The Sons of God ?

[BourbonFromHeaven]

Hiya HouseApe,

Outside of the Abrahamic religious communities, it is generally recognized that Jews were a branch of Canaanites, and initially worshipped the Canaanite pantheon.

With geopraphy alone, you could assume that, however, taking into account anthropology, sociology and the early economy of Mediterranean cultures, you might find a different conclusion.

During the bronze age to even late bronze age to to Iron I age, Palestine was a decentralized village agriculture, telling Canannite and Israelite apart, would be difficult.

Archelogical findings is what sets them apart, and from that, it's hard to tell who came from who.

Hence El is a name for God in the Bible (and is the Canaanite supreme God) and the Elohim was his family. YHWH was a son of El who was the special protector of the Jewish branch of the Canaanites.

Please keep in mind that El and Elohim are just titles, and throughought much ancient semitic writings, can apply to mortals as well.

It isn't until after the Babylonian exile and Jewish introduction to Zoroastrianism that Jews become monotheist. Zoroastrianism also introduced the concepts of struggle against sin, a redeeming saviour, resurrection, and the eventual destruction of the world.

Monotheism certinly did exist in Palestine, before the Persian renaissance started the effect the area. Given how relatively close "Israelite" cultures where to Persian ones, I think it's safe to say, that they didn't exist in a vaccuum and when one idea became popular in one region, it wasn't completely alien to the other.

 

[Oxy2Hydr0]

Perhaps it was a different group of angels? it doesnt necessarly HAVE to be the ones who accompanied lucifer. besides, according to muslims, God has no "sons" anyways.

Good point of the different group of Angels. God having no sons is besides the point. The term Son, or Sons of God were attributions to a being or beings that had extraordinary abilities.

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?

Oh my, more delimah for our readers. That entire post shows emense dispute among christians as to what the term meant. Its seems you favored the one that says "the sons of God" were righteous human beings descendant of Adam when in fact the context says "daughters of men". I have read these appologitic descrepancies whereas NONE of them even tended to go back to the Hebrew for clearification.

"daughters of men" in hebrew "banut aadam" literally "daughers of Adam". Here men means Mankind as the human race. Those who hold that daughers of men were teh daughters of Seth are wrong as the Scripture in its original language contradicts such a view.

You can do all the back flips you want with the English, the Hebrew completly expressed "Sons of God" were not human beings.

Demons are not jinns, but a close term in wrongful use, there are certainly no "good" demons

Demons by nature are Jinns. A demon is an evil entity, in the same concept as a human that can be a devil etc

The term demon is only a title which is greek originated, it does not define these creatures nature.

 

[Bevlina]

Why is there 2 Threads dealing with jinns?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Demons by nature are Jinns. A demon is an evil entity, in the same concept as a human that can be a devil etc

Translation;

A demon is a jinn, a jinn is an evil entity.

Islamic definition;

Creatures with free will, made of smokeless fire by Allah, much in the same way humans were made of earth.

In pre-Islamic Arab culture

Pre-Islamic mythology does not discriminate between gods and demons. The jinn are considered as divinities of inferior rank, having many human attributes: they eat, drink, and procreate their kind, sometimes in conjunction with human beings; in which latter case the offspring shares the natures of both parents. The jinn smell and lick things, and have a liking for remnants of food. In eating they use the left hand. Usually they haunt waste and deserted places, especially the thickets where wild beasts gather. Cemeteries and dirty places are also favorite abodes. In appearing to man demons assume sometimes the forms of beasts and sometimes those of men; but they always have some animal characteristic, such as a paw in place of a hand (Darimi, "Kitab al-Sunnah," ii. 213). Eccentric movements of the dust-whirlwind ("zawabi'") are taken to be the visible signs of a battle between two clans of jinn.

Under the influence of Jewish and Christian demonology in post-Islamic times, the only animals directly identified with the jinn are snakes and other obnoxious creeping things. When Mohammed was on his way to Tabuk, it is said that a swarm of jinn, assuming the form of serpents, approached him and stood still for a long while.

Generally jinn are peaceable and well disposed toward men. Many a pre-Islamic poet was believed to have been inspired by good jinn; and Mohammed himself was accused by his adversaries of having been inspired by jinn ("majnun"). But there are also evil jinn, who contrive to injure men. Among these are specially conspicuous the three female demons named "Ghul" (corresponding to the Talmudical ), "Si'lat," and "'Aluḳ" or "'Aulaḳ", and the four male demons "Afrit," "Azbab," "Aziab," and "Ezb." Ghul is especially harmful to new-born children, and in order to keep her away their heads are rubbed with the gum of an acacia.

In Islam

Islam recognized the existence of all the pagan demons, good and evil, protesting only against their being considered gods. Islam divides the evil demons into five species: "jann," "jinn," "shaidans," "afrits," and "marids."

Mohammed frequently refers in the Koran to the shaidans, of whom Iblis is the chief. Iblis, probably a corruption of the name "Diabolos" = Satan, is said to have been deprived of authority over the animal and spirit kingdoms, and sentenced to death, when he refused, at the creation of Adam, to prostrate himself before him (Koran, vii. 13). The shaidans are the children of Iblis, and are to die when their father dies; whereas the others, though they may live many centuries, must die before him. A popular belief says that Iblis and other evil demons are to survive mankind, though they will die before the general resurrection; the last to die being 'Azaril, the angel of death.

Tradition attributes to Mohammed the statement that every man has an angel and a demon appointed to attend him. The former guides him toward goodness, while the latter leads him to evil ("Mishkat," i. ch. 3). The shaidans, being the enemies of Allah, strive to disturb worshipers. Mohammed, it is said, prefaced his prayers with "O God! In Thee I am seeking for a refuge from the attacks of the shaidan and his witchcraft".

Among the evil jinn are distinguished the five sons of Iblis. It was in order to keep them away that the faithful were commanded the cleansings and fumigations which are unbearable to the shaidans, who delight in dirt and filth. The pronouncing of the "takbir" formula ("Allah akbar" =Allah is very great) is also a means of driving them away. Mohammed, it is said, pronounced it in his travels whenever the appearance of the region changed, lest it might be enchanted. In later times amulets were invented to which were ascribed the virtue of protecting their bearers from the attacks of demons.

The cat plays a part in Islamic demonology. A demon assuming the form of a cat is said to have presented himself to Mohammed while he was praying (Darimi, l.c. ii. 449). Some demons assumed the form of cats (Mas'udi, "Muruj al-Dhahab," iii. 321). As to the good jinn, there are some among them who profess Islamism, and Mohammed held that many of them had listened to his sermons (Koran, sura lxxii.).

Jinn is evil but it is also good and listens to Mohammad's sermons...

The term demon is only a title which is greek originated, it does not define these creatures nature.

The Bible does...

Good point of the different group of Angels.

Recite from the Bible how many different types of angels do you see in there? Bucaneer, would you like to join on that too?

God having no sons is besides the point. The term Son, or Sons of God were attributions to a being or beings that had extraordinary abilities.

It is right on point, which is NO POINT at all. This thread started as a continuation of the jinn-hoax photo thread and gullible muslims being exposed as they have believed it and published it on their website, you have gone every corner on every street, every mile to make a point and to get ahead however you choose to use everything that can destory your own credibility in the arguments. sons of God has also used for righteous men and how extraordinary is that?

I am still waiting YOUR biblical exegesis on Genesis 6 that proves you these being are indeed ISLAMIC JINNI!

Yes Jinni is a pagan pre-islamic belief that made its way into Islam. Muhammad's funny jinni hadiths and stories tell A LOT. The jinn spirits were said to inhabit caves, graveyards, darkness, the underground, and could consort with deities in pre-Islamic traditions. Made it the same way into Islam. None of the definitions that are given to jinni by Islamic scholars except one that they are supernatural, fits in this description of Genesis 6. This called for an exegesis of Genesis 6 and I tried to give out the explanation of who these beings might be, none of the biblical contexts within the BIBLE as a whole suggests that these are jinnis.

Is your entire point to call on Christianity saying that jinn are spirits that were created by God out of fire, and are roughly equivalent to the daimones or daimonia of Greco-Roman mythology. They are literally demons and also this mythology made its way into Bible? Basically, you say ok islam is mythologic so is yours, this is the entire mumbo jumbo here, however I told you about Jesus' ACCOUNTS where He exorcised demons and these are accounted for as written history, where we can't even authenticate half of Muhammad's "make a dua, insaallah jinn will leave" hadiths. I also said, 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. Islam is this counterfeit which looks better than real. It is not me doing back flips, it is you beating around the bush, talking about the exact translation of Hebrew "benoth ha'adam" while COMPLETELY IGNORING the context and biblical exegesis.

Now read on!

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

ANALYSIS OF THE GENESIS NARRATIVE


GENESIS 6 (NAS)

1. "Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,
2. that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
3. Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.'
4. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
5. Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6. The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
7. The Lord said, 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.'
8. But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord."

The end of Chapter 5 has as its conclusion a statement that introduces events in Chapter 6. Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth are introduced in the last verse of Chapter 5, but they do not appear again until Chapter 6, Verses 8-10. This particular transition from the end of one chapter to the beginning of another has been seen before. The author introduces the subject of the next chapter in the last verse but then the first few verses of the next chapter are an interlude or a review of what has gone on previously, before the main subject is introduced. In the last verse of Chapter 4, Seth is introduced, but he is not seen again until Chapter 5, Verse 6. Chapter 5, Verses 1-5 are an interlude, referring back to the creation and genealogy of Adam. In Chapter 6, a like situation occurs. Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth are introduced in Chapter 5, Verse 32, but Chapter 6, Verses 1-7 are an interlude, either referring back to events prior to Noah's birth or events that may have occurred before and after his birth. The narrative is not specific as to the time frame in which the events occurred.

PART I

CHAPTER 6, VERSE 1

The (NAS) translates Verse 1 as, "Now it came about ..," and the (NIV) as, "When men began to multiply ..." The (NKJV) translates as, "Now it came to pass ..," adopting a similar reading to the (KJV) that states, "And it came to pass ..."

None of the translations indicate a specific time period in which the event, "when men began to multiply" (NAS), begins to take place. Was it prior to the birth of Noah or was it after? The question is not answered specifically in the text. The wording is similar to a story which is introduced by, "Once upon a time," or "In a place and time long ago." However, the event did have a historical context and, as such, must have had a point in time at which a time frame could be assigned. The time frame is indicated as an ambiguity because it might have been difficult to see when the events actually began to take place. Mankind began to multiply on the earth as early as the birth of Cain and Able, so it may be that the commencement of the activity began that early, with the apostasy of Cain and his choosing of a sister for a wife. In the early days of humanity, in the lifetime of Adam, the numbers of people were very small and the increase in population was slight, the choice of wives originally made from among sisters, with the selection being very limited, until the numbers of extended relatives became larger. What has been seen in Chapter 4 is a description of the society of Cain that was producing many people, building cities and creating social and technological innovations. In Chapter 5 a genealogical progression is seen, leading to many people in the godly line. What is being described is the progression of society from limited numbers, which needed to intermarry in order to find spouses, to a point where, even though still somewhat limited in numbers, those numbers were of sufficient quantity to bring about a population explosion. Men, which previously had been few, and women, who had previously been few, now suddenly become larger in number. It now becomes possible for men to select wives, not just from within the confines of the family, but from outside the family as well. There are not just a few women to choose from, but there are many, from numerous families and even from various cities.

There is a play on words in a comparison with Chapters 5 and 6. In Chapter 5, the generations of Adam are presented; literally the sons or descendants of Adam, who was the first man or first human. In Chapter 6, these descendants are the adam, meaning human beings or mankind in general. The descendants are sons and daughters as noted in 5:4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26, 30. From the first man, Adam, his descendants flow through Chapter 5 and enter Chapter 6 as adam; human beings procreating and increasing in numbers, producing many children, including daughters who are of an interest to a specific group. The unusual comparison continues until Chapter 5, Verse 32, when Noah is introduced who fathered three sons but no daughters. Chapter 6, Verse 1 introduces adam; men, who father daughters but their sons are not mentioned.

PART II
CHAPTER 6, VERSE 2

It is at Verse 2 that the controversy begins. The "sons of God" see the "daughters of men" and take note that those daughters are beautiful. They take wives from among those daughters mentioned in Verse 1.

The "sons of God" are capable of comprehending the beauty of the human women and expressing desire for them as wives. They took any women that they chose, perhaps in a monogamous relationship, but more likely in a polygamous relationship as revealed by Lamech in Chapter 4, Verse 19.

The very interesting comment made in Verse 2 is that the "sons of God" "took wives for themselves, whomever they chose," (NAS). Seemingly, the daughters had no choice in the matter and the "sons of God" had the authority and ability to obtain any women as a wife that they wished. The narrative would lend credibility to the idea that the women were in a position of subservience to men, or at the least under the control of their fathers. The evidence is that the "sons of God" chose the women, but not necessarily that the women chose the "sons of God". In 4:19, Lamech is noted as having taken two wives, a strange aberration from the original intent of the Lord, noted by the author, in 2:24, where he wrote, "a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh," (NAS). There is no indication that the unions of Lamech with Adah and Zillah were not preceded by marriages because they are noted as being wives in 4:23. However, the importance of the citation is that he took the women, not that they willingly consented. What might be seen is that very early in society, men established control and domination over women, fulfilling the words of the Lord in the curse placed on the woman in 3:16, "Yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you," (NAS).

PART III
CHAPTER 6, VERSE 3

Suddenly, the Lord pronounces a judgment in the form of a pledge, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever ..," 6:3 (NAS). The reason is stated as, "because he also is flesh," 6:3 (NAS). No explanation is given in the verse as to why man is also flesh, but the only possible reason could have been presented in Chapter 6, Verses 1 and 2. In some manner, the choosing of the beautiful "daughters of men" by the "sons of God" caused the Lord to judge all of mankind as only flesh. The meaning of the word flesh, "basar", being that man is body with no apparent connection to any other sphere. The flesh and world of the profane is indicated, with no reference to any reality of the spiritual in the character of man.

After the observation and comment by the Lord, a judgment is stated in 6:3, "nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." (NAS). Man is stated to be only flesh, however, in spite of the fact his days of life will be 120 years. Whether this 120 year period is the newly assigned average lifetime of mankind or a period of time extended into the future from the point of the judgment at the end of such time man would die, is not stated in the verse.

PART IV
CHAPTER 6, VERSE 4

A very interesting, and confusing, element is introduced in Verse 4 in the form of the Nephilim. They are noted as being present "in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them." (NAS) The Nephilim are not identified as to origin. They were in the earth "in those days," (NAS), meaning the time when the "sons of God" came into the "daughters of men", and then "Also afterward," (NAS), perhaps meaning after the time when the "sons of God" came into the "daughters of men". However, there is no apparent connection between the Nephilim and the "sons of God" and "daughters of men". The "sons of God" came in to the "daughters of men" and the daughters bore children. The Nephilim were also in existence at the time. There were also mighty men of renown, the origin of which is unclear. They could possibly be the children of the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" or they could be the Nephilim. The word Nephilim is often translated as "giants" from the reference in Numbers 13:33. The word is from a root, meaning "to fall" and is not necessarily related to any description of their physical size. The question that must be asked is the relationship of the word "afterward" to the event regarding the union of the "sons of God" and "daughters of men"? Does the term "afterward" indicate that the union was a one time event, or an event of a short time duration, or did it continue throughout the pre-flood era? The other question is when did the union of the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" actually begin and can that time be identified? The narrative is not clear as to the time frame and origin of the union.

PART V
CHAPTER 6, VERSE 5

In some manner, the results of the actions of the "sons of God", the "daughters of men" and the Nephilim, as seen in 6:1-4, bring about another observation by the Lord. Man is wicked, the wickedness is great and every intent of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil at all times, 6:5. The great condemnation is in the extent of the wickedness and the deep rooted nature of its origin. The wickedness sprang from the heart, the place in which it was felt that the deepest emotions and motivations of man have their origin. In addition it is noted that the basic intent of all thought was to create new and better ways to engage in wicked behavior. In a sense, man existed only to engage in wicked behavior. The observation and judgment is specific regarding the subject, adam, that being man in the general sense, including all male and all female members of the human race.

PART VI
CHAPTER 6, VERSE 6

As a result of the actions of men and the state in which He observed their behavior, the Lord was "grieved" and "sorry" that He had created, "adam", meaning all of mankind. In what manner the Lord could be "grieved" and "sorry" is not the subject of this writing.

PART VII
CHAPTER 6, VERSE 7

As a result of His grief and sorrow, the Lord made a decision to destroy all of mankind, even to the point that all created creatures would be included in the destruction, including animals, creeping things and birds. The judgment was to be final and all-inclusive. Just as with Adam and Eve in 3:14, 17, 18, the entire creation becomes involved in the judgment process.

PART VIII
CHAPTER 6, VERSE 8

In the manner that all humanity had caught the attention of the Lord and caused a judgment to be pronounced, Noah caught the eye of the Lord and judgment was withheld. All of humanity found disfavor with God, but Noah only found favor.

COMMENT
The eight verses are simply a narrative by the author, with no attempt to interject an explanation as to a time frame or identification of the other elements. It is assumed that the reader knows the identity of the "sons of God", the Nephilim and the mighty and renown men of old. The relationship of the various groups mentioned to each other is not well defined and as a result, confusion is introduced and questions are raised when the narrative is read. The major questions are as follows:

1. Who are the men that began to multiply?
2. Who are the daughters of the men that began to multiply?
3. Who are the "sons of God"?
4. What, or who, is the Spirit of the Lord?
5. Why is man considered flesh and what is the meaning of the term?
6. What is the period of time referred to as one hundred and twenty years?
7. Who, or what, are the Nephilim?
8. Who are the children born to the "sons of God" and "daughters of men"?
9. Who are the mighty men who were men of renown?
10. Why did the Lord consider man to be wicked?
11. Why did the Lord wish to blot out all mankind?
12. Why did Noah find favor with the Lord?

It is hoped that an answer can be found for all of the questions proposed, but that may not be entirely possible. Within the framework of the major questions, and the proper answers, is the revelation of the relationship of mankind to the Lord in regards to responsibility and accountability for thought and conduct that results in sinful beliefs and actions. That responsibility and accountability is significant, consequential and profound in nature according to the narrative.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

THE THEORY IN RELATION TO HUMANITY



1. MEN ARE JUDGED WHO ARE NOT PART OF THE SIN.

If the sin is in the union of angels with women of the earth, then why are men judged when they could not possibly be a part? Are the men judged because they approved: how could they do otherwise? How can they be guilty also? The only way men could be guilty, in the circumstance, would be to also participate, in a homosexual relationship, such as that which was desired by the men of Sodom in Genesis 19:4-5, yet this activity is not mentioned in the narrative. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is mentioned in II Peter 2:6, and possibly it could be linked to the mention of angels and the ancient world of Noah in II Peter 2:5-5. Yet, that does not seem to be the purpose of Peter as he is speaking of apostasy rather than linking together specific sexual sins of different ages. A defense may be made by reference to Jude 6-7. Angels did not keep to their own domain but went after strange flesh just as did the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the analogy is somewhat strained because the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was male with male, while the theory states the sin of the angels was male angels with female women. However, the concept of "strange flesh" seems to be the purpose of the comparison, not necessarily the context of the union. A possible explanation of "strange flesh" would be that these angels possessed the bodies of human men and cohabitated with women in that manner, however, the narrative does not state that to be the case. What becomes so puzzling with regards to the references, in Jude 6-7 and II Peter 2:4-5, is the fact that they are so cryptic in the mentioning of the sins of the angels; the content and activity of the sin is never detailed or explained. It becomes very difficult to assign specific sins to these verses and then refer them back to the Genesis narrative. Circumstantial evidence may make a good case in some instances, but it requires a very delicate balance of documentation, and a dogmatic belief based on such uncertain proof regarding such an extreme claim should be noted with care.

2. WOMEN ARE JUDGED WHO ARE NOT PART OF THE SIN.

Those women who are not as fair or who are simply not chosen are not participants in the sin. Why are they judged also? Their guilt is more inexplicable than that of the men. Their only possible guilt would be to approve of the activity or desire to participate.

3. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE "SONS OF GOD" AND "DAUGHTERS OF MEN" IS LESS THAN CLAIMED.

It is claimed that the verse in Genesis portrays a contrast between the elements that could only pertain to a contrast of heaven to earth, in other words, only to heavenly angels and earthly women.

"This would appear from considering verse one of chapter six where the word men is seen which speaks of the entire human family. Since it is difficult to conceive that men in verse one is to be taken in a different sense from men in verse two, the daughters of men are women in general and in antithesis with the sons of God. It is the daughters of men and not just those of Cain that the sons of God are seen to admire. The distinction between the sons of God and daughters of men is thus more fundamental than between the pious and the wicked."
---- Clayton W. Durbin

This distinction only becomes directed toward heaven if one wishes to read that into the narrative. The narrative makes no such mysterious comparison or distinction. The narrative does, in fact, include all women in the context; those of the line of Seth and those of the Cainite line. It is the inclusion of all women in the context that makes the distinction, comparison and seriousness of the action so profound. The "sons of God" saw all women in the same light because they were apostate and could make no spiritual distinction themselves. The "sons of God" choose from both lines of women because both lines were identical in context; the Cainite line was totally ungodly from the start and the godly line had become apostate and ungodly by the abandonment of their relationship to God. This is the significant application to the example of the comparison. The "sons of God" choose from both lines and the women of both lines responded. It may very well be that the "sons of God" also choose a beautiful woman who happened to be godly in character, but it was only the beauty that was of distinction, her godly character being of no consequence.

The antithesis seen in the verse is not between angels and men, but between the godly and the ungodly. The tragedy is the outcome, the godly becoming apostate and the two lines merging into one. There is no greater contrast to be found in the universe than that between the godly and the ungodly.

4. THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE SIN OF MANKIND IS NOT UNDERSTOOD BY THE PROPONENTS OF THE THEORY.

"Kurtz calls attention to the fact that it seemed necessary to destroy all mankind, and to commence as it were a new race -- a circumstance that can only be accounted for by the angel view. He then notes that when a new development of grace commenced with Abraham, mankind was allowed to continue, while in this case it was destroyed. He cannot comprehend, however, how the espousal of some pious Sethites with fair women for the sake of their beauty could have caused so terrible a disturbance in the development of the human race."
---- Clayton W. Durbin

Kurtz is mistaken in his assessment of the extent of the participation and the reason behind the action. The participation was by all of the "sons of God" and the reason was apostasy, the abandonment of the precepts and belief in God. Kurtz apparently had not read of the conduct of Samson, David, Solomon and the immorality of Israel in their apostasy. It was the apostasy that led to the conduct and therein is the evil. The conduct was only the symptom of the sin. To abandon God is to become apostate and that is the ungodliness.

(cf. Exodus 32:1, Deuteronomy 13:13, Judges 2:17, Judges 16, II Samuel 11:1-17, Nehemiah 9:26, Nehemiah 13:1-29, Acts 7:39, Hebrews 6:4-6.)

It was the smallest of actions imaginable that caused the fall of humanity, simply the eating of two small pieces of fruit. Yet, it was not the action of the eating that was the real sin, it was the abandonment of God, the apostasy of unbelief and the trust in human judgment that brought about the action of the fall. The same elements are seen regarding the "sons of God". They abandoned judgment regarding the spirituality of the women they would marry. They saw only physical beauty as being good. They took only of the beautiful. It was not the beauty that was the sin, it was the abandonment of the spiritual and the taking only of the sensual because in their apostasy the "sons of God" had no other standard of conduct to follow. To misjudge the activity is to misunderstand the sin behind the action and that will result in misinterpretation of the corruption and violence to follow and the judgment of God in response.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

THE THEORY IN RELATION TO ANGELS

The theory has as its basis the placing of angels in the Genesis narrative. If that be the case, then the effect of the theory on the nature and conduct of angels must be discussed.

1. THE SIN OF THE ANGELS WAS GREATER THAN THE SIN OF MAN IN CAUSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE FLOOD, IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO SCRIPTURE.

By definition and reason, the theory states that the civilization had to be destroyed because the union of angels and human women produced a hybrid angel-man, who was a giant in physical stature and could not be spiritually redeemed. The only way this situation could be brought to a conclusion was for God to bring the flood in order to destroy the creatures so they could not multiply. This union will occur again as history draws closer to the coming again of Jesus Christ, verses in Matthew 24:37-39 and Luke 17:26-29 being used as the confirmation of the claim. However, none of the verses make a claim or reference to the union of angels with human women, the theory being used as the basis in relation to the verses. The time frame involved in the supposed incident also invalidates the claim of the occurrence, if I Peter 3:20 is used as a reference to the angels in this episode. I Peter 3:20 states, "... who were once disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark ..," (NAS). The verse is very precise in the identification of when this event took place:

a. During the days of Noah.
b. Specifically, during the building of the ark.

One might infer from the "days of Noah" that the sin might have occurred after his birth but before judgment had been pronounced, however, the specific time is also noted as "during the construction of the ark." It is apparent that the sin of these particular spirits did not occur until after the ark was being built and after judgment had already been pronounced on humanity. If these spirits are considered to be angels, then their sin could not have been a factor in any way in the cause of the judgment against humanity, and their children could not have been the reason for the destruction of all flesh on earth. If these spirits are angels, then their sin is unique and unknown, according to scripture, because of its occurrence during the building of the ark, after judgment had already been pronounced against humanity. If these spirits are men, what unique sin could have been committed by them during the building of the ark that would have caused God to place the spirits of those people in a special prison as an additional punishment to the judgment of the flood already pronounced?

If hybrid angel-men were the Nephilim and men of renown mentioned in Genesis 6:4, what type of desolate and forsaken creatures would those hybrid beings have been if they were born to be unredeemable? It is one thing to be a human being, born a sinful creature, needing a Redeemer. However, to be born as a demon-seed, with no hope of redemption would be agony and torment beyond belief. It is very difficult to accept the premise that God would have allowed such a creature to ever exist, much less allow two of his created beings the ability to produce such monstrosities. By the time of these events, God was already in the process of redeeming His creation and bringing a Redeemer. If this union actually occurred, and children were born out of the union, then Satan was successful in defeating part of God's plan of redemption. Satan had created a being that could not be redeemed by God, within the confines of the plan that He had made. Satan was victorious in preventing the Seed from redeeming those hybrid beings. Even in their destruction, Satan was still the victor, because those hybrid beings were a part of his kingdom and God could do nothing. The destruction of those beings may have prevented them from continuing on, but there were already many of them, perhaps millions, who had become the leaders of society. Was it their number or the fact that they could generate offspring that caused God to bring about their destruction? The fact that only one of them could be born and confuse God's plan of redemption is enough to question why this could possibly occur. God had promised a Redeemer for humanity, but not for angels and not for angel-men. The angels have no redemption, because they are judged and condemned by God already. In order to redeem those hybrid angel-men, the human side would have to be redeemed along with the angelic side, in order for the whole being to be redeemed. The result would have been an opening, or a method, whereby all of the fallen angels could have been redeemed. God could not and would not allow Satan the opportunity and method whereby he might confound and change the already appointed plans of God. The introduction of an angel-man hybrid would require a change in plans and a second and different kind of redeemer for those beings. Perhaps, an excuse could be that God knew the hearts of those beings and He knew they would never repent, therefore He could ignore the condition of those beings and simply pronounce them unredeemable. However, that goes against what God had already planned for man. God was already in the process of providing a Redeemer for man, even for those who would not accept the provision. Part of those beings was human to which He had promised to provide a means of redemption. It is God's nature to redeem and He must, out of the necessity inherent in His character, provide a redeemer. He must be a redeemer of the same type as the beings themselves; one fathered by God and born of them just as was Jesus Christ in regards to humanity. The only One capable of doing that was Jesus Christ Himself. He must twice have been a Redeemer, twice born and twice killed; once for the angel- men and once for humanity. Since He was born and crucified only once, for humanity, the belief in a union of angels and human women in untenable.

I Peter 3:18 (NAS)
"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit."

2. ANGELS ARE NOT PUNISHED FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE UNION.

There is no mention, in the Genesis narrative, of the punishment of the angels for their deeds. In another example, the sin of Satan, with regards to Adam and Eve, Satan is punished first for his actions and then Adam and Eve are punished for theirs. But, in the narrative, only man is said to be guilty and is punished. It is not even stated that the actions of the "sons of God" were wrong or evil. Only a statement regarding their conduct is mentioned. The defense to the omission of judgment is that the sins of the angels and their judgment catches up with them in II Peter and Jude. However, this does not explain the problem in relation to everyone who preceded those announcements in the New Testament. This must have strained the faith of some in the interim period as they would struggle with a situation in which, apparently, God allowed the perpetrators of a sin to go unpunished. A claim of favoritism could also be seen because these were angels of heaven. Perhaps prohibitions did not apply to them?

There is a serious consideration regarding this situation that must be discussed. It is an unusual situation that an event such as is asserted to have occurred would not receive another comment until it is mentioned cryptically in the New Testament. However, the real cause for concern is that there is no mention of the situation in any scripture until the New Testament verses. If there is absolutely no mention in scripture, then the New Testament verses must take on their own character in order to confirm the truth of what they are said to claim. The New Testament verses must be seen as, and can only be the revelation, and at the same time, the historical confirmation of the consequences of the actions by the angels regarding the event in question. However, if that is so, then Jude 5 states a fallacy.

JUDE 5 (NAS)
"Now I desire to remind you, though, you know all things once for all, that the Lord ..."

It is stated by Jude that he is reminding his readers of things that they already know. The question to be answered is: How could they know about the punishment of the angels prior to reading Jude's revelation if it was not mentioned anywhere in the scriptures? The same situation occurs in II Peter.

II PETER 1:12 (NAS)
"Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you."

It may be claimed that the people were taught verbally or by the other letters or communications that are not a part of scripture or not mentioned. This may be a possibility, but there is a dilemma in the situation and it is one area that causes further confusion regarding an already puzzling teory.

3. THE ACTIONS OF THE ANGELS DO NOT FIT THE CHARACTER OF THE SIN.

One aspect of the theory is in the type of action taken by the angels. They took women of whomever they chose and married them. They established permanent relationships, although there is an implication of multiple relationships and many divorces with the women that they took. They established families and produced children who were extremely intelligent and gifted individuals. This seems to be a very unusual activity for sinful, evil angels who were so consumed by their lust that they only wanted the most beautiful women that could be found. Did they find family life to be lustful also? The establishment of permanent relationships with women does not appear to be in context with the type of depravity inherent in the sin. It is in the reference to marriage that it becomes evident who the "sons of God" may be. It is not angels looking for fast times on earth with human women. The angels would not be looking for domestic bliss and family contentment. It may be seen, in the marriages, the last vestiges of a moral system left behind by the apostate godly line and the Cainite line. Even in the abandonment of standards and precepts, there is always a tendency to reach back to those values, even if not realizing why. In this time there were still marriages, corrupt, multiple and polygamous to be sure, but they still had a form that seemed to be important to follow. It seemed to be the right way to go, for man, but God said otherwise. What God saw was evil, continually, totally and in every part of the earth.

4. THE SCRIPTURE IS SILENT REGARDING THE EXTENT OF THE SIN

There is a problem regarding the extent of the sin. How many were involved? If the sin was so great that it brought about the destruction of the entire society, in fact the entire earth, then it must have been practiced by all of society, or so near to all of society, that God could not allow it to continue. If that particular sin was so great as to cause the destruction of the entire earth, why has God been strangely silent regarding its existence and the serious consequences to man if the sin is again allowed to enter his life? Why is there no instruction noted in the entire scripture regarding the nature of an earth destroying sin?

5. THERE IS NO MENTION THAT ANGELS WERE EVIL.

There is no mention, in the narrative, that angels were evil, only mankind. In fact, there is no statement to the fact that the union of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" was in any way sinful. The scripture simply makes an observation and a comment. The "sons of God" saw that the "daughters of men" were fair, beautiful, good or desirable and they took of whomever they chose. They may not have chosen well, but there is no confirmation that the choosing and the union was an evil act in itself. It is also postulated that the angels came to earth as teachers in order to instruct human women in the ways of sin. The angels supposedly taught women special incantations and the use of various herbs and roots in rituals. This is certainly a great flight of fancy, because surely it would have been the other way around. Humanity certainly did not need any instruction in the ways of sin, the reality being that if anyone were to be taught, it would have been the angels.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

6. THE DESIRE OF THE ANGELS IS NOT EXPLAINED.

It is hard to understand how angels, even fallen angels, could develop a desire for human women and also have the capability to procreate unless they had been given those attributes by God. If angels do not marry, or procreate, in heaven, Matthew 22:30, then why would God have created them with that ability? A being, created to exist in an environment where there is no procreation, is a very strange creature if also given procreative ability that is never to be used unless in a sinful manner. An answer to that dilemma is by stating that angels do not procreate themselves but they can take on a human form that does have the ability. However, this begs the question; if they do not have the ability to procreate themselves, why should any form that they take have that ability? It they have the ability to take on a form, why did not some of them take on the form of a female and cohabit with men?

One element that must be assumed in the theory, is that the angels are of neccessity created with a sexual nature and that nature must be exclusively male. It is the "sons of God" who marry the "daughters of men" and not the reverse. If it is not assumed that angels are specifically male, then it would be possible for angels to assume the female role and marry the "sons of men" as well. This is not the statement of Genesis 6, noting that only the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" are involved. By adopting a theology, in regards to angels, that they have a sexual nature and identification as male, an assumption is made in an attempt to validate the theory, which is not supported in the Scripture.

It is one thing to appear in, or take on a form, it is quite another to create a real and functioning body; a capacity reserved only to God. By what mechanism could angels take on a form and at the same time impart themselves into that form so that their genetic makeup, if indeed angels possess a genetic substance, would be compatible with humanity? It is difficult to comprehend why God would allow the introduction of such a union of angels with women or men.

7. NO ADEQUATE EXPLANATION IS GIVEN AS TO WHY THE SIN DOES NOT OCCUR TODAY.

It is not explained as to why this union does not occur today. I Peter 3:18-20 is used as an explanation, because in the passage, the angels are in prison for deeds committed during the days of Noah. However, the deeds are not specified, but the fact that the spirits have been imprisoned by God would explain the absence of the particular sin in subsequent human history. If the sinning angels are chained by God, then there must be two classes of fallen angels; angels that can cohabit with humanity and those who cannot and are in the world today. In theory all of those fallen angels who could cohabit, did in fact do so, and are now chained or else Satan could continue a very successful plan throughout history by commanding his other angels to engage in the same sin. Each successful new birth would be a new victory over the Seed, even though Christ has already died for the sins of man. If there are, in fact two classes of angels, then those who have the ability to unite with women must be truly male while the others, who do not have the ability, must not be truly male, yet those who are not truly male are referred to as male even though they are something other.

8. NO SPECIFIC TIME FRAME ASCRIBED TO THE SIN

There is no specific time frame when this could have occurred. The phrase "when men began to multiply" could be at the beginning or at any time after the beginning of human relations. It does not refer specifically to a culminating event. If there had been a union resulting in a hybrid angel- man, God would have known from the very first birth, and certainly from eternity past, would that not have been sufficient evidence for Him to terminate the further spread of such a corrosive activity? The verses in II Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 also do not refer to a specific time when the sin occurred.

9. IT IS DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE THE SIN OF THE ANGELS WITH THE GUILT OF MAN.

One way to reconcile this theory, with the guilt of man, in relation to sin, is to assume that the sin of mankind, when looked at apart from the union with angels, was so great that it alone condemned the civilization to the flood and the union with the angels was not counted as a sin against humanity but only as a sin by the angels for which they alone are punished. If there was a union of angels and women, that was not the sin that condemned the world and the purpose of the flood was to not only eliminate the hybrid beings that were a product of the union, but also to punish man for his sins. It was still the sin of humanity that brought about the flood. The angels are judged, by God, and were chained in the pits of darkness. Still, the children of the union are the troubling problem. Their guilt, innocence or accountability cannot be understood.

10. THE STATE OF MARRIAGE IS USED IN RELATION TO ANGELS.

The term marriage is used in relation to the union of the angels with human women. It is not adequately explained as to why this is so. It has been proposed that this term is used because the angels are fallen instead of ministering, or unfallen, angels. Presumably, the reasoning for this is that ministering angels do not marry since they are still part of heaven, Matthew 22:30, and fallen angels can and do marry since they are no longer part of heaven. However, this does not answer the question of why do they marry?

In another explanation, it is claimed that the union could not be considered so "wicked or unnatural as to be considered fornication." So, by that reasoning, since the union was not fornication, it must be considered a marriage. Yet, it is claimed to be sin and to have caused the destruction of the human race. If the sin was not even as great as the serious nature of fornication, and if the sin was legitimized in marriage, how could it have brought about the destruction of the world?

It is in the marriages that the most damage is done to the theory. These were relationships involving domestic duties and the procreation and raising of children. Is it presumed that the angels also performed the duties of provider and father? All of the progeny of the relationships had to be housed, fed and clothed. This could only be accomplished if the households had an income that could be used to buy the necessities of life. Are angels presumed to have found and worked regular jobs to provide for their families? Apparently, they did well, because their children became mighty and renowned men.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

THE SONS OF GOD ARE HUMAN BEINGS

A conclusion of force that would settle the differences regarding the interpretation of the passages in question is not possible. The position one would take in regard to interpretation depends basically upon how one wishes to approach the subject and the specific reasons for adopting a certain theology regarding the subject. There will always be questions regarding the passages and there will never be a definitive conclusion to the conflicts.

The writer has taken the position that the "sons of God" are mainly the Sethite line, although there may have been godly members in other lineages as well. This position has been taken, not because of one specific aspect of the theory, but because taken together, the context of the Genesis 6 passage would lead one to that belief. In the absence of the references in Job, there is no question that an interpretation leading to a belief in the union of angels with human women would never be proposed.

The references in the New Testament are speculative in nature only, when an attempt is made to connect them with Genesis 6:1-2. They lead back to Genesis if one wishes to use that approach, but none of them specify or note a reference back to an incident regarding angels and human women. It is this lack of confirmation that compels one to read the Genesis narrative in light of the contextual flow of Chapter 4 into Chapter 5 and the resultant conclusion in chapter 6. It should be noted that the theory, in itself, cannot be understood as to the reason why it would happen and the relationship that it would have between God and man. The only possible meaning would be to lessen the responsibility of humanity in regard to the responsibility and accountability to sin. If the Genesis narrative is read form the viewpoint of accepting the theory, then this aspect of accountability becomes very confusing. It is only man who is seen as accountable, the angels never mentioned or held responsible for such strange and corrosive actions. It is not enough to claim that their sins catch up with them in Jude and II Peter.

If the book of Genesis is to be considered foundational to biblical understanding, then the intrusion of angels into the procreative activity of human beings reveals that part of the foundation is built on sand. No groundwork is laid for such a union in the entire book of Genesis and no teaching is given as to the nature, reason and purpose of such a union. In the rest of the Old Testament, no such teaching is given or even mentioned. If the Genesis 6:2 reference is in relation to angels, then no foundational teaching is developed regarding the incident and it is not until II Peter and Jude that a final, cryptic mention is made of the event. Even then, the specific union of angels with humans is not mentioned in II Peter and Jude. There is no foundational teaching given regarding such an event, there is no foundational theology developed in the scripture regarding such an event and there is no New Testament teaching that specifically identifies and speaks definitively regarding such an event.

The question will be proposed as to the identity of the spirits who were disobedient during the days of Noah, I Peter 3:20, if they do not refer to the theory of angels in Genesis 6:2. The answer to that question cannot be forced because of a rejection of a theory regarding angels and human women that proposes an answer that cannot be supported. The same question might be asked as to what the message was that was preached to those spirits, I Peter 3:19. There is no answer to the question of the proclamation because the scripture does not provide one. The scripture does not specifically identify the spirits just as it does not identify the message given to them. It is a speculation to identify either the spirits or the message.

It is just as great a speculation to identify the "sons of God" as angels in Genesis 6:2. Yet, many have used their speculations in order to base theological precepts on their conclusions. This is a dangerous road to follow because it leads to other speculations and theories, none of which can be proven and many which can be destructive to a right interpretation of doctrine.

As a final note, it is necessary to indicate some conclusions regarding the Genesis narrative. These are speculative in nature and not be considered conclusive:

1. The "sons of God" are the godly line of Seth and other lineages, both men and women.
2. The daughters of men are the women of both the line of Cain and the apostate lines of Seth and other lineages.
3. The Nephilim are better seen as the product of the Cainite line or as the angels themselves.
4. The mighty men and men of renown are the children of the godly line and the line of Cain.
5. The angels in Jude 6 could very well refer to the Nephilim or fallen angels.
6. The spirits of I Peter 3:19 are those of humanity during the time of Noah and are those of whom God removed His Spirit. They are a unique group of unbelieving humanity who did not understand when the flood came, because they had deliberately abandoned God and God had removed His Spirit from them. It was the Spirit who provided the only channel by which they could obtain understanding. The message He preached to them in prison was His triumph over sin and their coming condemnation in judgment for their unbelief.

The union of the "sons of God" and the daughters of men is an example, just as the genealogies are examples in Chapters 4 and 5. The genealogies only mention the male members, but the female members of the families are also included by implication. The reality is that there was a union of sons and daughters from both lines. There are sons and daughters of the godly line becoming unequally yoked with sons and daughters of the line of Cain. The Genesis narrative is a recitation regarding the sin and accountability of humanity. Because of the actions of humanity, sin was significant, it was pervasive and it resulted in judgment. The marriages of the "sons of God" and the daughters of men were examples of being unequally yoked. The "sons of God" may have been apostate, so the union was one of equals in character, but it was their charge to be of the godly line and by that definition they were unequally yoked with a world that they were not to embrace.

In the progeny of the "sons of God" and the daughters of men is seen the results of the marriages between those who were unequally yoked. With the apostasy of the godly line, the "sons of God", it is now shown the base ingratitude and lack of understanding inherent in the human character. God had granted a gift to the line of Seth, a special and sacred privilege of keeping apart, from the world, and being the worshippers and representatives of God, that the people of Cain despised and rejected. God had made a prohibition in granting them the privilege of not becoming part of the profane and desperately corrupt society around them. Yet, even with the testimony of Adam and the patriarchs, the godly line began to drift from the provision and care of God. They began not to understand their position in relation to God and viewed their position and status only in relation to the society to which they were to be in opposition. As with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, God made the prohibition that was for their benefit and good. Yet, they did not see it that way. They saw the prohibition as the negative, something that prevented the obtaining of the good in their lives. Just as with Adam and Eve, to honor the prohibition was to live, but to ignore it was to die, this time in a flood. With that people, is revealed the same manner of conduct that was the way of Adam and Eve, and Cain. The godly line began to doubt the God they were charged to represent and doubt the character and necessity of the relationship they had with Him. The familiar pattern now emerged as the godly line began to see itself out from, and away from the context of its relationship to God. The apostasy resulted from the action of the godly line and their failure to deal correctly with temptation, just as did Adam and Eve, and Cain.

THE NATURE OF TEMPTATION
A. Doubt about God
1. Doubt the motives of God. Do not want knowledge of Him, Job 21:14.
2. Doubt the benefit of God. No profit in serving Him, Job 21:15.
3. Doubt the reality of God. What can God do to us? Job 21:15.
B. Desire for something other
1. Desire of the body. Sensual lust, Genesis 6:2.
2. Desire of sight. Only the beautiful women, Genesis 6:2.
3. Desire of pride. Took all they chose, Genesis 6:2.

It is with temptation being allowed to progress in their lives that the godly line began to abandon God and their spiritual heritage. In the face of overwhelming evidence, the testimony of Adam and Eve, the testimony of the patriarchs, the commands of God and the continuous object lesson in the form of the two cherubim and the fiery sword that were still visible at the entrance to the Garden of Eden, the godly line abandoned their standing under the care of God and aligned themselves with the way of Cain.

The temptation had once more come from within the character of man, expressing itself in apostasy, rejecting the care and provision of God. Once more the godly line revealed the doubt that temptation brings. Temptation doubted the value and benefit of the godly life and saw in the cities and societies of the world what appeared to be a better way, a way that was good and had been denied to them by God. Once more, not just the Cainite line, but the godly line saw that way as the better way, the good way. It was that choice, regarding what the good would be, that resulted in the taking. This time, the taking was all of the elements of the previous taking combined, with even more elements added. It was a taking of the way of Cain and the lifestyle that was represented in that civilization.

ELEMENTS OF THE TAKING
1. Taking the way of Cain, Genesis 4:23, I John 3:12.
2. Taking of wives of whomever they chose, Genesis 6:2.
3. Taking of multiple wives, Genesis 4:19, Genesis 6:2.
4. Taking of the wives of others, Genesis 6:2.
5. Taking a lifestyle of corruption, Genesis 6:5, 11, 12.
6. Taking power, Genesis 6:2, 4.
7. Taking property, Genesis 6:4.
8. Taking honor, Genesis 6:4.
9. Taking God's place, Job 21:14-15, Job 22:17.

Once again, just as in the case of Adam and Eve, and Cain, there is an exchange of lordship, the making of oneself the standard and the ensuing personal actions result in rebellion and apostasy against God. Rebellion and apostasy leads to self-deification and once again to a cataclysm of the first magnitude, denial of the truthfulness of God and a resulting break in fellowship with God. God is always watching, seeing and judging. He sees the first of the apostates in the person of Cain, and he watches continually, throughout the period of the patriarchs, as the godly line becomes smaller, as more and more defect to the life and way of Cain. God waits patiently, as if, perhaps, the line would repent, however He has known from the beginning that it will not be so. There comes a point when God has determined that the limit is now reached; it is time for the judgment process to begin, and then comes the flood.

http://handfamily.org/wrtmen01.htm

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Why is there 2 Threads dealing with jinns?

Well he said;

I decided to continue this on a seperate thread from the "Photo of A Jinn ? " thread.

Purpose? Don't know...

 

[Bevlina]

I see ... so ... the Jinn threads are a matter of "I said" and "he said" . Fair dinkum ... I dunno ....

 

[Bevlina]

So far I've found 3 Jinni Threads in here with different headings ... Oh well ... as long as you're happy.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

I see ... so ... the Jinn threads are a matter of "I said" and "he said" . Fair dinkum ... I dunno ....

I don't know the motive behind, might be to distract attention from the other one to this one... Thread over there started with muslims on the defensive but this one puts the Christians on defensive, I don't know, I think I am thinking a bit excessive military ...

 

[HouseApe]

Hiya HouseApe,



With geopraphy alone, you could assume that, however, taking into account anthropology, sociology and the early economy of Mediterranean cultures, you might find a different conclusion.

During the bronze age to even late bronze age to to Iron I age, Palestine was a decentralized village agriculture, telling Canannite and Israelite apart, would be difficult.

Archelogical findings is what sets them apart, and from that, it's hard to tell who came from who.

It is hard because there has not been found any distinction in culture. Which means, culturally, they are the same people.

Please keep in mind that El and Elohim are just titles, and throughought much ancient semitic writings, can apply to mortals as well.

El is not a title to the Canaanites. It is the name of the supreme god. It becomes a title over time in the Bible.

Monotheism certinly did exist in Palestine, before the Persian renaissance started the effect the area.

I disagree. I am not aware that anyone has shown that.

Given how relatively close "Israelite" cultures where to Persian ones, I think it's safe to say, that they didn't exist in a vaccuum and when one idea became popular in one region, it wasn't completely alien to the other.

I disagree here also. Early Israelite (Canaanite) culture was very close to Babylonian culture, but not to Persian culture. There is some consideration that Canaanite culture is a derivative of Babylonian (but more likely was just influenced). However, Babylon was the power of the day and shielded Palestine from Persian influence. It wasn't until much later that Persia conquered much of the region. Many consider the Persian king Cyrus the Great to be the messiah spoken about by Daniel in the Bible. And his writings were likely hundreds of years after the Torah was formed.

 

[Oxy2Hydr0]

Translation;

A demon is a jinn, a jinn is an evil entity.

Islamic definition;

Creatures with free will, made of smokeless fire by Allah, much in the same way humans were made of earth.

We see you are doing another Paste and Copy job again. When since do you go to a sailor to learn how to become a pilot ?

In Islam the sons of god mention in the Bible are Jinns. The point of opening this thread was to define based on Christian perspective who the sons of god were. So far I can only give credit to Buccaneer.

You did a great paste and copy job in trying to refute that the Sons of God were other than human beings :

Oh my, more delimah for our readers. That entire post shows emense dispute among christians as to what the term meant. Its seems you favored the one that says "the sons of God" were righteous human beings descendant of Adam when in fact the context says "daughters of men". I have read these appologitic descrepancies whereas NONE of them even tended to go back to the Hebrew for clearification.

"daughters of men" in hebrew "banut aadam" literally "daughers of Adam". Here men means Mankind as the human race. Those who hold that daughers of men were teh daughters of Seth are wrong as the Scripture in its original language contradicts such a view.

You can do all the back flips you want with the English, the Hebrew completly expressed "Sons of God" were not human beings.

The majority of Christians and Jews believe they were Angels, and here comes Bushmaster following after a perspective view that just came along.

 

[urnotme]

I decided to continue this on a seperate thread from the "Photo of A Jinn ? " thread. A Christian member, who was formally muslim, said :



Further on was commented :



We would like everyone to keep these points in mind. The terms Angel, and Demon are helinistic, just as the arabic word Jinn is pre-islamic, they are not originally part of Biblical ideology.



In Both Hebrew and Arabic the words for Angel as understood in our era is malach (He) and Malak (Ar) both words are cognates of each other derived from the same root malaka or malacha. The original meaning of the words is messenger or erand runner. The later adaptation of the word "Angel" and its concept was due to Roman and greek helinistic influences upon the Jews which was later inherited into modern Christianity.



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.

In mythology, demons i.e. Jinns have inpregnated human women whom had offsprings with supernatural abilities to be considered half god and half human.

Before we jump to conclusion though we would like to here from our Christian advocates on this issue of who are the Sons of God refered to in Gen 6:1-2 whom were not human beings ?

That is a mistranslation of the hebrew word nun. They were called nephalim and they wete not fallen angels because angels are genderless. Besides I never could understand why God would call fallen angels His sons.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

We see you are doing another Paste and Copy job again. When since do you go to a sailor to learn how to become a pilot ?

As long as it does the job to prevent you running from one topic to another my circling friend, all the information is available for use, there is nothing against it, I wish you could read the net and learn more too so you wouldn't give out nonsense analogies Today in the United States Navy you learn how to become a pilot from sailors!

"Fox Two" wait two seconds "Fox Two"

Holy cow I just shot down lead.

"Kill one T38 12000ft, left turn" I'm breathing hard but it feels good to say.

"Snipe Terminate"

In Islam the sons of god mention in the Bible are Jinns.

So islam outloud says that In the Bible we call Jinns "Sons of God" and on the other page they say Allah can not have a "son", I figured that since I have seen it before, no point to address here...

The point of opening this thread was to define based on Christian perspective who the sons of god were. So far I can only give credit to Buccaneer.

Because he couldn't address the topic in length and proposed something you could use against. Well, that is very common in Islam too...

You did a great paste and copy job in trying to refute that the Sons of God were other than human beings :

Ah fed up with this whining, I am tired of hearing this since last year, take time and read it, you may learn something. Exegesis has been done by who believe in Christ and who has the power and guidance of Spirit, and they tell you what don't want to hear, you can shout all "lalalalala" you want.

The majority of Christians and Jews believe they were Angels, and here comes Bushmaster following after a perspective view that just came along.

Bring those majority and ask them "THESE ARE JINNS in Quran" What a good laugh you will get out of them.

I am outta here because you are done in this thread. Christians who don't know the issue or this controversy of the Scripture will read your posts and my posts and believe me they will approve that they are JINNS.

 

[Oxy2Hydr0]

That is a mistranslation of the hebrew word nun. They were called nephalim and they wete not fallen angels because angels are genderless. Besides I never could understand why God would call fallen angels His sons.

We were not talking about the Nephalim, The Nephalim were offsprings of the Sons of God and the daughters mankind (aadam).

Also you do have a point now, Angels are genderless, so its not conceivable that they should be called "Sons of God".

In the islamic perspective though it wasnt God that called them "Sons of God" it was Jewish traditional beliefs that were exposed to other ideological beliefs and incorperated such ideas into the Torah when it was re-writen after the Babylonian erra.

I wish you could read the net and learn more....

I was already aquinted with that particular view, there are other sites by Christians that refute it as well. I am sure even the Jew that speak Hebrew will refute it. The view you favored misinterpretated the scripture by ignoring the clearification in Hebrew of what was meant by "daughters of men" whereas in English you can twist this to mean anything which is exactly what they did.

So islam outloud says that In the Bible we call Jinns "Sons of God" and on the other page they say Allah can not have a "son", I figured that since I have seen it before, no point to address here...

No, you misunderstanding the whole thing. 1) The Torah is a traditional compilation done by Jewish historians after the Babylonian erra that was highly influenced by non-Jewish religions it became exposed to. 2) The term Sons of God where applied to divine like entities among other religions.

Exegesis has been done by who believe in Christ and who has the power and guidance of Spirit, and they tell you what don't want to hear, you can shout all "lalalalala" you want.

Where Christians are in dispute themselves about it. The strongest evidence among Christians is that the Sons of God where not human beings. Now if you like Bushmaster we can set up a poll if you think you are correct. I came from a Chrisitan family so I am very aware of the Bible and the various interpretive commentaries.

Bring those majority and ask them "THESE ARE JINNS in Quran" What a good laugh you will get out of them.

My whole point on this thread, was to expound with the various views on whom the Sons of God were, and build a constructive criticism that we can all share in, then I was going to introduce the Islamic concept showing how it fits into all of this.

Anyhow, I thank Buccaneer and urnotme for participating, your answers have much validity to it as it did not conflict with 2 Peter 2:4-5. Question is how do we get around your valid points

Buccaneer said :

"Perhaps it was a different group of angels? it doesnt necessarly HAVE to be the ones who accompanied lucifer. besides, according to muslims, God has no "sons" anyways."

urnotme said :

"they wete not fallen angels because angels are genderless. Besides I never could understand why God would call fallen angels His sons"

I have read also these views they have presented above but how do we get around this knot here ? Bevlina I read one of your posts you said you believe, in response to your sister in faith, that they were Angels, what is your thought now ?

 

[Oxy2Hydr0]

They were the fallen sons of seth who were godly until they decided not to be godly.

Thanks for clearifying you statement.

"the Sons of God maried/went unto the daughters of men"

In the Hebrew it is " banuth aadam ", literally "daughters of mankind". Isnt Seth and his sons of Mankind ?

Isnt their a complete distinguishment of race in the context between Sons of God and the daughters of Mankind ?