Oxy2Hydr0 said:
It is obvious according to the context, that the sons of God were not human beings, they were some sort of creature whom inpregnated women in which their offsprings were mighty.
They are not angels but they are jinnis either smarty, where do you see in context that these creatures are both good and evil, live among us invisibly, they are subject to judgement at the end, created from fire? Where?
This passage summarizes the state of affairs of Adam's descendants
Historically there have been three primary views of Gen 6:1-4. The "sons of God" are (1) angels (the oldest); (2) royalty (also very old); and (3) pious men from the "line of Seth." The first view has not been widely held since it contradicts Mt 22:30. The commonly accepted view is that the "sons of God" refer to the godly line of Seth. This assumes that verses 1-4 introduce the account of the Flood and are to be understood as its cause.
This little narrative, therefore, is a reminder that Adam's children had greatly increased in number, had married, and had continued to have children; i.e., a picture of everyday affairs (Mt 24:38-39).
The sense of verse 3 is clear if read within the context of what precedes and follows. After creating humans as male and female, God "called them man", which obviously had a wider scope than the personal individual of ch. 4. In the remainder of ch. 5, the focus was on the lives of individual men again. Here in verse 3 God speaks a second time, again speaking of "man" as "humankind." Between these two statements of God about humankind is the list of ten great individual men, whose length of life stands in stark contrast to the "one hundred and twenty years" of the life of humankind. The inference is that it was God's Spirit dwelling with these men that gave them their long lives.
About the three possibilities have been put forth;
1. "Sons of God" were fallen angels, who during "Lucifer's" (Satan's) rebellion left their place heaven and were cast to the earth. This interpretation is built on texts like (Jude 1:6, Rev. 12.7-9, Job 1:6)
Fallen angels? However, to have children, they must have had sex, and angels do not. "They are neither male nor female." "they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." Mark 12:25 Furthermore, if the judgment of the Flood was against the "sons of god" and they were angels, they would actually have escaped it since they are spiritual beings. Also Gen. 6:3 speaks of "flesh".
2. "Sons of god" were kings and rulers
David Livingston, on his "ancientdays" website gives a third possibility.
The "sons of the god" were tyrannical kings "claiming" divinity.
This was common practice in post-flood times. Kings and rulers claiming to the "sons of the gods" or goddesses, and ruling as "divine" persons.
We see no reason why historically well-established post-Flood patterns cannot also explain pre-Flood conditions.
QUOTE
"There would be nothing extraordinary in a worldwide diffusion of divine kingship: the doctrine evidently has exercised a great fascination over the human mind. Greece and Rome shook it off in their youth, but returned to it in their old age. When Alexander claimed to be the son of Zeus he was merely continuing, reviving, or borrowing from the East an ancient belief that the first-born of the king was really the son of a god who had assumed bodily form in order to lie with the Queen, a belief which was current in Egypt under the Early Dynasties of the Empire, if not earlier. The later Romans had to accept the divinity of kings with their empire . . . . Having thus re-established their sway over Western Europe the divine kings of the world did not again surrender it except to another Divine King, a Spiritual King, incarnated once for all in order ever after to rule over the souls of men (Hocart, pp. 16, 16).
3. "Sons of God" were the descendants of righteous Seth, while the Sons and daughters of man, were the descendants of wicked Cain. This interpretation is based on texts like (Luke 3:38, John 1:12)
Could the godly line become so totally corrupt that they were responsible for the Flood? Possibly, those who profess to be God's children and are not hold the higher responsibility.
Exposition of Genesis 6:1-5 in Light of "Divine" Kingship
(Thoughts taken from David Livingston's webpage at "ancientdays")
Marriage.
If "the sons of the gods" are despots pretending to be "divine" kings, then who are the "daughters of men?" Possibly the children of Seth, that is, "believers." Or, they may simply have been common people, in contrast to "divine" kings. Likely this latter is the sense in which it is used since it describes well the practices of the ancient Near East. There, tyrants took (or "snatched away") whoever they chose of the daughters of the common man. They were his "property."
The Hebrew word laqach means "to take, to grab and pull away." But the modern Hebrew meaning is simply "to marry." In Genesis 6, it likely means that the sons of the gods forcibly took the daughters of "men," whoever and whenever they chose.
"Flesh" . . . Not Gods. Further confirmation that Genesis 6 refers to human tyrants, "divine" kings, is seen in the way the Lord refers to them in verse 3. They are "flesh."
"Fallen Giants". "Giants" in verse 4 may mean tall men. The word niphal refers sometimes in Scripture to men of large stature. But it also means "to fall." It may have a double meaning here -- tall men who have fallen from Jehovah's favor, men who sin grossly.
It is possible to assume your jinnis are the Watchers of the Book of Enoch. It is what many believe happened from the Book of Enoch. So it is possible that an error filled version survived with Islam.
The Sons of God were and are those who do the will of God. In those early days...the Sons of Adam became two groups of people. Those that remained faithfull to the teachings of Adam were called Sons of God and Those who left the teachings of Adam were called son and daughter of men.
Job 38: 7 - When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
The "sons of God" is also a term that means Watchers (Angels) and these formed into two groups. Those that remained faithful to God and those that rebelled.
Many books were rejected and banned after the death of the Apostles and has left huge gaping holes in the gospel. This eventually led to the formation of many different religions all based on the same gospel.
The whole motive behind this argument is that yes we have pre-islamic jinni in our book, similarly you do too... Well, the substance that makes mythology has always grown side by side with truth. God gives the truth, and for every truth Satan comes up with a counterfeit.
I have yet to see the definition of jinni in the Bible.
.
