FOR DANHEAD
If you want a full explanation of what's wrong with the Sethite view, please read this article.
http://www.khouse.org/articles/biblestudy/19970801-110.html
Otherwise if you do go to the that other thread read posts #22 and #23.
Here's a post of mine from that other thread:
I would remind you, first of all, that all of the "chapter and verse" delineation in the Bible is not in the original text, but was added centuries later. Go back and read the text again without the change of thought for chapter and verse.
Fair enough Serapha but there is no reason at all for us to believe that the lineage was given to us so to identify who the sons of God are. The sons of God is Bene Elohim in the Hebrew. The excepted rule for defining words or phrases in the Bible is to look elsewhere in the Bible for any other instance of when this word or phrase is used. If there are several instance's of it's use and all pertain to the same meaning then we therefore know the definition of the word or phrase.
When we do a Hebrew search for the phrase Bene Elohim we only see it used in Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7, and once used as Ben Elohim(which is singlar) in Daniel 3:25. You won't find that phrase used as it is in any other place in the Bible. In every one of those cases the phrase Bene Elohim is used to describe celestial beings and never used to describe a person or people. Therefore, following the excepted form of definition, sons of God are angels.
Let me add that the Sethite view is a rather early form of belief that was thought up to persuade christians in the early church era from believeing in angels haveing descended to earth and mateing with human women. At the time, 200 to 800 AD, the theologians of the time wanted to bring in their own beliefs of angels and or celestial beings and it did not go along with what the common people of the day had already excepted as truth.
Additionally, we are told in Genesis, that God created everything, citing, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind..."
Now, God created Adam in from the dust of the earth, in an original creation as is identified in the Hebrew text of the word, and but same description of creating the woman is not to create in the original form, but to shape or form, for mankind was already created in the original forum with Adam. Eve had to come from Adam to be able to comply with each "living creature according to its kind".
So what are you telling me? Are you saying that angels were not created but only man was? That is in effect what you are saying here, you do realize that don't you Serapha?
Adam is the only man God directly created but he also directly created the angels did he not? This is the reason why the author calls them the "sons of God". The nephilim, the offspring, were not directly created by God just like you and I were not directly created by God but they were the progeny of two of his creations just like you and I are the progeny of his creation.
Let me also state that in the Old Testament no person other than Adam was ever or could ever be called a real son of God. It's only until Jesus Christ came and shed his blood on the cross that we are able to call ourselves sons of God in a spiritual sense.
John 1:12-13, 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 were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God
Therefore in Genesis it would be totally impossible for any man, other than Adam, or people to be referred to as sons of God except the angels who were directly created by Him. If your right and the author is calling the sons of seth, the sons of God, then he would be teaching a false truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly if the author wanted us to know that the passage is talking about the sons of Seth he would've just wrote sons of Seth, not sons of God. There is no reason in the early chapters of Genesis to make us believe that all the sons of Seth were godly nor are we told that all the daughters of Cain were ungodly.
In fact some Bible scholars have called into question the way Gen. 4:26 is translated.
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.
What they are saying is that the proper way to read that is "then men began to call themselves gods". Now since this is currently in debate among bible scholars I only mean to point this out. However that translation would make better sense because the way it has been translated is saying that Adam and Seth didn't call upon the name of the Lord but only Seths sons did. And that would mean both Adam and Seth were ungodly!