The sons of God and the daughters of men

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Indeed this is the clincher.

Jude 6 You also know that the angels who did not keep within their proper domain but abandoned their own place of residence, he has kept in eternal chains in utter darkness, locked up for the judgment of the great Day. 7 So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire. 8 Yet these men, as a result of their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and insult the glorious ones. – NET Bible (emphasis added)

Those who ridicule the teaching of the fallen angels coming to Earth never attempt to explain this. The "sons of Seth" explanation falls flat when compared to this direct scripture about angels leaving their original place.

Never fails. There is no other Biblical reference point than the angels sinning with women. Like as has been pointed out angels transformed themselves into men. Its simple.

[Scott Hutchinson]

This is from a video series on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtxiJa4ht_U

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Never fails. There is no other Biblical reference point than the angels sinning with women. Like as has been pointed out angels transformed themselves into men. Its simple.

I personally think the NET is a presumptuous interpretation of the text in Jude verse 6 to say the least. The context is not saying the angles and the Sodomites had similar sins, but the Israelites were similar to the Sodomites in verse7.

1Co 10:8 KJV Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I personally think the NET is a presumptuous interpretation of the text in Jude verse 6 to say the least. The context is not saying the angles and the Sodomites had similar sins, but the Israelites were similar to the Sodomites in verse7.

1Co 10:8 KJV Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

Mike,

You prove richly what I am saying. Why not address what did Jude mean when he said angels sinned? What does it mean when it says angels "kept not their first estate"?

[OilCityCajun]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Indeed this is the clincher.

Jude 6 You also know that the angels who did not keep within their proper domain...he has kept in eternal chains in utter darkness, locked up for the judgment of the great Day.

Those who ridicule the teaching of the fallen angels coming to Earth never attempt to explain this. The "sons of Seth" explanation falls flat when compared to this direct scripture about angels leaving their original place.

The refutation of your thesis is contained within the evidence you present. If they are locked in utter darkness with eternal chains, I would think it rather difficult for them to come in unto the women of Earth. Wouldnt you?

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Mike,

You prove richly what I am saying. Why not address what did Jude mean when he said angels sinned? What does it mean when it says angels "kept not their first estate"?

Is it not plain? Their first estate was to worship around the throne of God. When Lucifer, Heaven's choir director, decided they should sing praises to him, rather than to God, 1/3 of the heavenly host left their original purpose of worshiping God to worship Lucifer. The sin to which Jude refers is the sins of idolatry (on the part of the 1/3) and pride (on the part of Lucifer).

It appears to me you are building a doctrine on smoke and mirrors. It has already been stated plainly that 1) Nephalim is not even the word which actually appears and 2) Even if Nephalim had been the word used, there are so many different valid interpretations of that word, cleaving to your favorite version and ignoring the existance of all others makes for a very unstable foundation.

[Michael The Disciple]

The refutation of your thesis is contained within the evidence you present. If they are locked in utter darkness with eternal chains, I would think it rather difficult for them to come in unto the women of Earth. Wouldnt you?

Well I will give you credit for attempting an answer. But no the reason they are in chains of darkness is because they left their abode. The only reference in the Old Testament for this is the sons of God story.

If your doctrine were true then who are the angels that work in concert with satan now? If those in chains were the ones who followed his rebellion he would have no angels(that we call demons) to use against us today.

As far as my favorite version that would be the KJV so what does that have to do with Genesis 6?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by fl4christ

(Translations according to New International Version. Note that translations frequently differ. In the King James Version of the Bible, "Nephilim" is translated as "giants" in the following examples.)

............................

I apologize for the length of this but it is hard to cut short. Like I said it is just FOOD FOR THOUGHT -

Why would Cain's decendents be called the "sons of God", seeing they would have been wicked? This is why most assume it has to be the line of righteous Seth.

Also, why use a Hebrew term "bene-ha-elohim" to define them? This phrase is also translated as "divine beings" and is used in Job 1:6 and 2:1 to depict angelic beings. In Job 38:7 we read that the "sons of God" have been with GOD at the creation of the world. They also appear in Psalm 89:7, where GOD is proclaimed incomparable to all other gods, and in Psalm 29:1 where they sing praises to GOD.

Also, how do extra-biblical sources use the phrase?

Canaanite traditions also use the term "sons of God" (""banu ili" or "banu ili-mi"") in their texts dating back to the 14th century BCE. In the Canaanite pantheon, the chief god is El (meaning "God") and his wife is Asherah. The phrase "sons of God" can then be translated as the children of El. There are also references in Phoenician inscriptions of the 7-8th centuries BCE - Arslan Tash (KAI 27.II) and Karatepe (KAI 26.A.III.19) and in an Ammonite inscription of the 9th century found in Amman, Jordan. This may be an earlier tradition that Biblical phrase pulls from.

If these are not fallen angelic beings who are the angels mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6, and what sin was so terrible it warranted binding them until the Day of Judgment...while allowing Satan and the rest of his fallen angels to roam free until this very day?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Who said cherubims were angels? These four beasts proclaim the blood redeemed them from all nations in Rev 5:9-10. I do not believe angels are cherubims.

And you're divorcing the everything we know about cheubims from historical context. Even the Jews regarded cherubs as angels.

We need plain teaching to this effect, though, I think.

That's why I digressed.

I always believed angels could take on physical form any time they wanted. It was [part of their creation purpose.

I think that is too much assumption in light of the plain statement that angels are not given in marriage, and I would think that statement took into consideration the many times in the past when angels appeared.

If you take a very close look at Christ's words listen to what he says,

Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

First, this verse doesn't state that they are incapable of taking physical form and reproducing. It merely states that they don't marry. Second, it states that the "angels of God in heaven" are those who don't marry. Jesus tells us nothing regarding what the "fallen angels" are capable of doing.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Well I will give you credit for attempting an answer. But no the reason they are in chains of darkness is because they left their abode. The only reference in the Old Testament for this is the sons of God story.

If your doctrine were true then who are the angels that work in concert with satan now? If those in chains were the ones who followed his rebellion he would have no angels(that we call demons) to use against us today.

As far as my favorite version that would be the KJV so what does that have to do with Genesis 6?

Amen.

So many fail to see this. Obviously Bible interprets Bible. So who are the angels who sinned and where is their sin discussed in Scripture? Both Peter and Jude write of them as though their readers would know right away what they were writing about. No explaining was necessary. Clearly they felt it was explained in the Scriptures? But where???

Also, excellent point regarding Satan and demons we face today. I've made this point myself many times.

The only answer I can see is in Genesis 6. Also, Josephus writes of this...

"For many angels of God (11) accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land." ~ Flavius Josephus , Antiquities of the Jews - Book I

There is a notation regarding the "angels of God" mentioned in the margins. It reads:

"(11) This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense, the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity."

This proves that the idea that angels indeed cohabitated with women was present in Judaism, and was popular opinion. It is likely that the interpretation of the "Sons of God" being fallen angels was taught in synagogues regularly.

Thus... Peter and Jude didn't need to explain about the "angels that sinned" or "left their first estate". Their readers understood this to be a reference to events in Genesis 6.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Amen.

So many fail to see this. Obviously Bible interprets Bible. So who are the angels who sinned and where is their sin discussed in Scripture? Both Peter and Jude write of them as though their readers would know right away what they were writing about. No explaining was necessary. Clearly they felt it was explained in the Scriptures? But where???

Also, excellent point regarding Satan and demons we face today. I've made this point myself many times.

The only answer I can see is in Genesis 6. Also, Josephus writes of this...

"For many angels of God (11) accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land." ~ Flavius Josephus , Antiquities of the Jews - Book I

There is a notation regarding the "angels of God" mentioned in the margins. It reads:

"(11) This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense, the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity."

This proves that the idea that angels indeed cohabitated with women was present in Judaism, and was popular opinion. It is likely that the interpretation of the "Sons of God" being fallen angels was taught in synagogues regularly.

Thus... Peter and Jude didn't need to explain about the "angels that sinned" or "left their first estate". Their readers understood this to be a reference to events in Genesis 6.

That nails it down nicely.