Main arguments against Angels (Gen 6)

[SwordFall]

And logic like this is the reason why we have people thinking that Demons were getting married and having babies with women. No way to simply let the text mean what it says, and conform our thoughts to it. We have to bend it so it fits within our understanding.

If we are sons of Adam, and baptized into sons of God, where do the angels fit in?
They were created as well, having a beginning. Why shouldn't they be sons of God?

They are not of this world and know the beatific vision. They fit the bill pretty well as sons of God.

 

[Philpy1976]

Well, page 5 and as of yet absolutely nothing to sway my opinion.
For over 300 years after Jesus, this was widely accepted as fact (angels) yet Augustine of Hippo suddenly decided to rewrite history and I can't fathom why.

Jasher & Enoch are books that are mentioned in canon, yet not included themselves, they both support the fallen angel account, which is why Jude and Peter talk about their punishment.

So, I ask again, can anybody provide scripture to support the 'sons of God' being the line of Seth, rather than the fallen angels that Peter, Jude and most of the early church accepted (before Augustine)?

 

[x141]

It's God's own fault, if he hadn't made woman so pretty and angels with a pecker there wouldn't have been a problem.

 

[canisee]

I was quite surprised to find that almost nobody at my church agreed with me when I spoke about the fallen angels in Genesis 6.
They refused to even give consideration to the "sons of God" being anything other than humans.

The translators of the NIV and Good news clearly agree that we are not talking about humans in this passage, so what are the main arguments against what is so obviously written?

I should also point out that if the main objection is what Jesus said to the Sadducees regarding the widow of seven husbands, it is, not only a very weak argument, but in fact adds credence to the fallen angel account.
(If you could marry in heaven, there would be no need for them to fall)

Also, if we can compile a serious scriptural based argument against Gen 6 talking about angels, who are the angels that were punished for sinning and what was their sin (if not breeding with human women), here I refer to 2 Peter:4-5 and Jude 1:6.

I have always pondered this possibilty also.

I as many, can not form an actual factual basis, but just wonder and
ponder.

It is nothing I would ever share out loud or make a point.

To me, life at time can be difficult and just praying, exhorting each
other to abide in Christ, to look to him daily, to take up the cross
each day is enough of a challenge for most brother and sisters
I interface with.

I would rather just lift up Jesus and share
with them words of encouragement, and promises of the Word,
than areas that are deeper in contemplation, that have
no bearing on day-to-day life.

 

[Philpy1976]

You are right about keeping the focus on Christ.
Thank you.

 

[Nanopants]

It's God's own fault, if he hadn't made woman so pretty and angels with a pecker there wouldn't have been a problem.

Lol.

 

[Melshezidek]

I was quite surprised to find that almost nobody at my church agreed with me when I spoke about the fallen angels in Genesis 6.
They refused to even give consideration to the "sons of God" being anything other than humans.

The translators of the NIV and Good news clearly agree that we are not talking about humans in this passage, so what are the main arguments against what is so obviously written?

I should also point out that if the main objection is what Jesus said to the Sadducees regarding the widow of seven husbands, it is, not only a very weak argument, but in fact adds credence to the fallen angel account.
(If you could marry in heaven, there would be no need for them to fall)

Also, if we can compile a serious scriptural based argument against Gen 6 talking about angels, who are the angels that were punished for sinning and what was their sin (if not breeding with human women), here I refer to 2 Peter:4-5 and Jude 1:6.

Yep there's a lot of those type out there. They want to walk in ignorance and worldly wisdom unfortunately.

 

[canisee]

Also, if we can compile a serious scriptural based argument against Gen 6 talking about angels, who are the angels that were punished for sinning and what was their sin (if not breeding with human women), here I refer to 2 Peter:4-5 and Jude 1:6.

We think alike.

"the angels that were punished for sinning and what was their sin?"

I just read this yesterday in my daily reading.

I asked the Most High, why are most fallen angels free until
judgement, and these locked up already?

 

[Achilles6129]

I was quite surprised to find that almost nobody at my church agreed with me when I spoke about the fallen angels in Genesis 6.
They refused to even give consideration to the "sons of God" being anything other than humans.

The translators of the NIV and Good news clearly agree that we are not talking about humans in this passage, so what are the main arguments against what is so obviously written?

I should also point out that if the main objection is what Jesus said to the Sadducees regarding the widow of seven husbands, it is, not only a very weak argument, but in fact adds credence to the fallen angel account.
(If you could marry in heaven, there would be no need for them to fall)

Also, if we can compile a serious scriptural based argument against Gen 6 talking about angels, who are the angels that were punished for sinning and what was their sin (if not breeding with human women), here I refer to 2 Peter:4-5 and Jude 1:6.

I'm surprised almost no-one agreed with you. I would think that the passages in 2 Peter 2 and Jude would suffice to prove that they were fallen angels in human form.

If you think angels who are spiritual beings, were having sex with women, I'm not the one with the credibility issue.

They took human form - like angels do often in the OT.

Angels were able to eat with Abraham, how do spiritual beings eat?
The men in Sodom wanted to have sex with the angels.

Both of these things suggest that Angles manifest in physical form.

Correct. Fallen angels can take human form. There are some that think that maybe the beast in Revelation is a fallen angel in human form.

Well, page 5 and as of yet absolutely nothing to sway my opinion.
For over 300 years after Jesus, this was widely accepted as fact (angels) yet Augustine of Hippo suddenly decided to rewrite history and I can't fathom why.

Jasher & Enoch are books that are mentioned in canon, yet not included themselves, they both support the fallen angel account, which is why Jude and Peter talk about their punishment.

So, I ask again, can anybody provide scripture to support the 'sons of God' being the line of Seth, rather than the fallen angels that Peter, Jude and most of the early church accepted (before Augustine)?

No, they cannot. The notion that the "sons of God" are from the line of Seth is a possible interpretation of the passage, but I think once we look at all of the evidence we see that the "sons of God" have to be fallen angels. For example, why would the passage itself contrast the "sons of God" with the "daughters of men?" It doesn't make any sense unless we're talking about two different creatures here.

And then we have the passages in Jude/2 Peter:

"6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day." Jude 6 (NIV)

Notice that Jude mentions these angels prior to Sodom/Gomorrah - is he mentioning them in chronological order? This could definitely be a reference to Gen. 6.

"4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them in chains of darkness[b] to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;" 2 Pet. 2:4-5 (NIV)

Notice again the order Peter uses: 1) Angels 2) Flood. That is the exact order in Gen. 6.

In short, I think it is most likely that the sons of God in Gen. 6 are fallen angels in human form.

 

[x141]

Well, page 5 and as of yet absolutely nothing to sway my opinion.
For over 300 years after Jesus, this was widely accepted as fact (angels) yet Augustine of Hippo suddenly decided to rewrite history and I can't fathom why.

Jasher & Enoch are books that are mentioned in canon, yet not included themselves, they both support the fallen angel account, which is why Jude and Peter talk about their punishment.

So, I ask again, can anybody provide scripture to support the 'sons of God' being the line of Seth, rather than the fallen angels that Peter, Jude and most of the early church accepted (before Augustine)?

You were persuaded of your own opinion before ever starting this thread, so I won't try to persuaded you against what you already have settled as the truth.

But I would have to question God's motive for every thing he created knowing ahead of time the outcome. Is this something one who is love and in whom no shadow of turning from this truth would do?

I would also have to question Luke's opinion, who believed Adam was the son of God, which would make Seth a son as well, which Jesus said we were all Gods being the sons of one Father.

John 10:34-36 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

John was persuaded that those who were born of God cannot sin, was this a lie or the truth, it can't be both. Jesus said either make the tree good or make the tree evil, what tree was he referring to, and who planted it? The very term son of God is indicative of being born of God. Can God sin? How can waters be both bitter and sweet out of the same well? Does God hold us to a higher standard than he does himself? Jesus said there is none good but God, but claimed he was God, what was the point if he was the only begotten? If in Noah's time all flesh died where did the giants in the land come from seeing they would have to have been of Noah and his three sons, that is unless you believe the waters didn't cover the whole face of the earth, which would mean all flesh didn't die, and the angels that were supposedly bound were never really bound to begin with. In Daniel it says that they will mingle themselves with the seed of men, who are these kings that Daniel spoke of? It says that in the days of these kings God would set up a kingdom that would break all the other kingdoms and which kingdom would never end, is this the same kingdom that is in us and are we these kings, sons of God who once again mingled ourselves with the seed of men? What is the difference between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, and why is it called a seed? Paul said that he spoke to some as a man, what did he mean, that the speech of men was lesser than the speech of a son of God? Was he talking to sons of God who could only understand the speech of men?

I'm not looking for a reply, and there are certainly tons of more questions one could ask, but the answers would all be based on words on a page of whatever you deem to be the truth. Jesus believed he, being the son of God was the truth, the truth not being words on a page, and Paul believed we were heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, which is only afforded to those who are sons of God, being that only a son is an heir to their Father which goes along way.

 

[Achilles6129]

You were persuaded of your own opinion before ever starting this thread, so I won't try to persuaded you against what you already have settled as the truth.

But I would have to question God's motive for every thing he created knowing ahead of time the outcome. Is this something one who is love and in whom no shadow of turning from this truth would do?

I would also have to question Luke's opinion, who believed Adam was the son of God, which would make Seth a son as well, which Jesus said we were all Gods being the sons of one Father.

It is possible that the "sons of God" in Gen. 6 were the sons of Seth. I just think that the evidence leans the other direction. Don't you think that the references in 2 Peter and Jude are most likely referring to Gen. 6? Also, the book of Enoch seems to preserve an ancient Jewish interpretation, and it interprets the sons of God in Gen. 6 as angels. And, of course, elsewhere in the OT there are angels described as the sons of God.

 

[canisee]

It is possible that the "sons of God" in Gen. 6 were the sons of Seth. I just think that the evidence leans the other direction. Don't you think that the references in 2 Peter and Jude are most likely referring to Gen. 6? Also, the book of Enoch seems to preserve an ancient Jewish interpretation, and it interprets the sons of God in Gen. 6 as angels. And, of course, elsewhere in the OT there are angels described as the sons of God.

Yes it is possible, but to me, it is one of those area that I will
always contemplate and wonder about, until we see
face-to-face.

I do insist either way. I just ponder as it is not clearly
explained to me in His Word.

There are only hints as far as my reading goes.

This does not make me the best reader, but I do search,
for answers.

Bear with me in the Love of God.

 

[x141]

It is possible that the "sons of God" in Gen. 6 were the sons of Seth. I just think that the evidence leans the other direction. Don't you think that the references in 2 Peter and Jude are most likely referring to Gen. 6? Also, the book of Enoch seems to preserve an ancient Jewish interpretation, and it interprets the sons of God in Gen. 6 as angels. And, of course, elsewhere in the OT there are angels described as the sons of God.

Jesus thought they had missed the boat by their interpretation.

God is a spirit, and his words that are life are spirit, if you consider the Bible and such as God's word, then you must see it in the light of his purpose, which is himself, and this same life or self in us.

To me, the reason Peter mentioned this to begin with was to address those he felt were subverting what he believed the truth to be (which he was not always correct with this), in a God is going to get you dialogue, which appears to be the same with Jude.

The inheritance was divided in the sons of Adam, which is the heavenly and the earthly. It is the unfolding of this truth of the choice of Adam that the inheritance was based on, and so is the mingling of the seed, and how this plays out in our mind that is the battle ground of where this process comes to it's end at involving the two seeds.

Daughters depict a truth as much as the lamb depicted a truth. Angels are messengers and every messenger has a message which relates to the soul of man.

 

[Stryder06]

If we are sons of Adam, and baptized into sons of God, where do the angels fit in?
They were created as well, having a beginning. Why shouldn't they be sons of God?

They are not of this world and know the beatific vision. They fit the bill pretty well as sons of God.

Angel's aren't son's of God because they simply aren't. That's all there is too it.

 

[Stryder06]

Deductive reasoning? I need Scripture.

I gave you scripture. You asked how I came to understand them to mean "Angels" and I said "deductive reasoning".

How did you come to the conclusion that the Sons of God mentioned in Job are aliens from another planet?

Again, deductive reasoning. They aren't humans, and they aren't angels. Leaves few other options.

Please show me these "modern" 9 feet tall men you speak of?

Robert Wadlow Jr. Died in 1940

Jude explicitly says there are angels NOT fallen angels.

"The angels who kept not their first estate..." That doens't sound like fallen angels to you? And Jude doesn't even talk about the events in Genesis, so I don't know how you're trying to make that connection.

The books of Peter and Jude seem to hint to the Nephilim (offspring of angels and humans).

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5

Jude isn't making a connection between what happened to the earth and the fallen angels. He's simply comparing each instance to let his readers know that God will in no wise excuse the wicked, be they angelic, or human.
____

But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 1:5-7

Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves over to sexual immorality and went after strange flesh IN THE SAME MANNER as the angels (the angels who did not keep their first estate, but left their own abode) and Israel did.

The scripture does not say that the angels went after strange flesh. It simply says that they kept not their first estate. John in revelation expounds upon this when he speaks about the war in heaven, and how the angels were cast out along with the devil. You're reading something into the text that's simply not there.

PS. Again ANGELS not demons.

Angels that sin are demons. What exactly do you think a "demon" is if not a fallen angel?

 

[Optimax]

Sons of God - Sons of the righteous.

Daughters of men - Daughters of the wicked.

It should be noted that in scripture, the angels are called "stars of heaven" not "sons of God."

IF: The Sons of God were the sons of the righteous.


EXPLAIN as best you can.

How that union would produce giants.

Did sons of the "righteous" marry the daughters of the wicked?

Yes,.

Those unions were not capable of producing giants.

Each produces after their own kind.

Their own kind would be normal people, which is what normal people produce.

 

[ChetSinger]

I was quite surprised to find that almost nobody at my church agreed with me when I spoke about the fallen angels in Genesis 6.
They refused to even give consideration to the "sons of God" being anything other than humans.

The translators of the NIV and Good news clearly agree that we are not talking about humans in this passage, so what are the main arguments against what is so obviously written?

I should also point out that if the main objection is what Jesus said to the Sadducees regarding the widow of seven husbands, it is, not only a very weak argument, but in fact adds credence to the fallen angel account.
(If you could marry in heaven, there would be no need for them to fall)

Also, if we can compile a serious scriptural based argument against Gen 6 talking about angels, who are the angels that were punished for sinning and what was their sin (if not breeding with human women), here I refer to 2 Peter:4-5 and Jude 1:6.

That Genesis 6 was referring to angelic beings is, afaik, the default position of the early church (Justin Martyr, Athenagoras). Later, some of the Protestant reformers found this conclusion objectionable and repulsive and looked for an alternative explanation. So if you're a Protestant your church's beliefs may be rooted as far back as the reformers.

Aside from the account being weird and yucky, I think all the data points to the angelic theory:

1. It was a belief common in Second Temple Judaism.
2. It explains those passages in 2 Peter and Jude.
3. The early church held to it.

 

[Stryder06]

IF: The Sons of God were the sons of the righteous.


EXPLAIN as best you can.

How that union would produce giants.

Did sons of the "righteous" marry the daughters of the wicked?

Yes,.

Those unions were not capable of producing giants.

Each produces after their own kind.

Their own kind would be normal people, which is what normal people produce.

Giants are people too

Robert Wadlow Jr was 8'11 and his dad was 5'11. Stuff happens. To think that giants existed because angels had sex with women is something out of a sci-fi movie. You can look up images on google of giants throughout history, and see plenty of them. Would you suggest that angels are still falling from grace just so they can have babies? That's utterly ridiculous.

 

[ChetSinger]

Angel's aren't son's of God because they simply aren't. That's all there is too it.

That objection is pretty common in Protestant belief.

The Sons of God can be found in Deut 32, Job 1, Job 38, and Psalm 89. They're generally acknowledged to be the highest-ranking beings in the Israelite pantheon.

At the time of the rebellion at Babel there were 70 of them, and God divided up mankind into 70 nations so each son could receive a nation to govern (Targum Gen 11, Deut 32:7-8, Ugaritic archaelogy).

 

[Stryder06]

That objection is pretty common in Protestant belief.

The Sons of God can be found in Deut 32, Job 1, Job 38, and Psalm 89. They're generally acknowledged to be the highest-ranking beings in the Israelite pantheon.

At the time of the rebellion at Babel there were 70 of them, and God divided up mankind into 70 nations so each son could receive a nation to govern (Targum Gen 11, Deut 32:7-8, Ugaritic archaelogy).

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:

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Israel only has One God. Not really certain that the use of the word "pantheon" would be appropriate.