a couple of questions from Genesis

[joint heir]

for those of you well studied in this area:)


1......What is it about Enosh's generation that has people calling on the name of the Lord.....

is this just worship....or is this a cry for help above and beyond worship?

Genesis 4
26 To Seth, to him also (1) a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began (2) to call upon the name of the LORD.




2.....in verse 5:29..Why did Lamech say that Noah would give them rest from the toil of the land?

Does this mean comfort as in the joy of a child who worship's God is a comfort and blessing ...or is this something more?


Genesis 5
29 He named him Noah [1] and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed."


Genesis 5
29 Now he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands arising from (1) the ground which the LORD has cursed."



thanks:)

[Bluwingolive]

Great questions joint heir - I had to dust off a few commentaries, I'll just note some quick ideas.

On 4:26 - most scholars note this as the beginning of public worship. Nothing particular about Enosh - just his era. Also, one will note two traditions here regarding the beginning of worship of YHWH - here it is with Enosh - and, the other, with Moses at Ex 3:13-15.

On 5:29 - I couldn't find anything that directly answers your question. The verse breaks the regular pattern of the genealogy which lead some to believe it is an editorial insertion that foreshadows the Noah story of Gen 6-9.

[glorydays]

joint heir,

As to "men began to be called by the name of the LORD" -- my Bible says the original Hebrew is "men began to be called the sons of God." This explains 2 things:

1) That the pure seed to Christ was established through Adam to Seth to Enosh... to Noah (who also was "pure in all his generations"). The lineage from Seth to Jesus was preserved by God.

2) It establishes who the "sons of God" were who mingled with the "daughters of men." Some of the line of Seth intermarried with the daughters of Cain which birthed the giants and resulted in the flood in sin.

[Ltanner09]

Some of the line of Seth intermarried with the daughters of Cain which birthed the giants and resulted in the flood in sin.

The problem with this is humans produce their own kind.

Two humans cannot produce anything else, including giants.

[joint heir]

Glorydays re sons of God......yes that does shed some light on that debate... thanks:)


Bluwingolive....

you said:

On 4:26 - most scholars note this as the beginning of public worship. Nothing particular about Enosh - just his era. Also, one will note two traditions here regarding the beginning of worship of YHWH - here it is with Enosh - and, the other, with Moses at Ex 3:13-15.


If this is recognized as the beginning of worship ....what does this mean about generations prior?

was Abel's sacrifice not worship?
what about Adam and Eve? and Cain thinking it was too great a punishment to be sent from God's presence.....were they not worshiping God:confused

[Patty T]

Originally posted by Ltanner09


The problem with this is humans produce their own kind.

Two humans cannot produce anything else, including giants.

Actually, Genesis 6 speaks about the "ungodly multiplying" and references giants. The sons of God took the daughters of men for wives and the Lord said, His spirit would not always strive with man. Verse 4 talks about giants in the land in those days AND after that also, when the sons of God "came in unto" the daughters of men, and they bare children to them. I have heard the explanation that the "sons of God" were the fallen angels that got kicked out of heaven with satan.

Patty

[joint heir]

could giants be figurative.....?

such as a powerful man......who could easily just take women?

such as..." He is a giant in the sports world"

[warbar]

Hi joint heir!

I've read a couple of good articles on Noah. Here's a quote from 'Living in the Final Chapter' by Perry Stone and Bill Cloud:

'According to Josephus (Antiquities, Book I, chapter II, Section 3), Adam had already been told by God, and had passed on to his descendants, that the Lord would destroy the world, once with a flood and once with fire. Therefore, Noah already knew that God was going to judge the earth.

The Bible says that, at Noah's birth, his father Lamech 'Called his name Noah, saying, this same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed' (Gen. 5:29). Where and how did Lamech get this revelation? why did he name him Noah? If we assume that Hebrew years were reckoned in the same or similar manner that they are today, the answer, we feel, is found in the Hebrew rendering of the year 1058 (the year of Noah's birth). This might be the reason Lamech prophetically decided to call his son Noah.

The (Hebrew) letters that comprise the year 1058 are alef, nun, and chet. Rabbis say that the alef, because of it's numerical value of one, alludes to the one God. Obviously, Lamech received the revelation of Noah's destiny ultimately from God. In our opinion, however, he named his son Noah ("comfort) because the last two letters of the Hebrew year 1058, nun and chet, spell the name Noah! It is our theory that the change in the calendar from the Hebrew year 1057 to the year 1058, coinciding with the birth of his son, was a sign to Lamech that the earth was about to undergo drastic changes. Therefore, he felt impressed of the Lord that his son would be a man of destiny, thus, he called him Noah - rest!"

[Timothy]

Originally posted by joint heir could giants be figurative.....? such as a powerful man......who could easily just take women? such as..." He is a giant in the sports world"

The phrase "sons of God" is used five times in the Old Testament (Genesis 6:2, 6:4, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7). It is used to describe angels. In the Old Testament, man is always referred to as "son of man" with over 100 uses. Job 38 is the clearest example that "sons of God" is referring to angels:

Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

Some angels came down, took wives, and had offspring. This supernatural mating had offspring became "giants," hence the Noah and flood. Satan was attempting to corrupt the man and the bloodline of the redeemer.

Genesis 6:1-4 "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose....There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Jude 6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

II Peter 2:4-5 "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly"

[warbar]

Here's something else from J.R.Church:

"...Lamech produced Noah, whose name means "rest". (In like manner, at His return, the Lord Jesus Christ will produce the kingdom, also known as the great "Sabbath Rest."

The Genesis Apocraphon

Among the humdreds of documents found in the caves at Qumran, there was an ancient scroll which has been called The Genesis Apocraphon. In the document, Lamech was described as being tired of the unproductive soil. It is said that he expected his son, Noah, to remove the curse of Adam. Noah, being the tenth generation from Adam, represented the fulfillment of the Edenic promise.

The number ten (in the scroll) is said to have a spiritual significance. It represented completion, or conclusion. According to E.W.bullinger, in his book 'Number in Scripture,' ten represents the number of 'ordinal perfection.' Prophetically, Noah (the tenth generation) represents the conclusion of human history and the great Sabbath Rest. No wonder Jesus said in Matt. 24:37, 'But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

The life of Noah offers the most spectacular prophetic significance. If Enoch is typical of the saints being raptured before the Tribulation, then Noah, during the Flood, may be a type of Israel who had to endure those seven years.

I realize that Noah was safe from the Flood, being inside the ark. Nevertheless, he had to dndure the discomfort of those buffeting waves against the sides of the ship. It must have been a wild ride! In like manner, though the Jewish people will be preserved, they must, nevertheless, endure those years of 'Jacob's trouble.'

This is from Matthew Henry's commentary:

"God gave Adam and Eve to see the revival of 'religion' in their family. The worshippers of God began to stir themselves to do more in 'religion; perhaps not more than had been done at first, but more thatn had been done of late, or since the defection of Cain. Some persons, by an open profession of true religion, began to protest against the prevailing impiety, and wickedness of the world around. Then, may refer, not to the birth of Enos, but to the whole foregoing history; then when men saw in Cain and Lamech the sad effects of sin by the workings of natural conscience; then they were so much the more lively and resolute in religion. The worse others are, the better we should be, and the more zealous, Then began the distinction between professors and profane, which has been kept up ever since, and will be while the world stands."

[joint heir]

Timothy....but we are also called sons of God....

so why can't what glory said be true?

let me repost what was said:

glorydays:

As to "men began to be called by the name of the LORD" -- my Bible says the original Hebrew is "men began to be called the sons of God." This explains 2 things:

1) That the pure seed to Christ was established through Adam to Seth to Enosh... to Noah (who also was "pure in all his generations"). The lineage from Seth to Jesus was preserved by God.

2) It establishes who the "sons of God" were who mingled with the "daughters of men." Some of the line of Seth intermarried with the daughters of Cain which birthed the giants and resulted in the flood in sin.


I am not convinced either way..I have read opinions in both directions...:)



Warbar.....
thanks ......that is a good answer to why Noah was named so......I will have to study this some more...:)

[pilgrimian]

Hey there, Joint Heir...

What Timothy said is quite true. And we must not (I think we've been through this somewhere before;) ) take a NT understanding of a word and read it back into the OT. We are certainly new creations...and therefore "sons of God." But in the OT angels are referred to as "sons of God." People seem not to debate that angels elsewhere in the OT that are referred to with this phrase are actually angels...this seems to be the singular verse where people question it.

Why would there be an emphasis regarding the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men"? Men emphasizes humanity...the other phrase emphasizes that they were angels. Jude's bit about going after "strange flesh" is a very apt description. These angels were going after something foreign to their order. Angels are not supposed to do this. Angels don't procreate.

It is intriguing to see how this chapter was translated into the Septuagint. In describing the product of this intermarriage, the translators used the Greek word gigentes. In some translations the word has been translated as "giants." However, this is incorrect. The word translates as "titan." Who were the Titans in Greek mythology? They were part man and part god, because they were products of gods and men.

Dr. Fruchtenbaum wrote about this is Messianic Christology (http://www.ariel.org/catbooks.html#mc):

"When Jewish scholars in 250 B.C. translated the word Nephilim to Greek, they used the Greek word for Titans because they recognized this to be a union not of two types of human beings, but of angels and humans which produced a being that was neither angelic nor human....It is from the events of Gen. 6:1-4 that the source of Greek and Roman mythologies were derived....in [which] the human perspective is given, and what happened is elevated to something special and glorified, but God called it sin."

Godspeed,
Matthew

P.S. Skimming Timothy's response earlier, I had thought he included the "strang flesh" bit!:lol Glad he added it below...!

P.P.S. Am I supposed to say why I edit these posts? I did the cardinal error of typing "angle" for "angel"! Angles certainly don't procreate either...though I seem to recall an old song called "Rectangle Man"....hmmmm.

[Timothy]

Yes, in the New Testament "sons of God" is differently. Take a look at those 5 passages in the Old Testament that use "sons of God." Then look at some of the 100+ passages that for "son of man." Seth is begat is Adam's own likeness.

Genesis 5:3 "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Adam's genealogy brings death, whereas Christ's brings life. Note in Genesis 5, all of the occurrences of "and he died" in 5:8, 5:11, 5:14, 5:17, 5:20, 5:27, 5:31.

It is often stated that angels are sexless. Scripture says they are not intended to marry, but does not say they are sexless.

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

Angels always appearred as men, and must have been of great masculinity. Two angels visited Lot, and the men of Sodom wanted sodomize the angels.

Genesis 19 "And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground...And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them....And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door."


I neglected to include verse 7, about going after "strange flesh."

Jude 6-7 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

[joint heir]

Yes thanks guys...I see your points....

but is this true?

As to "men began to be called by the name of the LORD" -- my Bible says the original Hebrew is "men began to be called the sons of God." This explains 2 things:

If this is true it is consistent with the NT...not that things can not be different between the NT and OT...but we are all saved by grace and faith regardless of the time period and covenant...so it would be consistent to call all the sons of God...

but if this is not true and the Hebrew does not say this is when men bagan to be called sons of God then what you say has to be true.....

which I have no problem believing..but I am very curious why both angels and men are called sons of God....it is rather confusing




ans additionally......do you think that people only began worshiping in Enosh's generation....

and if Adam and Eve ....Cain and Abel did not worship the Lord then what were they doing? any insight...?

[joint heir]

now all kinds of questions are popping in my head...

what would be the purpose of having angels with the ability to reproduce...and then never allow them too?

what is to prevent this from happening again?

[Timothy]

Somewhere, I believe, I have a list of items comparing the "first Adam" (Adam) and the "last Adam" (Christ).

I Corinthians 15:45-47 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit...The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."

For example, through Adam's sin we die ("and he died"), and through Christ we live. Through Adam we are sons of man, through Christ we are sons of God.

Angels were directly created by God (his creation), so they too are sons of God. Through Christ, we are sons of God (his creation through the cross).

Romans 8:5 "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."

Interesting. I never noticed this, until you drove me to search. Paul, in talking about "times past," uses the same term, "sons of men."

Ephesians 3:5 "Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit"

I'll try to answer the rest tomorrow....

[glorydays]

Hey guys,

First off, tanner, giants are human -- Goliath was one, too. They seem to be the product of inordinate sin.

Second, demons can go after strange flesh by possessing them -- there is no requirement in the context that they marry or have intercourse.

Next, I would suggest that Matt 13 in the parable of the sower, the sons of God are represented by the seed planted by the wayside (Adam), in shallow soil (Cain thru Lamech), in the briars (Noah thru Abram), and in good soil (Abraham). Designating these as sons of God shows their faith (as someone said) vs. those that corrupted themselves.

Timothy also noted that angels do not marry nor are they given in marriage -- they are incapable of procreation -- probably the best argument against the sons of God being angels.

[joint heir]

Timothy ...I am totally with you on the sons of men vs sons of God issue....I understand completely that all die under Adam and all can have life under Christ...

but it is not just the NT and beyond that are saved by Christ.....

those prior to Christ's death and resurrection are still saved by Christ ...does it not make any sense that they too will be called sons of God? and if they are not..and this is just a post resurrection of Christ position then what does it say for the salvation of the OT people?...

especially if the Hebrew is best translated....for this is the time men first began being called sons of God...


now I am not disagreeing with you...I think the key is what the Hebrew says here...the best translation...because if glorydays is right about the best translation then it does make sense that the sons of God are human in this instance.....

but then as Matthew said...if all are human then it does not make sense to stress the word human..which is done in the passage...

consider me still undecided..:)

[Timothy]

Originally posted by glorydays ...angels do not marry nor are they given in marriage -- they are incapable of procreation -- probably the best argument against the sons of God being angels.

Originally posted by joint heir what would be the purpose of having angels with the ability to reproduce...and then never allow them too? what is to prevent this from happening again?

I'm going to jump in with both feet, so here it goes....

The passage in Matthew says that angels IN HEAVEN are not intended to marry, and neither will we.

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

Scripture does not clearly indicate that the angels are sexless, or that we will be sexless, either. I have heard some speculate related to Adam and Eve BEFORE the fall - They were male and female before the fall, and did not know it, etc. I've heard it described that they had some type of "halo" hiding their nakedness. In heaven will we be similar to Adam and Eve before the fall? Who knows. We can only speculate.

Yes, God did not intend the angels to procreate. But angels are always described visiting ON EARTH as men. Another implication is that God did not intend angels to procreate because all angels are males. In Jude, it clearly says that some angels left their estate, fornicated, going after strange flesh.

Jude 6-7 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Angels are described as being "spirits" but when on earth they take on a physical form. With taking on that physical form, certain things must come with it. With Lot, they have feet that are washed, they ate, etc. It could also be that when they take on this physical form on earth, that male generative organs come with it, though God did not intend them to be used.

When on earth, Angels must be of great masculinity. While keeping this G rated, when the two angels visited Lot, there must have been some "reason" why the men of Sodom wanted sodomize with the angels.

Genesis 19 "And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground...And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them....And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door."

As far as the godly order of things in the universe, man on earth is made lower than the angels.

Psalms 8:5 "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."

Also see Hebrews 2:7-9. In heaven, that flips around, and we shall judge angels.

I Corinthians 6:3 "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?"

I guess I would explain the fall of these angels this way. Satan's objective is to oppose God, and attempted to destroy his plan, by corrupting man's offspring. Satan tempted a group of the angels, by saying "hey look, God gave man the ability to procreate, not you, he doesn't love you like he does man. Come own down and get your own wives, and make your own offspring, so you can be just like man."

Now another interesting question - was there further angelic corruption, after the flood, related to other Giants?

Genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

In looking at Genesis 6:4, the verse could be read as follows. "Those days" referring to the flood, and "also after that" referring to after the flood.

Interesting. I dug out Clarence Larkin's book, "The Spirit World," from the early 1900s, which has an entire chapter on "The Fallen Angels." In it he states that the translation of "giants" in Genesis 6:4 is "fallen ones." So scratching my head, I dug up my Strong's. It is 5303 (nephil), "a feller, a bully, a tyrant," from 5307. A feller is someone knocked down. 5307 (naphal) says "to fall, fall away, fall down." I'll take a closer look at what verses Larkin cites in this chapter.

Another interesting point to ponder, just as most religions across the world have some type of account of a "great flood," most religions have accounts about "gods" coming down to earth and having offspring.

Still studying...

[joint heir]

very interesting:)

I can't imagine the halo thing......Gen 1:28 states that they were charged with reproducing before the fall.....they would have needed their organs....

about all angels being male.....we do have instances of angels appearing as male humans...but what way is there to know that this is the only form they take?

[Paulallen]

you have to really know your original hebrew text to understand the meanings sometimes:

the term...".the sons of god" is the hebrew b'nai haElohim, "sons of eLohim which is a term consistently used in the old testement for ANGELS.

so, the sons of angels (fallen) saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them for wives.

the hebrew word Nephilim, translated giant ;..literally means" the fallen ones".. I dont know who thought up giants...


each translated english word started out in hebrew and means something different...

[Timothy]

Originally posted by joint heir
very interesting:)

I can't imagine the halo thing......Gen 1:28 states that they were charged with reproducing before the fall.....they would have needed their organs....

about all angels being male.....we do have instances of angels appearing as male humans...but what way is there to know that this is the only form they take?

I stand corrected!! (and will edit my post accordingly). I haven't had a chance to look at Larkin's book yet.

Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Now here is a question for which scripture does not answer - what would have reproduction/procreation been like before the fall? They did not know of their nakedness, etc.

[Timothy]

Originally posted by paulallen you have to really know your original hebrew text to understand the meanings sometimes...

Here is how much skill and training I have on Hebrew or Greek: zip! Thanks for providing the information. I appreciate it. :)

[joint heir]

paulallen....

so then you would say that glorydays's Bible notes are incorrect?

As to "men began to be called by the name of the LORD" -- my Bible says the original Hebrew is "men began to be called the sons of God."

glorydays..what Bible was this that offered "men began to be called the sons of God" as the original Hebrew?

[7Rock]

You are not a "son of God" until you are born again, or spiritually born.
Believers today are born again and filled with the Spirit, thus "sons of God".
No one in the OT was filled with the Spirit or born again, so they couldn`t be called "sons of God" until Jesus died.
All angels are "sons of God".
Satan wanted to destoy mankind. The fallen angels did everything they could, including sleeping with women, to try and accomplish this.
Who did the angels fornicate with when they left their estates (spiritual bodies) in the verse in jude?
The women before and after the flood.
Why do you think God told the Israelites, especially Joshua, to kill every man, woman and child of certain peoples?
He wanted to destroy the seed of the nephilum (offspring of women and angels).

[joint heir]

7Rock...that makes sense...

Why do you believe that we are not seeing fallen angels taking women today?....what has stopped this behavior?




and just to be technical those that are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God(not neccessarily filled)

Romans 8
14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.


were those in the OT not led by the Spirit of God?

but I am inclined to agree with you and Timothy...I do wish to know why glorydays's Bible states that the original Hebrew is "began to be called sons of God" though:)

[Ltanner09]

Seth didn't have a son until 235 years after creation, and his son didn't have a son until 325 years after creation (Genesis 5:3,6,9).

Where did these sons come from? They couldn't have been sons of Seth, because these marriages took place when men began to multiply-in the very beginning of the race before Seth had sons of marriageable age.

The term "sons of God" proves they were the product of God, not Seth. They were the fallen angels of 1 Peter 3:19; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6-7.

[Ltanner09]

Job 1:6 (KJV)
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

The expression "sons of God" is used five times in the O.T., always of angels (as proved in Job 38:4-7; Genesis 6:1-4, ).

The scene (both here and in Job 2:1) is in heaven before the Lord.

[glorydays]

joint heir,

Mine is a simple KJV Reference Bible. I looked up the blueletterbible.com concordance and can't make heads or tails of it but it doesn't seem to agree with my Bible word for word. However, calling oneselves "sons of God" does not mean that God called them that or that we have to follow any later definition of the title -- it is just what they chose to call the "pure generations" that led to Noah and not to anyone else.

Still, I don't believe that angels procreate. And why did they quit procreating as you ask but no one responds.

I believe that Jude 6-7 is only a comparison -- it does not require that the angels go after strange flesh, only compares them to the Sodomites who did.

The fallen angels left their habitation when they were cast out of heaven with Satan (they certainly didn't have to leave but the chose to follow Satan). They left their first estate by indwelling or possessing human flesh both before and after the flood.

Matt 22 speaks of the resurrected being as angels -- well, the trib saints will be resurrected to the earth, Rev 20:4. Will they procreate just because they are resurrected to the earth? No, where they are has nothing to do with anything.

I thing this issue could be easily resolved if anyone will just consider what can be known about angels: They can't procreate, as demons they can possess, they can take physical form but so will resurrected saints without procreating.

[Timothy]

Hello Glorydays!

Originally posted by glorydays Still, I don't believe that angels procreate. And why did they quit procreating as you ask but no one responds.[/B]

Let me clarify my understanding. It is that, angels, when on earth, take on the physical form of a man. God did not angels to procreate, hence the sin. The results in every instance was that God destroyed them and their offspring - the flood, etc.

II Samuel 21:21 "These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants."

II Chronicles 20:8 "These were born unto the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants."

When the two angels visited Lot, there must have been some "reason" why the men of Sodom wanted sodomize with the angels.

Genesis 19 "And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground...And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them....And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door."

[Ltanner09]

Still, I don't believe that angels procreate. And why did they quit procreating as you ask but no one responds.

We're not told what existed in the dateless past.

Most of the bible covers the last 6000 years and very little is revealed as to God's creation and experiences with such creations before that.

If you take 150 billion years x 150 billion years and so on, you realize how little we know what went on in the endless time that preceeded us.

We have hints about Lucifer's fall before Adam but nothing really in depth.

Did angels ever pro create? We don't know.

Deut. 29:29 (KJV)
The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

[sbpma]

ltanner,
it is true that that the exact phrase "sons of God" only appears five times in the OT, but.... what God are they referring to? The one and only living God, right?

Hos. 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

The children of Israel are called the sons of the living God, and they are not angels.

Personally I do not believe that those in Job are angels, but men that are representatives of unfallen worlds. I believe that Adam would have been Earth's representative if sin had not entered this world when Satan had been cast down here.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Also, I have my doubts that those referred to in Gen. are angels either, but that is a much larger subject especially in light of the controversy surrounding the book of Enoch.

So the bottom line is we really have NO EVIDENCE that any such phrase refer to angels at all.

[Ltanner09]

Personally I do not believe that those in Job are angels, but men that are representatives of unfallen worlds.

That requires an assumption that men existed before Adam.

[sbpma]

Ltanner,
hmmmm....

Why would that be? Is there any indication that said worlds were created before or after this one?

I know of nothing that tells us that Christ created this world first or last. Nor am I aware that this meeting occured prior to Adam. Without such information, then I see no such assumption.

Matter of fact in that meeting Job was mentioned, did not Job come after Adam? That being so, then it is clear that said "sons of God" which attended that meeting were also after Adam. Not that it really matters, because I see this as having no bearing on your claim that the sons of God only referred to angels in the OT.

It appears that the assumption is to think that they ever referred to angels.

[Paulallen]

when the hebrew bible was translated into greek in the third century BEFORE christ the word were different than they are in our english bible....

b'nai HaElohim.... now->"sons of god" translated to "sons of angel"
benoth adam....now->"daughters of men" is really "daughters of adam"

see??

the term giant is from the hebrew Nephilim.. and literally means "the fallen ones" so the fallen ones were on the earth .

the early church fathers understood the expression "sons of god"as designating to angels.


CAPABILITIES OF ANGELS:
they spoke as men, they ate as men, were capable of direst contact, one was reponsible for death of firstborn in Egypt.

angels are always remdered in the masculine, remember the homosexuals of sodom wanted them..

[Timothy]

In the first and second account of "sons of God" in Job, which are very similar, it can't be men, as they present themselves before the Lord, and Satan says he was just on earth.

Job 1:6 "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it....And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD."

In the third account, it is describing the creation of earth. If it was Adam and Eve, why would just the two of them be described as "all the sons of God." Also, Adam and Eve were not created before the "corner stone" was laid.

Job 38:7 "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?"

Regardless of what anyone concludes, this is an interesting study. :)

[JArthur]

for what it's worth, Genesis 6 in the living bible flat out calls them "beings from the spirit world"

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by sbpma
ltanner,
it is true that that the exact phrase "sons of God" only appears five times in the OT, but.... what God are they referring to? The one and only living God, right?

Hos. 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

The children of Israel are called the sons of the living God, and they are not angels.

Personally I do not believe that those in Job are angels, but men that are representatives of unfallen worlds. I believe that Adam would have been Earth's representative if sin had not entered this world when Satan had been cast down here.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Also, I have my doubts that those referred to in Gen. are angels either, but that is a much larger subject especially in light of the controversy surrounding the book of Enoch.

So the bottom line is we really have NO EVIDENCE that any such phrase refer to angels at all.

Yes, we do have evidence...it isn't relegated to "assumptions," either. These sons of god went after the daughters of men. Regardless of what you think about the book of Enoch, Jude is in the Bible. Why do you think there was a necessity to write "sons of the living God"? It was obviously different from "sons of God." Yes, "living" seems to be a helpful adage here to differentiate, and set it apart from the other term. Words mean things.

Jude:

6 And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

What is strange flesh but that which is contrary or different from what you are...an angel (son of god) being attracted to a daughter of man. So, who were these angels that went outside their "proper habitation," and went after "strange flesh"?

How interesting, too (and this book is free from any "Book of Enoch controversy"), that Peter actually has a bit of chronology in his epistle for how things played out:

2 Peter 2:

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;
5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

After the result of the intermarriages took place, the Nephilim, God sent the Flood. Satan had attempted to muddy the "seed of the woman." But God wouldn't hear of it, killing off the Nephilim and all others...preserving Noah and his family.

Or do you hold to the old Sethites/Cainites angle?

Godspeed,
Matthew

[7Rock]

Of coarse Adam was a son of God!

Did he come out of a womans womb?
Did he have a man for a father?
He certainly wasn`t a son of man!

Yep, I`d say he was a son of God.

[JArthur]

Originally posted by 7Rock
Of coarse Adam was a son of God!

Did he come out of a womans womb?
Did he have a man for a father?
He certainly wasn`t a son of man!

Yep, I`d say he was a son of God.

"son of God" in this case simply means a "direct creation of God". Adam is the ONLY human being in history with this distinction. The rest are angels.

[pilgrimian]

Exactly, JArthur!

We must remember that Adam isn't referred to as a "son of God" until Luke 3:38. He isn't called that in the OT context, though one can logically come to that conclusion. Fact is, however, that "logically" is not how we are to necessarily approach Scripture. We're supposed to read it in context, and understand it thus, with progressive revelation in mind, taking things literally and plainly. It would be reading NT knowledge (Luke 3:38) back into the OT text to argue that Adam was a "son of God." The Holy Spirit didn't have Moses write this in the text of Genesis.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[Timothy]

So on the basis of the scriptures citied earlier, it is a reasonable and fair conclusion that angels mated with women, and had offspring - both before and after the flood.

So what about these giants?

I just ordered e-sword, so I am still paper driven at the moment, using hard bound Strong's, Vine's, Nave's, dictionary, etc. I've come with with these groupings of giants.

* Nephilim
* Rephaim
* Anak/Anakim
* Emim
* Og
* Zamzummim
* Sons of the Giant of Gath (Goliath was one)

From everything that I can find so far, all of these giants oppossed Israel and land that they were to possess. It seems plausible that this would be part of Satan's tactic to do something to oppose Israel from having land. In every case it seems they were all wiped out, including children of this offspring, etc.


Where my feeble mind blew a gasket last night was when I was using my Strong's and Rephaim, and Isaiah 26:14. Examine it yourself, and tell me if I am loosing my mind.

Isaiah 26:14 "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish."

QUESTION #1 - Since the offspring of angels and women technically not men, and on the basis of Isaiah, am I correct in concluding they are purely temporal, and exist no more, period, and have not part even in Hell, the lake of fire, etc.?


One of my reference books had these cross references in Genesis 6.

Matthew 24:37-39 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luke 17:26-27 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

QUESTION #2 - Could this mean another round of angels marrying women? Why the emphasis on "married wives" and "given in marriage" as in the days of Noah? It seems to be a direct tie back to Genesis 6. I'm sure some opinions will be it is referring to homosexual marriage, why the emphasis on "wives" and "marriage."?


I'll see if I can draw any other facts, conclusions, questions, etc. My notes are a mess right now, and my mind it worse. :)

[JArthur]

my personal opinion about the mysterious mating of the angels and women is that satan, knowing full well that in the distant future God would bring forth a Son out of the human bloodline to defeat him, tried to corrupt the bloodline by having some of his angels mate with mortal women. The resulting offspring were partly human and partly angelic (I know I know, it all sounds so mythological but bear with me).

Now in order for Christ to save humanity He had to be a substitute...meaning He literally had to be born from a pure human bloodline in order to qualify to die for humans. Only humans can be saved. Demons cannot. Therefore if these demons of genesis 6 had succeeded in corrupting the entire human genetic line with these hybrids there would be no way for Christ to save humanity since He cannot as a Holy God be born into a family that had been defiled by demons. In other words satan simply wanted to flat out prevent the birth of Jesus from ever taking place to begin with and no human being could ever be saved no matter what. That is the major reason in my opinion why God destroyed the earth with a flood and spared Noah. Remember that Noah was perfect "in his generations" according to scripture. This means his personal reproductive history is undefiled. God destroyed the earth in mercy in other words. This incidentally is a good answer to those people who ask how God can be so cruel as to destroy the whole world.

Now jump to Jude. At least I think it's jude where God talks about not even sparing the angels that sinned but casting them into everlasting chains under darkness. But what sin is God talking about? The original fall? Nope. If that were the case then no demon and not even satan would be free to torment men today. They would all be chained up. This is another sin. One so evil and so dangerous that God had to chain them up forever....probably as a warning to the rest of the demons that the same would happen to them.

I don't think the demons would try that again today...mainly because even if they did and succeeded it would all be for nothing, since Christ has already been born.

[Paulallen]

they are doing it today...

people are being kidnapped and impregnated...

by aliens!
which is why I think that will be the great deseption and make mens heart quit with fear. the antichrist will be part man, part alien (fallen angel) ??? satans son???

we can all say this is hogwash but research who sees these things and what they are doing to people, not christians, those who have no faith or lack of faith.

full armor of god!! we have that.

[pilgrimian]

Tasha and Terah...what cool names! What's Andy's middle name?

[Paulallen]

Tasha and Terah...what cool names! What's Andy's middle name?

thanks, Terah is abraham's father's name. cool huh?

Andy's middle name is Andy.:D

(yes I'm one of those) names your kid one thing and then calls them by thier middle name.

[pilgrimian]

Hey, that's cool...I go by my middle name too, my Granddad, Dad and I all have the same first name: James. My Grandad actually uses it...goes by "Jim." My dad and I go by the middle name.

Yeah, Terah and Tasha are just so unique...really awesome!

God bless, eh? LOL Just kidding...from a Michigander to a Minnesotan!

Have a blessed Saturday,
Your brother in Messiah,
Matthew

[Paulallen]

from a Michigander to a Minnesotan!

I was wondering, cause I saw the "edmond fitzgerald" in your name.
I was on the shores of lake superior in Duluth the night it went down, scarry waves!!