Why Were Angels Allowed to Intervene in Prediluvian Human affairs

John Hyperspace said:

I propose that before we start conjecturing; we acknowledge the clear things, these will help direct our understanding. So, clearly (passages I've already cited) we see that men are called "sons of God" and that men are clearly established in a "Father-son" relationship. We don't clearly see this said of any other creation. In fact, the opposite is true in the cited passage from Hebrews where the author is asking "When did God ever say, 'I will be a Father to you; and you my son' to any of the angels?"

So when we look at the phrase "sons of God" we should be understanding that clear precedent teaches this as an epithet of men. This may open up new question such as yours, but the fact that it raises new questions doesn't really mean we should disregard everything else clearly taught, and begin proposing something that isn't clearly taught.

However, in relation to your question; I would ask what you meant by "giants"? If you're meaning the "nephilim" (which I presume you are) then the passage says they were already in the earth in those days, and, also after that (when the sons of God married "strange wives"). The scripture doesn't really seem to indicate their origin. I suppose if we understand them literally (such as Goliath) I would conjecture that they are some sort of "birth defect" in childbirth. It seems to be a hereditary trait much like "gigantism" which affects children even today.



The passage states that all flesh had "corrupted his way" not that the flesh itself was corrupt. I would propose this is indicating that people had become corrupted by carnality and perverse customs and such: Galatians 6:8. We might think of this as world-wide corruption of truth and understanding. We see this pattern repeating through both the OT and NT (no 'angelic mating' necessary) in such places as Numbers 25:1-3, 1 Kings 11:8-10, Ezra 10:14, Ezra 10:44, Nehemiah 13:25-27



This is a claim which is at odds with scripture: Hebrews 1:5; and in the scripture only men are ever called "son" and enjoy the Father-son relationship with God: 2 Samuel 7:14, 1 Chronicles 28:6, Exodus 4:22, Isaiah 63:16, John 20:17, Matthew 23:9, Philippians 2:15, etc.

But can you cite a single passage anywhere in the scripture in which a creation other than man is clealry taught to be a "son of God" or enjoys the Father-son relationship with God?



This seems to be entirely speculative conjecture with no basis in actual scripture.

Click to expand...

The exact meaning of "sons of God" has been debated by people far more knowledgeable than I am in regards to Biblical theology. They still don't agree.

For me "the sons of God" is in direct contrast to "daughters of men". This depicts a point of distinction between them and leads me to take it that the sons of god are angelic beings while the daughters of men could be from any line of mankind.

Also, the union of two races of men cannot create giants. If this were true, scientists would be doing it today to create super soldiers. Do you not think they are trying?

If you read the extra-biblical texts of the Book of Enoch, Jasher and the book of Jubilee. they confirm what this was meant to be in the times they all were written.

In the book of Jude, it is plain that these beings were chained in hell until the day of judgement. There is absolutely no need for dead, condemned humans to be chained. But angels... that's different.

I am not going to argue this point anymore. You have your view and your reasons for it. I have mine.

Look me up when we all get to glory and we can sit under the tree of life and laugh about all the things we got wrong with our views of the biblical teachings.

God Bless.
Jack.

JacksBratt said:

The exact meaning of "sons of God" has been debated by people far more knowledgeable than I am in regards to Biblical theology. They still don't agree.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too concerned with how the masses may be confused. If they took the phrase consistently, as they should, the confusion would disappear. Not to mention if no one would actually have biblical support for viewing "sons of God" as anything but men.

JacksBratt said:

For me "the sons of God" is in direct contrast to "daughters of men". This depicts a point of distinction between them and leads me to take it that the sons of god are angelic beings while the daughters of men could be from any line of mankind.

Click to expand...

Not surprising as this is always the contrast in a "strange wives" scenario; the "sons" of Israel are contrasted with "daughters" of another tribe. This is why you never see the phrase "strange husbands"

JacksBratt said:

Also, the union of two races of men cannot create giants.

Click to expand...

Nothing in the text suggests this union responsible for "giants" but that the "nephilim" were already in the earth "in those days, and, after that" from which we see in the conquest of Canaan. How do you propose "giants" were around after the flood? God sent the flood to destroy all the corrupted hybrid people... and failed? A secondary Jared event which is mysteriously absent from scripture?

Also, even allowing this unsupported hypothesis: why exactly would angelic mating birth giants? I presume the angels are shapeshifting in some manner? Can't shapeshift the sperm correctly? If they took the form of humans, why would their offspring not being normal humans?

JacksBratt said:

If you read the extra-biblical texts of the Book of Enoch, Jasher and the book of Jubilee. they confirm what this was meant to be in the times they all were written.

Click to expand...

I'm well familiar with the extra-biblical books.

JacksBratt said:

In the book of Jude, it is plain that these beings were chained in hell until the day of judgement. There is absolutely no need for dead, condemned humans to be chained. But angels... that's different.

Click to expand...

That verse speaks of messengers leaving their posts. It doesn't say anything about the flood, or mating with women, or birthing giants, or any such thing.

JacksBratt said:

I am not going to argue this point anymore. You have your view and your reasons for it. I have mine.

Click to expand...

True but I believe your reasons are without actual substance.

JacksBratt said:

Look me up when we all get to glory and we can sit under the tree of life and laugh about all the things we got wrong with our views of the biblical teachings.

God Bless.
Jack.

Click to expand...

I do agree it's nothing to feel sharply about; this is just discussion.

John Hyperspace said:

I do believe this is speaking of men. The reason for this belief is because this is how the phrase "sons of God" is used when it is being clearly used. Since the phrase is clearly used to speak of men, then what I reject is that God would use the phrase in an inconsistent manner, leading to confusion. So "sons of God" consistently refers to men. In other words, I reject the idea of an inconsistent use of phrase.

Also again I would appeal to Hebrews 1:5 as indicated no "angel" is ever enjoying the "Father; son" relationship. But only men are every called "sons" by God, Who is also called "Father" by men.

So, the consistent use of the phrase "sons of God" to mean "men" (also the idea of the Father-son relationship only existing between God and men), together with, scripture claiming no angel enjoys "Father; son" relationship; I believe "sons of God" should always be understood as it is clearly defined, of men.



I would propose that something about the passage is being misunderstood if we are trying to cause the phrase "sons of God" to not mean, men, since this is the only consistent method of understanding the phrase (since it is clearly used of men in both OT and NT; as cited) and since scripture indicates no angel enjoys the "Father-son" relationship. Either the passage is alluding to some other cornerstone being laid (I propose Christ, the Cornerstone: Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:6-7), or, men were in some way regarded as being present at the time, perhaps in some form of foreknowledge of God in the rejoicing of men over Christ, or, perhaps even in some literal way; or, the passage is applicable to some unknown understanding.

But in the end, to anyone claiming these "sons of God" are not men (as men are clearly identified by precedent in scripture as being the "sons of God") I would ask if they were able to cite some form of precedence in scripture which teaches that something other than men are also able to enjoy the "Father-son" relationship. If this precedent could not be produced, I would reject their prior claim as without scriptural support.

Click to expand...

Sons of God in Job is all about angels not men.
Since you believe men were alive before their creation when God was just beginning to create the earth, how can you take yourself seriously.

Logically I must assume you don't believe what the scripture actually directly says
Scripture to you is more of a human poetry composed by men for their enjoyment?

Jesus tells us scripture can not be broken.

John Hyperspace said:

We could also look at the phrase in the NT:

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Ro 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Ro 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Php 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Now it's clear that these are all men (except perhaps Romans 8:19). So I would propose that the phrase always be such, in all of scripture. I say this because, if it isn't, then this would be God causing confusion since we wouldn't know what the phrase meant in the OT. Meaning, if the phrase is always consistent, we can conclude without confusion that Genesis 6 is speaking of a group of men. But, if the phrase isn't being used consistently, then we now have confusion at Genesis 6, and can not understand the true picture. I would personally reject the notion of God using phrases inconsistently; this is something a bad teacher would do, and it causes confusion.

So we go to the OT and find these which would all also be describing a group of men:

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
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.

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.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?



I believe this is an example of reading way too much into the account. The words you use here "clearly" and "demand" do not at all apply. In the context of scripture, these would be a group of men. There are times when all males come to present themselves before the Lord on earth: e.g. Exodus 34:23 At this particular gathering (the text doesn't say what type of gathering), Satan came among them, from "walking to and fro in the earth"



I presume that you're imagining in your mind that this is all taking place in heaven? Nothing in the text suggests this.



This is an interesting verse; in looking at the Hebrew this seems rather to be moving in direction from a founding, to other things: we might render it "Or who has cast its corner-stone in the singing together of stars of morning, and all sons of God shouting for joy" as being about Christ, the cornerstone, being laid with singing and shouting of men. BUT, if we were to render it as if these "sons of God" were present during the actual creation event, then I would still maintain that this should also be consistently understood as a group of men. What this would literally mean, I have no idea. But, for sake of consistency, I would propose some sort of foreknowledge which is often mentioned of men being elected "before the foundation of the world" and such as Ephesians 1:4.

BUT, if we were to abandon consistency of phrases, and allow for the confusion of such use, this is probably the one and only verse where we might have sufficient evidence to at least propose some, supernatural beings as alluded to with the phrase "Sons of God"; but I would also here appeal to Hebrews 1:5. I don't see really any way to make this phrase "sons" apply to supernatural beings.



Ah but the king says "I see four men loose"; this is no doubt the Word of God with them; that is Christ.



I would propose that Adam is, in fact, not being called the "son of God" in that geneology; but every "of" is directed at Jesus; the passage actually reads "Jesus: of X, of Y, of Z ... of God" and that this is the same as "Jesus, of X; Jesus, of Y; Jesus, of Z ... Jesus, of God"



This is however speaking of people who were not the sons of God (specifically the house of Israel which was to be 'cut off' Hosea 1:4, Hosea 1:6); there were people who were (house of Judah): Hosea 1:7, Hosea 11:12; and prior to this, all of Israel: Exodus 4:22 (house Israel was only being cut off from being 'the sons of God' at the time of the Assyrian). But prior they had their father: Isaiah 63:16, Isaiah 64:8

Click to expand...

John Hyperspace said:

We could also look at the phrase in the NT:

But we have no reason to; the phrase in the New Testament has a totally different meaning than in the Old. What you are calling consistency is actually confusing the facts.

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Ro 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Ro 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Php 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

These passages refer to those born again under the new covenant and in no way refer to “sons of God” in the Old Testament.

Now it's clear that these are all men (except perhaps Romans 8:19). So I would propose that the phrase always be such, in all of scripture.

I’ve already explained this in post #60. You are ignoring context in the Old Testament examples. There is no relationship between the phrase " sons of God" in the Old Testament and the New.

I say this because, if it isn't, then this would be God causing confusion since we wouldn't know what the phrase meant in the OT. Meaning, if the phrase is always consistent, we can conclude without confusion that Genesis 6 is speaking of a group of men.

This is a flawed analysis; we are commanded to study to show ourselves approved. The context and the original language determine the definition of words and phrases in scripture.

But, if the phrase isn't being used consistently, then we now have confusion at Genesis 6, and can not understand the true picture. I would personally reject the notion of God using phrases inconsistently; this is something a bad teacher would do, and it causes confusion.

You have over simplified this, interpreting scripture is not the way you have just described.

So we go to the OT and find these which would all also be describing a group of men:

If we follow your logic we would have to say the fourth man in the fire in Daniel 3:25 was human to stay consistent as you say. That simply is not the case the king had three human men cast into the fire it is not possible the fourth was human as well.

I believe this is an example of reading way too much into the account. The words you use here "clearly" and "demand" do not at all apply. In the context of scripture, these would be a group of men.

You have used the New Testament to set your context and that does not work here. I believe you are reading New Testament definitions into the Old

There are times when all males come to present themselves before the Lord on earth: e.g. Exodus 34:23

The context of this passage in Exodus has nothing to do with Genesis 6 it appears to be a rather desperate attempt to explain that which you have no real answers for. They are not called “sons of God” here, you have assumed that they are .

At this particular gathering (the text doesn't say what type of gathering), Satan came among them, from "walking to and fro in the earth"

Job 1:6-12 describes a face to face meeting with satan at which the “son of God” where present. In the OT God did not make it a practice of meeting face to face with groups of humans on the earth. This only happened with select individuals Moses for example.

I presume that you're imagining in your mind that this is all taking place in heaven? Nothing in the text suggests this.

Have you not just imagined in your mind it was on earth?

This is an interesting verse; in looking at the Hebrew this seems rather to be moving in direction from a founding, to other things: we might render it "Or who has cast its corner-stone in the singing together of stars of morning, and all sons of God shouting for joy" as being about Christ, the cornerstone, being laid with singing and shouting of men.

This is a very large contextual stretch. Job 38:4 is about the creation of earth. There were no men present at that event. It is very likely the hosts of heaven (son of God) were present to witness the event.

BUT, if we were to render it as if these "sons of God" were present during the actual creation event, then I would still maintain that this should also be consistently understood as a group of men. What this would literally mean, I have no idea.

As you’ve just admitted this makes no sense at all.

But, for sake of consistency, I would propose some sort of foreknowledge which is often mentioned of men being elected "before the foundation of the world" and such as Ephesians 1:4.

Again another stretch to explain what you can’t explain within the parameters you have boxed yourself in with.

BUT, if we were to abandon consistency of phrases, and allow for the confusion of such use, this is probably the one and only verse where we might have sufficient evidence to at least propose some, supernatural beings as alluded to with the phrase "Sons of God";

We are making progress. But it is not the only verse.

but I would also here appeal to Hebrews 1:5. I don't see really any way to make this phrase "sons" apply to supernatural beings.



Look at the whole context of this passage.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The context of this passage is the Son Of God, Jesus, not the way God uses the phrase Son of God.

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

The subject here is Jesus and what He accomplished for us, not the fact He was called the Son of God.

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

This passage is exalting Jesus above the angels.

5 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?

This is saying none of the angels could ever be called The Son of God, the redeemer of mankind. It is absolutely not saying the phrase sons of God would not be used in any other context.

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Jesus was begotten of God when He was born of a virgin we were begotten of God when we were born again. When in scripture was Seth begotten? Truth is he was begotten of Adam and there is no scriptural way to make him a son of God.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Jesus is the Son in the context set above, we are now called sons of God, Adam was called a son of God and created beings in Genesis and Job were called sons of God.


You have pulled this passage out of its proper context to try to support your theory.





Ah but the king says "I see four men loose"; this is no doubt the Word of God with them; that is Christ.

Ah but prior to Jesus being made flesh was He human? No He was not. He had not been begotten in the flesh as of yet in Daniels account. There were only 3 human men in the fire.

I would propose that Adam is, in fact, not being called the "son of God" in that geneology; but every "of" is directed at Jesus; the passage actually reads "Jesus: of X, of Y, of Z ... of God" and that this is the same as "Jesus, of X; Jesus, of Y; Jesus, of Z ... Jesus, of God"

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.


Let’s stay consistent here my friend if Enos was the son of Seth then Seth was the son of Adam and Adam was the son of God. That is what the text says.


I would propose you are wrong on this, the text says Adam was the son of God but that does not fit the scenario you have put yourself in so you try to change it.

This is however speaking of people who were not the sons of God (specifically the house of Israel which was to be 'cut off' Hosea 1:4, Hosea 1:6); there were people who were (house of Judah): Hosea 1:7, Hosea 11:12; and prior to this, all of Israel: Exodus 4:22 (house Israel was only being cut off from being 'the sons of God' at the time of the Assyrian). But prior they had their father: Isaiah 63:16, Isaiah 64:8

We are discussing the Phrase “sons of God” and it is not used in either passage in Isaiah. Tring to incorporate passages with the word father into this discussion is another stretch.



I get it, many just will not, or do not want to accept the possibility that fallen angels procreated with humans. At least my preacher friend was honest when he said, “I just choose not to accept it”.


.

Postvieww said:

John Hyperspace said:

We could also look at the phrase in the NT:

But we have no reason to; the phrase in the New Testament has a totally different meaning than in the Old. What you are calling consistency is actually confusing the facts.

Click to expand...

I propose that the idea of God being a good Teacher is your reason to take His use of phrases as being consistent. Here is an example of a good teacher:

"Brothers, the sons of God are loved of God. You are the sons of God, who live by the Spirit. Now, the creation is awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God to the nations." Then afterward the hearers ask, "I understand we are loved of God; but how is it we will be made manifest to the nations?" The teacher replies, "Indeed you are loved, and this is how you will be made manifest to the nations: at a time to come..."

Here is an example of a bad teacher:

"Brothers, the sons of God are loved of God. You are the sons of God, who live by the Spirit. Now, the creation is awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God to the nations." Then afterward the hearers ask, "I understand we are loved of God; but how is it we will be made manifest to the nations?" The teacher replies, "What do you mean? You are not the sons of God that will be made manifest. And, though you are loved, I was not refering to you when I said "the sons of God" the first time. The first time I said it I meant "supernatural beings who are not men" and did not mean you" the hearer replies "Oh, I thought you meant it the same way?" The bad teacher replies "You had no reason to", the hearer replies, "Oh. Now I am confused. Did you mean me when you said the sons of God would be made manifest?" the teacher replies, "What do you think?" The hearer replies, "I don't know. I'm confused now since you are using the same phrase differently than when you made it clear. I can't tell what you mean any more."

So when a person says "God is using the same phrase differently than when He defines it" they are basically asking me to believe God is a bad teacher. Thus, I easily reject the idea as being the teaching of men, who can be the only "bad teacher" culprits.

Postvieww said:

I’ve already explained this in post #60. You are ignoring context in the Old Testament examples. There is no relationship between the phrase " sons of God" in the Old Testament and the New.

Click to expand...

There is since all through the OT only men are called "sons" by God, and only men enjoy the Father-son relationship. I have already cited many verses to support this. I would await a single clear verse showing that anyone other than men are called "sons" or anyone other than men call God "father":

I believe the rest of your post is likewise addressed by the above.

sdowney717 said:

Sons of God in Job is all about angels not men.

Click to expand...

Again, that would imply that God is a bad teacher who confuses people by using phrases inconsistently without clarity. The purpose of language is to make concepts understood; not to obfuscate the concepts by defining terms in one way, then, using the term differently without specifying. I easily reject all claims that God teaches as poorly as a man who doesn't comprehend the difference between consistent use of a phrase, and, inconsistent use of a phrase; and the effect that has on the ability of the hearer to make sense of the words being employed. Inconsistent use of phrase can only come from the teachings of men, and not from the teachings of God.

sdowney717 said:

Since you believe men were alive before their creation when God was just beginning to create the earth, how can you take yourself seriously.

Click to expand...

I didn't claim to believe men were alive before their creation. I proposed that the verse in question must be talking about men; and that any difficulty in understanding the "literality" of the verse doesn't warrant an inconsistent redefining of the phrase "sons of God" in order to satisfy understanding of the passage. Though, again, it would be possible then that the verse is speaking in some way of the presence of men at the laying of the "cornerstone" of creation. Not that it has to be, but would be a possibility. But, literally speaking, no one can know what the passage may mean, but spiritually speaking, the Cornerstone is Christ and the sons of God are those lead by the Spirit.

sdowney717 said:

Logically I must assume you don't believe what the scripture actually directly says

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the book of Job is literal, or, poetic; but that it is true, either way; just as the parables of Jesus are true, whether they are speaking of literal things, or, spiritual things. The speakers in the book of Job seem to be able to converse in quite a highly constructed, poetic eloquence I do not find existing in normal human interaction and speech. But the literality of it all I can't know for certain; I can, however, understand the spiritual truths conveyed by the words; and understand the need for the consistent use of phrase to avoid causing confusion in the hearer. This is why I reject the idea of inconsistent use of phrase in the scripture. If the phrase were used differently than clearly defined, it would be clearly defined in the differing use; otherwise the result is confusion, and I don't believe God would cause confusion by using a phrase inconsistently without making the use clear to the hearer.

John Hyperspace said:

Again, that would imply that God is a bad teacher who confuses people by using phrases inconsistently without clarity. The purpose of language is to make concepts understood; not to obfuscate the concepts by defining terms in one way, then, using the term differently without specifying. I easily reject all claims that God teaches as poorly as a man who doesn't comprehend the difference between consistent use of a phrase, and, inconsistent use of a phrase; and the effect that has on the ability of the hearer to make sense of the words being employed. Inconsistent use of phrase can only come from the teachings of men, and not from the teachings of God.



I didn't claim to believe men were alive before their creation. I proposed that the verse in question must be talking about men; and that any difficulty in understanding the "literality" of the verse doesn't warrant an inconsistent redefining of the phrase "sons of God" in order to satisfy understanding of the passage. Though, again, it would be possible then that the verse is speaking in some way of the presence of men at the laying of the "cornerstone" of creation. Not that it has to be, but would be a possibility. But, literally speaking, no one can know what the passage may mean, but spiritually speaking, the Cornerstone is Christ and the sons of God are those lead by the Spirit.



I'm not sure that the book of Job is literal, or, poetic; but that it is true, either way; just as the parables of Jesus are true, whether they are speaking of literal things, or, spiritual things. The speakers in the book of Job seem to be able to converse in quite a highly constructed, poetic eloquence I do not find existing in normal human interaction and speech. But the literality of it all I can't know for certain; I can, however, understand the spiritual truths conveyed by the words; and understand the need for the consistent use of phrase to avoid causing confusion in the hearer. This is why I reject the idea of inconsistent use of phrase in the scripture. If the phrase were used differently than clearly defined, it would be clearly defined in the differing use; otherwise the result is confusion, and I don't believe God would cause confusion by using a phrase inconsistently without making the use clear to the hearer.

Click to expand...

You do realize using your arguments, a person can believe whatever they want about scripture.

He makes the same point I do.
So do we really believe what scripture says about these things or a clever sophistry?

God questioning Job in his trial. Job 38:3-7 “Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me.” Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

Job 38:7 is clearly a reference to the angels united in harmony when they were created in reference to Gen.1:1. It is prior to the rebellion of the angels. Once again this term is used for angels and not man. When God created the heavens there was a time when all the angels were united and harmony existed in heaven. They were together in worship and service to God their creator this is taking place when the earth was first created before man is on it.There is also the Hebrew term of bene elim which is found in Psalm 29:1, 89:6 which means sons of the mighty, referring to man as a class of mighty beings (possibly a more general meaning to include the angels).
http://www.letusreason.org/Doct11.htm

When the text of scripture is no longer our guide in determining our beliefs it will be as sdowney717 said “a person can believe whatever they want about scripture”.

Postvieww said:

When the text of scripture is no longer our guide in determining our beliefs it will be as sdowney717 said “a person can believe whatever they want about scripture”.

Click to expand...

Oh of course. For example, even though the scriptures speak over and over again that the sun rises and sets as the cause of day and night, modern people insist on believing that actually the earth rotates as the cause of day and night. Its astonishing how many have parted from the scriptural teaching on this subject.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Oh of course. For example, even though the scriptures speak over and over again that the sun rises and sets as the cause of day and night, modern people insist on believing that actually the earth rotates as the cause of day and night. Its astonishing how many have parted from the scriptural teaching on this subject.

Click to expand...

Perhaps they are just warming up for the coming Great Apostasy.

For example significant numbers of 'christians' now believe this has no future fulfillment having occurred in 70Ad.
Yet Christ teaches this will come on them as a SNARE for all them that dwell over the whole earth...

Luke 21
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. 25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. 27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 when they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. 33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. 35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

I don't believe they were. I take the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" to be part of the repeating theme of Scripture that warns believers against marrying unbelievers. If one interprets the "sons of God" to mean angels, then it doesn't really make sense when put together with everything else the Bible says about angels and fallen angels and God himself.

Radrook said:

Why not truncate that intervention at the root by limiting angelic ability to materialize and to have viable offspring from women?

Click to expand...

This assumes that the Nephilim were fallen Angels. I reject that interpretation because the arguments I have seen for it are quite a stretch at best, trying to connect verses that have no reason to be connected.

JacksBratt said:

The exact meaning of "sons of God" has been debated by people far more knowledgeable than I am in regards to Biblical theology. They still don't agree.

For me "the sons of God" is in direct contrast to "daughters of men". This depicts a point of distinction between them and leads me to take it that the sons of god are angelic beings while the daughters of men could be from any line of mankind.

Also, the union of two races of men cannot create giants. If this were true, scientists would be doing it today to create super soldiers. Do you not think they are trying?

If you read the extra-biblical texts of the Book of Enoch, Jasher and the book of Jubilee. they confirm what this was meant to be in the times they all were written.

In the book of Jude, it is plain that these beings were chained in hell until the day of judgement. There is absolutely no need for dead, condemned humans to be chained. But angels... that's different.

I am not going to argue this point anymore. You have your view and your reasons for it. I have mine.

Look me up when we all get to glory and we can sit under the tree of life and laugh about all the things we got wrong with our views of the biblical teachings.

God Bless.
Jack.

Click to expand...

is it not true that at job 38:7 this scripture is referring to angels and while some Bibles translate the last half :the angels shouted for joy other Bibles translate it the sons of God shouted for joy

BARNEY BRIGHT said:

is it not true that at job 38:7 this scripture is referring to angels and while some Bibles translate the last half :the angels shouted for joy other Bibles translate it the sons of God shouted for joy

Click to expand...

And how do you connect that with Genesis 6?

Radrook said:

I am talking about prevention not punishment.

Click to expand...

you know as i do that God allows free will.Part of the punishment however that God gave the angels after they sinned was preventing them to sin exactly that way again

HermanNeutics13 said:

And how do you connect that with Genesis 6?

Click to expand...

the "sons of God" in that scripture were angels.

Radrook said:

There are limits that he sets on angelic free will just as there are limits that he sets on human free will. For example, God does not allow rebel angels to destroy the Earth. He does not allow them to take over heaven and dethrone him. He does not allow them to succeed against his plans for salvation. So setting a limit on their ability to mingle with mankind would having been just another limiting factor.

Click to expand...

It is true that God purpose can not be stopped but God did give the angels the ability to become flesh it wasn't their natural state but God sent angels with messages to his prophets and some came in the form of men.This ability wasn't suppose to be abused just as our freewill was not to be abused.When God created them with these abilities i honestly don't think that before he created them with these abilities that he didn't trust them because God loves his creation and love and trust go hand in hand.It would show that God didn't trust what he created if he had limited them as you suggest would it not?It is true that man and angels have abused free will but God still loves and trusts his creation both angels and humans.

When it comes to earth being destroyed by angels God created the earth to exist forever because he put Adam on earth and it was not part of God purpose for sin and death to exist but Satan his demons nor sin and death will stop the earth from existing forever and righteous humans living forever on it without dying that is God purpose and as i said God purposes will not be stopped.