Genesis 6

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

This is an interesting article on the influence of 1 Enoch on Jude and 1, 2 Peter.

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.c...eter-and-jude/
.
.

I found this in the article and just threw me off:

"Whereas the Old Testament tends to describe the sin of Sodom in terms of injustice and inhospitality, later apocryphal writings (notably Jubilees) emphasis sexual immorality."

That's not true. Those that say that, are usually trying to make an argument in favor of Homosexuality as not a sin. They usually quote Ezekiel 16, but the always forget to quote the entire pericope:


[Eze 16:48-50 NKJV]
48 "[As] I live," says the Lord GOD, "neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done.


Then comes the typical verse used for that argument:
49 "Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

But they always forget this:
50 "And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw [fit].

The obvious:
[Lev 18:22 NKJV] 22 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It [is] an abomination.

Curiously, the Hebrew word for abomination in this passage in Ezekiel is the same as the passage in Leviticus.

The sin of Sodom and Gomorah started with pride out of abundance of food, and ended with Homosexuality. They are all sin, and the later is even an abomination.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I found this in the article and just threw me off:

"Whereas the Old Testament tends to describe the sin of Sodom in terms of injustice and inhospitality, later apocryphal writings (notably Jubilees) emphasis sexual immorality."

That's not true. Those that say that, are usually trying to make an argument in favor of Homosexuality as not a sin. They usually quote Ezekiel 16, but the always forget to quote the entire pericope:


[Eze 16:48-50 NKJV]
48 "[As] I live," says the Lord GOD, "neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done.


Then comes the typical verse used for that argument:
49 "Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

But they always forget this:
50 "And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw [fit].

The obvious:
[Lev 18:22 NKJV] 22 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It [is] an abomination.

Curiously, the Hebrew word for abomination in this passage in Ezekiel is the same as the passage in Leviticus.

The sin of Sodom and Gomorah started with pride out of abundance of food, and ended with Homosexuality. They are all sin, and the later is even an abomination.

Very important point

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I found this in the article and just threw me off:

The sin of Sodom and Gomorah started with pride out of abundance of food, and ended with Homosexuality. They are all sin, and the later is even an abomination.

According to the highlighted portion, how does the pride of fullness of bread lead to homosexuality? Could that be what homosexuality stems from, pride of having fullness of bread?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

According to the highlighted portion, how does the pride of fullness of bread lead to homosexuality? Could that be what homosexuality stems from, pride of having fullness of bread?

Have you ever read John Bagot Glubb's writings?

Anyway, it is a long topic, so it can derail the topic of this thread too much.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

According to the highlighted portion, how does the pride of fullness of bread lead to homosexuality? Could that be what homosexuality stems from, pride of having fullness of bread?

Romans 1:21-28 KJV
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, [23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. [24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: [27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. [28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Aberrant sexual behaviour in a society is a result of that society not following God's Law faithfully.

Sodom was relatively wealthy, became lifted up in arrogance, and descended into corruption, injustice, and perversion. Many such cases.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Amanah

What theory do you think is correct:

Various scholars have proposed that the “sons of God” are either:
(1) fallen angels (cf. À 1:6; some, however, suggest that this contradicts Mark 12:25, though the reference in Mark is to angels in heaven; see also 2 Pet. 2:4–5; Jude 5–6); or
(2) tyrannical human judges or kings (in the ungodly line of Lamech, possibly demon-possessed); or
(3) followers of God among the male descendants of Seth (i.e., the godly line of Seth, but who married the ungodly daughters of Cain).
Though it would be difficult to determine which of these three views may be correct, it is clear that the kind of relationship described here involved some form of grievous sexual perversion, wherein the “sons of God” saw and with impunity took any women (“daughters of man”) that they wanted.
The sequence here in Gen. 6:2 (“saw … attractive [good] … took”) parallels the sequence of the fall in 3:6 (“saw … good … took”). In both cases, something good in God’s creation is used in disobedience and sinful rebellion against God, with tragic consequences. Only Noah stands apart from this sin. (See note on 1 Pet. 3:19.)
(From my ESV Study Bible)

In the Hebrew Scriptures, there is a taxonomy of divine entities, as follows:

- bene elohim/bene elim or sons of God, members of the the Divine Council, though some have fallen and are now bound in chains of everlasting darkness
- seraphim or fiery flying serpents, which fly over the throne of YHWH, crying "holy, holy, holy", or are sent as judgments against the people of God
- cherubim or throne-room guardians, which stand watch over the cosmos from before the throne of YHWH
- malakim, or angels, as we understand them, always appearing in human form. Some are given names, some are merely given titles
- elohim called “the host of heaven”. Paul frequently refers to them as “thrones or dominions or rulers of authorities”, while both Simon Peter and Jude, each in their respective epistles, called (at least some of) them “glorious ones”
- ha-satan, the adversary. In one instance, even the Angel of YHWH is called a satan. In the Holy Scriptures of the New Covenant, ha-satan of the Old Testament becomes Satan, also known as the Dragon, the Deceiver of the Whole World
- sheddim, or evil spirits
- nephilim, or fallen ones
- rephaim, also called zamzummim, or shades of the dead
- gibborim, or giants

As such, it doesn't behoove us to call the Sons of God from Genesis 6:4 "fallen angels", because they are not angels. They are in a different category of spiritual being.

Angel, from the Greek term angelos, meaning messenger, is a term denoting a job description, i.e. what a spiritual being does, not what a spiritual being is. Further, due to the influences of the LXX, the term "angel" became a catch-all terms denoting all spiritual beings, hence its use in texts from 2 Peter and Jude.

Notes:

For bene elohim/bene elim, see, e.g. Genesis 6:2, Deuteronomy 32:8, and Job 1:6.

For seraphim, see, e.g. Numbers 21:6, Deuteronomy 8:15, and Isaiah 6:2.

For cherubim, see, e.g. Genesis 3:24 and Ezekiel 10:1

For malakim, see, e.g. Psalm 8:5 with Hebrews 2:5-8.

For named malakim, see, e.g. Daniel 8:16 and Luke 1:19 for Gabriel, Daniel 10:21 and Revelation 12:7 for Michael. Cf. Psalm 147:4, which reads “He determines the number of stars; he gives to all of them names”.

For those merely given titles, examples include Azazel (e.g. Leviticus 16:8), the Prince of the Kingdom of Persia (e.g. Daniel 10:13), and Archangel (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 4:16).

For generic elohim, i.e. the "host of heaven", see, e.g. Deuteronomy 4:19, 1 Kings 22:19, Nehemiah 9:6, Isaiah 24:21, Jeremiah 33:22, Daniel 4:35, and Luke 2:13.

For "thrones, dominions," etc, see, e.g. Colossians 1:16.

For elohim which have which have given themselves over to wickedness, Paul calls those “the rulers…the authorities…the cosmic powers over this present darkness…the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places”. Or, like James and John the Revelator, he sometimes simply calls them “demons” (See, e.g. 1 Corinthians 10:20-21, 1 Timothy 4:1, James 2:19, Revelation 9:20, and Revelation 18:2), the term most often used by the authors of the Gospels and by the Lord Jesus Himself (For a complete listing, see: Matthew 4:24, Matthew 7:22, Matthew 8:16, Matthew 8:31, Matthew 9:34, Matthew 10:8, Matthew 12:24, Matthew 12:27, Mark 1:32, Mark 1:34, Mark 1:39, Mark 3:15, Mark 3:22, Mark 5:18, Mark 6:13, Mark 9:38, Mark 16:9, Mark 16:17, Luke 4:41, Luke 8:2, Luke 8:27, Luke 8:30, Luke 8:33, Luke 8:35, Luke 8:38, Luke 9:1, Luke 9:49, Luke 10:17, Luke 11:15, Luke 11:18, Luke 11:19, Luke 11:20, and Luke 13:32.

For "glorious ones", see, 2 Peter 2:10 and Jude 1:8.

For ha-satan, see, e.g. Job 1:6.

For the Angel of YHWH as a satan, see Numbers 22:22.

For Satan/Dragon/Deceiver, see Revelation 12:9.

For sheddim, see, e.g. Deuteronomy 32:17 and Psalm 106:37.

For nephilim, see, e.g. Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33.

For rephaim/zamzummim, see, e.g. Deuteronomy 2:20, Proverbs 9:18, and Isaiah 26:14.

For gibborim, see, e.g. Genesis 6:4, and as a post-mortem description of Goliath, see 1 Samuel 17:51.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by diakonos

So, book of Enoch for the win!?

Extra-Biblical sources like 1 Enoch are not required to show that the Sons of God in Genesis 6:4 are supernatural beings.

The author of 1 Enoch makes use of the generally agreed upon understanding of the Sons of God in Post-Exilic, 2nd Temple Judaism, and attempts to flesh out the story in order to create a polemic against the corrupt priesthood of the Hasmonean era.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Have you ever read John Bagot Glubb's writings?

Anyway, it is a long topic, so it can derail the topic of this thread too much.

start another thread on it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

What theory do you think is correct:

Various scholars have proposed that the “sons of God” are either:
(1) fallen angels (cf. À 1:6; some, however, suggest that this contradicts Mark 12:25, though the reference in Mark is to angels in heaven; see also 2 Pet. 2:4–5; Jude 5–6); or
(2) tyrannical human judges or kings (in the ungodly line of Lamech, possibly demon-possessed); or
(3) followers of God among the male descendants of Seth (i.e., the godly line of Seth, but who married the ungodly daughters of Cain).
Though it would be difficult to determine which of these three views may be correct, it is clear that the kind of relationship described here involved some form of grievous sexual perversion, wherein the “sons of God” saw and with impunity took any women (“daughters of man”) that they wanted.
The sequence here in Gen. 6:2 (“saw … attractive [good] … took”) parallels the sequence of the fall in 3:6 (“saw … good … took”). In both cases, something good in God’s creation is used in disobedience and sinful rebellion against God, with tragic consequences. Only Noah stands apart from this sin. (See note on 1 Pet. 3:19.)
(From my ESV Study Bible)

Angels don't procreate. Matthew 22:30. Marriage in the Bible is not a ceremony, but a joining of man and woman. Jesus refutes the whole Fallen angel creating cannibalistic giants of 1st Enoch.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Extra-Biblical sources like 1 Enoch are not required to show that the Sons of God in Genesis 6:4 are supernatural beings.

Hebrews 1:5 KJV
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

In other words, "Where does the Bible ever call an angel God's Son?" The implied answer being "Nowhere."

Conclusion: Angels are nowhere in the Bible called Sons (of God). Therefore the sons of God in Scripture are not angels.

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

By the way, the issue wasn't fornication or cross species interbreeding. The issue was MARRIAGE.