If you go back through this topic, you'll see the reasoning for why Sons of God refers to angels who sinned and left their former estate
BTW grammatically it appears you have two sequence of events
Man began to multiply and produce female offspring first Gen 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,
THEN the Sons of God took the daughters Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
If you are correct then Seth and His male offspring waited until this time to have wives. But clearly, before this time, they were already marrying women. THEY were marrying women AND having children. Seth was a Man. The word for Man there is Adam. Adam was the first man. There is no biblical teaching of distinguishing between men and the Sons of God. as a special race of men.
Why not draw that distinction in Chapter 4 where Seth has a child named Enosh "and then began men to call on the name of the LORD"?
All the way up to chapter 6 they are called "man" not "Sons of God"
Your view just does not make sense
"son of god" or "son of a god" or "sons of God" were frequent terms in Semitic culture to refer to divine beings. See where Nebuchadnezzar refers to the angel that delivered the 3 hebrew children as "one like a son of the gods"
Here is some information to read up on
SONS OF GOD (OT) [Heb. benę (hā)ʾĕlōhîm, benę ʾēlîm]. Divine beings. Just as “sons of man” means human beings in Hebrew, so “sons of God” means divine beings, i.e., gods. In Canaanite religion and myth, the term “sons of God” or “sons of the gods” referred to the gods in general. They were the deities of the pantheon who convened to render decisions regarding the governance of the world. Ugaritic mythological texts, e.g., call this divine council “the assembly of the sons of God” (or “of ʾEl,” the chief god). The survival of this idea in Canaanite tradition is illustrated by a reference to “all the sons of the gods” in a Phoenician incantation of the 7th cent. B.C. found at Arslan Tash in northern Syria.
The same usage occurs, at least vestigially, in certain passages in the Hebrew Bible. Dt. 32:8 says that “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bound of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God” (so RSV, NEB; the MT erroneously has “sons of Israel” [benę yiśrāʾēl], but the versions [e.g., LXX, Symm, Old Latin] and a scroll from Qumrân support the reading “sons of God” [benę ʾēlîm]). In other words, the Most High assigned one of the peoples of the world to each of the divine beings in the council. As v 9 indicates, Yahweh’s portion was Israel. The original notion seems to have been that Yahweh, God of Israel, stood alongside the other national gods in a council presided over by the Most High. But those who included this old poem in Deuteronomy understood Yahweh and the Most High to be identical, as they are elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Ps. 83:18 [MT 19]), and the sons of God to be subordinate, angelic beings. Thus Yahweh distributed the other nations to His angels, keeping Israel for Himself (cf. Sir. 17:17).
The sons of God appear in other poetic passages, all of which have an archaic character. Job 38:7, e.g., identifies them with “the morning stars” and recalls that they shouted their acclamation at Yahweh’s creation of the earth. Ps. 29:1 calls upon the “sons of God” (Heb. benę ʾēlîm; RSV “heavenly beings”) to praise Yahweh. Ps. 82:1 describes Yahweh as rising “in the midst of the gods”—i.e., “in the divine council” (lit “council of ʾEl”)—to pass judgment on the other gods. Verses 6f say, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men.” Ps. 89:6 (MT 7) is an assertion of Yahweh’s incomparability: “Who among the heavenly beings [benę ʾēlîm] is like the Lord …” (cf. Ex. 15:11).
Again, the original intent of these passages may have been to present Yahweh as one deity (albeit the greatest and the only just deity) alongside others in the divine council. But the passages were preserved because they can be understood in the light of the general biblical idea of a council of subordinate divine beings (“messengers” or “angels”) ruled by Yahweh (on Ps. 82 see esp G. E. Wright, OT Against its Environment [SBT, 1/2; 1950], pp. 30–41).
The prologue to Job reflects this more usual biblical notion of subordinate divine beings. Job 1:6 and 2:1 refer to “a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord.” In this case the sons of God are angelic beings who carry out Yahweh’s will on earth and report to Him in His heavenly council. The relatively independent figure of “the adversary” (haśśāṭān, RSV “Satan”) in this context anticipates later developments in the Judeo-Christian tradition according to which SATAN or Lucifer and his fellow angels were viewed as having sufficient autonomy to rebel against God.
McCarter, P. K., Jr. (1979–1988). Sons of God (OT). In G. W. Bromiley (Ed.), . Vol. 4: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (G. W. Bromiley, Ed.) (584). Wm. B. Eerdmans.
You say there is no explicit mention of the Sons of God alluding to those dedicated to God and the Law in the OT.
Yet, in Romans 8:14, Paul calls those that are led of the Spirit the "sons of God". He wouldn't have used that term if it couldn't be established in the Septuagint. IOW, the thought was already there or Paul wouldn't have used the term.
You say there is no explicit mention of the Sons of God alluding to those dedicated to God and the Law in the OT.
Yet, in Romans 8:14, Paul calls those that are led of the Spirit the "sons of God". He wouldn't have used that term if it couldn't be established in the Septuagint. IOW, the thought was already there or Paul wouldn't have used the term.
Maybe Prax, thinks we are Angels? I did marry one 30 years ago!
You say there is no explicit mention of the Sons of God alluding to those dedicated to God and the Law in the OT.
Yet, in Romans 8:14, Paul calls those that are led of the Spirit the "sons of God". He wouldn't have used that term if it couldn't be established in the Septuagint. IOW, the thought was already there or Paul wouldn't have used the term.
Paul was not referring to a group of people in the OT
He was speaking of NT believers
And that us a NT verse, not an OT verse.
Here is what I REALLY said
If you are correct then Seth and His male offspring waited until this time to have wives. But clearly, before this time, they were already marrying women. THEY were marrying women AND having children. Seth was a Man. The word for Man there is Adam. Adam was the first man. There is no biblical teaching of distinguishing between men and the Sons of God. as a special race of men.
Why not draw that distinction in Chapter 4 where Seth has a child named Enosh "and then began men to call on the name of the LORD"?
All the way up to chapter 6 they are called "man" not "Sons of God"
Your view just does not make sense
"son of god" or "son of a god" or "sons of God" were frequent terms in Semitic culture to refer to divine beings. See where Nebuchadnezzar refers to the angel that delivered the 3 hebrew children as "one like a son of the gods"
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
People have NO EXPLANATION as to what the writer means by the "angels who sinned" or that "left their own habitation". Its very simple. All the worlds historians point back to a time when beings came down from the Heavens.
People have NO EXPLANATION as to what the writer means by the "angels who sinned" or that "left their own habitation". Its very simple. All the worlds historians point back to a time when beings came down from the Heavens.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
You say there is no explicit mention of the Sons of God alluding to those dedicated to God and the Law in the OT.
Yet, in Romans 8:14, Paul calls those that are led of the Spirit the "sons of God". He wouldn't have used that term if it couldn't be established in the Septuagint. IOW, the thought was already there or Paul wouldn't have used the term.
"Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;"
"Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;"
You are comparing ancient Semetic culture to a NT paradigm
Paul is not referring to any OT saint in particular. Also he is not talking about the righteous but those who have received the Spirit of Christ
so if all those Sons of God have already received the Spirit of Christ and COULD, why would Jesus have to come and die?
#context
Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. Rom 8:12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
"Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;"
"Son of God" or "Sons of God" is a specific phrase. The debate isn't over whether or not Israel is called a son by God. It's over what the Phrase "Son of God" meant/means
I posted the evidence from a Dictionary and scriptures. It was a Semitic term used to designate divine beings
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Angels becoming human? What foundation do you have to say they can become human? Brother.... And they can recreate themselves? It's more logical to ask who said they can recreate themselves? If we take every possibility the bible never mentioned and ask who said it cannot be so, we'd be where the Roman Catholics are.
A human form does not mean anything became human. Angels are so close to human beings simply because JESUS compared us to those in heaven. That is no grounds to say we become Angels or Angels can Become human. He also said we're made a little lower than Angels.
It takes incredibly far more speculation and assumption to say the sons of God were fallen angels than they were sons of Seth's line who married unbelieving women. After all, Genesis 6 mentions this after it distinctly said men began to multiply over the face of the earth, following the division between Cain in his exile and Adam. The two peoples finally came together after man spread more over the world.
The more I hear about them being angels in this thread the more I am convinced there is far too much wild speculation to conclude they are angels.
OK let us put aside the Book of Enoch as unreliable.
Let us go straight to the Bible. the word of God.
Look at what it says about the time of creation, before there were any humans at all.
Job 38
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
at this point there are no humans, but the angels are called sons of God.
The words sons of God in the Old Testament are a clear reference to angels.
__________________
**Original Matthew 28:19 Restored**
Linear Mode
