Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

[Mallz]

B.W, ACB,

Let's focus on what the text says regarding "in the days of Noah":

Matthew 24:37-39:
37 For [y]the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not [z]understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

It seems to me, that the text is saying that people will be living their lives normally, without giving thought to impending doom. I'll be darned, but I just don't see where it says anything about evil Angel/human hybrids, or DNA manipulation, being the reason why there's a comparison between the coming of the Son of Man, and the days of Noah. Since I know we all want to follow what scripture actually says, and not follow some mystical interpretation that is read into scripture, would someone please be kind enough to point out where the Bible says that the reason for the comparison between Noah's day, and the coming of the Son of Man is due to fallen angels or DNA manipulation?

Sup, Rick. "What was it like in the days of Noah?"
https://www.gotquestions.org/days-of-Noah.html

It's not that the coming of the Son of Man is due to fallen angels etc., but that is something that will be going on during the times. Genesis makes a special mention about the nephalim being at least a precursor of the state of evil of mankind that God grieved over. Genesis 6:1-8

[RickD]

B.W, ACB,

Let's focus on what the text says regarding "in the days of Noah":

Matthew 24:37-39:
37 For [y]the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not [z]understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

It seems to me, that the text is saying that people will be living their lives normally, without giving thought to impending doom. I'll be darned, but I just don't see where it says anything about evil Angel/human hybrids, or DNA manipulation, being the reason why there's a comparison between the coming of the Son of Man, and the days of Noah. Since I know we all want to follow what scripture actually says, and not follow some mystical interpretation that is read into scripture, would someone please be kind enough to point out where the Bible says that the reason for the comparison between Noah's day, and the coming of the Son of Man is due to fallen angels or DNA manipulation?

Sup, Rick. "What was it like in the days of Noah?"
https://www.gotquestions.org/days-of-Noah.html

It's not that the coming of the Son of Man is due to fallen angels etc., but that is something that will be going on during the times. Genesis makes a special mention about the nephalim being at least a precursor of the state of evil of mankind that God grieved over. Genesis 6:1-8

Yup,

I'm pretty much in agreement with their position, as outlined in the link.

[PaulSacramento]

You are basing a biblical interpretation, on completely extra-biblical sources, and mysticism.

Actually, you do realize that much of the biblical interpretation we have from tradition ( Apostolic fathers and so forth) is not JUST based on the written word of the bible but also outside sources.
Truth be it told, many times you need outside sources of the time to read into what the writers were saying to their specific audience.
Our 20th/21st century mindset and POV is very limited in that regard ( that is why some modern critiques don't vale oral tradition of the ANE and the 1st century NE, because they don't understand that it was regarded HIGHER than the written word and was NOT a game of "broken telephone").

That is why I created that thread about the role of tradition in the interpretation of the biblical texts.

Paul,

If you keep my text in the context of what I was referring to, you'd see it was a response specifically to B. W.'s DNA manipulation theory.

Oh yes, I know.
I was just speaking in general that we shouldn't disregard extra-canonical texts because those before us ( the traditions handed down) didn't.

With that said, you would agree that none of the apostolic fathers interpreted scripture and found the DNA manipulation belief, correct?

IMO, the apostolic fathers that believed Sons of God to be angels, would have viewed the relationship as sexual, there would have been no other way for them to understand this in their cultural context.

[abelcainsbrother]

B.W, ACB,

Let's focus on what the text says regarding "in the days of Noah":

Matthew 24:37-39:
37 For [y]the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not [z]understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

It seems to me, that the text is saying that people will be living their lives normally, without giving thought to impending doom. I'll be darned, but I just don't see where it says anything about evil Angel/human hybrids, or DNA manipulation, being the reason why there's a comparison between the coming of the Son of Man, and the days of Noah. Since I know we all want to follow what scripture actually says, and not follow some mystical interpretation that is read into scripture, would someone please be kind enough to point out where the Bible says that the reason for the comparison between Noah's day, and the coming of the Son of Man is due to fallen angels or DNA manipulation?

Isaiah 28:9-10.

[RickD]

B.W, ACB,

Let's focus on what the text says regarding "in the days of Noah":

Matthew 24:37-39:
37 For [y]the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not [z]understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

It seems to me, that the text is saying that people will be living their lives normally, without giving thought to impending doom. I'll be darned, but I just don't see where it says anything about evil Angel/human hybrids, or DNA manipulation, being the reason why there's a comparison between the coming of the Son of Man, and the days of Noah. Since I know we all want to follow what scripture actually says, and not follow some mystical interpretation that is read into scripture, would someone please be kind enough to point out where the Bible says that the reason for the comparison between Noah's day, and the coming of the Son of Man is due to fallen angels or DNA manipulation?

Isaiah 28:9-10.

I have no idea what your point is, but thanks for not posting a YouTube video.

[B. W.]

I have been busy with helping my wife recover from broken ribs the past 8 weeks so haven't been able to post like a wanted too. She is well now.

Also, to add to the thread here: The Dead Sea Scrolls in the late 1940's recovered a writing fragments written in 300 BC. These fragments contain enough full sentences, context, and continuity not to be discounted. It was titled as the 'Book of the Giants' by scholars. Suggest you all look up the dead sea scroll version on line and breeze through it.

This was written 300 BC not after and within it - it does state that the fallen angels mixed various species together. This is way before we of the modern era new anything about DNA. Also the fragments confirm what the ancient Jewsih writers all say - Fallen angels mixed the human race to make a race of giants who were hell bent to destroy humanity.

If you want to know what the ancients thought about it as well as what Peter and Jude meant when disusing these fallen ones being in chains etc... this is where they got it from.

People can toss out the evidence all they want too but the evidence still stands - fallen angels, it appears - altered Human DNA to make a new human race in their own image and likeness to do their will on earth in physical form. From a ancient historical mindset - this was done to keep the messiah from being born who would come a crush the serpent's head...
-
-
-
-

[Stu]

Correction.

[DBowling]

I have been busy with helping my wife recover from broken ribs the past 8 weeks so haven't been able to post like a wanted too. She is well now.

Your wife definitely takes priority over posting about Nephilim traditions.
I'm glad she is feeling better!

Also, to add to the thread here: The Dead Sea Scrolls in the late 1940's recovered a writing fragments written in 300 BC. These fragments contain enough full sentences, context, and continuity not to be discounted. It was titled as the 'Book of the Giants' by scholars. Suggest you all look up the dead sea scroll version on line and breeze through it.

The time frame of these traditions is one of the reasons I have difficulty accepting the historical accuracy of these traditions.

First and foremost, these traditions do not fall under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, therefore we cannot equate their accuracy with the accuracy of Holy Spirit inspired Scripture.

Second, these traditions pop up during the intertestamental period and are removed from the actual historical events of Genesis 6 by 2000 to 3000 years. I do not think we can look to traditions that appeared around 300 BC to provide accurate historical information regarding events that took place around 3000 BC.

If you want to know what the ancients thought about it as well as what Peter and Jude meant when disusing these fallen ones being in chains etc... this is where they got it from.

Is it your opinion that Peter and Jude are validating the historical accuracy of every extrascriptural document or tradition that they either quote from or allude to?

The bottom line is angels mating with humans does not come from Scripture. It is a function of extrascriptural traditions that developed thousands of years after the historical events of Genesis 6 took place.

[Philip]

The bottom line is angels mating with humans does not come from Scripture. It is a function of extrascriptural traditions that developed thousands of years after the historical events of Genesis 6 took place.

EXACTLY! And yet, MAYBE there's something to it - but at the best we can do, only a "maybe" and even that is pure speculation. Why dwell upon uncertainties and then build them into a narrative one could never know the truth of? Mostly, a waste of time.

[B. W.]

I have been busy with helping my wife recover from broken ribs the past 8 weeks so haven't been able to post like a wanted too. She is well now.

Your wife definitely takes priority over posting about Nephilim traditions.
I'm glad she is feeling better!

Thank you, it was and it has taken longer to heal up than expected! Hope all things are well with you!

Also, to add to the thread here: The Dead Sea Scrolls in the late 1940's recovered a writing fragments written in 300 BC. These fragments contain enough full sentences, context, and continuity not to be discounted. It was titled as the 'Book of the Giants' by scholars. Suggest you all look up the dead sea scroll version on line and breeze through it.

The time frame of these traditions is one of the reasons I have difficulty accepting the historical accuracy of these traditions.

First and foremost, these traditions do not fall under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, therefore we cannot equate their accuracy with the accuracy of Holy Spirit inspired Scripture.

Second, these traditions pop up during the intertestamental period and are removed from the actual historical events of Genesis 6 by 2000 to 3000 years. I do not think we can look to traditions that appeared around 300 BC to provide accurate historical information regarding events that took place around 3000 BC.

As for traditions, we have traditional ways in which to study the bible. The basics of bible study involve context and continuity; hermeneutics; exegesis; bible interpreted historically and grammatically.

One other point to make that I learn to add into study of scriptures is to avoid interpreting with ethnocentric bias and modern paradigms. Case in point, is the study of the Book of Daniel. The imagery is replete with illustrations that those living at the time well understood as pagan deities and their character traits and histories. Colors, parts of the statue's body parts, metals, all were understood back then. Problem is today, we do not think so.

Lastly one of the most important parts to add in study of scripture involves the Holy Spirit's illumination. This, in the modern western mindset is laughed it in large part and replaced by ethnocentrism alone with modern paradigms of human reason alone.

In fact Eccl 3:15 says this: "That which is has been already and that which will be has already been, for God seeks what has passed by." NASB

"That which is has already been, And what is to be has already been; And God requires an account of what is past." NKJV

" What is that which hath been? already it is, and that which is to be hath already been, and God requireth that which is pursued." YLT

Ecc 1:9 ,10, "That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun.10 Is there anything of which it may be said, "See, this is new"? It has already been in ancient times before us." NKJV

To the modern mind, this cannot possibly be true, yet the bible says it is. Jesus said, "as it was in the Days of Noah..." has a more profound and deeper meaning. In those days humanity was growing increasingly vile. Next, in the last days the NT writer all say the same thing - people will grow worse. Daniel mentions knowledge increasing. So you have one thing to look for as a sign indicting how close Jesus will come back for his people.

Other signs, of the days of Noah come from the bible itself involving making an improved version of human beings. Are scientist are doing so today and are striving for this, as Genetic Journals of medicine clearly point out with gene splicing? Have they have successfully mixed two separate animal species together? Where did this knowledge come from? Who inspired it? These are logical questions...

Bible teaches in Heb 13:2 says showing hospitality to strangers one can unwittingly entertained angels this can include fallen ones. Also do not forget fallen ones and their angelic minions can and do appear as angels of light - 2 Co 11:14,15.

Next, add to all this, to be true to bible study interpretations, you have to look into the the ancient histories available to us in order to stick with the tradition of ascertaining truth of bible interpretation concerning the days of Noah specifically. Then see how these correlate to modern times to check where we are at on the prophetic clock. Finally one should be able to put the pieces of the puzzle together coherently and logically and folks be willing to avoiding interpreting the scriptures by ethnocentrism and modern paradigms.

Modern paradigm teaches, ancient people could not possibly mess with DNA - that is a new science only made known today. Yet what does Eccl 1:9-10 say? Who do you want to trust? The bible or Modern paradigms?

For example, our modern paradigms all say that angels must have had pure sexual intercourse with select females of child bearing age to produce offspring. Bible and Jesus says 'No' to this paradigm in Mark 12:25. Modern mindset even the ones 100 of years ago no matter Sethite view or Angels view all said the Nelphilim came into being by physical copulation sexual intercourse because ancients times folks and angels were not advanced enough to do so. Again, Jesus, tosses that monkey wrench into this in Mark 12:25.

However, ancient histories that involve the days of Noah, that help add light to the bible what happened during that time and many of these have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to the BC era of being written specifically state that there was a mixing of species together, as well as altering of plants that went way beyond selective breeding and mixing seeds by what was produced.

I am simply putting the pieces together and hypothesize that fallen angelic beings came and appear as the bible says they can do to men meanings the leaders of Noah's era and experimented with DNA gene splicing, artificiality inseminate selected females of child bearing age and thus produce the Nephilim which are described as larger powerfully intelligent folks, both male and female, sent to stop Gen 3:15 from happening as well as make a new race of humanity in their fallen image and likeness.

This is based on solid principles of bible study. I also am saying that folks, just cannot help interpret ancient times by one's own modern paradigms and fail to to uncover what was going on in Noah's day. This means, we should avoid all the mocking and scoffing at the ancient records that talk specifically about the times of Noah (which some of these I have quoted in this thread).

If you want to know what the ancients thought about it as well as what Peter and Jude meant when disusing these fallen ones being in chains etc... this is where they got it from.

Is it your opinion that Peter and Jude are validating the historical accuracy of every extrascriptural document or tradition that they either quote from or allude to?

The bottom line is angels mating with humans does not come from Scripture. It is a function of extrascriptural traditions that developed thousands of years after the historical events of Genesis 6 took place.

Again, the above statement answers this as well. I am in line with basic methods of bible interpretation that requires the use of historical sources. To avoid these, is well, disingenuousness, to say the least if not less.
-
-
-
One last post script - Jesus says he is coming back and shown us the signs to look for. We have folks becoming more vile, a falling away from the faith, all clearly happening while folks ignore these and are saying, 'all things continue as before." Midst this folks are doing what they always do, living life and ignoring God or making god into their own likeness and biases.

Add to this the actual and successful mixing of two separate distinct species. the GMO of plants and foods. The talk of improving human beings by means of genetic gene splicing. All done by mixing and splicing and using fabricated synthetic genes codes and not by selective breeding methods and blending two of the same seeds (apple seeds with apple seeds, etc) as was practiced before DNA was even seen or understood.

The first part of Leviticus 19:19 NKJV says what?

ִAMG The Complete Dictionary of OT Words...says onthe word mixing

כְּלַאִים - - from 3610 Strongs

kil’ayim: A masculine dual noun indicating a mixing or mingling of two kinds. It refers to mixing cattle, seeds, or vines as forbidden by the Law.

Put the signs together and Jesus maybe returning sooner than most think...

Just Say'n...

[DBowling]

The bottom line is angels mating with humans does not come from Scripture. It is a function of extrascriptural traditions that developed thousands of years after the historical events of Genesis 6 took place.

Again, the above statement answers this as well. I am in line with basic methods of bible interpretation that requires the use of historical sources. To avoid these, is well, disingenuousness, to say the least if not less.

I am all for using extrabiblical historical sources for understanding more about the context of Scriptural historical narratives.

The problem here is there are no historical sources contemporary or even nearly contemporary with the Genesis 6 timeframe that validate the AH tradition. The extrascriptural historical sources that are used to support the AH theory appeared during the intertestamental period which takes place 2000 to 3000 years after the the historical events of Genesis 6.
Therefore these AH traditions are too far removed in time to actually be viable sources of historical information regarding what occurred during the Genesis 6 timeframe.

Then there is the problem already discussed in this thread that the term "sons of God" is never used in Scripture to refer to fallen angels who are in active rebellion against God.

So from my perspective there are two huge problems with the AH theory.
1. There are no contemporary or even near contemporary historical documents that support the AH theory.
2. The AH theory presumes a definition for "sons of God" in Genesis 6 that is diametrically opposed to how the phrase "sons of God" is used everywhere else in Scripture.

Put the signs together and Jesus maybe returning sooner than most think...
Just Say'n...

"Even So Come Lord Jesus"

[B. W.]

...I am all for using extrabiblical historical sources for understanding more about the context of Scriptural historical narratives.

The problem here is there are no historical sources contemporary or even nearly contemporary with the Genesis 6 timeframe that validate the AH tradition. The extrascriptural historical sources that are used to support the AH theory appeared during the intertestamental period which takes place 2000 to 3000 years after the the historical events of Genesis 6.

Therefore, these AH traditions are too far removed in time to actually be viable sources of historical information regarding what occurred during the Genesis 6 timeframe.

Then there is the problem already discussed in this thread that the term "sons of God" is never used in Scripture to refer to fallen angels who are in active rebellion against God.

So from my perspective there are two huge problems with the AH theory.
1. There are no contemporary or even near contemporary historical documents that support the AH theory.
2. The AH theory presumes a definition for "sons of God" in Genesis 6 that is diametrically opposed to how the phrase "sons of God" is used everywhere else in Scripture.

"Even So Come Lord Jesus"

Yes "Come Lord Jesus" !!!

Next point:

Can Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4 phrase, "Sons Of God" refer to angelic being? Are there other verses that prove that this phrase is used to denoting angelic beings?

Let’s look: Job 38:7, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 1:6-12, and Luke 20:36 all certainly point out that this phrase is used to denote angelic beings.

Now, can it imply fallen angels? The answer is yes...

Look at Job 1:6 again: "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD." NASB -

Satan also presented himself. So yes, fallen angels - the head adversary - is included in that phrase.

More on brief history of two views of the phrase "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4

This Brief Linked and quoted summery from Wiki gives a decent historical narrative on this subjects history to note

Sons of God
From Wikipedia

Christian antiquity

Early Christian writers such as Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Commodianus believed that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 were fallen angels who engaged in unnatural union with human women, resulting in the begetting of the Nephilim.[30]

Modern Christians have argued against this view by reasoning on Jesus' comment in Matthew 22:30 that angels do not marry, although it only refers to angels in heaven.[1] Others saw them as descendants of Seth.[1]

Saint Augustine subscribed to this view, based on the orations of Julius Africanus in his book City of God, which refer to the "sons of God" as being descendants of Seth (or Sethites), the pure line of Adam. The "daughters of men" are viewed as the descendants of Cain (or Cainites). Variations of this view was also received by Jewish philosophers.[31]

Medieval Judaism

Traditionalists and philosophers of Judaism[32] in the Middle Ages[33] typically practiced rational theology. They rejected any belief in rebel or fallen angels since evil was considered abstract.

Rabbinic sources, most notably the Targum, state that the "sons of God" who married the daughters of men were merely human beings of exalted social station.[34] They have also been considered as pagan royalty[1] or members of nobility[35] who, out of lust, married women from the general population. Other variations of this interpretation define these "sons of God" as tyrannical Ancient Near Eastern kings who were honored as divine rulers, engaging in polygamous behavior.[1] No matter the variation in views, the primary concept by Jewish rationalists is that the "sons of God" were of human origin.[34]

Most notable Jewish writers in support for the view of human "sons of God" were Saadia, Rashi, Lekah Tob, Midrash Aggada, Joseph Bekor Shor, Abraham ibn Ezra, Maimonides, David Kimhi, Nahmanides, Hizkuni, Bahya Ashur, Gersonides,[36] Shimeon ben Yochai and Hillel ben Samuel.[37]

Ibn Ezra reasoned that the "sons of God" were men who possessed divine power, by means of astrological knowledge, able to beget children of unusual size and strength.[35]

Jewish commentator Isaac Abrabanel considered the aggadot on Genesis 6 to have referred to some secret doctrine and was not to be taken literally. Abrabanel later joined Nahmanides and Levi ben Gerson in promoting the concept that the "sons of God" were the older generations who were closer to physical perfection, as Adam and Eve were perfect. Though there are variations of this view, the primary idea was that Adam and Eve's perfect attributes were passed down from generation to generation. However, as each generation passed, their perfect physical attributes diminished. Thus, the early generations were mightier than the succeeding ones. The physical decline of the younger generations continued until the Flood, to the point that their days were numbered as stated in Genesis 6:3. It was immoral for the older generations to consort with the younger generations, whereby puny women begot unusually large children. Nephilim was even considered a stature.[31]

Jewish philosophic preachers such as Jacob Anatoli and Isaac Arama viewed the groups and events in Genesis 6:1-4 as an allegory, primarily for the sin of lust that declined man's higher nature.[38]

Summery

This is important to consider that during the time of Medieval Judaism, their religious leaders changed this phrase.

Why? answer, Gen 3:15 reference to Jesus as being the Messiah. They even changed the Shema as well to avoid this too by changing the word Echad (Plural one) to Echid (single solitaire one).

Early church writers and fathers expressed that the Gen 6 1-4 referred to fallen angelic beings as Jude 1:6, 2 Peter 2:4 points out.

Now look at this verse from Luke 20:36-38 NASB: Jesus said this: "...for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

37 "But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the burning bush, where he calls the Lord THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB. 38 "Now He is not the God of the dead but of the living; for all live to Him."

The phrase "sons of God" is explained as any intelligent being who god created - giving them life - can be called a "son or sons of God."

Why -because God gave them life, period. God is the begetter of life. All life comes from him by an act of grace. With grace comes free moral agency to those designed with high intelligence or it would not be grace. With such grace comes responsibility, consequences, and accountability to see to whom one will remain loyal too and by grace comes the "sealing or sealed forever" to whom one is loyal too - either God or the Rebels.

The phrase, sons of God, refers to any being created granted life who has a highly developed intelligence and duty to match granted to take help take care of creation.

It is also a phrase used in the singular "SON" to denote - how one will identify the Messiah as these verses reveal:

Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6,7 and Isaiah 11:1,2,3,4,5 Isaiah 22:21,22, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Zec 6:12,13, and Zec 9:9-10

This phrase in both plural and singular is used in multiple of ways to mean all who God created with high intelligence and duty. It is also used in the singular to identify the true Messiah identifying his task: God coming to dwell inside the tabernacle of men, who came to reconcile people back to the Lord by means of adopting those who freely come to him, in order to seal these as adopted 'sons of God' forever as his own never to fall away again.

This sort of adoption was not possible in the OT testament until after the true Messiah had come as the bible clearly teaches. This cannot mean at all, that the sons of Seth are the sons of God because redemption by the Messiah had not occurred back in Gen 6 era or before that time. Think about this.

The Son of God came as, one of kind-unique one, to humanity to seal forever his own as his own (no more rebellious) as well as seal those who are not his by means of righteous judgement to the fate they chose for themselves.

Only God can do this, that second person of the Plural One - God - known and revealed throughout the scriptures as delighting in the sons of mankind in various theophany’s. This one would come both as Singular THE SON of Man and THE SON of God to reconcile hostile factions to bring back humanity's prodigals who freely come to their senses thus return to HIM by what HE had done for them by the Cross and Resurrection.

In a nutshell, the phrase 'sons of God' has about four applications and thus can be used in those application to denote the creative work of God and the choice of what to do with the life he "gave."

The four applications the phrase Sons/Son of God can be used as are as follows:

1-Sealed Angelic beings who will never rebel
2-Sealed rebellious fallen angelic beings as fallen
3-Sons and daughters of humanity (per context in NT - sealed and redeemed...)
4-Singular- the Messiah who came to save Humanity whom God gave intelligent life and duty too and uniquely made

The context and continuity with other portions of the bible define which meaning applies.

Hope this helps clarify the phrase sons/son of God and how to identify whom the phrase refers too in the text which they are found
-
-
-

Notes: Scripture Quoted form NASB for scriptural proof

Eph 1:11,13, Rom 8:29, 30, Jer 3:19 the Lord is speaking here very important verse as is Hosea 1:10,

Note these verses 1 Pe 1:3-4, Isa 64:8, and how it is done Jer 32:38,39,40,41

Verses denoting plural - sons of God -

Gen 6:2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
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.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

New Testament after the Messiah's true work was complete is when people can be properly called such

Mat 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Luke 20:36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Rom 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
Rom 8:19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

[DBowling]

Next point:

Can Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4 phrase, "Sons Of God" refer to angelic being? Are there other verses that prove that this phrase is used to denoting angelic beings?

Let’s look: Job 38:7, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 1:6-12, and Luke 20:36 all certainly point out that this phrase is used to denote angelic beings.

Now, can it imply fallen angels? The answer is yes...

Look at Job 1:6 again: "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD." NASB -

Satan also presented himself. So yes, fallen angels - the head adversary - is included in that phrase.

Actually Job 1:6 is a proof text that demonstrates that Satan is excluded from the "sons of God".

Job 1:6 identifies two sets of angelic beings that presented themselves to the Lord.
1. The first set of angelic beings to present themselves before the Lord in Job 1:6 are identified as the "sons of God"
2. The other being who "also" presented himself before the Lord in Job 1:6 is Satan.

Note that Satan "also" presented himself before the Lord.
Satan is not part of the "sons of God" in Job 1:6
Job 1:6 tells us that Satan is "also" there... in addition to the "sons of God".

Look through the passages you posted that use the phrase "sons of God" again.
None of them refer to fallen angels who are in rebellion against God.

Which brings us back to my earlier point.
Using the term "sons of God" to describe fallen angels is diametrically opposed to how the term "sons of God" is used everywhere else in Scripture... including Job 1:6.

In Christ

[RickD]

Next point:

Can Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4 phrase, "Sons Of God" refer to angelic being? Are there other verses that prove that this phrase is used to denoting angelic beings?

Let’s look: Job 38:7, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 1:6-12, and Luke 20:36 all certainly point out that this phrase is used to denote angelic beings.

Now, can it imply fallen angels? The answer is yes...

Look at Job 1:6 again: "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD." NASB -

Satan also presented himself. So yes, fallen angels - the head adversary - is included in that phrase.

Actually Job 1:6 is a proof text that demonstrates that Satan is excluded from the "sons of God".

Job 1:6 identifies two sets of angelic beings that presented themselves to the Lord.
1. The first set of angelic beings to present themselves before the Lord in Job 1:6 are identified as the "sons of God"
2. The other being who "also" presented himself before the Lord in Job 1:6 is Satan.

Note that Satan "also" presented himself before the Lord.
Satan is not part of the "sons of God" in Job 1:6
Job 1:6 tells us that Satan is "also" there... in addition to the "sons of God".

Look through the passages you posted that use the phrase "sons of God" again.
None of them refer to fallen angels who are in rebellion against God.

Which brings us back to my earlier point.
Using the term "sons of God" to describe fallen angels is diametrically opposed to how the term "sons of God" is used everywhere else in Scripture... including Job 1:6.

In Christ

Certainly in English, Job 1:6 seems clear. "Also" means, "in addition".

So, we have the sons of God. And "in addition", or "also", we have Satan.

Maybe someone fluent in Hebrew can tell us if "also" is proper in this translation.

[B. W.]

Actually Job 1:6 is a proof text that demonstrates that Satan is excluded from the "sons of God".

Job 1:6 identifies two sets of angelic beings that presented themselves to the Lord.
1. The first set of angelic beings to present themselves before the Lord in Job 1:6 are identified as the "sons of God"
2. The other being who "also" presented himself before the Lord in Job 1:6 is Satan.

Note that Satan "also" presented himself before the Lord.
Satan is not part of the "sons of God" in Job 1:6
Job 1:6 tells us that Satan is "also" there... in addition to the "sons of God".

Look through the passages you posted that use the phrase "sons of God" again.
None of them refer to fallen angels who are in rebellion against God.

Which brings us back to my earlier point.
Using the term "sons of God" to describe fallen angels is diametrically opposed to how the term "sons of God" is used everywhere else in Scripture... including Job 1:6.

In Christ

Technically I am correct. Technically, Satan is classed with the sons of God as I explained earlier. He fell as Ezekiel 28:12,15 reveals. Those are fallen sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4 and the ones who shouted for joy over God creating everything before they fell.

This means, technically, in Job 38:7, that Satan is classed as one of the sons of God who shouted for joy when God created everything some time before he fell. So I am correct, along with a long line of scholars and early church fathers, and as the historical evidence we still have points out. Satan can be classed along with the sons of God in Job 1 and 2 without any violation to the bible.

Here is more:

In Job 1 and 2 - Satan is not excluded but is included along with them as as the chief of the fallen ones called the accuser of the brethren... He is also called in Eph 2:2 NASB "...in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience."

Add also called the god of this world's system too. His minions are defined as what in Eph 6:12?

Now look at...Rev 12:9,10, "And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night." NASB

Job chapter 1 and 2 indeed strongly support that Satan was the leader of the fallen sons of God - an angelic being as Ezekiel 28:11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 points out as does Rev 12:4,7 NKJV helps explains the plot which fits the role of an accuser and Isaiah 14:12-15 explains his demise mentioned that is defined clearly when this happens in Revelation chapter 20.

So., Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 places Satan along with the sons of god as a fallen one - the leader of the sons of pride - who presents himself to accuse Job because he found something in Job to accuse. It does not matter, Satan is still an angelic being who became the king over the sons of pride, who before he fell, shouted for joy at God's act of creation too as one of the sons of God.

Therefore, it still stands, sons of god, indeed can refer to fallen angels as Rev 12:7 clearly points outs: Michael and his angels and Satan his angels...period.

God created the angelic beings and gave them life so technically that makes them 'sons of God' as I explained earlier. Ezekiel 28:12,15 explains the same thing - he and his fallen one as classed as 'sons of God' albeit fallen ones so there is no injustice telling in Gen 6:1-4 that they were 'sons of God' and their plot and crime that later defines them as fallen rebels.

Look again...

...At Gen 6:1,2 and notice that there are two separate species of beings mentioned in verses one and two. Verse one MEN is mentioned, next sons of God who saw daughters of MEN. In no way does this imply anything with Cain's family line or Seth's as both are classed as MEN.

If the sons of God refer to mere mortal men, then, how could that happen before the Messiah Jesus came? In fact, the text would have said the ‘sons of men saw the daughters of other men and took them and bore Nephilim’ if the text actually meant that so as also to remain grammatically correct and clear..

However, we have men, ha'adam, who had daughters born unto these men, Ha'adam. Next the 'sons of god, angelic beings, are taking females and having them give birth to a new species of supermen called Nephilm who are in their image and likeness. Context points out how a new species of supermen types appeared.

Gen 6:1,2,4 deals three different beings: Human beings, next sons of God/angelic beings, and then a new breed called Nephilim. This describes the plot and crime of the sons of God whom fell. Therefore, it is appropriate to name them as such in Gen 6:1-4 so we can see their crimes more clearly.

The beings somehow played with Human DNA and made a new species. It appears that they taught the leaders of men how to do this to as the ancient text related to this event actually-show grammatically correct, I might add.

Jesus did warn of a sign to look for when he warned – ‘as it was in the days of Noah...’

Look at this 8/10/2017 article:

Humanity is gearing up nowadays with gene spicing / editing and on the verge of making new types of animals and using mixed DNA for what? read the article...

Gene Editing Spurs Hope for Transplanting Pig Organs Into Humans

This makes the meaning to 'Pig Out' without harmful consequences have a deeper meaning...

Oink, Oink,
-
-
-