Great video lecture on the Nephilim by Lynn Marzulli

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
No, sons of God does not refer to "fallen angels" per say.
I have shown where it refers to actual angels but nowhere is it explicit that they are "fallen".
I do think, however, that we can agree that IF angels mated with humans that they were going against God and as such, they were "fallen angels".

That's my point. Any angel who mated with humans had to be a fallen angel. So with that said, Sons of God in this context, would have to mean fallen angels. And I don't see any scriptural backing for Sons of God being fallen angels. Do you see what I'm saying?

Why can "sons of God" not refer to fallen angels? Can "sons of God" not just refer to angels in general.
Even though they are fallen do they not remain angels.

Yes, "sons of God" refers to angels, fallen or other wise, I mean Adam was fallen but still viewed as a son of God as well.

[Jac3510]

Jac, I'm being D.Advocate here...

I don't think Paul's point is that so much far off. He is right when he says there is no explicit statement regarding sex in angels. Now personally I don't think angels came down and procreated...but that being said, there is some good cause to see why the procreation story carries some food for thought. First Angels have passed themselves around as humans, secondly, they ate, with the lord when the visited abraham. Now, eating is as much a part of nature as sex, so I would ask how do you guys explain that, do angels have stomachs, disgestion and a large intestine?...because for them to have stomachs and then not eat is against natural law, hence evil and that can not be, since that can't be then how come they are eating in the first place, do they have teeth, saliva? Can they change themselves? What about satan, does satan has power? how come he turned the sticks of Pharoah's magicians into snakes?

We have warrant to assert that angels have the naturacl capacity to digest food. It doesn't follow that they have the natural capacity for procreation. On the other hand, I've provided warrant as to why they cannot procreate.

By the way, Angels always show as males when in human form, that atleast establishes a bias towards the appearence. They don't appear as females for some reason. Why do you think that is? I am not saying that angels are males but why not appear as human females then? One must wonder.

Perhaps some of it was cultural. Angels obviously do not have a sex. And who says that angels have not appeared as females? Some interpret Zech. 5:9 in just such a way. But even if that is rejected, I don't see what inferences we should draw from the generally masculine apprearance of angels. As I said, perhaps it was just due to cultural issues. To say much here seems to me to be an argument from silence.

How do you assume that angels are rational beings or that they are forbidden to marry? how rational is rational here? And Jesus' words don't say angels are forbidden to marry but that in heaven there is no marraige. one reason being that there are all males, atleast that is how they show up to be.

Angels are rational creatures by definition, and Christ tells us that they are not given in marriage. "Forbidden" may be too strong a word. The point is that they just don't marry. To argue that they don't marry because they are all male is, again, just an argument from silence.

In the last sentence here you said,

They do not have that as a natural capacity. That is, they are not capable of engaging in the act itself.

But even animals can have sex, but sex is not just marrige then. If someone has the natural capacity to have sex, then going backwards from this reasoning that just means they are married...and that is how earlier, most early marriges worked. If we can count Adam and eve and family and the rest and down the line to even times of patriachs too.

Animals don't have a rational nature. It is also incorrect to say that just because someone has sex that they are married. Marriage is a covenant entered into by a man and a woman for the ultimate end of procreation and the rearing of children. Whether or not any given marriage achieves that end is neither here nor there. That's what it is for. It is, by nature, a public, though sacred, institution. It is the basis of family. The sexual union is a part of the marriage, but it is not identical to the marriage.

My problem with this is, how do you define, as to how rational does one have to be to qualify as a rational being?

There's no hard and fast rule. It's something we know primarily by experience. Plants like grass and trees have a vegetative soul. They are not self-conscious or rational in any sense whatsoever. Animals like dogs and cats have a sensitive soul and appear to be self-conscious insofar as they have faculties such as imagination and recall. Humans have a rational soul and are fully self-concious. The highest of one type of soul and the lowest of another can sometimes be very close. So the venus fly trap looks as if it is an animal in some of its capacities, and some muscles behave little differently than plants, but that's just due to our tendancy to see patterns. Just so, the highest primates can appear very rational at times. In fact, some computers, can, too. But all that, again, is just a matter of drawing inferences from patterns.

In any case, by any standard, angels are rational creatures. They have intelligence and are capable of making moral decisions. In fact, Scripture says that for the time being they are even higher than we are.

Second, how is marriage and sex intertwined like this? I can understand under NL, when one has the ability to have sex, then marriage is one outcome. What I don't understand is that is does not necessarily carry forwards the conclusion you are trying to get here. Lets say we follow your reasoning, and say that angels came down, procreated, and according to NL the procreation is not evil. Ok fine, thats okay. But then God would have to see how each creature born from such procreation behaves, right? Then sin and punishment which we see via the flood would be on how these creatures behaved, not how were born...because on the flip side, if I argue that sons of seth and the worldly people got married, the result was the same, and the reason was not that seth descendants married the ungodly group but what they did afterwards, because on your own reasoning, the act of procreation between these two groups can't be called evil under NL.

1. Marriage, again, is a sexual union. It is the foundation of society, of family, etc. Marrriage is not merely sex, but it is at least the union in which that act occurs, and that act is essentially procreative (which is why marriage and family goes together). To take sex out of marriage is to deny what marriage is, and to have sex outside of marriage is to engage in what is essentially a marital act. Once again, the natural end (so natural law) of sex is procreation; but procreation is to take place in a marital context. Thus, sex is to take place in a marital context. To deny then, the marital context, is to deny the act should occur.

2. No, God would not need "to see how each creature born from such procreation behaves." The behavior of the children says nothing about the goodness of the sexual act or marital union. This is one of the reasons that the arguments of the "sons-of-god-are-angels" line is just silly. They somehow assume (without warrant) that angels can marry (which the text denies), that they can procreate (which is contrary to natural law), and that they are able to do so with human beings (what?!?) and that the children are therefore non-humans, and yet still presumably able to procreate with humans, too (again, what?!?), and all this to the extent that the Flood was necessary (even though God says that sin, not genetic problems, was the cause). The "theory" is wrong and simply irrational on every conceivable level. And further, these same advocates don't bother explaining why angels don't continue to do so. After all, the text does say that the nephilim were on the earth after the flood, so apparently we have to assume that angels went and married women after the flood, too! So why aren't we still seeing this?

Anyway, all this is just off point to my basic argument. The fact remains -- human sex necessitates a marital context, such that humans the capacity and obligation to marry before sex; angels share with humans a rational nature, and it is that rational nature that points to marriage as the obligatory context for marriage; so it seems that were angels to have the natural capacity for procreation they would first have the obligatory capacity for marriage. But angels are not given in marriage (as per Christ), so modus tollens, angels do not have the natural capacity for procreation.

Once again, you can reject the argument by denying NL all together. Alternatively, you could show within NL assumptions that my argument fails, which means you would have to show that angels can legitimately (that is, without sin) procreate outside of (legitimate?) marriage. Neither of those options are vialble to me, so I am left with the obvious conclusion that angels simply cannot procreate.

Third, satan being a fallen angels was able to change sticks to snakes, as I wrote above, if angels don't have sex organs, then can they not change themselves?

So how do you see it?

It's not simply a matter of having the organs. It is a matter of capacities--basic abilities, if you will. So demons seem to have the natural capacity to change sticks into snakes. Fine. That doesn't mean that they have the power to produce life. Look at it this way: if a scientist were to "build" a "sperm"-cell from scratch, would it be able to impregnate a woman?

The answer is no. In fact, scientists have grown sperm cells that they have called "artificial," but that's still just the outworking of what stem cells can do by nature. I cannot emphasize enough the basic proposition of natural law: things do what they do because of what they are. that means that things are what they are becuse they have an internal unity, not an external one. I can build something that looks and behaves like a person, but if it is not a person, then it's just an artifact--a good copy, perhaps, but not really the thing it is mimicking.

So I have absolutely no reason to believe whatsoever that angels can mimick the ability to produce life such that they actually produce it. There is simply no reason to believe that they have that natural capacity.

Please understand that my argument is not intended to be a demonstration that angels cannot procreate. What I am arguing is that all evidence suggests that they do not have that capacity and, more importantly, that there is absolutely no warrant for thinking that they do. All these arguments along the lines of, "Well, what if this were possible?" mean nothing, because just because something is possible it doesn't mean that it is warranted. It is, after all, possible that the sons of God were aliens from the plant Xevlofur. It is possible that these same aliens stole Jesus' body and impersonated Him. But do we have absolutely any reason whatsoever to suppose such fanciful interpretations?

None at all. They are unwarranted, and so to assert that they should be considered as viable options--much less to assert that they actually are right--is downright irrational. And precisely the same thing is true with this absurd "sons-of-god-are-angels-and-their-offspring-were-monsters-and-thus-the-flood" routine. It's just irrational. On every conceivable level.

[PaulSacramento]

Oh, so now those that view Genesis 6 in its literal form and believe that Sons of God mean angels, even though that phrase IS used to describe angles in other parts of the OT, are irrational?
Not just irrational but irrational on every conceivable level.
Dude...

[Jac3510]

PaulS wrote:
No, sons of God does not refer to "fallen angels" per say.
I have shown where it refers to actual angels but nowhere is it explicit that they are "fallen".
I do think, however, that we can agree that IF angels mated with humans that they were going against God and as such, they were "fallen angels".

That's my point. Any angel who mated with humans had to be a fallen angel. So with that said, Sons of God in this context, would have to mean fallen angels. And I don't see any scriptural backing for Sons of God being fallen angels. Do you see what I'm saying?

No, I don't see what you are saying since nowhere in scripture is there a explicit reference to fallen angels at all, even Satan isn't directly called a fallen angel.
If your point is that the sons of God can't be angels because if they were they would be fallen and they are not called that but called sons of God, I remind you that nowhere is ts stated that Satan and the angels that rebelled with him are NOT "sons of God" anymore.
We use the term "fallen angel" to describe an angelic being that has rebelled against God, you won't find it in the OT or NT.
I don't think that you have a valid pint in that context Rick, sorry.

Actually the text of Job, from which you get your "son of God is an angel" idea from, suggests that Satan is not a Son of God. If I may offer my translation of Job 1:6:

"Now the day came that the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh, and the adversary also came into their midst."

I think it is pretty evident that Satan is not considered as one of the sons of God. First off, while "Satan" has for us become a proper noun, for Job is appears that this creatures is anybody but a son of God (an angel). He is, on the contrary, "the adversary." Not the adversary of God only, but more the adversary of humanity (given the story).

Second, this adversary also came, and the word "also" implies a distinction. "A came and B ALSO came."

Finally, this adversary does not also come with them but came in their midst (the Hebrew word is explicit here: tavek). Once, again, this strongly implies a distinction between Satan and the sons of God.

So textually, I would deny that Job 1:6 makes Satan a Son of God. In fact, the author of Job seems to be trying to make it clear that Satan was NOT to be included among the Sons of God.

Yet another reason we ought not hold this theory on Gen. 6.

edit:

Oh, so now those that view Genesis 6 in its literal form and believe that Sons of God mean angels, even though that phrase IS used to describe angles in other parts of the OT, are irrational?
Not just irrational but irrational on every conceivable level.
Dude...

All the word "irrational means is "not in accordance with reason" or "illogical" (which is just to say, "not in accordance with logic"). So yes, at any level we consider this, there's no reasonable, logical arguments made and conclusions thus drawn. In fact, you seem to have provided another level of irrationality. For you are assuming that "Sons of God" refers exclusively to angels, that it is a technical term. But that's obviously not true. You just can't say because a phrase refers to one class of beings in one document that the same phrase refers to the same class in another document written by another author. You're just making an HUGE assumption for which, again, there is absolutely NO warrant. And to argue something without warrant is, again, irrational. Add to that what is said above, and there strong evidence from your unrelated passage in Job that the Sons of God are intended to NOT refer to fallen angels, and your argument becomes even weaker than it already is.

I will say this, then, yet again:

For all of your arguments that these readings COULD be possible, you've not given a single reason to think that these readings ought to be preferred. And all this in light of the philosophical (natural law), theological (the reason the world was judged), linguistic (the sole other use of "sons of God" in the Bible excluding fallen angels), and contextual (the "sons of God" are best considered the godly line of Seth) evidence against your view.

[Stu]

You just can't say because a phrase refers to one class of beings in one document that the same phrase refers to the same class in another document written by another author. You're just making an HUGE assumption for which, again, there is absolutely NO warrant. And to argue something without warrant is, again, irrational. Add to that what is said above, and there strong evidence from your unrelated passage in Job that the Sons of God are intended to NOT refer to fallen angels, and your argument becomes even weaker than it already is.

You can't be serious.
People do that all the time with the Bible. They use references in different "documents" to reach conclusions.
If we now have to use your logic then Bible study will have to be revamped, and we will only be able to study each authors "documents" in isolation from the rest of the Bible. You have opened up a nasty can of worms.

[neo-x]

You just can't say because a phrase refers to one class of beings in one document that the same phrase refers to the same class in another document written by another author. You're just making an HUGE assumption for which, again, there is absolutely NO warrant. And to argue something without warrant is, again, irrational. Add to that what is said above, and there strong evidence from your unrelated passage in Job that the Sons of God are intended to NOT refer to fallen angels, and your argument becomes even weaker than it already is.

You can't be serious.
People do that all the time with the Bible. They use references in different "documents" to reach conclusions.
If we now have to use your logic then Bible study will have to be revamped, and we will only be able to study each authors "documents" in isolation from the rest of the Bible. You have opened up a nasty can of worms.

Stu, that is proof texting and systematic theology, and it can be really faulty at times. Jac is right, at ita core each document and the word or phrase should be handled within context of their own, to begin with. Overarching points should come into consideration but that doesn't rule out the usage and context which is immediate.

[Stu]

Stu, that is proof texting and systematic theology, and it can be really faulty at times. Jac is right, at ita core each document and the word or phrase should be handled within context of their own, to begin with. Overarching points should come into consideration but that doesn't rule out the usage and context which is immediate.

But "sons of God" is mentioned three times in which the context is clearly referencing angels.

Job chapter 1 reads: “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” (Job 1:6-7)

Job Chapter 2. Verse 1 states: “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.”

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? — Job 38:4-7

In these verses sons of God quite clearly means angels. So are we to believe that the single other time that sons of God is used is to mean something different, that the Hebrew words were used in another context.

That aside though, we also have Genesis 6:1-3:

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

So the first sentence says that "when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them" - it is quite clearly referencing mankind here.

In the second sentence it introduces something new in the form of the "sons of God", because it couldn't be mankind that was being referenced because men would have been apart of that already mentioned in the first sentence.

The "...sons of God (first entity) saw the daughters of men (second entity) that they were fair..." Two separate entities.

So one cannot say that the sons of God were mankind, as they are referencing two separate things. So if it's not mankind then what is it apart from angels, which we already know are referenced as sons of God in the Bible.

If you really want you can argue some alternate view, but for all intents and purposes it's clear that Genesis 6:1-3 refers to angels given the manner in which Genesis 6:1-3 expresses (two groups) itself, and then by the references in Job to the sons of God being angels.

[Jac3510]

You just can't say because a phrase refers to one class of beings in one document that the same phrase refers to the same class in another document written by another author. You're just making an HUGE assumption for which, again, there is absolutely NO warrant. And to argue something without warrant is, again, irrational. Add to that what is said above, and there strong evidence from your unrelated passage in Job that the Sons of God are intended to NOT refer to fallen angels, and your argument becomes even weaker than it already is.

You can't be serious.
People do that all the time with the Bible. They use references in different "documents" to reach conclusions.
If we now have to use your logic then Bible study will have to be revamped, and we will only be able to study each authors "documents" in isolation from the rest of the Bible. You have opened up a nasty can of worms.

I am very serious, and you are exactly right that the study of the Bible needs to be revamped. The correct way to do it is exegesis -> exegetical theology -> biblical theology -> systematic theology. Most people go the exact opposite direction (and ignore biblical theology all together while they are at it). They pay lip service to the doctrines of inerrancy and inspiration, but truth be told, they don't believe them in practice. When you start with the assumption that some theological doctrine is true and then take that doctrine to the text, you are reading that doctrine INTO the text (eisogesis) and are actually refusing to allow the Bible to correct you if you are wrong.

In short, it's just bad hermeneutics to do systematics before exegesis. And that is precisely what your interpretation of Genesis 6 does. It develops this particular view of angelology and demonology based on a few rather obscure texts, and then takes that theological position and brings it to Gen. 6. But that's just inappropriate for all the reasons mentioned above. Besides, pretend you didn't have Job or Peter or Luke or Ezekiel. Suppose you were actually one of the people to whom the book of Genesis was written--an exodus generation Jew, getting ready to enter the promised land. Do you think you would have interpreted "sons of God" as fallen angels impregnating women?

The answer is no (that's one reason, by the way, why you should appreciate the fact that an appeal to Ps 104 to prove OEC is bad methodology, too). All you would do is look at the text and figure out what the text was saying,and you would almost certainly conclude, from the context, that the sons of God were the godly line of Seth. You would be all the more likely to make that connection when you realized that one of the real problem you were facing in your daily life--one that your leader Moses was constantly talking about--was how important it was that you and your family not marry the daughters of those wicked Canaanite women just across the river there. Which was too bad, because some of them were hot! But then you would look at Gen. 6 and see what happens when sons of God marry daughters of men. Such behavior corrupts the sons of God, so no, best to just obey God.

But back to method. I emphasize: we cannot take the words and phrases from one document and assume that they are being used the same way by a different author in another document. We have to ask what those words and phrases mean in the document in question. That's not just good biblical hermeneutics. That's good linguistics generally. And when you do that, you'll be able to really ask what the text itself is saying, not what your preexisting theology wants it to say. Then you'll finally be able to take your exegetical conclusions from a range of passages and do REAL systematic theology. That's how you REALLY honor the notions of inerrancy and inspiration.

If you want to see that method put in practice by the way and applied to the difficult question of the NT's use of the OT, I have written a paper you might find interesting:

Hermeuetical Implications of the New Testament's Use of Three Messianic Psalms

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
No, sons of God does not refer to "fallen angels" per say.
I have shown where it refers to actual angels but nowhere is it explicit that they are "fallen".
I do think, however, that we can agree that IF angels mated with humans that they were going against God and as such, they were "fallen angels".

That's my point. Any angel who mated with humans had to be a fallen angel. So with that said, Sons of God in this context, would have to mean fallen angels. And I don't see any scriptural backing for Sons of God being fallen angels. Do you see what I'm saying?

No, I don't see what you are saying since nowhere in scripture is there a explicit reference to fallen angels at all, even Satan isn't directly called a fallen angel.
If your point is that the sons of God can't be angels because if they were they would be fallen and they are not called that but called sons of God, I remind you that nowhere is ts stated that Satan and the angels that rebelled with him are NOT "sons of God" anymore.
We use the term "fallen angel" to describe an angelic being that has rebelled against God, you won't find it in the OT or NT.
I don't think that you have a valid pint in that context Rick, sorry.

Actually the text of Job, from which you get your "son of God is an angel" idea from, suggests that Satan is not a Son of God. If I may offer my translation of Job 1:6:

"Now the day came that the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh, and the adversary also came into their midst."

I think it is pretty evident that Satan is not considered as one of the sons of God. First off, while "Satan" has for us become a proper noun, for Job is appears that this creatures is anybody but a son of God (an angel). He is, on the contrary, "the adversary." Not the adversary of God only, but more the adversary of humanity (given the story).

Second, this adversary also came, and the word "also" implies a distinction. "A came and B ALSO came."

Finally, this adversary does not also come with them but came in their midst (the Hebrew word is explicit here: tavek). Once, again, this strongly implies a distinction between Satan and the sons of God.

So textually, I would deny that Job 1:6 makes Satan a Son of God. In fact, the author of Job seems to be trying to make it clear that Satan was NOT to be included among the Sons of God.

Yet another reason we ought not hold this theory on Gen. 6.

edit:

Oh, so now those that view Genesis 6 in its literal form and believe that Sons of God mean angels, even though that phrase IS used to describe angles in other parts of the OT, are irrational?
Not just irrational but irrational on every conceivable level.
Dude...

All the word "irrational means is "not in accordance with reason" or "illogical" (which is just to say, "not in accordance with logic"). So yes, at any level we consider this, there's no reasonable, logical arguments made and conclusions thus drawn. In fact, you seem to have provided another level of irrationality. For you are assuming that "Sons of God" refers exclusively to angels, that it is a technical term. But that's obviously not true. You just can't say because a phrase refers to one class of beings in one document that the same phrase refers to the same class in another document written by another author. You're just making an HUGE assumption for which, again, there is absolutely NO warrant. And to argue something without warrant is, again, irrational. Add to that what is said above, and there strong evidence from your unrelated passage in Job that the Sons of God are intended to NOT refer to fallen angels, and your argument becomes even weaker than it already is.

I will say this, then, yet again:

For all of your arguments that these readings COULD be possible, you've not given a single reason to think that these readings ought to be preferred. And all this in light of the philosophical (natural law), theological (the reason the world was judged), linguistic (the sole other use of "sons of God" in the Bible excluding fallen angels), and contextual (the "sons of God" are best considered the godly line of Seth) evidence against your view.

You can try to justify your condescending tone as much as you want, but it needs to stop.
No one insulted anyone in this thread until you decided for you self that an argument was irrational and make no mistake, to call someone irrational is insulting.

In regards to your interpretation of Satan as NOT being one of the sons of God because, if we read the passage the way you suggest we do, it seems to imply that he is not a son of God but simply with them:
Yes, we can interpret it that way because it does seem to imply some "division" between Satan and the sons of God BUT to do that would mean we ignore the rest of the OT and NT and would also mean that those that are not Sons of God are free to come and go in heaven as they please.
There is nothing to warrant that view in all of the bible IMO.

As for the sons of God being of the line of Seth, can you show me where at anytime the line of Seth is called sons of God or Seth is called a son of God?

Here as a counter view to the line of Seth argument:
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/

Why did God send the judgment of the Flood in the days of Noah? Far more than simply a historical issue, the unique events leading to the Flood are a prerequisite to understanding the prophetic implications of our Lord's predictions regarding His Second Coming.1

The strange events recorded in Genesis 6 were understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, as well as the Septuagint translators, as referring to fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human women-known as the "Nephilim." So it was also understood by the early church fathers. These bizarre events are also echoed in the legends and myths of every ancient culture upon the earth: the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and virtually all the others.

However, many students of the Bible have been taught that this passage in Genesis 6 actually refers to a failure to keep the "faithful" lines of Seth separate from the "worldly" line of Cain. The idea has been advanced that after Cain killed Abel, the line of Seth remained separate and faithful, but the line of Cain turned ungodly and rebellious. The "Sons of God" are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the "daughters of men" is deemed restricted to the line of Cain. The resulting marriages ostensibly blurred an inferred separation between them. (Why the resulting offspring are called the "Nephilim" remains without any clear explanation.)

Since Jesus prophesied, "As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be,"2 it becomes essential to understand what these days included.

Origin of the Sethite View

It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)

Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.

Problems with the Sethite View

Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah."3 Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following:

1. The Text Itself

Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")

The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5

The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth.

If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)

And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.

The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order.6 In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God."7 The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God.8 Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation,9 at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God10 and in every respect equal to the angels.11 The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.12

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. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term.

2. The Daughters of Cain

The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2
It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam." There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)

Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God,13 it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.

3. The Inferred Lines of Separation

The concept of separate "lines" itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture.14 National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later.15 Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.

4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth

There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, "The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers," whose sonship is "distinctly a New Testament revelation."16

The "Sons of Elohim" saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?)

It should also be pointed out that the son of Seth himself was Enosh, and there is textual evidence that, rather than a reputation for piety, he seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God.17

If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood?

5. The Unnatural Offspring

The most fatal flaw in the specious "Sethite" view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. (Bending the translation to "giants" does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood.

Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce "monsters," but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.

The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah's case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah's family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.18

Why were the offspring uniquely designated "mighty" and "men of reknown?" This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly.

A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no "women of reknown" are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only "Y" chromosomes available in this line?)19

6. New Testament Confirmations

"In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."20 In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare Scripture with Scripture. The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.21

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5
Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah.

Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven`."22 In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus.

The Epistle of Jude23 also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process:

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6,7
The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oivkhth,rion, refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.24)

These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies.

7. Post-Flood Implications

The strange offspring also continued after the flood: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that..."25 The "Sethite" view fails to meaningfully address the prevailing conditions "also after that." It offers no insight into the presence of the subsequent "giants" in the land of Canaan.

One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty.

8. Prophetic Implications

Another reason that an understanding of Genesis 6 is so essential is that it also is a prerequisite to understanding (and anticipating) Satan's devices26 and, in particular, the specific delusions to come upon the whole earth as a major feature of end-time prophecy.27 We will take up these topics in Part 2, "The Return Of The Nephilim.")

In Summary

If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should "tie together." It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the "Sethite View" is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record.

It should also be pointed out that most conservative Bible scholars accept the "angel" view.28 Among those supporting the "angel" view are: G. H. Pember, M. R. DeHaan, C. H. McIntosh, F. Delitzsch, A. C. Gaebelein, A. W. Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Henry Morris, Merril F. Unger, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Hal Lindsey, and Chuck Smith, being among the best known.

For those who take the Bible seriously, the arguments supporting the "Angel View" appear compelling. For those who indulge in a willingness to take liberties with the straightforward presentation of the text, no defense can prove final. (And greater dangers than the implications attending these issues await them!)

While I don't like the tone of the summary, please note that those points are all footnoted with evidence from the bible.

[Jac3510]

You've got some mighty thin skin, Paul. I suppose I could be offended at your "condescending" tone in calling me insisting that my words mean more than they actually mean . . .

If you prefer, I'll adopt "that just doesn't follow proper reasoning." At first I thought I just might say, "That doesn't make sense," but that's hardly the point I'm trying to make by saying the view is irrational. "Doesn't make sense" may be polite in some respects, but that's not the same thing as saying that you're not following the proper reasoning process.

So I ask in all sincerity and with no condescension of any kind, do you have any suggestions other than "that doesn't follow proper reasoning"?

As to the substance of your post:

In regards to your interpretation of Satan as NOT being one of the sons of God because, if we read the passage the way you suggest we do, it seems to imply that he is not a son of God but simply with them:
Yes, we can interpret it that way because it does seem to imply some "division" between Satan and the sons of God BUT to do that would mean we ignore the rest of the OT and NT and would also mean that those that are not Sons of God are free to come and go in heaven as they please.
There is nothing to warrant that view in all of the bible IMO.

You're making several mistakes here.

1. Taking Job 1:6 to be putting an intentional division between Satan and the sons of God does not mean that Satan was not a fallen angel. You are doing here exactly the same thing I accused you of before but only now in reverse. Other texts have to speak for themselves. Stop eisogeting.

2. We don't have to consider "the rest of the OT and NT." Once again, we aren't doing systematic theology here. We're doing exegetical theology. If other passages want to speak for themselves on the subject, then they can. The question is what Job says. The question is what Genesis says. To assume Job says something because you think you see it in Genesis, and that Genesis says something because you think you see it in Job is just circular reasoning (there's that whole not following proper reasoning processes again).

3. There's nothing in the text of Job that says the Sons of God are not free to go and come as they please. Just because Satan was going and coming doesn't mean that the Sons of God can't. That would be an argument from silence (another fallacy).

4. There certainly is no warrant for the view you are supposing, and I wouldn't hold to any of it. To say I am is to build a straw man (another fallacy--improper reasoning, etc.).

What I AM saying there is warrant for is claim that Job makes a clear and intentional distinction between the Sons of God and Satan.

As for the sons of God being of the line of Seth, can you show me where at anytime the line of Seth is called sons of God or Seth is called a son of God?

I can offer a positive argument for the sons of God being the Sethites, but not right now. Nor do I have time to read an article and respond to it right now. I don't know that it's very helpful to start posting articles for each other to read and respond to, though. That's just asking other people to make arguments for us (the articles' authors) and then asking each other to try to do the work to mine the argument for us.

I'd really prefer to just make our arguments for ourselves and keep this between us.

[PaulSacramento]

I agree that the author of Job makes a distinction between Satan and the Sons of God, I do NOT agree that he is trying to state that Satan is Not or never was a Son of God.
I posted that article because it cites biblical passages in favour of that interpretation, I had mentioned those passages before, my point on posting the article is to show, in line with this thread, why some people believe that the sons of God were angels and that, historically and traditionally speaking, it was a position that was held and not just a recent invention.

[DRDS]

Sorry for not responding much to this thread or to any of my end times illuminati threads. Basically I'll be a man and admit I"m not God I don't know the future, I just have a inclination, a hunch or a impression that things could be going in this direction either right now or very soon. If these views turn out to be false than great, at least we know another way in which things will NOT go. And that's great, we learn, we grow, and get better that way. But if things do start heading in this type of direction and the evidence gets more strong and more frequent than you can look back on this and look up folks like LA Marzulli, Chuck Missler, or Alex Jones, Doc Marquis and build upon what you already know. I'm just trying to help my fellow believers out in any way I can. Because trust me, I want to make it into heaven and I want as many people that I know and care about there with me and we are getting closer to that point every day and we need to be ready. So overall, that's my current take on all this.

[DRDS]

It's been awhile since I've mentioned anything new regarding Marzulli's work, but here is a new link where he talks about America's Stonehenge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPEnVoG3fJk

[abelcainsbrother]

PaulS wrote:
No, sons of God does not refer to "fallen angels" per say.
I have shown where it refers to actual angels but nowhere is it explicit that they are "fallen".
I do think, however, that we can agree that IF angels mated with humans that they were going against God and as such, they were "fallen angels".

That's my point. Any angel who mated with humans had to be a fallen angel. So with that said, Sons of God in this context, would have to mean fallen angels. And I don't see any scriptural backing for Sons of God being fallen angels. Do you see what I'm saying?

How about this scripture backing?Job 1:6 "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord,and Satan came also among them."

This IMO would imply fallen angels,the third of the angels that rebelled against God when Lucifer rebelled.
I myself tend to agree that angels bread with humans that produced half-breeds and I think this was Satan's way of trying to mess up the human blood line to prevent the birth of Jesus because God told Satan Genesis 3:15 and I do think Satan was trying to prevent this,but God caused Noah's flood to kill them off,however there were giants even after the flood,so I think Satan kept trying and this is why God told his people to take them out and even David took out Goliath.

The thing about it is because Jesus said but as the days of Noah were so shall also be the coming of the son of man I think fallen angels will somehow play a role in the end-time but with a different agenda and it could gave something to do with the rapture to deceive mankind about it.Could we really be visited by what people call aliens? As a Satan deception? I think we need to consider it and be aware.

[abelcainsbrother]

Hit'em with your slingshot.
https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=vBj7FpyWdyI