitions for certain terms that reflect a trinity bias …

    Of course you didn’t mention Brown Driver Briggs by name, but you made the broad claim back in comment 55 about how many lexicons define terms in light of the trinity doctrine. So Anthony mentioned BDB as an example and asked you to provide proof of your point. You did not, but reverted to asking the same questions again.
    Comment 59 cont’d [Wolfgang]:

    As for common sense approach, would you please answer the questions I specifically asked you as one who interprets “sons of God” in Gen 6 as “angelic beings”

    Comment 61 [Anthony]:

    When all the standard Hebrew lexicons define Bne Elohim as angels, they are working from every possible sound angle, usage in the parallel passages, context and NT comment, and of course Jewish and early church history.

    Comment 62 [Wolfgang]:

    did your comment with your answers to my questions somehow get deleted?

    I am awaiting your answers to the rather simple questions which I asked concerning your interpretation of the record in Gen 6, where you claim (in accordance with Hebrew lexicons, etc) that “sons of God” means/refers to “angels / angelic beings”

    Besides the sarcastic attitude, you still repeat the same question that he has answered.

    Comment 63 [Wolfgang]:

    Just for clarification: I did not “appeal to any philosophical reasons why it cannot be so” … instead I asked questions for clarification about the simple consequences which arise from your interpretation of Gen 6.

    I am awaiting your answers …

    This “clarification” is in fact not true. You did not ask about “simple consequences which arise from the interpretation.” You expressed doubt about the lexical definition of the term, based on false assumptions which were already dealt with.

    Anthony, in comment 65, provided a lengthy explanation of how your premise was faulty and how the lexicons derive their definitions. Perhaps you didn’t understand his point, because you again repeated your faulty premise.

    Comment 66 [Wolfgang]:

    WHY are you not answering my questions? Do I need to repeat them again for you, perhaps one by one, so you can put your “yes” or “no” plus explanatory comment to it?

    By this it is evident that you did not understand his answers, since he has said repeatedly that the phrase Sons of God always means angels in the OT, as witnessed by the lexical definition, the context, the understanding of Peter and Jude, and the understanding of most Jews and Christians.

    In the same comment, you further stated:

    In case you have not noticed, I am asking my above questions on the premise of your interpretation of Gen 6 that “sons of God” = “angels”.
    So then, would you please answer the questions in order to clarify some ramifications which arise from your understanding that these “sons of God” in Gen 6 are “angels/angelic beings”?

    First of all, he said that it was not his interpretation, but the lexical definition of the phrase. Your premise of doubting the lexicon is faulty and without basis.

    Second, your questions were not about ramifications, they were about your perceived contradiction between the clear statements of Scripture and two faulty suppositions:
    1. That “after its kind” in Genesis means that angels can’t produce human offspring.
    2. That fallen angels would not be called sons of God.

    The only “ramification” there is your conclusion that because it contradicts these two suppositions, then the lexical definition must be faulty. This is what Anthony meant by your premise is faulty. I have dealt with both of your faulty suppositions, yet you have not responded. Yet you become belligerent and rude because you think Anthony hasn’t answered you. Do you see the double standard there?

    I have mentioned before how “ironic” it is that you take such a tone, despite your completely ignoring my comments and questions. It is more than ironic, it is downright rude, both to Anthony and to me. If you don’t understand what he’s saying, then ask him to clarify, but don’t keep accusing him of not answering, and don’t continue being rude. Whether you agree with him or not, he is still your brother in Christ.

    As for my questions, should I review them for you, or can you reread my comments and find them for yourself? I’ll leave that up to you. I’ve typed enough for tonight.

  69. on 03 Sep 2011 at 6:42 amAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang

    Wolfgang, the “interpretation” is not mine, but that of all standard lexicons.

    Are you reading the Hebrew? If so, note the term Bne Elohim.
    It means angels, and so that is what we are talking about!

    It would be impossible to shut one’s eyes to the defining word in the whole passage.

    “Sons of God” are angels and there is no other way to define that simple term, as we learn from all of its other appearances in the Hebrew Bible.

    Asking questions without accepting the story does not have any point. They are questions which arise only after you do not accept the text.

    You begin by not accepting the text as written, and then you begin to question.

    Perhaps not all questions are answered: then, leave them alone, but don’t refuse easy words.

    For me these question have no point, since they are based on a mistake!

    Again, are you reading the Hebrew text?
    Anthony

  70. on 03 Sep 2011 at 9:26 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    If you believe that God begot his Son Jesus, a man, then why do you have a problem with angels producing human offspring?

    I have a problem with that because angels do not have the same creative power as God has … or do you regard angels to have the same creative power as God and thus can bring about “giants” offspring?
    Also, do you really think that women can give birth to “giants” ?

    Your problem is that you go with Anthony and claim “this is what the text says” … but then, when I question your ideas you evade answering, just as Anthony does!

    All your above collection of comments only shows that the supposed “answers” he gave were some general claims which evaded the direct question asked … I can only suppose that such refusal to answer the simple questions is due to the fact that you and he have recognized how your answers would immediately show that your interpretation based on your “going by lexical definitions” is faulty and not in agreement with the Scriptures as a whole.

    I suppose Anthony’s answer in the comment above shows exactly this very point ….

    Perhaps not all questions are answered: then, leave them alone, but don’t refuse easy words.

    Yet, my questions could easily be answered … but the answers would show that the “easy words” interpretation propagated by him can’t be correct. Thus, he rather refuses to answer and suggest “to leave them alone”.

  71. on 03 Sep 2011 at 9:45 amWolfgang

    Anthony,

    You begin by not accepting the text as written, and then you begin to question.

    no, I do not begin by not accepting the text as written … I begin exactly at that point of accepting the text “as written”, but before I propagate a doctrine, I do indeed question my understanding to see if it holds true or if it is faulty, and if a correct understanding involves a proper understanding of figures of speech used in the text.

    See, to me “understand as written” means that I understand correctly the meaning of what the author has written by using words in his vocabulary, and I do understand that an author does use words either literally (in their regular or normal use and meaning) or employs them in the use of figures of speech for emphasis (that is, uses them with designed and purposed deviations from their regular or normal use and meaning).

    If an expression and the words used is not literally true to fact, the words obviously are not meant to be understood literally but have been used in a figure of speech …

    As for a proper consideration of the meaning of the expressions used in Gen 6, some relevant truths / facts in accordance with the Scriptures and nature:
    Truth/fact is that women produce only offspring of the human kind.
    Truth/fact is that angels do not produce offspring.
    Truth/fact is that angels are not creators.
    Truth/fact is that angels are never said to be or described as “SONS of God”

    From these truths it follows further that:
    Truth is that the term “sons of God” does NOT refer to “angelic beings” in the OT (despite what Hebrew lexicons might have)
    Truth is that “giants” is not to be understood necessarily as “extremely large in bodily size”, but in reference to some other characteristic …

    It should be evident that Gen 6 cannot be referring to a cohabitation of angels of God with human women producing giants (in a physical sense) as offspring

  72. on 03 Sep 2011 at 1:13 pmMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    I have a problem with that because angels do not have the same creative power as God has … or do you regard angels to have the same creative power as God and thus can bring about “giants” offspring?

    So you consider that God begetting Jesus is different because He created in that case. OK. As for whether I consider angels to have the same creative power, the Bible doesn’t say they created anything, it just says they produced offspring with human women.

    Also, do you really think that women can give birth to “giants” ?

    Yes. Why not? And why do you keep asking us if we “really believe” what we say we believe? If you have an objection, just spell it out.

    Your problem is that you go with Anthony and claim “this is what the text says” … but then, when I question your ideas you evade answering, just as Anthony does!

    Excuse me???? Show me one place where I have evaded a question of yours. I dealt IN DETAIL with every one of them. Go back over my comments and respond directly to the points I made and the direct questions I asked.

    All your above collection of comments only shows that the supposed “answers” he gave were some general claims which evaded the direct question asked … I can only suppose that such refusal to answer the simple questions is due to the fact that you and he have recognized how your answers would immediately show that your interpretation based on your “going by lexical definitions” is faulty and not in agreement with the Scriptures as a whole.

    On the contrary, I gave you specific answers that provide valid reasons why I believe what I do about this subject. I have no idea why you have not responded.

    Yet, my questions could easily be answered … but the answers would show that the “easy words” interpretation propagated by him can’t be correct. Thus, he rather refuses to answer and suggest “to leave them alone”.

    The questions he said to leave alone are ones like, “Are they really fallen angels or demons” and “Can angels produce offspring.” The Bible doesn’t go into a lot of detail about the nature of fallen angels (although they aren’t “fallen” until they sin, as I pointed out), or the exact mechanics of angels mating with humans. We probably couldn’t understand it. But you keep arguing about things like this instead of accepting what the Bible clearly tells us. This is why Anthony said, “Asking questions without accepting the story does not have any point. They are questions which arise only after you do not accept the text. You begin by not accepting the text as written, and then you begin to question.”

    As for a proper consideration of the meaning of the expressions used in Gen 6, some relevant truths / facts in accordance with the Scriptures and nature…

    As I have indicated, none of these “truth/fact” statements is valid:

    Truth/fact is that women produce only offspring of the human kind.

    When mating with other humans, yes. But nothing in the Bible says that angels cannot somehow cohabit with humans and produce corrupted offspring. On the contrary, it says that they did just that.

    Truth/fact is that angels do not produce offspring.

    Normally, no. But again, nothing in the Bible says that they can’t and we are specifically told that they did. It was described as leaving their proper abode and indulging in gross immorality, and they were imprisoned for it.

    Truth/fact is that angels are not creators.

    Nobody said they were.

    Truth/fact is that angels are never said to be or described as “SONS of God”

    Completely untrue, as demonstrated by the list of every occurrence of the term.

    You keep repeating the same claims, but have failed to provide any Scriptural proof for it.

    _____________________

    As for my questions, I asked if you could reread my comments and find them for yourself. Since you only chose to answer one, I guess a review is in order here too. Following is a summary of the major points/questions I have presented to you. Please answer them SPECIFICALLY.

    BTW, you have a habit of picking one point or question and going off on a tangent with it, while avoiding all the rest. Please answer all of them.

    1. In comment 27, I listed every usage of the phrase “after its kind” in Genesis, and they clearly refer to plants and animals. NOT ONE says anything about angels or spirit beings.

    2. I pointed out that in the case of humans and angels, we are not talking about two different kinds producing a different kind. We are talking about angels who left their proper dwelling, and did something so grievous that they were imprisoned for it.

    3. I do not think it would be possible for humans to have progeny with partners of other “kinds/genus.” You can have different species within a genus interbreed, but not different genuses. (Comments 40 & 44.) However, I reminded you that that has nothing to do with the question of angels and humans cohabiting, since angels do not have genus or species, and normally do not reproduce. This was an unusual situation that had unusual consequences.

    4. Regarding other meanings of “Sons of God” I listed in comment 44 the only occurrences of the term in the NT, including the statement in Luke 20:36 that those in the resurrection “cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” The other references are speaking of the new birth, a spiritual rebirth, which was not available in the OT.

    5. Since the new birth was not available till after Christ came, the term “Sons of God” is never used of people in the OT (Comment 44).

    6. The passage in Hebrews (quoting Psalm 2) says that God did not say to the angels, “You are my son, today I have begotten you.” The angels were not begotten by God the way Jesus was. But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t be called sons of God, as those NT references indicate (Comment 46).

    7. The “Sons of God” in Job 1 cannot be talking about Job’s sons, not only because the term is not used of humans in the OT (see #5), but also because Satan was “with them” and he said he had just come “from roaming about on the earth.” Therefore he is not on earth at this point (Comment 46).

    8. In response to your objection to angels coming and going from God’s presence, when Jesus said “they always behold the face of my Father…” he was referring specifically to the guardian angels of children. This does not say that all angels continually see the face of God, or that other angels are not able to come and go from God’s presence (Comment 46).

    9. The “morning stars sang” and the “sons of God shouted for joy” when God laid the foundation of the earth. (Job 38:4-7). There were no believers or righteous men there at that time. “Sons of God” has to be angels (Comment 46).

    [NOTE, it was after comment 46 that you stopped responding to me altogether.]

    10. The term “sons of God” referred to ALL angels in the OT. Obviously they weren’t “fallen angels” until they sinned (Comment 51). Thus your argument that demons wouldn’t be called sons of God doesn’t work.

    11. You claimed that careful reading of Peter and Jude in context would show they are not speaking of angels. Since the very word “angels” appears in those passages, I asked you what in the context proves they are not speaking of angels. You have yet to respond.

    12. You keep repeating the claim that the idea of angels and humans producing offspring is contrary to what the Scriptures say. Since I showed you that “after its kind” is referring to plants and animals, not to angels or spirit beings, I asked if you have any other Scriptural evidence that proves that angels cannot produce offspring with humans. Again, you have yet to respond.

    Here are the points/questions I would like to see you handle in light of this debate. I’ve even numbered them for better reference. I await your answers…

  73. on 03 Sep 2011 at 2:17 pmRay

    Not always does the Bible use the term “sons of God” as referring to angels. Sometimes it speaks of the sons of God as being those who are led by the spirit of God.

  74. on 03 Sep 2011 at 3:26 pmMark C.

    Ray,

    Please read (or reread) comment 44. The few uses of “Sons of God” in the NT are indeed in the context of the spirit and the new birth, and this is in keeping with the spiritual nature of the new birth. However the new birth was not available before Christ came. In the Old Testament, every occurrence of “Sons of God” refers to angels.

  75. on 04 Sep 2011 at 3:51 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang

    You talk about “figures of speech” yet NO ONE else finds figures of speech in Gen 6.2.

    I asked if you were reading the Hebrew and if you would look up benei elohim in any, or all, of the standard Hebrew lexicons. One might then ask, what peer review you have to support the idea that you are in a position to challenge ALL of the lexicons? Is this so obviously your area of training and expertise?

    The point is that we need to guard against the Weirwillian and Armstrongian tendencies which we know produced so much evil and faulty Bible understanding. Also, my questions are much broader than just one verse in Genesis. Its concern is the Weirwilian-Armstrongian tendency.

    Both Jude; Peter are perfectly adequate comment on the ghastly mixing of angelic and human persons.

  76. on 05 Sep 2011 at 7:06 amWolfgang

    Lorraine,

    This grieved YHWH’s heart so that he lessened the years to come (far future) “My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh” so the time of the life span of mankind will be shorten,

    Is this what Gen 6:3 is really talking about? Or are the 120 years a reference to the time span that was left from that time onward until the flood? Consider that even Noah lived on after the flood for more than 300 years … thus obviously, the reference could NOT have been about the life span of mankind.

  77. on 05 Sep 2011 at 8:23 amWolfgang

    Anthony,

    Both Jude; Peter are perfectly adequate comment on the ghastly mixing of angelic and human persons.

    Taking your advice of reading the scriptures for what the text says, neither Jude nor Peter communicated anything about a mixing of angelic spirit beings with human persons ….

    I would also think that Peter and Jude knew very well that only humans can produce human progeny, and that women only conceive by men, with only one exception, that of the only begotten Son of God, who according to the angel Gabriel was conceived by a miracle which God Himself worked.

  78. on 05 Sep 2011 at 8:44 amJoshua

    This is hot topic in many circles. If the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6 are actually “angels”, is it affected by Hebrews 5:1 which indicates that God never called any angels “son”?

  79. on 05 Sep 2011 at 9:05 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    …neither Jude nor Peter communicated anything about a mixing of angelic spirit beings with human persons…

    Jude 6-7 talks about the “sexual immorality” that condemned both the angels and the cities of Sodom and Gamorrah by “pursuing strange/other [etero] flesh”. Thus, aptly describing the sin of the angels who lusted after human flesh OTHER THAN their own species.

    Joshua

    If the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6 are actually “angels”, is it affected by Hebrews 5:1 which indicates that God never called any angels “son”?

    I think you meant Heb 1.5. There is a difference between “sons of God” [plural] and THE Son of God [singular] who is the only one begotten by God.

    Also, in case you have not been following this thread, the phrase as it appears in Gen 6.2 is an exlucive reference to “angelic beings” throughout the OT. Which in turn is reinforced by the LXX and the NT writers mentioned.

  80. on 05 Sep 2011 at 9:07 amXavier

    Joseph

    CORRECTION: “…the phrase as it appears in Gen 6.2 is an exclusive reference to “angelic beings” throughout the OT.”

  81. on 05 Sep 2011 at 9:58 amAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang, Thanks so much.

    Jude spoke of “the angels who committed extraordinary fornication like Sodom and Gemorrha”.

    Why is this so hard? (Alford does nice work with the Greek here and many others do.)

    Are you reading the Hebrew of Genesis?
    Anthony

  82. on 05 Sep 2011 at 10:52 amWolfgang

    Anthony,

    Jude spoke of “the angels who committed extraordinary fornication like Sodom and Gemorrha”.
    Why is this so hard?

    Did Jude mean “heavenly angelic spirit beings” or did Jude mean “{human} messengers”? If these “messengers/angels” committed sin like that of Sodom and Gomorrha, then obviously they could not have been “angelic spirit beings” !!

    As for your question if I am reading Genesis in Hebrew … I’ve read and compared the Hebrew, several English translations, and also some German translations …. and — guess what — it did not much matter since in all of them the meaning of the words in the expression with which we are concerned was the equivalent of “sons of God”.

    Are you trying to tell us that “sons of God” means something different, if we read it in Hebrew, from when we read it in English, Spanish, German, Chinese or some other language into which it has been properly translated?

  83. on 05 Sep 2011 at 10:59 amWolfgang

    Anthony,

    have you noticed that the context in Jude establishes that Jude was NOT even talking about the time of Noah, but about later times (the time of Abraham – v.7 – and a time after Israel had left Egypt – v.5)?

    In addition, the reference to these events are to serve as warning examples to those to whom Jude was writing … how could “angelic beings” serve as an example to humans?

  84. on 05 Sep 2011 at 1:40 pmLORRAINE

    Wolfgang, this is why I said that the years of the son of man will be shortened in the far future such as in the ‘future generations’ after Noah. For instance Moses only lived until 120 years and Joseph only 110 and so on after that. Therefore, this punishment from YHWH did not surface until later on and to this day people live approximately no more than 120 years give or take one to two years before or afterwards. People have been living to a 120 years old today from since the days of Moses as YHWH prophesied in Gen. 6: vs. 3. Love one another and do the Commandments with the fear of YHWH’s lovingkindness, judgement and righteousness in your hearts. Jer. 9: vs. 23,24. Praise YHWH!!

  85. on 05 Sep 2011 at 2:03 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang

    Jude meant angels! That is what aggelos means in the NT, (with very RARE exceptions: the rare exceptions are perfectly obvious to all).

    The translations, all of them, are right to render angels in Jude because that is the obvious and only sense possible.

    It is unwise to challenge all the translations in various languages.

    Which one of them reduces angels to “messengers” trying to suggest human? Can you name such a translation?

    If one does not accept BNE Elohim in the Hebrew Bible then unbelief of the New Testament passage will occur.

    My point about the Hebrew was that the special phrase “SONS of God” in that passage only means angels, everywhere else.

    Adam is the Son of God and Israel the nation is God’s Son but there the phrase is different.

    Jude is cataloguing the awful crimes of humanity and warning us all!

    I cannot imagine why any of this is difficult!
    Anthony

  86. on 05 Sep 2011 at 2:04 pmXavier

    Anthony

    I cannot imagine why any of this is difficult!

    I can. 😛

  87. on 05 Sep 2011 at 2:34 pmWolfgang

    Anthony,

    Jude is cataloguing the awful crimes of humanity and warning us all!

    ??? Did you not just claim rather emphatically in your comment above that Jude was talking about the crimes of angelic beings … and that the word aggelos refers to “angels” (angelic spirit beings) who committed terrible crimes ??
    And then here, toward the end of your comment, you switch to “Jude is cataloguing the awful crimes of humanity“?
    Indeed, Jude was talking about the crimes of certain men (human beings) — not “humanity” as such –, and he was NOT talking about crimes of “angels (angelic spirit beings)! From your own words it follows that Jude was not referring to “angelic beings” with the use of the word aggelos, but was making reference to humans who were “messengers”

    I cannot imagine why any of this is difficult!

    I certainly can imagine why you cannot image why any of this is difficult … You know, I know plenty of trinitarians who would express the very same thought, wondering why it is so difficult for you to understand that God is a trinity, since they supposedly can easily “understand” such a thing …

  88. on 05 Sep 2011 at 2:37 pmMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    Since you still rudely refuse to answer or even acknowledge my questions and comments, I find that your own words can be turned back to yourself:

    WHY are you not answering my questions? Do I need to repeat them again for you, perhaps one by one, so you can put your “yes” or “no” plus explanatory comment to it?

    NOTE: I even did that for you.

    In case you have not noticed, I am asking my above questions on the premise of your interpretation of Gen 6…

    I can only suppose that such refusal to answer the simple questions is due to the fact that you … have recognized how your answers would immediately show that your interpretation … is faulty and not in agreement with the Scriptures as a whole.

    Yet, my questions could easily be answered … but the answers would show that the “easy words” interpretation propagated by [you] can’t be correct. Thus, [you] rather [refuse] to answer…

    Prove me wrong, if you can. I still await your answers…

  89. on 05 Sep 2011 at 2:49 pmMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    Here’s one more question for you to ignore 🙂

    You claim that Jude is talking about human messengers. What human messengers have ever been “kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day” (v. 6)?

    Furthermore, what human messengers did God ever “cast … into hell (tartaro) and [commit] to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment” (II Peter 2:4)?

    This also fits with I Peter 3:19-20, which specifically uses the word “spirits” – “in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah…” There is no way you can get human messengers out of that!

  90. on 05 Sep 2011 at 2:55 pmWolfgang

    Anthony,

    My point about the Hebrew was that the special phrase “SONS of God” in that passage only means angels, everywhere else.

    Adam is the Son of God and Israel the nation is God’s Son but there the phrase is different.

    In which way is the phrase different? Does it use an entirely different word for “son”? or is that the word “God {Elohim}” is not used, and instead we are reading a direct speech statement, such as God speaking and declaring “Israel is my son, my firstborn” ? or something else yet?

    So what IF the phrase is slightly different? IF the same reality is described with 2 different phrases, do we have 2 different realities all of a sudden? Or is the context the determining factor which establishes that – despite 2 different phrases – the reference is to the same one identical reality?

    If Adam was “God’s son” / Israel was “my {God’s} son”, I would say that these statements do most definitely establish that HUMAN BEINGS are meant with the term “son”. Now, the interesting point is, that there is nowhere in the Scriptures any such phrase using the term “son” or “sons” with defining information that it refers to “angelic spirit beings” !!!

    You – together with may be all Hebrew lexicon editors (I am sure, all would be considered “experts”) – just take the phrase “sons of God” and define it as a reference to “angelic spirit beings”. But where in Scripture is that phrase thus defined in Scripture (that is, in such a manner as we read “Israel (human beings, a people) is my {God / Elohim speaking} son”?? ) ?

    As I have already mentioned before, angelic beings are NOWHERE in Scripture said or described to be “son” or “sons”, not directly (such as “the angel is a son of God”, “angels”/”heavenly host” are sons of God) nor in a more indirect way (such as the LORD declaring “this host have I begotten” or the LORD speaking to an angel or angels and stating “you are my son(s)” !

    Could it be that going by lexical meanings of words, and thus basing one’s understanding of the Scriptures on the authority of the editor(s) of the respective lexicons is not such a good idea after all?

  91. on 05 Sep 2011 at 3:30 pmLORRAINE

    Joseph, this is why I do not regard the NT in the Hebrew King James Bible or in any other bibles as accurate. Christianity was legalized by Constantine the Great and the Roman Empire in the 4th century 311 of the NT. Although there may be some misrepresentations of some words in the OT such as the use of the word ‘virgin’ it refers to a married woman here, when Isaiah was told by YHWH to talk to king Ahaz and ask he a sign, Isa.7: vs. 3-14 and Isa. 8: vs. 18. This sign the son of Isaiah’s Immanuel was also a sign to Ahaz to warn him about the two kings that turned against YHWH and how they will be put to death by YHWH before the child is able to even speak or know anything (during the child’s innocence). Before Ahaz died he did witness the death of the two kings and it was before the child was old enough to understand anything. Therefore, because according to many of the scriptures in the OT of the King James Bible version which are juxtaposed, the sons of God that YHWH created, is stating that the beings were spiritual or angelic is obviously evident to when YHWH refers to us as the sons of man that YHWH created. The same was like in Gen. 19: vs. 1-13, of the story of Lot. These angels ‘appeared’ as ‘men’ to Lot and others. Think rational people it is just common sense, and if we all patiently really read the OT thoroughly, the understanding will come. Love Lorraine Love and Praise YHWH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS also Google it. Peace.

  92. on 05 Sep 2011 at 5:00 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang,

    Women are part of humanity and angels are angels!

    You are not understanding the Greek aggelos in the NT. When messengers are human the evidence is clear.

    But you are not rooted in the Hebrew background and having refused the data in Gen you are at sea in the NT!

    Why stand alone against so much testimony?
    Anthony

  93. on 05 Sep 2011 at 5:05 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Wofgang,

    The point is a very easy one. The phrase b’ne haelohim or b’ne elohim, is always “angels” and so also in the LXX.

    The LXX knew their Hebrew well.

    Bne elohim, that phrase, never refers to human persons!

    The angels are in Job and the equivalent is in Daniel where the son of the gods is an angel.

    So many authorities document this and the major commentary.
    Who are the sons of God in Job?

  94. on 05 Sep 2011 at 5:32 pmLORRAINE

    Well, I suppose it does seem like just as YHWH gave to us sons of man the free will to do things to make decisions whether they be the right ones or not. Just maybe YHWH also gave to the angels the same ‘free will’ but this would be outrageous to imagine as in the sons of God ‘angels’ to bare children with the women of the sons of man. In reading the OT I came across a scripture that said there are things that YHWH has not shewed revealed to us and there is no point in trying to figure them out it is not designed for guessing YHWH tells us in Isaish, 42: vs. 8,9 and Amos, 3: vs. 7. To summarize all that he wants us to know and that we must do and understand exactly is what is told to us in the OT. That which is prophesied through his prophets or his servants, which are the sons of man us, and are the sons of God, the angels. This is good enough for me and when I find that scripture I spoke of earlier I will surely post it for the rest to see. Praise YHWH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, go Google it.

  95. on 05 Sep 2011 at 6:30 pmMark C.

    As I have already mentioned before, angelic beings are NOWHERE in Scripture said or described to be “son” or “sons”, not directly (such as “the angel is a son of God”, “angels”/”heavenly host” are sons of God) nor in a more indirect way (such as the LORD declaring “this host have I begotten” or the LORD speaking to an angel or angels and stating “you are my son(s)” !

    How about Luke 20:36?

  96. on 06 Sep 2011 at 12:22 amWolfgang

    Anthony,

    So many authorities document this and the major commentary.

    here’s a small summary type statement from a commentary on Gen 6:1ff

    6:1-4. Many have suggested that the sons of God were the godly line of Seth and the daughters of men were the Cainites. But this does not do justice to the terminology or the context. Others view the “sons of God” as angels (as in Job 1:6), who cohabited with women on earth. This, however, conflicts with Matthew 22:30.

    Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (Ge 6:1–4). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

    Now, perhaps you like this rather very simple refutation of your idea of “sons of God” being angels ?? This scholar at a well known theological seminary recognizes that such an interpretation and use of the Hebrew b’ne elohim as referring to angels contradicts Jesus’ words and that seems to be sufficient.

    Do you think, this scholar is also lacking some “Hebrew background” ?

  97. on 06 Sep 2011 at 12:33 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    How about Luke 20:36?

    how about it? observing the immediate CONTEXT one can recognize in which regard believers who have died, human beings, will be “LIKE the angels” in the resurrection and (b) that Jesus was not speaking about the angels being sons of God, but about humans BECOMING “sons of God” through the resurrection …

  98. on 06 Sep 2011 at 12:41 amWolfgang

    Anthony,
    here’s another commentary comment on the passage in Gen 6

    The sons of God (Gen. 6:2). Were these fallen angels (cf. Job 1:6) who somehow had impregnated human women and fathered the Nephilim? (giants, as it says in the KJV) Were these the sons of princes, as rabbinic tradition holds? Or was there an intermingling of the “godly” line of Seth with that of Cain?

    Richards, L., & Richards, L. O. (1987). The teacher’s commentary (42). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

    Now, this source mentions that the rabbinic tradition and understanding of the Hebrew b’ne elohim was “sons of princes”, and apparently NOT “angels” …
    The author of this article also seems to indicate that the interpretation of “sons of God” as angelic beings/fallen angels is somewhat dubious, as once can recognize from his “… who somehow had impregnated human women …”

  99. on 06 Sep 2011 at 12:54 amMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    You had said that “angelic beings are NOWHERE in Scripture said or described to be “son” or “sons”, not directly … nor in a more indirect way.”

    Luke 20:36 is comparing those in the resurrection with angels, and indirectly saying that, like angels, they will be called sons of God.

    Now that you’ve answered one question, how about the other 13? (The 12 in comment 72, plus the “bonus” question in comment 89.) As I said, prove me wrong if you can.

  100. on 06 Sep 2011 at 2:03 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    Luke 20:36 is comparing those in the resurrection with angels, and indirectly saying that, like angels, they will be called sons of God.

    now, that’s a strange way of interpreting Jesus’ words ….

    Also, I did even specify how I meant “a more indirect way” by giving examples … did you deliberately misrepresent that with your above attempt?

  101. on 06 Sep 2011 at 2:08 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    your interpretation of Luke 20:36 reminds me of your interpretation of Gen 1 and the “after its kind” aspect only applying to plants and animals, but not to humans …
    As for angelic spirit beings, did you not somewhere state that they were of “no kind”? how would “fallen angels” produce a human male seed with which to impregnate a woman of the human kind?

  102. on 06 Sep 2011 at 2:13 amMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    Also, I did even specify how I meant “a more indirect way” by giving examples … did you deliberately misrepresent that with your above attempt?

    That attitude is uncalled for, and I will not be dragged down by your accusing me of deliberately misrepresenting myself. We obviously have different ways of interpreting Jesus’ words.

    I will also not be dragged off on a tangent as you so frequently try to do when you have no answers for the bulk of the questions. Please answer the questions in comments 72 & 89.

  103. on 06 Sep 2011 at 2:19 amMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    your interpretation of Luke 20:36 reminds me of your interpretation of Gen 1 and the “after its kind” aspect only applying to plants and animals, but not to humans …

    You need to reread those comments. I did not say that it didn’t apply to humans, I said it didn’t apply to angels or spirit beings, which has been your argument all along.

    As for angelic spirit beings, did you not somewhere state that they were of “no kind”? how would “fallen angels” produce a human male seed with which to impregnate a woman of the human kind?

    The Bible does not say they produced a human male seed. It does not say HOW they produced the Nephilim, but it does indeed say that they did it.

    Now please stop going off on tangents and answer the questions in comments 72 & 89.

  104. on 06 Sep 2011 at 2:20 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    1. In comment 27, I listed every usage of the phrase “after its kind” in Genesis, and they clearly refer to plants and animals. NOT ONE says anything about angels or spirit beings.

    So, just because this truth is mentioned in connection with plants and animals and prior to the creation of man, who — biologically speaking — is called “a living being” (nephesh chai – “living soul”) just as “animals” are called “living beings”, this truth regarding procreation / progeny doesn’t apply to the “human kind”?
    It is obvious – both from what Scripture does teach about women and their progeny, as well as from observing nature itself — that the truth regarding “after its kind” applies to the human kind just as much as to plants and animals.
    ____________________

    2. I pointed out that in the case of humans and angels, we are not talking about two different kinds producing a different kind. We are talking about angels who left their proper dwelling, and did something so grievous that they were imprisoned for it.

    Now, what is the point of this point #2? See above answer to #1 regarding “after its kind” and “humans” … what you had pointed out is lacking the proper application to “living beings” and as such to humans as well

    Furthermore, what does “angels how left their proper dwelling and did something so grievous that they were imprisoned or it” have to do with the aspect of “after its kind” which was the point under discussion? I would say that your point #2 here is missing the point.
    ______________________

    3. I do not think it would be possible for humans to have progeny with partners of other “kinds/genus.” You can have different species within a genus interbreed, but not different genuses. (Comments 40 & 44.) However, I reminded you that that has nothing to do with the question of angels and humans cohabiting, since angels do not have genus or species, and normally do not reproduce. This was an unusual situation that had unusual consequences.

    See above replied with comments on your points #1 and #2 …
    IF “angels do not have genus or species”, then how could they have progeny with a woman who is of the human kind? by creating what is needed for a woman to conceive a human baby (which is what God – being the Creator – certainly could do, and what He then did in the case of Mary and the miraculous conception of Jesus in her womb)?

    Just making a claim about “unusual” doesn’t make something to be true … eh, I have heard quite a number of trinitarians using that argument about the “God the Son” stuff being very unusual and unexplainable but definitely true …
    ________________________

    4. Regarding other meanings of “Sons of God” I listed in comment 44 the only occurrences of the term in the NT, including the statement in Luke 20:36 that those in the resurrection “cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” The other references are speaking of the new birth, a spiritual rebirth, which was not available in the OT.

    5. Since the new birth was not available till after Christ came, the term “Sons of God” is never used of people in the OT (Comment 44).

    6. The passage in Hebrews (quoting Psalm 2) says that God did not say to the angels, “You are my son, today I have begotten you.” The angels were not begotten by God the way Jesus was. But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t be called sons of God, as those NT references indicate (Comment 46).

    7. The “Sons of God” in Job 1 cannot be talking about Job’s sons, not only because the term is not used of humans in the OT (see #5), but also because Satan was “with them” and he said he had just come “from roaming about on the earth.” Therefore he is not on earth at this point (Comment 46).

    these arguments about the meaning of the term “sons of God” seem to be a nice example of “circular logic” or “unusual” logic …

    What I notice here is the same I already pointed out regarding Prof Buzzard’s way of interpretation the Scriptures in seemingly many instances … it is taking dictionary or lexical meanings of words or terms and then interpreting a context in light of that, whether the result makes sense or is “highly unusual” … as long as there is “peer evidence” and most of the commentaries agree, then the teaching is that “this is what the text says” and “you should believe the text instead of questioning it”.

    Funny enough, this reminds me of the way V.P. Wierwille went about things at times with an approach of great emphasis being put on “word studies” and resulting in sometimes rather simple “context” and “overall scope” being lost …

    So, if someone “came from roaming about on the earth”, he can’t at that point still be on the earth but must be in heaven?
    Eh, I am sometimes coming home with my dog from “roaming around the earth” (albeit, it’s a somewhat small area of the earth), but when I tell my wife that I am at that point not on the earth ? Hmn ….

  105. on 06 Sep 2011 at 4:38 amWolfgang

    Anthony,

    here’s a small passage from Matthew Henry Commentary on the scriptures in Gen 6:

    2. Mixed marriages (v. 2): The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain: They took them wives of all that they chose.

    Henry, M. (1996). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Ge 6:1–2). Peabody: Hendrickson.

    It seems to me that the folks who wrote/edited/published this commentary were also NOT of your opinion … even though one most likely would have to conclude that they certainly were aware of Hebrew and Greek, etc …?

    2. the sons of God saw the daughters of men—By the former is meant the family of Seth, who were professedly religious; by the latter, the descendants of apostate Cain. Mixed marriages between parties of opposite principles and practice were necessarily sources of extensive corruption. The women, religious themselves, would as wives and mothers exert an influence fatal to the existence of religion in their household, and consequently the people of that later age sank to the lowest depravity.

    Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Ge 6:2). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

    These scholars quite obviously do not subscribe to your interpretation of “{fallen or holy?}angels” cohabiting with “human women” producing “giants” (a separate kind/genus?) offspring …

  106. on 06 Sep 2011 at 6:29 amMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    Finally, we’re dealing with the issues.

    As I said in my last comment, you need to reread what I said, and have been saying all along, including the very comment that you copied and pasted. It makes me wonder if you actually read it. I did not say that “after its kind” didn’t apply to humans. I said it didn’t apply to angels or spirit beings, which has been your argument all along.

    You asked, “what is the point of point #2?” It was in response to your claim (in comment 25) that “no two different kinds will produce a ‘mixed-kind’ progeny.” We aren’t dealing with two different kinds of animals producing a mixed kind. We are talking about supernatural beings, angels, leaving their proper dwelling and lusting after humans and indulging in gross immorality which is outside of their normal function.

    Furthermore, what does “angels how left their proper dwelling and did something so grievous that they were imprisoned or it” have to do with the aspect of “after its kind” which was the point under discussion? I would say that your point #2 here is missing the point.

    On the contrary, the point was that “after its kind” only applies to plants and animals (including humans) BUT NOT TO ANGELS, and that it was angels going outside their normal realm that brought about the Nephilim. That does not contradict the principle of “after its kind” since it was not said about angels and the offspring were of the same kind as humans. As I said way back in comment 40, they were either a mutation of Homo sapiens, or possibly a different species within the genus Homo. There is nothing in the Bible that says a spirit being cannot produce offspring through humans.

    IF “angels do not have genus or species”, then how could they have progeny with a woman who is of the human kind?

    The Bible does not say HOW they produced the Nephilim, but it does indeed say that they did it. Just because you don’t understand how it happened is no proof that it didn’t happen.

    Just making a claim about “unusual” doesn’t make something to be true

    Never said it did.

    these arguments about the meaning of the term “sons of God” seem to be a nice example of “circular logic” or “unusual” logic …

    Please demonstrate how they are circular logic. You insisted that the term “Sons of God” had other meanings, and I showed how even the NT usages referred to the new birth, which is a spiritual reality, but was neither available nor referred to anywhere in the OT. Thus it could not be what the OT references are speaking of. Those are the only places where the term “Sons of God” is used.

    You completely skipped over point #6, which was in response to your argument that calling angels “Sons of God” contradicted Hebrews 1.

    Regarding Job 1 (point #7), when Satan said he had come “from roaming about on the earth” it was not in response to “What have you been doing?” It was in response to “Where have you come from?” If he came from the earth, then logically he is no longer on the earth.

    Besides, v.4 had referred to “his (Job’s) sons” and in v.5 Job refers to “my sons.” If v.6 meant Job’s sons, why would it suddenly call them “Sons of God” instead of Job’s sons?

    At least you are dealing with the points now. Keep ’em coming.

  107. on 06 Sep 2011 at 6:50 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    On the contrary, the point was that “after its kind” only applies to plants and animals (including humans) BUT NOT TO ANGELS, and that it was angels going outside their normal realm that brought about the Nephilim.

    ?? if this “after its kind” applies to humans – as you here say – then there could NOT have been any offspring of angels with human women … for women can only conceive what is “of the human kind”.

    Thus, I would say that those various scholars from whose commentaries I quoted are correct in their understanding that Gen 6 is NOT about angelic beings cohabiting and impregnating women.

  108. on 06 Sep 2011 at 7:20 amMark C.

    ?? if this “after its kind” applies to humans – as you here say – then there could NOT have been any offspring of angels with human women … for women can only conceive what is “of the human kind”.

    Please reread comment #106, especially the paragraph that begins, “On the contrary…” Also, go back and read comments 27 & 40.

  109. on 06 Sep 2011 at 7:27 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    So the offspring of humans produced “giants…mighty warriors of old”?

  110. on 06 Sep 2011 at 10:31 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    So the offspring of humans produced “giants…mighty warriors of old”?

    i would say that this is what the text says …

    However, please don’t make the mistake of interpreting “giants” in a wrong way, such as in the way you perhaps may have in mind based on the picture of “angelic beings cohabiting with women”.

  111. on 06 Sep 2011 at 10:41 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    Why would this normal human union have produced “giants…mighty warriors of old”?

    And should we now question the meaning behind the Hebrew phrase of “sons of God” as it appears in other parts of the OT [i.e., Book of Job]?

  112. on 06 Sep 2011 at 11:55 amAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang,

    The opening statement from Dallas gives the game away:

    Many have suggested that the sons of God were the godly line of Seth and the daughters of men were the Cainites. But this does not do justice to the terminology or the context.

    They at least admit the terminological impossibility of Godly Line of Seth!

    Modern commentary in general has no difficulty with the angels here. Dallas is unreliable in the pre-Trib rapture and an extreme Trinitarianism.

    I am surprised that these men would not see that a discussion of holy angels in Matt. does not bear on the subject at all! Jesus was talking about marriage among holy, not fallen angels!

    They do at least remain sensitive to the terminology and they know enough about the Hebrew to see that Bne Elohim is not godly sons of Seth!

    In general the modern liberals writing the standard well known commentary in dictionary and commentary proper are the best in languages.

    Ancients like Henry are the least likely to get this sort of thing right.
    But even at Dallas, some see the point.

    I would recommend the reading of the excursus on Gen 6:1 in Understanding Christian Theology. Swindoll and Zuck, where they evaluate the views and conclude:

    I believe that that the view that the ‘sons of God’ in Gen 6 were wicked angels has fewer problems than the other views. Duane Garrett states his reason for holding to the wicked angels view: “In Genesis 6 the most natural meaning to an ancient Hebrew reader would have been that supernatural beings cohabited with human women. So I presume that this is what the text means.

    Exactly.

    6 reasons are then given why a non-supernatural view is not tenable:

    1 “daughters of men”: no evidence that these were confined to Cainite women.

    2 “Sons of God” always refers to angelic beings, in the OT.

    3. The progeny as giants is not explicable on any but the supernatural view.

    4. The Godly line of Seth, why were they involved in such awful sin.

    5. Jude 6, 7. The angels’ sin was sexual. Gross immorality and going after strange flesh.

    6 There is no reason at all to plead a language exception in Gen 6:2.
    Anthony

  113. on 06 Sep 2011 at 12:36 pmSarah

    Gentlemen,

    I am somewhat hesitant to jump into this discussion, having read the rather heated exchanges taking place. But, I would be interested in an honest and open-minded response to an excerpt from an article by a man I highly respect. Below is an excerpt from an article written by Tim Warner, which can be read in its entirety here: http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/air/The%20Sons%20of%20God.pdf

    “The only verses in the Bible that call angels “sons of God” are three verses in Job. And this occurs only in the modern Hebrew text. The much older Greek Septuagint does not refer to angels as “sons of God” in Job or anywhere else. And as we have already seen, the Septuagint has proven quite helpful and reliable regarding this issue.

    Genesis 6:2 LXX
    2 ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαί εἰσιν, ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ πασῶν, ὧν ἐξελέξαντο. (the sons of God)

    Job 1:6 LXX
    6 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἦλθον οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ
    παραστῆναι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ ὁ διάβολος ἦλθε μετ᾿ αὐτῶν. (the angels of God)

    Job 2:1 LXX
    1 Εγένετο δὲ ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ παραστῆναι ἔναντι Κυρίου, καὶ ὁ διάβολος ἦλθεν ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν παραστῆναι ἐναντίον τοῦ Κυρίου. (the angels of God)

    Job 38:7
    7 ὅτε ἐγενήθησαν ἄστρα, ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί μου. (all the angels of mine)

    Nowhere in the entire Greek Old Testament or Greek New Testament are angels referred to as the “sons of God.” It must be remembered that in Hebrew culture and the Scriptures “sons” automatically implies an inheritance.

    Every Old Testament quotation in the book of Hebrews is from the LXX. In Hebrews, Paul argued strongly for a dichotomy between the sons of God and angels. His argument rests entirely on the fact that the Greek LXX nowhere refers to the angels as “sons of God.” ”

    I find this very convincing, particularly in light of the rest of the article, and would like to offer it for consideration. Your thoughts are welcome, but if I may ask – reply with civility please!

  114. on 06 Sep 2011 at 1:16 pmWolfgang

    Sarah,

    thank you for your informative contribution … I’ve in the meantime had a glance at the article from T. Warner and I would conclude that he makes some excellent points to set forth an understanding of the passage in Gen 6 which I would say is logical and makes much sense.

    For example, he writes in the opening part of his study concerning Gen 6

    That the “sons of God” refers to humans and not angels is plain from God’s immediate reaction to the “sons of God” taking wives from among the “daughters of men.” God said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be
    one hundred and twenty years.
    ” The crime was committed by “the sons of God.” If they were angels, why would God react against men of flesh?
    The Septuagint translates God’s reaction this way: “And the Lord God said, ‘My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever’.” The antecedent for “these men” is the “sons of God” in the
    previous verse. This is a telling statement, because it clearly shows that the “sons of God” were men and not angels, and that they had a covenant relationship with YHVH, because His Spirit had remained among them collectively. …

    This I would consider a proper exegesis, considering the immediate context in order to establish the meaning of terms used, such as “the sons of God”.

    I would recommend to anyone to read the whole article … there are other enlightening passages regarding the matter, which are as simple to see as the above passage which I quoted as example.

  115. on 06 Sep 2011 at 1:38 pmWolfgang

    Sarah, and all

    having read the article by T. Warner in more detail, I am convinced by the quite detailed evidence provided on various aspects of the topic at hand, that the following conclusion is giving us the truth conveyed in the passage in Gen 6:1ff

    Our conclusion from all of the evidence is that the “sons of God” in Genesis six were the descendants of Seth.
    • This view is best supported by the context of Genesis 1-6.
    • It was clearly the view held by the LXX translators, since they always distinguished between “angels” and “sons of God.” They referred to the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 as “these men” in the next verse. And the LXX translators are at least as ancient as all known sources which promote this myth.
    • Paul’s argument in Hebrews, drawing a clear dichotomy between angels and “sons of God,” proves our case beyond doubt.
    • This view answers some historically problematic texts in 1 Peter and Revelation.
    • It was the opinion of some of the earliest Christians. Whether it was the majority opinion is impossible to say, and irrelevant to the question.

    As you can imagine, I am rather eagerly awaiting Prof Buzzard’s take on what is set forth in the article by T. Warner, as well as what others who participated in this exchange will have to say

  116. on 06 Sep 2011 at 1:40 pmXavier

    Sarah

    As I asked Wolfgang, why would this normal human union have produced “giants…mighty warriors of old”?

  117. on 06 Sep 2011 at 2:02 pmMark C.

    Here is a telling quote from the above mentioned article.

    The “spirits in prison” in [I Peter] 3:19 are the “sons of God” who did not listen to Noah’s warnings about the coming flood, and consequently died along with the wicked in that judgment.

    This whole view consequently presupposes the belief in “spirits” being people that have died, which contradicts everything the Bible says about death and the dead.

    (I think it’s also curious that he didn’t deal with II Peter 2:4-5 at all.)

    Another interesting observation is his handling of “sons of God” in Job.

    Nowhere in the entire Greek Old Testament or Greek New Testament are angels referred to as the “sons of God.” It must be remembered that in Hebrew culture and the Scriptures sons” automatically implies an inheritance.

    Yet the word aggeloi, angels, is used in the LXX of Job 1:6; 2:4; and 38:7 as the translation of the term “sons of God.” He claims that it “occurs only in the modern Hebrew text,” but demonstrates no proof for this claim. The LXX was translated from the older Hebrew, and they chose to translate “sons of God” as angels.

    Every Old Testament quotation in the book of Hebrews is from the LXX. In Hebrews, Paul argued strongly for a dichotomy between the sons of God and angels. His argument rests entirely on the fact that the Greek LXX nowhere refers to the angels as “sons of God.”

    Actually, Hebrews 1 argues for a dichotomy between angels and THE Son of God, Jesus the Messiah. The term “sonS of God” does not occur in Hebrews. There is a big difference.

    Paul’s entire point rests on the fact that the Old Testament
    always distinguishes between the “sons of God” and the “angels of God.”

    This can’t be true because the term “sons of God” only appears in those few places, and no such “distinction” is made. As I said, Hebrews makes the distinction between angels and THE Son of God.

  118. on 06 Sep 2011 at 2:51 pmSarah

    Actually, Hebrews 1 argues for a dichotomy between angels and THE Son of God, Jesus the Messiah. The term “sonS of God” does not occur in Hebrews. There is a big difference.

    Is it not true that we are given the right to be called sons of God because of the Son of God? What is true of the Son is true of all of God’s sons since God has graciously given us the right to participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). We are also told the saints will judge angels (1 Cr 6:3), so it seems clear to me that the church – as the body of Christ – particpates in Jesus’ exaltation over the angels. Further, Hebrews 12:4-8 goes on to specifically address the inclusion of believers into God’s family as “sons”, which in my view supports that Hebrews is speaking not just of Christ but of the entire church in this dichotomy between angels and sons of God.

  119. on 06 Sep 2011 at 3:28 pmMark C.

    Sarah,

    Yes we do have the all those things because of Christ, and we are sons of God because of him. But in Hebrews, it doesn’t use the term “sonS of God.” The dichotomy in Hebrews is between angels and the son of God, the ultimate man, Jesus Christ, and then by extension, us as God’s sons. There is no question that we have a greater inheritance than the angels, because of the work of Christ. But none of that was available in the Old Testament, so when we see the term “sons of God” in those few OT verses in which they appear, it cannot be talking about any class of man. Especially in Job 38:7, where it says they shouted for joy when God laid the foundation of the earth.

  120. on 06 Sep 2011 at 3:57 pmXavier

    Sarah

    Hebrews 1 says that “in many places and in various ways” in ancient times, God spoke to the fathers by His human prophets. Another way was through spiritual figures called “angels” [Gk. angelos,/i>]. And although these spiritual figures were called “sons of God” [Gen. 6.4; Job 1.6; Ps 29.1] and had individual names [Gabriel, Michael, see Dan 9.21; 10.13]”, they were never referred to as God’s “unique Son” [cp. monogenes in Johannine corpus]. Furthermore, “angels” were not “begotten” [gennao] by God [Heb 1.5; cp. Ps 2.7].

    The writer goes on to say that the reason for the creation of the angels was so that they could function as “public servants/ministers” [leitourgos, Heb 1.7]. This means that angels were created to serve us, the public, by ministering to our needs.

    See Angelology in the JewishEncyclopedia.com

  121. on 06 Sep 2011 at 7:54 pmAnthony Buzzard

    The facts about the sons of God are not right. The Hebrew Bible has Bne elohim which only means angels. In Daniel and in a very similar phrase in Psalms.

    The phrase is rare and in the Hebrew Bible it means angels in every case. That is very powerful evidence.

    If the LXX renders it “sons of God” that does not mean they did not mean angels! In fact some LXX MSS actually write “angels” to be even more specific.

    So what it this about the LXX now trumping the MT? In fact the LXX has angels in some MSS as is well known.

    Let us at least have the facts straight.

    The NT use of aggelos shows that it means supernatural angels 95% of the time: human messengers are not normally not angels at all in the NT.

    Tim Warner is of course entitled to his opinion, but let us at least first state the language facts clearly.

    Mr Warner would not claim to be a final authority on language! Does he know better than the standard Lexicons? It is not clear why.

    If we do not keep the words straight, an otherwise not so difficult subject just gets very messy.

    The MT is not to be thought of as not modern! It is very ancient and no scholar would say that the LXX is to be taken as superior to it automatically.

    Yes, the LXX is quoted in the New also, but so is the MT.
    Anthony

  122. on 07 Sep 2011 at 12:26 amMark C.

    With regard to the suggestion that the Nephilim were not literal giants, consider the following. The only other place besides Gen. 6:4 that the word Nephilim appears is Num. 13:33 – “There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

    Were these literal giants or just men of great might that are figuratively called giants? If we are to go by only the word Nephilim, we are limited by the fact that it only appears in these two verses. But notice that Num. 13:33 tells us that the Anakim (sons of Anak) are part of the Nephilim. And if you search out the appearances of that name, you find some interesting things.

    Deut. 9:2 speaks of, “a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know and of whom you have heard it said, ‘Who can stand before the sons of Anak?’ “ But are these just very tall “normal” people? In Deut. 2:10-11 we read, “(The Emim lived there formerly, a people as great, numerous, and tall as the Anakim. Like the Anakim, they are also regarded as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim.”

    So there are at least two tribes associated with being very large: the Anakim and the Emim, and they are regarded as Rephaim. Rephaim is the plural of rapha, which is often translated “giant.” The word rapha means “tall” in fact. But how tall were the Rephaim?

    Deut. 3:11 tells us, “(For only Og king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bedstead was an iron bedstead; it is in Rabbah of the sons of Ammon. Its length was nine cubits and its width four cubits by ordinary cubit.)” A cubit was roughly 18 inches, which makes the bed 13.5 feet by 6 feet.

    The word rapha (the singular form of raphaim) is translated “giant” and appears (among other places) in I Chronicles 20:
    4 Now it came about after this, that war broke out at Gezer with the Philistines; then Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Sippai, one of the descendants of the giants, and they were subdued.
    5 And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
    6 Again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature who had twenty-four fingers and toes, six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot; and he also was descended from the giants.
    7 When he taunted Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea, David’s brother, killed him.
    8 These were descended from the giants in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.

    So these four, along with Goliath, the well-known giant whom David slew, were members of a race of “giants” (rephaim) who were literally very large. And the Anakim, (who are “regarded as Rephaim”) are said to be part of the Nephilim. These various subgroups of Nephilim are clearly defined as literal giants, and all this corroborates the statement in Gen. 6:4 that “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward.”

  123. on 07 Sep 2011 at 12:31 amWolfgang

    Hi,

    why would one want to insist on an illogical and strange doctrine (such as mythological thoughts of angelic beings cohabiting with human women to produce some hybrid-superhuman-giants) because supposedly the language facts support such … when really the language facts in light of the proper consideration of the context and overall scope provide a logical and rather simple picture?

    I am done with this subject for now … and I am happy I continued posting until this time, because it was with Sarah’s post and link to the article by T. Warner, that I learned some simple and easy to understand further information about the whole matter which answered some questions I still had and which filled in the “missing pieces to the puzzle” … a kind “thank you, Sarah” for posting!

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  124. on 07 Sep 2011 at 12:51 amMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    I am done with this subject for now …

    Why give up now? You have not finished answering the questions from comments 72 & 89. You only answered points 1-7, which answers I rebutted in comment 106.
    * Have you answers to points 8-12?
    * Have you answers to the question in comment 89?
    * Have you answers to the rebuttals in comment 106?
    * How about an answer to Xavier’s question, why would a normal human union have produced giants (which were literal giants as demonstrated in comment 122)?
    * Also, do you have any response to the arguments against Tim Warner’s article?

    If you have such convincing proof, it should be able to stand up to the questions and closer scrutiny that we have given it.

  125. on 07 Sep 2011 at 3:43 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    If you have such convincing proof, it should be able to stand up to the questions and closer scrutiny that we have given it.

    it stands up even beyond the scrutiny your have given it … 😉

    It just does not stand up to your conviction …. It’s sort of like the trinitarian who will not be convinced by whatever otherwise convincing proof you may put in front of him/her … until such point when he/she decides to really consider the more simple and more logical information and then realizes that there is a different possibility other than his/her “trinitarian” perspective.

    Over more than 3 decades of involvement in reading, searching and studying the Bible, the Scriptures, for truth, I have come to realize that there is a larger amount of strange doctrines in so-called “orthodox Christianity” than most folks will want to acknowledge …. and usually these doctrines all tend toward some mystical, mysterious angle (of course often not called “mystical” but “spiritual”) …

    A more simple, logical and truly independent (independent of denominational, church group, etc affiliation) investigation of the Scriptures for the sake of learning and coming to a knowledge of the biblical truth is rather seldom found or seen, and it seems to me that this is due to the fact that almost all “searchers” are linked to some group, some denomination and thus are bound to or dependent on the beliefs currently held by such group/denomination. To this day, I have not seen any group which was really “free to change their current belief in the case when better insight was gained” … as a matter of fact, it is a rather rare case that a group will tolerate without reservations when someone in the group has a different understanding of a certain scriptural topic or an instruction regarding practical matters.

  126. on 07 Sep 2011 at 4:47 amMark C.

    it stands up even beyond the scrutiny your have given it … 😉

    It just does not stand up to your conviction …

    Talk is cheap. If you have proof, let’s see it. Deal with the proof I’ve presented for my viewpoint.

  127. on 07 Sep 2011 at 7:01 amXavier

    Mark C.

    Talk is cheap. If you have proof, let’s see it.

    Remember your advice to me on the other thread? 😛

  128. on 07 Sep 2011 at 7:12 amAnthony Buzzard

    Just to add to one of the points…

    Yes, in v. 3 God said he would not strive with mankind (ADAM). God was faced with the progeny of these marriages and they were indeed “men of renown, heroes of ancient history. They were human giants, not angels.

    God did not call the sons of God men, but the offspring of the marriages. Mankind was guilty of sin too.

    I think the references in Jewish and Christian history and the teaching of Jude concludes the discussion.

    Sodom and Gemorrah are related to the angels and the common sin was to do with illicit sex.

    The book of Enoch, which Jude did not despise as all myth, also confirms.
    Anthony

  129. on 07 Sep 2011 at 8:03 amWolfgang

    Well … in my humble opinion, T. Warner’s article makes very good sense and is based on detailed Scripture study.

    What has been written by those propagating a “fallen angel cohabiting with women” theory is becoming more and more confused … as the above comment shows …

    * Also, do you have any response to the arguments against Tim Warner’s article?

    It seems you did not understand what T. Warner wrote … most likely, the reason is that you read his article based on your own current understanding of terms ?

  130. on 07 Sep 2011 at 1:23 pmMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    Well … in my humble opinion, T. Warner’s article makes very good sense and is based on detailed Scripture study.

    Even though he had his facts wrong, as Anthony pointed out in comment 121?

    What has been written by those propagating a “fallen angel cohabiting with women” theory is becoming more and more confused … as the above comment shows …

    Please be specific. What is confusing about the above comment?

    It seems you did not understand what T. Warner wrote … most likely, the reason is that you read his article based on your own current understanding of terms ?

    Again, please be specific. What about my comments leads you to believe that I didn’t understand the article? Why not directly address the points I brought up?

    And again, you pick one point while ignoring the rest (in comment 124). Like I said, if you have such convincing proof, why not address the specific points that have been presented?

  131. on 07 Sep 2011 at 2:27 pmWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    Even though he had his facts wrong, as Anthony pointed out in comment 121?

    I don’t think the real facts were wrong … but I do think that what Prof Buzzard points out at times are more “claims” than “facts”

    Again, please be specific. What about my comments leads you to believe that I didn’t understand the article? Why not directly address the points I brought up?

    your comments as a whole lead me to believe that you did not really understand the article, because your comments indicate to me that you read the article through your “theological glasses”, that is from your current understanding of terms within your current belief …

    But, as I mentioned earlier … I am done with this topic for now. I don’t think that I could add much to what I have already written on various aspects concerning the topic, whether it be more general logical considerations or more specific scriptural studies or even quotes from commentaries etc …

  132. on 07 Sep 2011 at 2:34 pmMark C.

    But, as I mentioned earlier … I am done with this topic for now. I don’t think that I could add much to what I have already written on various aspects concerning the topic, whether it be more general logical considerations or more specific scriptural studies or even quotes from commentaries etc …

    So, just to clarify, does this mean you have no answers for my specific questions and comments that you haven’t answered yet?

  133. on 07 Sep 2011 at 11:55 pmWolfgang

    Mark C.,.

    So, just to clarify, does this mean you have no answers for my specific questions and comments that you haven’t answered yet?

    no, it does not mean that …
    just as there were answers to questions before, so there are answers to those questions … however, it would not add much to what I already wrote in various comments and which you also rejected

  134. on 08 Sep 2011 at 2:12 amMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    just as there were answers to questions before, so there are answers to those questions … however, it would not add much to what I already wrote in various comments and which you also rejected

    I didn’t reject them, I offered responses to them. That’s how debate works. For example:

    * You misquoted point #1, which I corrected.
    * You didn’t understand the point of #2, which I clarified.
    * You asked a question in response to #3, which I answered.
    * You also said, in response to #3, that “Just making a claim about ‘unusual’ doesn’t make something to be true,” which I agree with. I have never said that it did.
    * You said that #s 4-7 were “circular logic” and I asked you to demonstrate how.
    * You did not respond to the specific point (#5) about “sons of God” in the NT sense not being available in the OT, so could not be what the OT references are talking about.
    * You completely skipped over #6, about the distinction Hebrews makes between angels and THE Son of God.
    * I offered clarification to my point about Job 1 (point #7), and also made another related point.

    You were finally dealing with specific issues instead of broad generalities, and I had hoped we could continue that trend. The points in the rest of comment 72 addressed some of your other specific arguments, such as:

    * Your objection to angels coming and going from God’s presence (#8).
    * The sons of God shouting for joy in Job 38 (#9).
    * A response to your question about fallen angels (#10).
    * A request for specifics as to why you feel that the context in Peter and Jude proves they weren’t talking about angels (#11).
    * A request for other scriptural evidence that angels cannot produce offspring with humans, since you claim that it contradicts many things in the Bible (#12).
    * A specific two-part question regarding the claim that Peter and Jude meant human messengers when they used the word angels (comment 89).

    In addition, a new source was introduced, namely the Tim Warner article. I pointed out some very specific problems I had with it (comment 117). I also posted a detailed comment about the nature of the giants in the Bible (comment 122).

    None of these points have been addressed in your comments yet, so your answers would certainly add to what you wrote, and to the discussion overall.

    It doesn’t advance the discussion just to keep saying that you disagree and find your viewpoint more convincing. But what does advance it is to get down to specifics and address real issues in very specific terms. You started doing that, and we briefly had a meaningful dialogue going. Why stop now?

    You were bothered by the fact that you didn’t think Anthony answered your questions, and suggested that it was because to do so would prove you right. Don’t you see how that works both ways? If you refuse to answer questions, it comes across as if you have no valid answers.

    For the record, I spent years believing as you do about the Nephilim, as that was what I’d been taught. It was when I heard logical evidence to the contrary that I began to study it myself. No amount of arguing would have convinced me, but I saw what I believe is solid evidence from the Scriptures that I could not refute. Why not closely examine the evidence we present and deal with the specific issues? If nothing else, it may solidify your view. But if your evidence “stands up even beyond the scrutiny [I] have given it,” as you say, then why not present it?

    But if you choose not to continue, that’s your decision.

  135. on 02 Oct 2011 at 7:43 pmLORRAINE

    Hello everyone, this post is to withdraw from my first post I had it wrong about the angels being the sons of God. This scripture in Genesis 6″:vs.2-5 is referring to the sons of God which were the men with the spirit and wisdom and knowledge of Adam the first man and they found these women daughters of men who were not of YHWH GOD attactive and then this is what made the children who grew up to be mighty men to seem as ‘giant’ a metaphor for meaning that they were very deceitful and too smart for their or anyone else’s own good ‘evil’ just plain wicked yet clever. You must know that there is no way that angels could mate with human women that is rediculous and just hollywood not real people. I found in my resources that it is ludacris to think such a thing. These men were just as Adam when YHWH GOD and the angels said “let us make man into our image, likeliness” these men were very wise and knowledgeable with the spirit of YHWH GOD in them which made them sons of God, and they desired ‘that old temptation again’the women who were not holy but fair as in good looking, but they were not of YHWH GOD. They took them to be their wives which was not good in the end this is why YHWH then says “my ‘spirit’ will not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh”. Praise YHWH.

  136. on 03 Oct 2011 at 10:37 amWolfgang

    Lorraine,

    I appreciate your above note in which you wrote

    You must know that there is no way that angels could mate with human women that is rediculous and just hollywood not real people. I found in my resources that it is ludacris to think such a thing.

    As you can see from my various posts in this thread, I agree that those “sons of God” mentioned in Gen 6 cannot be angels, with the most simple reason being that angels cannot mate with human women to produce some “hyper”-human or whatever kind of offspring.
    I was wondering if you could list those resources to which you refer and which mention that it is ludicrous to think such a thing?

    It seems from the above comments however, that just about everybody here on this blog does think that way … and they for some reason find nothing ludicrous or strange or impossible about {fallen} angels being called “sons of God” in this passage, and yet then the advocates of such an idea do also claim that fallen angels are “demons” ….

  137. on 03 Oct 2011 at 2:08 pmLORRAINE

    Wolfgang, the resources that I will share with you and others is when you google to YHWH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS or type it in at their website yhwhourrighteousnesshome.org. Go to the Video Lectures section, and then click on the title Serpents and Cockatrices Part – 2, stroll down to video number 3 and listen to the explanation of Genesis 6 and discern for yourself the facts on this being understood as many have done to believe in manmade ideology of this scripture in the bible and the others. That website again is yhwhourrighteousnesshome.org. I had post in an earlier topic about there being prophets of today and how they have such a powerful spirit of anointment from YHWH GOD and are not found often but this does not need to be concerned, and is not about the prophet it is mainly about YHWH GOD pouring his spirit into them for us to gain the knowledge of what will come in the future of the new kingdom of YHWH GOD. You can also listen to the one titled The Jesus Myth part 1 and 2 which has historical facts of its truth. The host of this show is known as Yhwhudah Ben Yisrael who is considered to many as a prophet, but he does not claim to be he only gives his anointment and knowledge that he has also been scrutinizing and substantiating since the 60s for 35 years now to YHWH GOD. There is also a phone number of 1-773-874-0325 in which he believes that talking to the person is the best way for relaying this message to provide the validation of the information and of YHWH GOD. As in Micah:7vs.1-6 is why there must be historical proof and substantiation even in the bible guide. For there were so many who have tampered with it but YHWH still gave it to us for he knows this, and much of it has been prophesied even now. Praise YHWH.

  138. on 03 Oct 2011 at 3:20 pmWolfgang

    Lorraine,

    thank you for your note and the information.

    I listened to the Gen 6 explanation by the gentleman and found it to be interesting, in particular his linking of the immediate context in Gen 6, linking those who are termed “sone of God” with those described as “man” and “flesh”, etc. by YHWH. Indeed, this should make it rather obvious that the context is not about angelic spirit beings impregnating human women with the outcome being “giants” as offpsring

  139. on 03 Oct 2011 at 6:17 pmLORRAINE

    Wolfgang, do you think that if you decide to call Mr. Yisrael on the phone if you could place a note on this post that you guys spoke the reason is is that I have not been able to call. With him being an anointed person he discusses with those in search of the truth for a certain period and then he continues on to the next of YHWH GOD’s jewels who which are now being called back for the time is close Malachi, 3:vs. 14-18 the last book, and I am wondering since the execution of Troy Davis and the release of Anthony Casey and A. Knox and others this is another sign that we need to take heed to the new kingdom coming. There is a scripture that confirms all of this but I can’t for now think of it. I do know that Daniel 11 and 12 are definitely into play right now. Another thing Mr. Yisrael continued to warn me when we spoke that we need to get out of the Daughter of Babylon the United States and many people especially rich ones are leaving here, getting out of the north country, there is a scripture on this too, I will provide these later if its not too late lol, oh it’s I panicked, Isa., 13,14, Jere., 47, 50,51 the book of Habakkuk 2, Jere., 25:vs.13-33. Mr. Yisrael spoke of having his passport I am wondering if he’s gone or if the monarch has come for him and other prophets. I hope I do not sound smitten but its just well things are really looking this way floods, wars, families departing rapidly, no more industries in the U.S. worth talking about Isaiah, 47:vs.15 and natural disasters, people getting food poisens and dying from it ok I sound paranoid lol. Well, I have no passport I’m scared yet if it is time for the Day of YHWH GOD as a Christian would you say that is a good thing yes? Although, I have the faith in YHWH GOD I’ve only been studying since 4 months ago so I think it is normal to feel this way. I hope I made you guys laugh I was being humorous. Peace and Love, Praise YHWH.

  140. on 17 Nov 2011 at 10:18 pmPeter

    Nice post! I thought I might chime in as well. I believe I have a nice nugget I can offer.

    When the Bible says in Genesis 6 in the King James version that Noah was “perfect in his generations”, the Hebrew word used there for the
    word “perfect” is tamiym, which means “without blemish” or “healthy.

    The reason that is so important is because that is the exact same Hebrew word used in Leviticus to describe an unblemished, sacrificial lamb. This means Noah was not perfect morally, but that his
    physical make up -DNA – had not been contaminated with Nephillim descent.

    The line of Seth and line of Cain theory is easy to discredit if you study
    Hebrew and not just English translations of the Bible.

  141. on 18 Nov 2011 at 12:15 amDoubting Thomas

    He Peter,
    I don’t remember seeing you post before, so welcome to K.R.!!! I agree with you that Noah came from a pure blood line, directly from Adam and Eve…

  142. on 18 Nov 2011 at 6:31 amWolfgang

    @Peter,

    The line of Seth and line of Cain theory is easy to discredit if you study Hebrew and not just English translations of the Bible.

    indeed, studying the Scriptures in their original languages can be an important factor to discover the truth revealed in them … however, in any language, failure to properly recoginze context will produce false interpretations, no matter whether one emphasizes a Hebrew word and its meaning or an English word and its meaning …

    Also, on what basis do you assume that the Hebrew word tamiym refers to “physical makeup – DNA” ? It looks to me that you are making assumptions looking at Scripture text not from the original writers’ point of view but from a 20th/21st century reader’s point of view …

    You mention the use of the word translated “perfect” in reference to “unblemished (healthy)” sacrifical lamb … that context alone shows from a Scripture perspective that the author was not making any reference to a “genetic engineering” or “modified DNA” matters. They simply looked at the outside of a lamb, inspected it to make sure it was healthy and without injuries, etc. and if found “unblemished” it could serve as a sacrifice.

    The Hebrew term has no reference whatever to what you assume and rather boldly want to offer as a “nice nugget” … from even just a short look, it appears your idea is more an “empty nut”.

  143. on 19 Nov 2011 at 11:56 pmPeter

    @ Wolfgang

    I mentioned it because of the identity of the “sons of God” being fallen angels and genetically corrupting society. God sent the flood to kill all of that out and to keep a pure bloodline allowing a way for the Savior to be born. I believe Genesis 3:15 is the first prophecy of the Messiah (Jesus), given directly to the serpent (Satan). So moving forward in Genesis 6 Satan decided he will corrupt the human race to prevent that. Kind of like a chess match. That is why the genetic make up of Noah is so intriguing when the Bible use the Hebrew word “tamiym” to describe him.

  144. on 20 Nov 2011 at 2:50 amWolfgang

    @Peter,
    you seem not to recognize that you base your conclusions on all kinds of assumptions (such as your claim “the identity of the sons of God being fallen angels” or the claim that the Hebrew word tamiym is used to describe the genetic make up of Noah), rather than the context of in which terms are used.

    As I mentioned above, the very context and use of the particular Hebrew word (and, for that matter, just as its translation into English, or some other modern day language) to which you make reference — unblemished lamb — shows that the word does NOT describe what you claim.

  145. on 20 Nov 2011 at 2:52 pmPeter

    @ Wolfgang

    My claims are not made on assumptions, but rather on how a Hebrew word is used and what it means. I agree with you that alot of times there are no English words to describe a Hebrew word, but the meaning and what it is implying is clear.

    As far as the Sons of God the Hebrew text is clear about who they are. The Hebrew word is B’nai Ha Elohim. Every time that word is used in Scripture it is always refers to angels.

    You allow your belief systems and your way of interpreting Scripture to effect what the text is actually saying instead of allowing Scripture to interpret itself.

    If you allow Scripture to just interpret itself then it becomes obvious that the sons of God are indeed fallen angels.

  146. on 20 Nov 2011 at 4:18 pmWolfgang

    @Peter,
    I would say that your claim that the Hebrew expression translated “sons of God”
    is always referring to angels is incorrect …

    Actually, this matter is a good example of how it is irrelevant whether one speaks of the Hebrew term of the correct English translation of the Hebrew term … in each case it means “SONS OF GOD” (the meaning is not different if you read the expression in Hebrew, in Chinese, in German, in Arabic or in whatever other language you want to use, including English.

    Considering the overall scope and context of Scripture, it is obvious that “sons of God” NEVER refers to those who are enemies of God — and I would think that you at least agree that “fallen angels” are NOT operating on God’s side but rather are on the side of being enemies of God? There is NO statement in Scripture which would identify enemies of God being “sons of God”, rather the opposite is true => “sons of God” are always beings who are on God’s side and who have God as their FATHER …. now, pray tell, how therefore could “sons of God” in any language refer to FALLEN angels ?

  147. on 20 Nov 2011 at 9:03 pmPeter

    @ Wolfgang

    I never said everytime the Bible uses the expression “sons of god” it is referring to angels. What I said was everytime the Bible uses the words B’nai Ha Elohim it is referring to angels. The two best cases would be Genesis 6 and a couple of times in the first 2 chapters of the Book of Job.

    And when you say Sons of God NEVER refers to those who are enemies of God that is your own personal opinion. The original text is very specific about which words it is using. God didn’t “mess up” when he used B’nai Ha Elohim in Genesis 6.

    Something else very interesting which has nothing to do with Scripture is that you can see the same Genesis story being retold over and over and over in the mythologies of the ancient world. There is always some “god” (fallen angel) who gets a human wife and they have a kid who becomes a giant and a mighty conqueror, which in this case would be the Nephillim in Scripture, old men of renown. Goliath is a great example of a Nephillim and his brother with their six fingers and six toes. (2 Samuel 21: 18-22)

  148. on 21 Nov 2011 at 7:16 amWolfgang

    @Peter,

    I never said everytime the Bible uses the expression “sons of god” it is referring to angels. What I said was everytime the Bible uses the words B’nai Ha Elohim it is referring to angels.

    So you are claiming that the Hebrew words (which are correctly translated and do mean “sons of God”) refer to and mean something else than – for example – the Greek or English or German or any other language words which would mean “sons of God” ?

    I have already pointed out, and repeat it again, that the Hebrew words do NOT mean and refer to something different than the words in any other language when translated correctly. Your assumptive claim would only be correct IF the translation “son of God” was actually an incorrect translation .. but is that the case? No! Since “sons of God” is the correct translation, one cannot make the Hebrew words mean and refer to something else than what the correctly translated English words would mean and refer to.

    A “fallen angel” could – if the term were used – perhaps be called “son of the devil (a false god)” (in a figurative sense) .. BUT would never and is never called “a son of God” in the sense of being linked to the true God. Now, in light of your reference to the secular mythologies, etc. … are you perhaps understanding “sons of God” in Gen 6 as “sons of {a false} god”???

  149. on 21 Nov 2011 at 12:03 pmPeter

    @ Wolfgang

    I believe you are missing what I am saying. Let’s forget about the English words “sons of God” for a minute and let’s talk about the words B’nai Ha Elohim. This is the original language the Old Testament was written in.

    B’nai Ha Elohim are angels NOT humans. That is as clear as I can be. How do I know that? Because every time this word phrase is used in Scripture they are angels. If a persons first language is Hebrew they don’t need to translate it into German, English, Spanish, etc. They can just read the original manuscripts.

    Besides fallen angels were once good angels. They just became deceived and followed Satan, but they were all created by God and he is always in control. They knew exactly what they were doing when they sinned against humanity and as a result have been imprisoned in everlasting chains of darkness. (Jude 1:6-7)

    As far as mythologies. I refer to fallen angels as “gods” because that’s what they were seen as in the ancient world. Of course they weren’t the real God, people were just deceived. Most of the ancient worlds were very Polytheistic. They had a “god/fallen angel” for everything. Fertility, rain, food, you name they had it.

  150. on 01 Jul 2012 at 6:04 amRollin Shultz

    I would submit that the Nephilim as noted in Gen 6 are being described as the hybrid spawn of fallen angels. The fact that their mates are described as humans, indicates their progenitors are other than human. Let us look at the book of Enoch, not as a book of the canon, because it did not meet the criteria of enough surviving manuscripts to be included, but as a legitimate literary source based on its matching Gen 6 and other passages. As described there it wasn’t just the mating, but also magic rituals and chemical concoctions which contributed to the creation of these genetically corrupt hybrids.

    Later, when the spies were sent out and found giants, we seem to see another set of possible hybrids, which may not have been fathered by angels, but just through the surviving or reintroduced genetic modifications by demons who gave such knowledge to their worshipers.

    Certain scientists today who are worshipers of Lucifer are again trying to modify, not only human DNA to create hybrids, but are trying to corrupt all our foods (aka franken foods and GMO), and our population through fluoridation and vaccines.

    To recap, my position is there are more ways than one to make Nephilim and if prophecy is true then modern science is about to make it true that as in the days of Noah so shall it be in our near future.

  

Leave a Reply