As it Was In The Days Of Noah...

[chessman]

Who do you believe "the sons of God" are in Gen 6? I believe they were fallen angels.

Short answer: sinners. That’s what the text says, right? These men called God Lord, yet sinned because they chose any wife the wanted. Because “they were attractive” rather than God believers themselves.
Long answer: Sinners yet God believing sinners. It does not call the women Daughters of God. I take that to mean they were not under the lordship of God, yet the men were yet sinned anyway. And the men that were Sons of God, knew they were not supposed to be marrying unbelievers. To be “unequally yoked” to them. Go read that NT passage. It uses this same term, Sons of God.
Also, they were God believing, yet sinning men marry unbelieving sexually perverse woman. And sure, they were likely very sexually perverse women since, as you point out correctly, the comparison is made between the Gen 6 time of Noah and the corrupt cities of Sodom. Probably these women were even worse and very likely demon influenced as well. But I DO NOT suspect they produced ½ breeds with fallen angels. Within just a few years, God destroyed all humanity (saved eight) due to all this corruption. But I do not think god did this to take out ½ breeds. Nor did any ½ breeds make it into the ark.
Here’s another reason to view “sons of god” in Gen 6 as Lord believing human sinners. Adam was a Son of God. So was Noah. 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Which of course means he DID NOT marry an unbeliever (nor a ½ breed) as someone has suggested.
Luke 3:23 (Jesus’ genealogy)...Seth the son of Adam, the son of God.
I don’t really care that the Greek words or the phrase “sons of God” are different than the Hebrew words for Sons of God. Why would that be surprising? It’s two different languages. But the message and the point the Scriptures are making is the same.
Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.
…. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. …3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth… all the way to Noah. Then the narrative picks right back up with Gen 6 (which of course there are no chapter breaks in the original). My point is, it’s one big narrative tying back to 4:25, or even the Garden and fall really, where it says “At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord. i.e. they were, Sons of God. I know it doesn’t use the term, but that’s the message of the term Sons of God. It’s a term NOT just applied to angels, but also men.​

Gen 6 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive.

I feel this term, Sons of God, clearly actually flows from continuing the narrative back to the last verse of chapter 4. All of Chapter 5 is basically the genealogy listing names in the line from Seth to Noah, where the narrative picks back up in Chapter 6. It picks up talking about these same “sons of God” that “called upon the name of the Lord, yet even they fell for all the sin around them and went after “attractive” wives rather than godly wives. Then the floods came.

 

[gr8grace3]

Short answer: sinners. That’s what the text says, right? These men called God Lord, yet sinned because they chose any wife the wanted. Because “they were attractive” rather than God believers themselves.
Long answer: Sinners yet God believing sinners. It does not call the women Daughters of God. I take that to mean they were not under the lordship of God, yet the men were yet sinned anyway. And the men that were Sons of God, knew they were not supposed to be marrying unbelievers. To be “unequally yoked” to them. Go read that NT passage. It uses this same term, Sons of God.
Also, they were God believing, yet sinning men marry unbelieving sexually perverse woman. And sure, they were likely very sexually perverse women since, as you point out correctly, the comparison is made between the Gen 6 time of Noah and the corrupt cities of Sodom. Probably these women were even worse and very likely demon influenced as well. But I DO NOT suspect they produced ½ breeds with fallen angels. Within just a few years, God destroyed all humanity (saved eight) due to all this corruption. But I do not think god did this to take out ½ breeds. Nor did any ½ breeds make it into the ark.
Here’s another reason to view “sons of god” in Gen 6 as Lord believing human sinners. Adam was a Son of God. So was Noah. 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Which of course means he DID NOT marry an unbeliever (nor a ½ breed) as someone has suggested.
Luke 3:23 (Jesus’ genealogy)...Seth the son of Adam, the son of God.
I don’t really care that the Greek words or the phrase “sons of God” are different than the Hebrew words for Sons of God. Why would that be surprising? It’s two different languages. But the message and the point the Scriptures are making is the same.
Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.
…. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. …3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth… all the way to Noah. Then the narrative picks right back up with Gen 6 (which of course there are no chapter breaks in the original). My point is, it’s one big narrative tying back to 4:25, or even the Garden and fall really, where it says “At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord. i.e. they were, Sons of God. I know it doesn’t use the term, but that’s the message of the term Sons of God. It’s a term NOT just applied to angels, but also men.​

Gen 6 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive.

I feel this term, Sons of God, clearly actually flows from continuing the narrative back to the last verse of chapter 4. All of Chapter 5 is basically the genealogy listing names in the line from Seth to Noah, where the narrative picks back up in Chapter 6. It picks up talking about these same “sons of God” that “called upon the name of the Lord, yet even they fell for all the sin around them and went after “attractive” wives rather than godly wives. Then the floods came.

Can you show us where B'nai HaElohim Means "Sinners" in the OT?

 

[chessman]

No, brother I have not alleged that they were demons. The word never exited my fingertips.

but the (alleged) fallen angels which trifled with the earthly women.

Excuse me. Fallen Angels, not Demons. I didn't know there was a difference.

 

[chessman]

Can you show us where B'nai HaElohim Means "Sinners" in the OT?

Yes. Gen 6

 

[gr8grace3]

Yes. Gen 6

Yes. Gen 6

Can you show us in scripture, other passages to verify your claim?

 

[Sparkey]

The term "sons of God" Is not the term that is in Question. It is The term B'nai HaElohim.And that term is never used In the OT as human believers. It consistently is used to refer to Angels.

The solid reasoning is......Since it always refers to Angels in the OT. One can't force Humans into it.

It is used to refer to humans in Genesis 6. But if you say that by definition this reference MUST mean angels - then the argument is indeed circular.

~Sparrow

 

[gr8grace3]

It is used to refer to humans in Genesis 6. But if you say that by definition this reference MUST mean angels - then the argument is indeed circular.

~Sparrow

Circular is based on a premise that is put forward as truth and thus the conclusion is truth. The fact that I BELIEVE that it is truth and put forward facts and truth about what I believe is not circular.

You accuse of a circular argument, but it is you that pronounce ,"it is Humans" and use circular reason. Why do you think it MUST be humans( and a circular argument is used)? I see circular reasoning in YOUR argument. You can't even use circular reasoning with your interpretation, B'nai HaElohim was never used for humans.

Because B'nai HaElohim never means "Humans" Circular reason HAS to be used to defend that position.

 

[Sparkey]

gr8grace3 -- seriously? You presume to define circular arguments?

circulus in probando, "circle in proving" is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with"

When you or others considered Genesis 6 to state categorically that this can not mean humans --- and then go on to state that there is no instance in the Old Testament (including the Genesis quote) that might mean humans, the assumption behind the premise became part of the proof that was offered.

SO then by your judgment my argument is circular but yours is not? Clearly both are circular.

Because B'nai HaElohim never means "Humans" Circular reason HAS to be used to defend that position.

I agree with your statement. Perhaps this is because you have contradicted yourself, perhaps it is because I don't understand your intent when you say it but to define "The Sons of God (Hebrew: B'nai HaElohim) as never meaning "Humans" is indeed an example of circulus in probando, or 'circular reasoning'.

 

[gr8grace3]

gr8grace3 -- seriously? You presume to define circular arguments?



When you or others considered Genesis 6 to state categorically that this can not mean humans --- and then go on to state that there is no instance in the Old Testament (including the Genesis quote) that might mean humans, the assumption behind the premise became part of the proof that was offered.

SO then by your judgment my argument is circular but yours is not? I rest my case. Clearly both are circular.

Thank you, I agree. BOTH are circular.

But if one comes at it from a learning perspective the fact that, B'nai HaElohim was consistently used for angels, One had better weigh in on all the facts before forcing B'nai HaElohim to mean Humans.

Using scripture, how did you come to put humans in B'nai HaElohim?

 

[chessman]

Can you show us in scripture, other passages to verify your claim?

First, yes and I have. They are in the NT, however. What difference does that make?

Second, I assume you are aware that there are only three other occurrences of the phrase "Sons of God" in the OT besides the Gen 6 usage. And they are all in Job.

Thirdly, therefore, it's not as if there's a huge database of this phrase to build a justified presupposition on what the phrase “Sons of God” means relative to anything.

Again, especially since we have NT usages that are clearly talking about humans (even Adam in the singular).
Again, since the phrase in Gen 6 is contrasted with “Daughters of man” right there in the context of the passage.
Again, there’s all the other context of the section of Scripture in Gen 6 that indicates humans are what’s being described by the phrase “Sons of God”. The clearest (and the one you even agreed with) being that it was humans that sinned.​

Fourthly, it’s not as if the word Elohim cannot be used for anything other than a reference to God the Father (Himself) or Jesus the Son (Himself). It’s used often for other persons, including humans; like kings, like king’s councils and yes Angels. Or even individuals wanting to make themselves into gods (little g gods). Elohim is NOT God’s special name for himself.

Fifthly, the three other occurrences in the OT of the phrase are not even that clear themselves to begin with what’s in view. Who are these “Sons of God” in Job? Could be the Heavenly angels, sure. Could be the “Sons of God” from pre-Job’s lineage that have already died and gone to be by God’s side (spiritually of course). Yes even before Abraham was born and died for there to be a meaningful phrase to the reader; “Abraham’s Bosom”).

 

[gr8grace3]

First, yes and I have. They are in the NT, however. What difference does that make?

Second, I assume you are aware that there are only three other occurrences of the phrase "Sons of God" in the OT besides the Gen 6 usage. And they are all in Job.

Thirdly, therefore, it's not as if there's a huge database of this phrase to build a justified presupposition on what the phrase “Sons of God” means relative to anything.

Again, especially since we have NT usages that are clearly talking about humans (even Adam in the singular).
Again, since the phrase in Gen 6 is contrasted with “Daughters of man” right there in the context of the passage.
Again, there’s all the other context of the section of Scripture in Gen 6 that indicates humans are what’s being described by the phrase “Sons of God”. The clearest (and the one you even agreed with) being that it was humans that sinned.​

Fourthly, it’s not as if the word Elohim cannot be used for anything other than a reference to God the Father (Himself) or Jesus the Son (Himself). It’s used often for other persons, including humans; like kings, like king’s councils and yes Angels. Or even individuals wanting to make themselves into gods (little g gods). Elohim is NOT God’s special name for himself.

Fifthly, the three other occurrences in the OT of the phrase are not even that clear themselves to begin with what’s in view. Who are these “Sons of God” in Job? Could be the Heavenly angels, sure. Could be the “Sons of God” from pre-Job’s lineage that have already died and gone to be by God’s side (spiritually of course). Yes even before Abraham was born and died for there to be a meaningful phrase to the reader; “Abraham’s Bosom”).

It doesn't compute for me Chessman. You said," B'nai HaElohim, in short means sinners."

In the new testament "Sons of God" are born again believers(humans), the NEW CREATION IN CHRIST.

So, God flooded the world of this new creation in Christ who were taking earthly wives? And that union produced the Nephilim?

 

[gr8grace3]

Another interesting note:

In the OT the angels are "sons of God" and Humans are "Servants of God"

In the NT Believers are "sons of God" And the angels are "servants of God"

 

[JLB]

Another interesting note:

In the OT the angels are "sons of God" and Humans are "Servants of God"

In the NT Believers are "sons of God" And the angels are "servants of God"

Interesting Note -

In the Old Testament and the New Testament, angels and humans are sons of God as well as servants of God!

Adam is God's son.

38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Luke 3:38



JLB

 

[chessman]

You said," B'nai HaElohim, in short means sinners."

Only because after looking at the context, that is what seems to be the way Moses is using the phrase within the context of Gen 6 itself. You did agree that it was man doing the sinning there in Gen 6, right?

I would not replace other occurrences of this phrase (Sons of God) with "sinners" in other passages with any hard/stringent definition without looking at the context to see if it fit. (or at least I'd try not to). Which is why it’s not reasonable to simply insert Angels for the phrase (Sons of God) everywhere.

You asked me what I thought “Sons of God” meant in GEN 6, and I answered for that occurence, not everywhere the phrase appears.

I assume you realize the text does not say the Nephilim were the offspring of the sex union, right? In fact, the text precludes it if your read it:

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, [past tense, How far past?]​

Then says:

These were the mighty men who were of old.​

If you think this text is saying the Nephilim are the offspring of the “mixed marriage/sex with fallen angels”, then why does it say they were: 1) “men” and 2) “of old”?

Why does the text say “3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever”? If the mixed sex had been going on in the distant past (to produce the Nephilim of old), then why does God choose this time to administer the punishment of 120 year lifespans?

 

[Deborah13]

Interesting Note -

In the Old Testament and the New Testament, angels and humans are sons of God as well as servants of God!

Adam is God's son.

38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Luke 3:38



JLB

Seeing that Adam was created by God and called the son of God but all those after him, both sons and daughters, are the children of men, what does that say, if anything?

 

[gr8grace3]

Interesting Note -

In the Old Testament and the New Testament, angels and humans are sons of God as well as servants of God!

Adam is God's son.

38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Luke 3:38



JLB

I agree JLB. Adam was the only "Son of God" a direct creation of God. Adam and the Angels were the only "Sons of God" in the OT.....a Direct creation of God.
That switched to ALL believers in the NT "Sons of God" a direct new creation in Christ. a God formed new creation. And the Angels are now servants to that new creation.

Hence B'nai HaElohim......A direct creation of God. Only Adam and the angels can claim that title in the OT. In the NT, the new creation in Christ can claim that they are a direct creation of God.

So my quote was how the emphasis switched from angels as a direct creation of God in the OT to believers being that direct new creation of God in the NT.

B'nai HaElohim is always used as a direct creation of God, only Adam and the Angels had that distinction in the OT.

 

[gr8grace3]

Only because after looking at the context, that is what seems to be the way Moses is using the phrase within the context of Gen 6 itself. You did agree that it was man doing the sinning there in Gen 6, right?

I would not replace other occurrences of this phrase (Sons of God) with "sinners" in other passages with any hard/stringent definition without looking at the context to see if it fit. (or at least I'd try not to). Which is why it’s not reasonable to simply insert Angels for the phrase (Sons of God) everywhere.

You asked me what I thought “Sons of God” meant in GEN 6, and I answered for that occurence, not everywhere the phrase appears.

I assume you realize the text does not say the Nephilim were the offspring of the sex union, right? In fact, the text precludes it if your read it:

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, [past tense, How far past?]​

Then says:

These were the mighty men who were of old.​

If you think this text is saying the Nephilim are the offspring of the “mixed marriage/sex with fallen angels”, then why does it say they were: 1) “men” and 2) “of old”?

Why does the text say “3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever”? If the mixed sex had been going on in the distant past (to produce the Nephilim of old), then why does God choose this time to administer the punishment of 120 year lifespans?

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the SINNERS saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and the SINNERS took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2

The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage.

B'nai HaElohim Is a precise usage and applies to something specific. If It is sinners, who are the sinners?

 

[chessman]

B'nai HaElohim is always used as a direct creation of God, only Adam and the Angels had that distinction in the OT.

Versus:

B'nai HaElohim was never used for humans.

Ah, so you can be convinced that this term can be used for something other than angels? Only Adam, though, right? Because God cannot and/or has not made any other direct human creations except Adam, prior to ~33 A.D, right? What about Eve? Was she a direct creation of God?

What about Seth?
Gen 4:25 Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel.”

What about Seth’s son? Genesis 4:26 To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh.

All the way to Noah. What about Noah?

Gen 5:29 and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one [Noah] shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.”
Sounds like a pretty “direct” creation of God to me, or should I say recreation.
Genesis 6:8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord

… on down the line. All the way to NT times:

Luke 3:38 … the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

 

[gr8grace3]

Versus:

Ah, so you can be convinced that this term can be used for something other than angels? Only Adam, though, right? Because God cannot and/or has not made any other direct human creations except Adam, prior to ~33 A.D, right? What about Eve? Was she a direct creation of God?

What about Seth?
Gen 4:25 Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel.”

What about Seth’s son? Genesis 4:26 To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh.

All the way to Noah. What about Noah?

Gen 5:29 and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one [Noah] shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.”
Sounds like a pretty “direct” creation of God to me, or should I say recreation.
Genesis 6:8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord

… on down the line. All the way to NT times:

Luke 3:38 … the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

That is the precision of B'nai HaElohim. It always refers to a direct creation. Adam is the only other direct creation of God(eve was from adam) and we do not see the exact phrase B'nai HaElohim used for Adam! Hence, it refers to angels in the OT.

If we wanted to take liberty with B'nai HaElohim(and we can't), the only other person we could insert in Gen 6 for "sons of God" is adam Himself. And that does not fit, and we have no support in scripture to do it.

 

[chessman]

Adam is the only other direct creation of God(eve was from adam)

Genesis 1:26-27 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. …
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

Genesis 2:22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man He made into a woman and brought her to the man.