Genesis 6

[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)

[Amanah]

I know this has been discussed before, but I can't find the thread.

[coksiw]

That's the first and last time Moses used that phrase "sons of God". Job is the other ancient book that uses that terminology to refer to angels in Job 38:7.

The Jewish tradition always interpreted it as angels. The Biblical literary context gives no room for other interpretation that it was angels. Some Biblical theological analysis favors the idea of just a kind of men. I think the latter encounters more problems that the former. Godly linage of Seth? that raises a lot of other difficult questions. The magistrates, governors, etc...? bunch of other difficult questions.

If we see that story narrative as simply testifying what they appeared to be to the eyewitnesses, and you simply understand they refer to angels, it is still theologically possible. A possible explanation is that what really happened was angels somehow inseminated those women with other men's seeds, and the women had just regular human children, and the angels possessed them, and/or performed signs for them, making them appear as powerful people. Basically, the angels didn't really procreate with women, but rather was all a deception, yet appeared as "the sons of God had children with the daughters of men.

This is the Jewish translation of the verse:

https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.6.4?...h=all&lang2=en

It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth—when divine beings cohabited with the human women, who bore them offspring. Such were the heroes of old, the men of renown.

The Antiquities of the Jews 1:3:1:

for many angels [11] of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good

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

On the Unchangeble God, Philo (Also from the second temple period):

[1]..“And after that,” says..Moses, “when the angels of God went in unto the daughters of men and begat for themselves”..(Gen. 6:4). It is worth our while to consider what is meant by the word “after..that.” The answer is that it is a reference back, bringing out more clearly something of what has been already stated.

Philo in another place:

And that the reference to the "sons of God" here is also to the angels

Targum Johnathan:

Schamchazai and Uzziel, who fell from heaven, were on the earth in those days; and also, after the sons of the Great had gone in with the daughters of men, they bare to them: and these are they who are called men who are of the world, men of names.

So, during Jesus' time, that was the thought, and what was taught in the synagogues.

[coksiw]

Now, also, notice this other alternative translation (the WEB):

The Nephilim† were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God’s sons came in to men’s daughters and had children with them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

It ascribes the "mighty" classification to the giants, not to the children of sons of God with daughters of men, which does make a lot of sense. However, the comment about the sons of God becomes out of place, as just a mere reference of something that happened in the past with no expanding of what was that about.

Anyways, Moses comments on anomalies in the human race as if the reader knows already something about it (giants? Isralites knew them by the time Moses wrote this; ancient mighty men seen as gods? also a known thing)

[Amanah]

Thank you Brother!

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Thank you Brother!

There will also be a "man of renown" coming in the last days with great deception and signs powered by a fallen angel as well:

[2Th 2:8-10 NKJV] 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the [lawless one] is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Kind of like in the days of Noah.

[diakonos]

So, book of Enoch for the win!?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by diakonos

So, book of Enoch for the win!?

[coksiw]

I found this today and I remembered this thread.

Great analysis of this passage:

https://youtu.be/qKtHwc3mMY8?feature=shared

[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/
.
.