Evidence for God from Science

Sons of God does NOT refer to fallen angels explicitly.
I don't think you will find any passage like that.
It requires reading into the text an associating what Jude and Peter said with the sons of God in Genesis 6, which many have.
Just at is requires reading what Moses said about who are the sons of God into Genesis 6.
The point is that there is NO EXPLICIT statement as to who they are in genesis 6 so one has to read into it VIA the other mentions of sons of God state elsewhere.
Hence we have more than one interpretation and all carry weight.
Which was no point to begin with.
No one can make the blanket statement that EITHER WAY and state that it is the ONLY interpretation or even the only correct one.

What still needs to be addressed is that, at least, in some passages that Sons of God refers to divine beings ( We know of the passages in Job for sure).
We know that the nations were given over to them for rule ( although some translations change the term in Deuteronomy).
We know that some of them rebelled/opposed other divine beings sent by God ( Daniel).
We know that they are called angels sometimes.
We know that they will be tried by Humans ( Paul)
We know that God will judge them and they will die like mortals ( Psalm 82, even though some translations change the term here too).

While it isn't good practice to ALWAYS take the oldest translation of these verses, or any verse, we do need to remember a few things:
The Septuagint was the bible of Jesus, the Apostles and everyone else for centuries and they were certainly ok with it.
The other texts from other communities of the same period state the same things and only after, many centuries after, were things changes.

PaulS wrote:
Sons of God does NOT refer to fallen angels explicitly.

Sons of God doesn't refer to fallen angels, EVER!

In order to say it does, one needs to go outside scripture.

Since ACB couldn't do it, maybe you can. Show me anywhere in scripture that sons of God refers to FALLEN angels.

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Sons of God does NOT refer to fallen angels explicitly.

Sons of God doesn't refer to fallen angels, EVER!

In order to say it does, one needs to go outside scripture.

Since ACB couldn't do it, maybe you can. Show me anywhere in scripture that sons of God refers to FALLEN angels.

Are you saying that we cannot know either way what sons of God means? Because we could make the same argument whether people think they are fallen angels,men or good angels.Based on what people have been arguing who reject the fallen angels producing hybrid interpretation that they are men I showed that it cannot be referring to men so we can rule out it is referring to men.

If you want to choose between the good angels and fallen angels I guess you can but atleast you think it is referring to angels.I still say fallen angels based on how we know that a third of the angels rebelled against God and they would come with Satan to present themselves before the Lord.It does'nt seem likely that good angels would come with Satan and present themselves before the Lord.Job 1:6.But there are also other things that have been presented for this interpretation in this thread that all adds up to this interpretation being correct.There are also Christians who have put alot of study and research into this issue that can really lay it out alot better than I could.These threads can go on for pages and context can get lost based on a post or two but people can go back through and examine the arguments made for either side and come to a conclusion.Plus they can do even more further research into this if they want to.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Sons of God does NOT refer to fallen angels explicitly.

Sons of God doesn't refer to fallen angels, EVER!

In order to say it does, one needs to go outside scripture.

Since ACB couldn't do it, maybe you can. Show me anywhere in scripture that sons of God refers to FALLEN angels.

Are you saying that we cannot know either way what sons of God means? Because we could make the same argument whether people think they are fallen angels,men or good angels.Based on what people have been arguing who reject the fallen angels producing hybrid interpretation that they are men I showed that it cannot be referring to men so we can rule out it is referring to men.

I think we can all agree that the most common usage of "sons of God" in Scripture refers to humans who are God's people.
(which is my starting point)

The question then becomes, does "sons of God" ever refer to something other than humans in Scripture?
The answer to that question is yes.
There are some passages in Scripture, where context explicitly identifies the term "sons of God" as referring to angels. Job 1:6 is an example of this.

However, in order for the 'angels mating with humans' theory to be true, then "sons of God" would have to refer to fallen angels.
That is the Achilles Heel of the 'angels mating with humans' theory.
As Rick has pointed out, Scripture never refers to FALLEN angels as "sons of God".

Moses referring to God's people (ie... humans) as "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is consistent with how Moses uses the term "sons of God" elsewhere in the Pentateuch. (which supports my starting premise)
In contrast, FALLEN angels are NEVER referred to as "sons of God" anywhere in Scripture.

There is nothing in the text of Genesis 6, that states that the offspring of the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" are not 100% human. The presumption that the offspring were hybrids is a function of the presumption that angels mated with humans, and is not a function of the Scriptural text.

The primary support for the theory that angels mated with humans comes from noncanonical documents and pagan myths... not Scripture.

...Well based on how Moses uses the phrase "sons of the Lord your God" in Deut 14:1 it appears that Moses uses the term "sons of God" to refer to the people of God.

Moses' use of the "sons of God" to refer to God's people (Adam's descendants) is also consistent with Luke's use of the term "son of God" to specifically refer to Adam.

I also have a lot of difficulty with the assertion that "sons of God" is a legitimate or Scriptural term to describe fallen angels in rebellion against God.

Asserting that "sons of God" is a reference to wicked angels seems to me to totally miss who the good guys and who the bad guys are in the Genesis 6 story.

As I mentioned before I believe the theme of the Genesis 6 story is how the good guys (the sons of God) were corrupted by the bad guys (the daughters of men) when the good guys entered into relationships with and adopted the customs of the bad guys. This theme of good guys entering into relationship with and adopting the evil customs of the bad guys is a common theme throughout Scripture.

Which is why Paul warns believers not to become unequally yoked with unbelievers.

The issue I have is asserting that "sons of God" is a legitimate term to describe supernatural beings who are acting in rebellion against God.

Ancient Hebrews 8,200 to 8,500 word in an entire vocabulary compared to Modern Englishes 350,000 plus words used in another factor is being tossed out of the equation by modern folks.

Let's take the sons of god things literally then, sons of God mean that Mormonism is right, we are all little gods....

You all are smart enough to see how dumb it is to imply that out of the phrase , "Ye are god's sons of the most high..." to interpret this to mean as Mormonism teaches -that we are gods- is a violation of the first part of the Ten C's... as well as the rest of the bible.

Yet, that is what folks are implying here if we follow their line of reason as a cookie cutter one size all definition for the sons of god phrase. The phrase, sons of God, is from a language using limited vocabulary where one phrase or word is used not in a one size fits all way as the English and the West uses.

It has several nuances of meanings. I was showing how and why the ancient scholars and early church fathers all taught that Genesis 6 phrase indeed implies fallen angels and that the Sethite view was a later edition and not the norm.

Phrase 'sons of God' is a phrase meaning those God created and set in place to rule, govern, watch over, take care of, minster...judge... etc.

They can be angelic beings - messengers or human. Context is important. Ancient scholars derived from the context as well as other ancient documents that these were watchers who left heaven by means of rebellion and added more corruption to and into humanity. They did so by enticing human leaders to do what a group of fallen angels want to accomplished.

Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 and Revelation 12 all give us clues that such a rebellion happened and by whom and that whom was not a human being. Sons of god also implied angels and not 100 percent of the time is confined in meaning to mean only human beings. Due to limited vocabulary same words and phrases can mean multiple things.

The issue is sexual intercourse - that phrase is due to limited vocabulary and is read into the text. However, there is enough evidence for ancient sources remain that human beings, plants, and animals were being genetically modified.

However, modern human beings view themselves wiser than any fallen angel, because we humans can genetically modify things but back in Genesis 6 the wisest of of the fallen angels were too stupid to be able to do this - well - is really dumb.

A language with a limited vocabulary would use a term meaning 'going into' to express what was going on but it does not mean that sexual intercourse happened to 'go into' as there are other means that our modern science has proven...

The issues is sex and modern folks are too focused on sex than to realize that the fallen angelic beings had a highly intelligent/skilled plot to corrupt humanity to destroy the one who would come and crush the serpent's head before that one came. To ascribe to the Sethite view due to sex issue is not using evidence of sources and taking into account limited vocabulary to connect the dots.

If as Sethite theroy says there was a pure line of human beings, or race, then how is that possible when through Adam came human sin nature entering the world? Couldn't Sethite view be used later for a master race theories that have come and gone?

Jesus said - as was in was in the days of Noah...

Where did this knowledge to genetically modify come from - is it being inspired by fallen angels? We maybe seeing how Genesis 6 about before our eyes.

Why did God warn about and make an OT law not to alter and mix seeds ie GMO's ?

-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

...Well based on how Moses uses the phrase "sons of the Lord your God" in Deut 14:1 it appears that Moses uses the term "sons of God" to refer to the people of God.

Moses' use of the "sons of God" to refer to God's people (Adam's descendants) is also consistent with Luke's use of the term "son of God" to specifically refer to Adam.

I also have a lot of difficulty with the assertion that "sons of God" is a legitimate or Scriptural term to describe fallen angels in rebellion against God.

Asserting that "sons of God" is a reference to wicked angels seems to me to totally miss who the good guys and who the bad guys are in the Genesis 6 story.

As I mentioned before I believe the theme of the Genesis 6 story is how the good guys (the sons of God) were corrupted by the bad guys (the daughters of men) when the good guys entered into relationships with and adopted the customs of the bad guys. This theme of good guys entering into relationship with and adopting the evil customs of the bad guys is a common theme throughout Scripture.

Which is why Paul warns believers not to become unequally yoked with unbelievers.

The issue I have is asserting that "sons of God" is a legitimate term to describe supernatural beings who are acting in rebellion against God.

Ancient Hebrews 8,200 to 8,500 word in an entire vocabulary compared to Modern Englishes 350,000 plus words used in another factor is being tossed out of the equation by modern folks.

Let's take the sons of god things literally then, sons of God mean that Mormonism is right, we are all little gods....

You all are smart enough to see how dumb it is to imply that out of the phrase , "Ye are god's sons of the most high..." to interpret this to mean as Mormonism teaches -that we are gods- is a violation of the first part of the Ten C's... as well as the rest of the bible.

Yet, that is what folks are implying here if we follow their line of reason as a cookie cutter one size all definition for the sons of god phrase. The phrase, sons of God, is from a language using limited vocabulary where one phrase or word is used not in a one size fits all way as the English and the West uses.

It has several nuances of meanings. I was showing how and why the ancient scholars and early church fathers all taught that Genesis 6 phrase indeed implies fallen angels and that the Sethite view was a later edition and not the norm.

Phrase 'sons of God' is a phrase meaning those God created and set in place to rule, govern, watch over, take care of, minster...judge... etc.

They can be angelic beings - messengers or human. Context is important. Ancient scholars derived from the context as well as other ancient documents that these were watchers who left heaven by means of rebellion and added more corruption to and into humanity. They did so by enticing human leaders to do what a group of fallen angels want to accomplished.

Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 and Revelation 12 all give us clues that such a rebellion happened and by whom and that whom was not a human being. Sons of god also implied angels and not 100 percent of the time is confined in meaning to mean only human beings. Due to limited vocabulary same words and phrases can mean multiple things.

The issue is sexual intercourse - that phrase is due to limited vocabulary and is read into the text. However, there is enough evidence for ancient sources remain that human beings, plants, and animals were being genetically modified.

However, modern human beings view themselves wiser than any fallen angel, because we humans can genetically modify things but back in Genesis 6 the wisest of of the fallen angels were too stupid to be able to do this - well - is really dumb.

A language with a limited vocabulary would use a term meaning 'going into' to express what was going on but it does not mean that sexual intercourse happened to 'go into' as there are other means that our modern science has proven...

The issues is sex and modern folks are too focused on sex than to realize that the fallen angelic beings had a highly intelligent/skilled plot to corrupt humanity to destroy the one who would come and crush the serpent's head before that one came. To ascribe to the Sethite view due to sex issue is not using evidence of sources and taking into account limited vocabulary to connect the dots.

If as Sethite theroy says there was a pure line of human beings, or race, then how is that possible when through Adam came human sin nature entering the world? Couldn't Sethite view be used later for a master race theories that have come and gone?

Jesus said - as was in was in the days of Noah...

Where did this knowledge to genetically modify come from - is it being inspired by fallen angels? We maybe seeing how Genesis 6 about before our eyes.

Why did God warn about and make an OT law not to alter and mix seeds ie GMO's ?

-
-
-

One thing though, other than the passage where Jesus makes it clear that there is no sexual intercourse IN HEAVEN, is there any reason to believe that divine beings can NOT make with humans on Earth?
We know that are NOT supposed to but we also know that divine beings have free will and rebel, just like us.

Good grief!

This thread has gone down the crapper!

Does anyone pay attention to what someone else is arguing anymore?

RickD wrote:Good grief!

This thread has gone down the crapper!

Does anyone pay attention to what someone else is arguing anymore?

Rick, no need for that.
It was an honest question dude.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:Good grief!

This thread has gone down the crapper!

Does anyone pay attention to what someone else is arguing anymore?

Rick, no need for that.
It was an honest question dude.

I wasn't referring to your post, Paul.

Your question pertains to the discussion. As I've already addressed it, others can chime in.

My issue is that ACB now thinks that it's possible that good angels mated with human women.

And B.W.'s post is full of rebuttals against things that nobody here is even arguing for.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:Good grief!

This thread has gone down the crapper!

Does anyone pay attention to what someone else is arguing anymore?

Rick, no need for that.
It was an honest question dude.

I wasn't referring to your post, Paul.

Your question pertains to the discussion. As I've already addressed it, others can chime in.

My issue is that ACB now thinks that it's possible that good angels mated with human women.

And B.W.'s post is full of rebuttals against things that nobody here is even arguing for.

BW's post is stating that these could be a possibility that the Sons of God did NOT mate with human females but altered their DNA BUT that the understanding of such a thing was beyond ancient man and they could only relate to it in terms of sexual relations.

B. W. wrote: Yet, that is what folks are implying here if we follow their line of reason as a cookie cutter one size all definition for the sons of god phrase.

I am unaware of anyone in this thread who does not acknowledge that "sons of God" in Scripture can refer to either God's people or angels based on context.
So this looks like a straw man argument to me.

The question at hand is, does the phrase "sons of God" ever refer to FALLEN angels in Scripture?
And the answer to that question is no.

It has several nuances of meanings. I was showing how and why the ancient scholars and early church fathers all taught that Genesis 6 phrase indeed implies fallen angels and that the Sethite view was a later edition and not the norm.

The beliefs of the early church fathers who taught that Genesis 6 referred to fallen angels was a function of non-canonical documents and traditions, not Scripture itself.
And I have repeatedly acknowledged that the best argument for the 'angels mating with humans' theory is based on extraScriptural sources.

The reason I am sceptical of the historical accuracy of these extraScriptural sources regarding this particular issue is that they are so far removed from the time frame of the Genesis 6 historical event. I am doubtful that uninspired traditions that appeared thousands of years after the historical event itself accurately reflect the the events that occurred in Genesis 6.

Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 and Revelation 12 all give us clues that such a rebellion happened and by whom and that whom was not a human being. Sons of god also implied angels and not 100 percent of the time is confined in meaning to mean only human beings

I agree...
However, getting back to the key argument.
Scripture does occasionally refer to angels who are serving God as "sons of God".
But there is not a single place in Scripture where FALLEN angels are referred to as "sons of God".

The question I have to ask myself is...
Am I going to interpret the phrase "sons of God" in Genesis 6 based on how Moses and other Scriptures use the phrase?
or
Am I going to interpret the phrase "sons of God" in Genesis 6 based on uninspired traditions that developed thousands of years after the Genesis 6 events took place?

If as Sethite theroy says there was a pure line of human beings, or race, then how is that possible when through Adam came human sin nature entering the world?

First... I don't embrace the Sethite theory. Based on Luke 3, I embrace the Adamite theory... but that's a totally different discussion.

My basic premise is that "sons of God" is used in Genesis 6 as it is used elsewhere by Moses and other Scriptures to refer to God's people.

Scripture does not claim that God's people (whether they be the descendants of Adam, the children of Israel, or believers who have placed their faith in Jesus) are sinless.

In fact (repeating myself again) I believe that the story of Genesis 6 is the story of how God's people (the sons of God) were corrupted by the godless "daughters of men"... Similar to how later in Scripture God's people (the children of Israel) were corrupted by the godless inhabitants of Palestine.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:Good grief!

This thread has gone down the crapper!

Does anyone pay attention to what someone else is arguing anymore?

Rick, no need for that.
It was an honest question dude.

I wasn't referring to your post, Paul.

Your question pertains to the discussion. As I've already addressed it, others can chime in.

My issue is that ACB now thinks that it's possible that good angels mated with human women.

And B.W.'s post is full of rebuttals against things that nobody here is even arguing for.

BW's post is stating that these could be a possibility that the Sons of God did NOT mate with human females but altered their DNA BUT that the understanding of such a thing was beyond ancient man and they could only relate to it in terms of sexual relations.

Well,

If that's what he's saying, there's no basis for it in scripture.

Here's what the text says in Genesis 6:4
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.
DNA manipulation sounds more like some science fiction book by Zecharia Sitchin, than what the text actually says.

Nobody is saying there was a pure line of human beings through Seth.
Nobody is saying "sons of God" is a one size fits all phrase.

I'm not sure I'm too confident in the Sethite theory about this. I think DBowling may be onto something with his Adamite theory. I believe he's discussed it before.

DBowling, maybe you could explain it further, or perhaps link us to where you discussed it before. I think it's at least as good as any other theory out there.

This is one of the wilder discussions I've ever read on G&S. And it's filled with speculations that will likely go nowhere. If, IF the "sons of God" are fallen angels, it's certainly not clear from the text. So - let's not go trying to matchy-match Scripture to fit that scenario. It's so unclear, that IF that were the case, it surely can't be relevant to us today - rather, IF true, our knowledge of that wouldn't change how things already are for humans today.

Paul: is there any reason to believe that divine beings can NOT make with humans on Earth?

Assuming you mean "mate" and not "make," the answer is, that Scripture teaches that the demonic/fallen angels have the ability to disguise or manifest themselves in human and other forms. If they can take on human form, then I'd say that means they can physically do whatever a human form is capable of - yes, that means including the ability to engage in sex. But what would their dna produce - as it would seem to be human dna if they took on human form and abilities - as they are spiritual beings. But all that is a mere technical speculation - as we're still left with immense uncertainty that this phrase is referring to fallen angels. It's just one more bible mystery spurring endless debate.