Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

[RickD]

paulS wrote:
My point is that, return to the original theme, Sons of God Can refer to divine beings in Genesis 6 and tradition tells us that was a view that was shared, perhaps even the main view during Second temple.

I see that's your point. But I disagree that sons of God in Genesis 6, can refer to divine beings. That's what this whole discussion has been about. And I understand that many people have shared this view.

I agree that fallen angels are NOT sons of God anymore in the Theological sense, as DB argued, BUT they still are in the creative sense, since they were are one point Sons of God ( only their fallen status revokes that).

I think you're starting to realize that Fallen angels aren't sons of God anymore. Why can't you just go with that? You're halfway there.

The distinction I am making this:
Fallen angels were, before their fall, Sons of God.
They lost their STATUS as Sons of God (disinherited if you will) when they rebelled BUT are still Sons of God technically ( like a son is still a son even if disinherited).

Either they are or they're not. They can't be sons of God and not be sons of God.

As for Satan in the precense of God, I think you are nitpicking to be honest.
The undisputed facts of Job 1 and 2 are these:
Satan is WITH the Sons of God.
Satan is with them with God.
Satan has just come from Earth.
Satan is NOT prohibited from being with them nor is he chastised for being there.

I agree with this. All this is in the text.

Its is logical and reasonable to infer from this that:
Satan and the Sons of God are NOT on Earth and since they are with God and God is in Heaven, they are in Heaven also.

Sure. It seems more logical than not, that the meeting was in heaven.

Satan is NOT prohibited from being with the Sons of God or going to Heaven.

I agree. For this specific instance, Satan is allowed.

We can deduce from that, logically and reasonably that, Satan has access to heaven with no APPARENT restrictions.

And here's where we disagree. Up until now, you've just stated what the text says. If we know Satan was kicked out of heaven, I think it's more reasonable to believe that God allowed Satan in His presence for this particular reason, in Job. The only way you can think Satan can come and go in heaven freely, is to go against what scripture says about him getting kicked out of heaven, and to read into scripture, that Satan is still a son of God.

We can also deduce from God NOT chastising Satan from being there that he is not unwelcome.

I don't disagree with that. But that still doesn't mean he has open access to heaven, as opposed to being welcome specifically because God called him there for this specific purpose.

To counter these views you must show where, in Job 1 and 2, Satan is told that he is not welcome, not allowed there.

I don't think he was unwelcome. But again, the text doesn't say he can come and go as he pleases, as you have asserted.

The angels who are still, and have always been sons of God, have open access to heaven.

The angels who have fallen, and were kicked out of heaven, are no longer sons of God, and do not have open access to heaven.

[PaulSacramento]

Rick I agree with your points but you aren't grasping that the logical reasoning is there, wither you agree or not.

You don't see a distinction between angelic beings being sons of God in status and via his direct creation and that is where i think you are mistaken.
The distinction should be there or else what you are saying is this:
All angels are created by God and all angels are Sons of God until/or if ( not except because they only stop being sons when they rebel) they rebel, which means that being a Son of God is a status ONLY.
Is that what you are saying?
I am saying it is BOTH status and that they were directly created by God ( Like Adam).
You seem to be saying that it is a STATUS thing only.
If it is a status thing then, it can be argued, Adam lost his status too because he rebelled also (though he did repent after).

[DBowling]

A quick comment...

Since all angels and all humans are created by God, I'm not sure that we can use being created by God as any sort of differentiator.

The 'heart status' of the person in question is the Scriptural differentiator between those who are members of the family of God and those who aren't.

[RickD]

Rick I agree with your points but you aren't grasping that the logical reasoning is there, wither you agree or not.

You don't see a distinction between angelic beings being sons of God in status and via his direct creation and that is where i think you are mistaken.
The distinction should be there or else what you are saying is this:
All angels are created by God and all angels are Sons of God until/or if ( not except because they only stop being sons when they rebel) they rebel, which means that being a Son of God is a status ONLY.
Is that what you are saying?
I am saying it is BOTH status and that they were directly created by God ( Like Adam).
You seem to be saying that it is a STATUS thing only.
If it is a status thing then, it can be argued, Adam lost his status too because he rebelled also (though he did repent after).

You're right, I don't see a distinction.
And maybe it's because I don't compare angels to humans. Angels who sin, cannot be redeemed. Humans can.

So, once angels sin, they are lost. They go from being sons of God, to being fallen angels who are no longer sons of God.

Paul,

I'm not sure if this has been addressed, so maybe you can answer. If I'm correct, you fall into the hybrid belief, and not B.W.'s DNA manipulation belief. If so, then how or why do you believe the angels/divine beings were given the ability to reproduce with humans?
Why, in your opinion, did God make angels capable of reproducing with humans?

[RickD]

Much of the discussion in this thread has been about Genesis 6:1-4, regarding who the sons of God were. Here's the text:

6 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lordsaid, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 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 wereof old, men of renown.

Something that hasn't been touched upon yet, at least in this thread, is pretty strong scriptural evidence that sons of God are human, and not fallen angels. And this evidence comes from the same text in Genesis 6. It's a continuation of verses 1-4. In Genesis 6:5-8, we see from the text that God saw the wickedness of man...

5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The Lordsaid, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

We can see something from the text that I believe is really good evidence about the sons of God being human. God saw the wickedness of MAN. He was sorry that He had made MAN. The Lord said that He will blot out MAN.

Notice that there is no mention of the punishment of angels? Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that if fallen angels were guilty of such a sin, that they would be punished too?

[B. W.]

Some folks may wonder why I do not directly respond to anyone particular but rather answer in a board way? Answer, no need to pick a fight. My purpose is to make folks think and avoid the trap of pride. So let me jump in again and explain something more…

What does the ‘Second Book of Adam and Eve’ have to do with the word translated ‘Adversary’ (Hebrew - HaSatan) used in Job chapters one and two?

Much in every way. You see, for some folks the ability to disprove that ‘Satan’ mentioned in the Book of Job does not mean the Chief Fallen Angel, the head honcho himself, just so that that the ‘Sethite or Human Leader’ view concerning Gen 6:1-12 is true by changing the phrase ‘sons of God’ to mean human leaders or Sethites of human origin anddoes not refer to fallen angels is well...bit of a stretch.

From this, they can insert that both Jude and the Apostle Peter did not mean angelic beings because the word angel means only has one application as a messenger. So, with much dousing of scripture, like St Augustine did to support the Sethite view, scripture is used in like manner that is, well, not right.

+The phrase, Sons of God, in the OT is found in only five verses referring to angelic beings: Gen 6:2,4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7.

+In the New Testament (NT) this phrase is also found in 5 verses: Mat 5:9, Luke 20:36, Rom 8:14, Rom 8:19, Gal 3:26. Denoting that only through Jesus Christ can one becomes a, son of God (meaning by being adopted into that position I may theologically add to be accurate).

Now Notice, in the OT, that the actual Hebrew spelling and tense of the Hebrew word translated in English as “Sons of” used in Gen 6:1-4 and Job chapters one and two is used 1292 times in the OT. 1287 times the phrase is not used in connection with God because it is connected to human genealogy.

After reviewing these verses, only five of the OT verses that contain the phrase sons of God refer directly to angelic beings as mentioned above who were created by God alone. Again, the reason is simple, God directly created them, so they are called sons of God and not sons of Israel, or sons of King Joeb, Son of Smith, etc and etc

The rest of the time the phrase "sons of' or 'children of', refer to sons with human fathers who are specifically named such as children of Israel, sons of Jacob, sons of enemy kings or nations, etc. In other words, the word phrase,' sons of', is qualified by who and to whom the sons belong too – who procreated them.

Never does the complete phrase ‘sons of God’ is used to refer to human beings in the OT. However 1287 times the same spelling and grammar forms translated as "Sons of" is qualified by whom the children or sons belong too – who made them by procreation. The concept is simple: the noun that follows "sons of" defines who created or help give physical biological birth too. Sons of Adam - human origin. Sons of God, directly created by God.

Turn to Mal 3:3

Look at Mal 3:3 as it sums up an OT principle found in prophetic writings, that God, will sometime in the future purify the sons of men and purge them. In the NT, we find out when this happens, as Mat 3:11, Luke 3:16, John 1:33 states, only after the Holy Spirit comes upon a person by the New Birth.

This happen only through the work of Jesus on the cross, his resurrection, and empowerment of the Holy Spirit is when we have the right to be called the sons of God, not before.

NO WHERE IN THE OT DOES THE PHRASE SON’S OF GOD REFER TO HUMAN BEINGS. WHY SEE Psalms 53:2,3 for the answer.

That is important. Why?

Because, you cannot apply NT meanings to that phrase used in the Old Testament to build a doctrine off-of as did St Augustine and others who nowadays attempt to do the same.

The bible is clear, only by the NEW BIRTH can one enter the Kingdom of God = new birth = meaning that this is the only time ‘when’ a person becomes (adopted) sons and daughters of God. Note Joel 2:28.29 by which Peter verifies this in Acts Chapter two and three.

Therefore, to build a case, saying that since the NT uses the phrase, sons of God referring to human beings, we must apply the NT meaning to the selected OT texts like Genesis 6:1-12 to prove that the Sethite or Human Leaders are the sons of God, is error. Period. Why-because the OT does not refer to people in the OT that way…simple...

Likewise, to use a tactic, that turns the Hebrew prefix HA to the word Satan in Job chapters one and two, to mean any adversary and not necessarily to mean the Chief Adversary by misapplying and scripture stacking and half truths about word meanings into complex forms of proof texting to prove the human origin view concerning Gen 6:1-12 so that fallen angels can’t be classed as sons of God is based on pure pride, plain and simple. God made the angelic beings before they fell and they are that class of beings, like it or not. that is the way it is. Note Job 38:1,2,3,4,5,6,7

The prefix Ha attached to Satan, Plural Noun, means majesty or you can rightly translate it to mean ‘Chief of all Adversaries’ as does Job chapter one and two indeed does. Which is proven in the very book of Job itself when God addresses Job, revealing to him that Job, though doing right, was considered in the heart of Satan, the Chief of all Adversaries, to have a heart connection to Job all summed up in Job 41:34, King over the Sons of Pride.

How simple is that? Do I need to use endless proof text to point it out? No – context is plainly related to the story!

How would you like to be spoken to by God, like Job was, Job 40:1,6,7,8,9 - Job 41:1,34?

It is not pleasant. God’s words reveal Job, though favored by God, let that go to his head…that gave the reason for the Chief of all Adversaries, HaSatan to consider Job in his heart in the first place. Satan’s heart found connection with something in Job’s heart. What do I mean by that – keep reading…

Are you made righteous by what Jesus has done for you?

There is a message in the book of Job that applies to all Christians. So, I ask, must you be right at all cost, even twisting the plain common sense and simplicity of bible text to prove a point?

What lengths will people go and utter forth what they do not understand, things too wonderful which they do not know by hiding counsel without knowledge… Job 42:3,4?

I can imagine someone saying the Leviathan mentioned in the book of Job does not refer to Ha’Satan, because it mentions a name and not a title – ha’Satan. wow.

Let me conclude with this. The Sethite and human Leader view of the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6:1-12 was absolutely-certainly derived from the Second Book of Adam and Eve. A book written, circa, several hundred years before Jesus’ birth.

A revered book and quoted in the Jewish Talmud, the Islamic Koran, used heavily by Kabbalist - Jewish Mysticism. And honored by occultist to support the Lilith doctrine, grave soaking or grave sucking, possibly shape shifting, etc and etc. Well, is beyond me.

Do I have to be right at all cost, nope not my motive here…

We are all prone to pride. Pride is a dangerous thing and far too often we can be so blind to it, as Job was. The best I can do is to warn about pride and the rest is up to the readers to decide.

Blessings and you all have a great day!
-
-
-

[RickD]

For anyone still following along, here is a good response to the question, "Were The Sons Of God Fallen Angels".

It has responses to pretty much every argument that angel advocates have. It even addresses B.W.'s point about sons of God never referring to humans, in the OT.

[RickD]

My interaction in this thread, I think is summed up in Proverbs 27:17. Paul, B.W., even though we disagree, I'm thankful to be able to call you my Brothers in Christ. Even though these discussions can get heated, I have great respect for both of you, and as with most, if not all of my interactions with you both, may the Lord use them to strengthen our faith in Him.

[B. W.]

For anyone still following along, here is a good response to the question, "Were The Sons Of God Fallen Angels".

It has responses to pretty much every argument that angel advocates have. It even addresses B.W.'s point about sons of God never referring to humans, in the OT.

This is a long post...sorry about that... cannot help it....

I have noticed and prepared for the usual scripture quotes in the article mentioned here stating that the phrase children or sons of God refers to human beings so that the supernatural view of Genesis 6:1-4 is replaced by either the Sethite or Human Leader view which both are based upon various interpretations of the 2nd Book of Adam and Eve.

Objection One from the article: Hosea 1:10 we find the following description of the sons of Israel: You are the sons of the living God. Here the phrase sons of God definitely refers to humans, not angels.

There is always context, look at verse one as its first states, “you are not My people, And I will not be your God” How can they be sons of God, when God says clearly they are not?

These verses point prophetically to a time when it will happen - be named his sons and daughters. How? Let's look at the word in context and continuity.

The context, God tells Hosea to name his sons and daughter certain names by which a prophetic message is brought forth to light. In Hos 1:4 we see the first son named and the meaning of his name given. Hos 1:6,7 a daughter is born and the meaning of her name is given. Hos 1:8, 9 a son is born and the meaning of his name is given.

From the Text, we have this:

Hosea 1:4 -For in a little while I will avenge the bloodshed of Jezreel on the house of Jehu, and bring an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel – Jezreel
Hosea 1:6,7 - For I will no longer have mercy on the house of Israel, But I will utterly take them away - Lo-Ruhamah
Hosea 1:9 -For you are not My people, And I will not be your God. - Lo-Ammi –

Then we get to verse Hosea 1:10 where it describes the remnant mentioned in Hos 1:7 from the daughter’s name.

That event is later mentioned in Jer 3:6-11, 2 Kings 19:35, which sets forth a prophetic repeating pattern mentioned in Jer 23:5-6, and to be finalized at later date as Zechariah 12:7,8,9,10 mentions when all prophetic cyclic patterns are completed and that is when Jesus Messiah comes back to rule the whole earth, see Revelation chapter 19 and 20. Note Cyclic prophetic patterns are often done three times to be confirmed by God. Two of the patterns have been completed.

Then we come too:

Hosea 1:10 "Yet the number of the children of Israel Shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, 'You are not My people,' There it shall be said to them, 'You are sons of the living God." NKJV

In this short sentence comes the prophetic time piece when the gentiles also come to the Lord, the Church, that includes us folks – then – when shall it be said 'You are sons of the living God.”

Verse 9 says they are not his people. Next in Verse 10 is explicit and notice this phrase: when the number is as the sands of the sea - that has not happened yet, has it?

Can you see that Hosea 1:10 refers to a future event after the Messiah appears?

Verse 10 is explicit - when the number is as the sands of the sea - that has not happened yet, has it?

This points to that final future event when all Israel will be saved. When they gaze upon the one whom they pierced and the final number of gentiles who come to the Lord have been grafted into the vine Christ. Again, this prophetically point to the future pointing to Jesus as how one becomes sons of God.

Just how the NT teaches:

John 1:12; Rom 8:14-17, Rom 8:21, Rom 9:25-26; 2Co 6:18; Gal 3:26,29, Gal 4:5-6; Rev 21:7

My apologies the argument that this phrase to prove that ‘the sons of God’ phrase used in Gen 6:1-4 are human beings falls apart... under contextual scrutiny. Never mind the historical records from other Hebrew sources stating the supernatural view of Gen 6:1-4 for now...

Next…

Article Objection Two used from Deuteronomy 14:1 reads You are the sons of the Lord your God. Again another reference of the sons of God to humans.

The word sons used in text first is not spelled the same way as it is in Gen 6:1-4 nor does it use the same vowels used in Gen 6:1-4. This means, the meaning is derived from the continuity of the scripture it is used with. This word has a wide array of meanings and is not limited to sons, or children only, its basic meaning and idea is to build and carry on of a family name, and this can apply to an assembly of people, or nation, tribes, as well as nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts, as well as first born son. The context in verse two mentions people who are Holy and will carry on and shine forth God’s Name and do his will

Deut 14:1,2, "You are the people (children) of the LORD your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave the front of your head for the dead. 2 For you are a [/u]holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth[/u].” NKJV

Verse two implies people as in an assembly or nation. Deut 14:2 …For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth...” NKJV

So, the meaning is clear, these folks were to build and carry forth living by the Lord’s name, his Holy set apart Character, wherever he sends them. In this way, they are assembled together for this task and woe to them if they fail. Look at Deut 28:14-68 to find out why.

The meaning is a people, not children, a people who are a Holy nation. They failed because they could not receive the Holy Spirit as Jesus, the Messiah had not come yet, to make them sons and daughters adopted into the family of the Lord so one can actually shine forth God’s Holy character traits – live life as having more in common with Jesus than with the world, flesh, and devil Just as the NT teaches.

John 1:12; Rom 8:14-17, Rom 8:21, Rom 9:25-26; 2Co 6:18; Gal 3:26,29, Gal 4:5-6; Rev 21:7

Article Objection- God also calls Israel His son. When Israel was a youth I loved him and out of Egypt I called My son (Hosea 11:1).

Hos 11:1 " When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son..” NASB

Hosea 11:1 is a prophetic verse describing that the Messiah, Jesus, God’s Son will come out of Egypt which happened and fulfilled completely as Matt 2:15 clearly states and again this applies only to Jesus.

Article Objection - Isaiah 43:6 The Lord, speaking of Israel says to the north, Bring My sons from afar….

Answer: look at contextual continuity: You will see that it is the descendants of whom is being mentioned in verses 1-4? Who formed the nation of Israel from Abraham and Jacob?

Isa 43:1 But now, thus says the LORD, your Creator, O Jacob, And He who formed you, O Israel, "Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name; you are Mine!
Isa 43:3 "For I am the LORD your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I have given Egypt as your ransom, Cush and Seba in your place.
Isa 43:4 "Since you are precious in My sight, Since you are honored and I love you, I will give other men in your place and other peoples in exchange for your life.

Now verse 5-9 is prophetic - speaking of a time when Isa 11:11,12 comes to pass. Prophetically Speaking - when did this begin to happen?

After WW2, 1948, when the second regathering finalized in the making of the Nation of Israel and restoring ancient Hebrew language back in the Promised Land just as the bible says.

Isa 43:5 “Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your descendants from the east, And gather you from the west;
Isa 43:6 I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not keep them back!' Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth—
Isa 43:7 Everyone who is called by My name, Whom I have created for My glory; I have formed him, yes, I have made him."
Isa 43:8 Bring out the blind people who have eyes, And the deaf who have ears.
Isa 43:9 Let all the nations be gathered together, And let the people be assembled. Who among them can declare this, And show us former things? Let them bring out their witnesses, that they may be justified; Or let them hear and say, "It is truth." NASB

Look closely at verse 7, “everyone who is called by my (YHWH’s) name” who God created for His glory. When did this happened?

Why do you think Jesus said in John 3:5-8 this: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." NASB

How does this come about?

See John 3:16, John 14:16,17,18, John 16:1-15, Acts chapters one thru three… to find out. and note again what the verse is saying: Isa 43:7 Everyone who is called by My name, Whom I have created for My glory; I have formed him, yes, I have made him." NASB

You cannot use this verse to support that angelic beings are not meant in Genesis 6:1-4 without doing disrespect to the NT doctrine on how one actually becomes God's children...sons, daughters...

In Conclusions: let me address Acts 17:22-34 when it says - we are God's children:

First rule of bible study look at the basics, such as, who was Paul, where was he speaking, when, and to whom was speaking and why. With this in mind, Paul was well schooled in Greek due to where he was born and raised as a Pharisee. He knew Greek culture and language.

He was speaking to whom and where?

Paul is brilliantly quoting the famous Stoic, 'Cleanthes' “Hymn to Zeus” and Aratus's work, Phainomena when he mentions to those whom he was speaking too when he said - your own poets say we are his children….

He is quoting Stoic and Epicureans whose philosopher poets said this concerning Zeus, as they thought they were of the offspring of Zeus, or some other false deity as how one becomes a child of God. Son of Apollo, Demetrius, Dianna, etc and etc – who was Paul addressing and where? Paul was using the 'Unknown God' as a tool to set their minds right.

Were the Stoic and Epicurean philosopher poets so inspired that they knew who the unknown God was?

Context makes it plain that they did not know. They only knew their own religious pantheons as the means by which they were gods children. Paul is tactfully confronting them brilliantly!

So, do you want to agree the audience’s concept of the Hymn to Zeus, or agree with Paul – to repent from this mindset that one belongs to this or that idol/god (note Acts 17:29,30). Paul is leading up to tell them to be born again by means of the Resurrection of Christ… that is how to become God’s true child, not through what the Stoic and Epicurean whose philosopher poets say in works such as the ‘Hymns to Zeus’ we all are gods children.

Acts 17:32, Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, "We shall hear you again concerning this." 33 So Paul went out of their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. NASB

Just as the NT clearly teaches on how one becomes a true child of God through adoption by means of the cross of Jesus and His Resurrection as it is written:

John 1:12; Rom 8:14-17, Rom 8:21, Rom 9:25-26; 2Co 6:18; Gal 3:26,29, Gal 4:5-6; Rev 21:7
-
-
-

[DBowling]

Much of the discussion in this thread has been about Genesis 6:1-4, regarding who the sons of God were. Here's the text:

6 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lordsaid, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 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 wereof old, men of renown.

Something that hasn't been touched upon yet, at least in this thread, is pretty strong scriptural evidence that sons of God are human, and not fallen angels. And this evidence comes from the same text in Genesis 6. It's a continuation of verses 1-4. In Genesis 6:5-8, we see from the text that God saw the wickedness of man...

5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The Lordsaid, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

We can see something from the text that I believe is really good evidence about the sons of God being human. God saw the wickedness of MAN. He was sorry that He had made MAN. The Lord said that He will blot out MAN.

Notice that there is no mention of the punishment of angels? Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that if fallen angels were guilty of such a sin, that they would be punished too?

This is an excellent point that I hadn't really thought through, Rick!

I have contrasted the intertestamental A-H tradition with...
- what the OT teaches about being a "son of God"
- what the NT teaches about being a "son of God"
- what Jesus teaches about being "a son of God"

But you are going back to the immediate context of Genesis 6 to see who the immediate context identifies as the "sons of God".
And you are absolutely correct.
The wickedness being described in Genesis 6 is the wickedness of man (ha adam) - Genesis 6:5
The punishment of God starts with man (ha adam) and even extends to a list of animals who dwell in the land (Genesis 6:7)

So from the immediate context we see.
The wickedness being described in Genesis 6 is the wickedness of man (ha adam) not angels.
The resulting punishment of God involves mankind (ha adam again) and animals in the land, but again no mention of any angels or angel/human hybrids being punished.

So the immediate context of Genesis 6 joins the rest of the OT, the NT, and Jesus himself in refuting the intertestamental tradition that identifies the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 as fallen angels.

[RickD]

Just throwing this out there too...

Some in this thread have mentioned that angels can take on human form, so why couldn't they reproduce with humans, if they look like humans.

I'm just curious if anyone can show any instance in scripture where a fallen angel takes on human form?

From what I can remember, angels can take on human form when God allows for a specific purpose. Fallen angels, or demons in scripture, don't take on human form, but may possess or inhabit humans. It seems logical, based on evidence from scripture, that since angels are spirit beings and don't have physical bodies, they can take on human form only if God God allows.

[PaulSacramento]

I may have missed it, but was the sin of the angels mentioned in Jude and Peter addressed?
What was it then?

[PaulSacramento]

Paul,

I'm not sure if this has been addressed, so maybe you can answer. If I'm correct, you fall into the hybrid belief, and not B.W.'s DNA manipulation belief. If so, then how or why do you believe the angels/divine beings were given the ability to reproduce with humans?
Why, in your opinion, did God make angels capable of reproducing with humans?

I think that the text of Genesis, along with Jude and Peter and along with the traditions passed on in Second temple Judaism, tell us that the Sons of God in Genesis are divine ( from the Heavenly realm) beings and not mortal men.
The ONLY statement that mentions angels and reproduction directly I Jesus' statement that Angels IN HEAVEN to not marry ( ie: reproduce). It is a telling statement because Jesus quantifies, NOT that angels CAN'T reproduce but that they do NOT and He also quantifies the location ( in Heaven).
He could have very easily said " Angels do not marry",period.
He didn't, He Specifically stated that, in Heaven, they do not marry.
To take that text and to use it in regards to what angel can or can't do on earth is going beyond the text.

That said, we do NOT have any direct verses that state that divine beings CAN reproduce with female humans, this is true.
We have verse that seem to imply that the sins of the angels was like that of Sodom ( unnatural sex, among other things).

I don't think it is a question of God making angels capable of reproducing with humans but a case of HOW HUMAN are angels when they assume human form.
We don't know for sure, one way or another.

God didn't make humans to have homosexual relations, but some do.
God didn't make humans to have sexual relations with animals, and some do.

I think it is important to remember that angels CAN and DO rebel against the natural order of things.

[PaulSacramento]

My interaction in this thread, I think is summed up in Proverbs 27:17. Paul, B.W., even though we disagree, I'm thankful to be able to call you my Brothers in Christ. Even though these discussions can get heated, I have great respect for both of you, and as with most, if not all of my interactions with you both, may the Lord use them to strengthen our faith in Him.

We are just exchange ideas and interpretations.
And it is fine to disagree ( we know that even the Apostles didn't see eye-to-eye with everything).
It is because we care about each other that we debate these things

[DBowling]

I may have missed it, but was the sin of the angels mentioned in Jude and Peter addressed?
What was it then?

I think these are the verses that you are referring to
Jude 1:6

6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,

2 Peter 2:4

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;

Neither Jude nor Peter describe specifically what the sin of the angels was.
I personally believe that both Jude and Peter are referring to the fall of the angels/demons which I think corresponds with the fall of Satan. This would be consistent with Jude's comment about the angel's sin involving 'abandoning their abode'.

Revelation 12:3-4 gives a brief account of the fall of Satan and the demons using symbolic imagery.

3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. 4 And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.

Which means...
If Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4 refer to the fall of Satan and the demons symbolically described in Rev 12:3-4.
Then the events described in Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4 must have taken place before the fall of Adam and Eve.

Therefore the events described in Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4 cannot refer to the events of Genesis 6 which take place after the fall of Adam and Eve, after Adam and Eve are ejected from the Garden of Eden, and after the descendents of Adam and Eve populate the land.