As always, thank you for helping us to dig deeper in the original language and study scripture words and even letters as I believe often makes a big difference!
I tend to hold view of the sons of God/disrobed Angel's theory.
"uirau(andthey-are-seeing) bni(sons-of) ealeim (theElohim) ath bnuth(daughters-of) eadm (thehuman) ..."
It talks about the sons of Elohim. But IF in this case the word El/Elohim means mighty/strong and not God then it is going to be "That the sons of the mighty saw the daughters of men ..." Who are the sons of the mighty? They are the giants described in verse 4. That is why the children of those with the daughters of other people were mighty (giants in the Septuagint). Because neither the "Angelic" nor the "Sethite" theories can explain why their children were also mighty (or giants according to the Septuagint). So if this is right then the text says that the sons of the giants liked the daughters of other men and took them as wives who bare children to them, giants like them. Well, it makes sense to be honest. It is not what I believe, I actually tend towards the "Sethite" theory but searching on the net for information I got that staff, maybe it is worth thinking about it.
Apart from the "Sethite" and "Angel" views there is another view as well.
Introduction: The word "El", prural "Elohim" means not only God/s in Hebr but it comes from a root word for strong, powerful, mighty, noble, Judge etc.
Example. Psalm 82:1, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." (KJV).
Lets see in Hebr, "Aleim(Elohim) ntzb (one-being-stationed) bodth(incongregation-of) al(El) b qrb(inwithin-of) aleim(Elohim) - taken from the Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible).
The expression "congregation of El" is translated as "congregation of the mighty" in KJV as it should be since the word "El" in this case means "mighty", not "God". This is how this specific verse is translated in almost all Bibles. But I found out that the Septuagint text translates it differently, i.e. "God stands in the congregation of gods, he sees among the gods". That version translates the word "El" as "God", not "mighty". I am writting all those to make you understand that in Hebrew "El" apart from God it also means all those I wrote above.
So lets go to Genesis 6:1-4
"1- And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 - That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; ... 3 - And the LORD .... 4 - There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men(giants in the Septuagint text) which were of old, men of renown." (KJV)
The part of Gen. 6 that is being discussed was only vs. 1-4, about the sons of God and mating with the daughters of men (ha-a-dam). The "sons of God" are only 5 times in the Old Testament, and the Son of God was said once in Daniel 3. I believe I listed all of the scripture that has the sons of God where all references are to angels.
I could write more but I usually keep it short, but it would not change my understanding. Not all understand it the same and that's ok. If you have another view, you want me to see please show it, I always study what is not the same as my understanding. Truth is what is important not being right or wrong.
Good deal, I agree it takes all scripture to see the truth. Missler writes that it was in the fifth century it flourished which is probably true, but we see it started way before. We see in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 and what Jesus said about the Nicolaitans in Revelation.
Augustine did support the Sethite and Cainite view of Gen. 6 teaching, he also brought in other teachings.
We should deliberate; whether it is philosophy, the love of wisdom, or truth, that is in the scriptures unveiled by the Spirit of Truth to eyes and ears open to see and hear it.
PS. The Origin of the Sethite View should have ended midway through Part 2, right before the problems with the Seth view.
Part 9 and final.
In Summary
If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should "tie together." It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the "Sethite View" is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record.
It should also be pointed out that most conservative Bible scholars accept the "angel" view.28 Among those supporting the "angel" view are G. H. Pember, M. R. DeHaan, C. H. McIntosh, F. Delitzsch, A. C. Gaebelein, A. W. Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Henry Morris, Merril F. Unger, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Hal Lindsey, and Chuck Smith, being among the best known.
For those who take the Bible seriously, the arguments supporting the "Angel View" appear compelling. For those who indulge in a willingness to take liberties with the straightforward presentation of the text, no defense can prove final. (And greater dangers than the implications attending these issues await them!)
For further exploration of this critical topic, see the following:
George Hawkins Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, first published by Hodder and Stoughton in 1875, and presently available by Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids MI, 1975.
John Fleming, The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology, Hodges, Foster, and Figgis, Dublin, 1879.
Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1976.
Merrill F. Unger, Biblical Demonology, Scripture Press, Chicago IL, 1952.
The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oivkhth,rion, refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.24)
These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies.
7. Post-Flood Implications
The strange offspring also continued after the flood: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that..."25 The "Sethite" view fails to meaningfully address the prevailing conditions "also after that." It offers no insight into the presence of the subsequent "giants" in the land of Canaan.
One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty.
8. Prophetic Implications
Another reason that an understanding of Genesis 6 is so essential is that it also is a prerequisite to understanding (and anticipating) Satan's devices26 and, in particular, the specific delusions to come upon the whole earth as a major feature of end-time prophecy.27 We will take up these topics in Part 2, "The Return Of The Nephilim.")
"In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."20 In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare Scripture with Scripture. The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.21
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5
Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah.
Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven."22 In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus.
The Epistle of Jude23 also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process:
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6,7
All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)
Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God,13 it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.
3. The Inferred Lines of Separation
The concept of separate "lines" itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture.14 National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later.15 Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.
4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth
There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, "The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers," whose sonship is "distinctly a New Testament revelation."16
The "Sons of Elohim" saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?)
The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order.6 In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God."7 The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God.8 Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation,9 at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God10 and in every respect equal to the angels.11 The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.12
The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term.
2. The Daughters of Cain
The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2
It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam." There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain?
Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")
The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5
The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth.
If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)
And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.
It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)
Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.
Problems with the Sethite View
Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah."3 Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following:
1. The Text Itself
Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")
The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5
Mark 3:23-26 . Observe what occurs when a kingdom or anything is divided against itself, i.e. opposes or is the opposite of itself. It cannot stand!
All of us are in a state of dissociation which is a distorted process of thinking whereby two systems of belief which cannot coexist are both maintained. What we can decide between, though, is fixed , because there are no alternatives except truth and what is not true. And there is no overlap between them, because they are opposites which cannot be reconciled and cannot both be true. You are guilty or guiltless, bound or free, at peace in your mind or at war. Opposites must brought together, not kept apart. For their separation is only in our mind, and they are reconciled by union, as we are. In union, everything that is not real must disappear, for truth IS union. In other words, whenever light enters darkness (its opposite) the darkness is abolished. It shows us the darkness is not there i.e. it does not exist.
I pray you are having a good day, Cheryl. This is a very good question and a great concern. The interesting thing about the Sons of God it is clear that these beings are what are normally described as Angels in the Bible. When the Angels take on the form of Humans they appear to be able to obtain their anatomy and internal structures. Such as the time when the Angels came to visit Lot and his family they ate with them Genesis 19:3. In order to eat it would take more for them than just taking on the form of a human. So I am sure that they must also possess the reproductive system if they possessed the immune system. Jesus was a different occasion He had to be born human in order for His sacrifice to be valid. He had to be born of spirit so that the corruption of man could not seep in yet at the same time be human because blood had to be shed to signify the sacrifice. God doesnt bleed so human blood was needed. What was miraculous about the conception of Jesus Christ was the fact He could be born with no man involved. But there is nothing in the scriptures stating Him to be the firstborn of the spirit and flesh. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man all at the same time, however, the results of the Nephilim were spirit and flesh due to their forbidden nature (hence the name Nephilim which means The Fallen ones (from the Hebrew naphal, "to fall")) they where never meant to be, but because God allows the free will of man to dictate what goes on in the earth they happened. This resulted in their deformed states. They were the best-looking creatures. They were exceedingly great in stature and power though and they, of course, being birthed from evil were diabolical. And their wickedness leads to the flood of the earth. Yes, there was a level of free will used in the demise of the people of that day. But the people of that day had barely a say in what occurred. So the Lord had mercy on them and the Lord preached to the spirits of those people. God always supplies grace.
Your not going to understand everything at one time, Christs feeds you daily, as he see fit; keep studying, when Christ wants you to see, YOU WILL SEE, it's HIS WORKS and HIS TIME FRAME, there are about 750,000 words and thy all have a key to understanding, when you don't understand something, move on to other scriptures, Christ will reveal himself as you study. The more he reveals of himself the more you will want to know, you will come to the point when you can't get enough, you will hunger and thirst after his righteousness.
Yes. Yuinnik, that was helpful but I read that and here wheer I still need understanding , Jesus was the only spirit that came down from heaven and had to be born of women to get his human form, yes to appear in human form is one thing but how did become human when, Jesus had to be born.
This is a tough scripture, the sons of God and the daughters of men. Some consider the sons of God to be the line of Seth and the daughters of men the line of Cain. Then if we throw in what Jesus said in Matt. 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven, wow.
There is no need for angels in heaven to marry, they are immortal, and no need to reproduce as we will be after the resurrection in the kingdom on the new earth. Angels are called sons of God in Hebrew b'nai Elohim in Job 1:6Job 2:1Job 38:7.
Through scripture angels take on human form, they eat and drink Gen. 18:7-8Gen. 19:3 and physically wrestle with man, Gen. 32:24. If they eat and drink would that mean they have all the organs of man on earth? Scripture tells us there are devils/demons and fallen angels on earth along with Satan but there is another group of angels. These angels are different, they are locked in chains of darkness in the bottomless pit until judgment. 2 Peter 2:4-7Jude 1:6-7. We see in Rev. 9:11 this pit has a king, and this is where Satan will be locked up for 1000 years.
They left their first estate, heaven and in 2 Peter and Jude it says making them an example, (going after strange flesh), they corrupted God's creation Gen. 6:5-7. Even though there are fallen angels roaming the earth this set of angels God made an example to the others they will be locked in chains of darkness until judgment. We see the devils in Mark 5:9-10 were in fear Jesus might cast them down to the bottomless pit.
We see that this happened again after the flood, Gen. 6:4 "and also after." The description in scripture is clear these are not just tall people. 2 Samuel 21:16Joshua 12:4Numbers 13:33Deuteronomy 2:19-21Deuteronomy 20:17Amos 2:9. This is just a small amount of information but may it will help in your study.
Yes you are right but this where the game change. Remember they saw the children of Men beautiful in their eyes and said to one another let us go and take them in as wife's and at the junction of agreement between them all they took HUMAN form and came down and took wife for them selves and it is recorded that it was when their wife's began to give birth that the people knew something wasn't right. So my dear the truth is once they took HUMAN form they natural possess every emotions man has and that is why they could explore our fathers to teach all kinds of things at the time. I hope this has helped.
No, I do not find these passage helpful in my question, as to how in the Old testament Genesis 6 it spoke of angels having sex with human daughters and producing the nephilim quoting new Testament passage , but not answering the question as stated, being as angels no sex organs.
alex1939...Hiya Cathy..If you are refering to Levi one of the evil Bro. of Joseph...Gen.37:18 kjv...They were forgiven..But he was in that gang that sold his Bro. Joseph into slavery...And told his Mother and Father he had not seen him (Joseph his 17 yrs old bro.) Then to add insult to injury they brought Joseph's Coat to Jacob and ask is this your son's coat ? ...They had dipped it in the blood of a goat and Jacob said a wild beast has done this and he was right the wild beast is the ten that were born of the will of the flesh...Not of the will of Jacob who only loved Rachel...Only 2 came out of the relationship with Rachel whom he loved dearly....Joseph and Benjamin who were said to be born of the Spirit...As Joseph was a type of Christ that was sold for 20 pieces of silver...But what they meant for evil God meant for good...That millions wd be saved from this horrible famine.
.....But Joseph means adding a son and Benjamin was the added Son in the flesh ...But being Joseph was a type of Christ in over 100 ways thus there has to be a Son added to Jesus...In the Spiritual realm ...Which is the H.G. that Child of Promise...Whosoever receiveth one such Child in my name receiveth me...She brought forth a man child that is gonna rule all nations with a rod of iron...And Jesus is the Bridegroom...The Kingdom does not come till the woman births the manchild the H.G. That added son...k Gbu
I'm wondering if you have been reading Genesis chapter 34 perhaps . We see in this chapter , problems occuring when the father's of the nation of Israel meet the rest of the world . Just from memory , I believe these incidents occurred before Israel was definatively told not to marry out of its own tribe . The men of Shechem were prepared to be circumcised but because one of them had enticed Dinah and slept with her , Simeon and Levi were not prepared to let that go .Their reaction and behaviour might seem a little harsh . Jacob was certainly annoyed at them but only because he was afraid that when the rest of the people around them heard about this , they might turn on his family and kill them . We don't hear anything about how God felt about Simeon and Levi's actions but at the beginning of chapter 35 God instructs Jacob to move his family to Bethel , out of harm's way perhaps ? Maybe it wasn't God's will for the Israelites to marry into the people of Shechem even if they had agreed to be circumcised ? As I said , we don't hear God's reaction to these events , other than He tells Jacob to move his family away from that area . God uses whomever He wants to to execute His will . They don't have to believe in Him to be used by Him in order to fulfill His purpose . I suspect that it was not God's will for Israel and Shechem to intermarry , I could be wrong about that but I feel that if it had been His will then it would have happened . Humans can not hinder God's plans and purpose . His will be done , by whatever means , He is in charge .
Hi Cathy. There are several men named Levi in the Bible ( Genesis 29:34; Mark 2:14; Luke 3:24; Luke 3:29), but I think you are referring to one of Jacob's sons. Nothing more is given about this Levi, but much is spoken about those who descended from him. One important portion of Scripture is in Deuteronomy 33:8-11, where Moses, before he died, gave his special blessings to each of Jacob's sons, & specifically to Levi in this passage. So, we can assume that Levi was a God-fearing man & brought up his children in like manner; though there were sins committed among certain of them.
As always, thank you for helping us to dig deeper in the original language and study scripture words and even letters as I believe often makes a big difference!
I tend to hold view of the sons of God/disrobed Angel's theory.
Thanks again brother and God bless.
Spencer
Verse 2 in the Hebr text:
"uirau(andthey-are-seeing) bni(sons-of) ealeim (theElohim) ath bnuth(daughters-of) eadm (thehuman) ..."
It talks about the sons of Elohim. But IF in this case the word El/Elohim means mighty/strong and not God then it is going to be "That the sons of the mighty saw the daughters of men ..." Who are the sons of the mighty? They are the giants described in verse 4. That is why the children of those with the daughters of other people were mighty (giants in the Septuagint). Because neither the "Angelic" nor the "Sethite" theories can explain why their children were also mighty (or giants according to the Septuagint). So if this is right then the text says that the sons of the giants liked the daughters of other men and took them as wives who bare children to them, giants like them. Well, it makes sense to be honest. It is not what I believe, I actually tend towards the "Sethite" theory but searching on the net for information I got that staff, maybe it is worth thinking about it.
GBU
Hello Spencer
Apart from the "Sethite" and "Angel" views there is another view as well.
Introduction: The word "El", prural "Elohim" means not only God/s in Hebr but it comes from a root word for strong, powerful, mighty, noble, Judge etc.
Example. Psalm 82:1, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." (KJV).
Lets see in Hebr, "Aleim(Elohim) ntzb (one-being-stationed) bodth(incongregation-of) al(El) b qrb(inwithin-of) aleim(Elohim) - taken from the Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible).
The expression "congregation of El" is translated as "congregation of the mighty" in KJV as it should be since the word "El" in this case means "mighty", not "God". This is how this specific verse is translated in almost all Bibles. But I found out that the Septuagint text translates it differently, i.e. "God stands in the congregation of gods, he sees among the gods". That version translates the word "El" as "God", not "mighty". I am writting all those to make you understand that in Hebrew "El" apart from God it also means all those I wrote above.
So lets go to Genesis 6:1-4
"1- And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 - That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; ... 3 - And the LORD .... 4 - There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men(giants in the Septuagint text) which were of old, men of renown." (KJV)
God bless.
The part of Gen. 6 that is being discussed was only vs. 1-4, about the sons of God and mating with the daughters of men (ha-a-dam). The "sons of God" are only 5 times in the Old Testament, and the Son of God was said once in Daniel 3. I believe I listed all of the scripture that has the sons of God where all references are to angels.
I could write more but I usually keep it short, but it would not change my understanding. Not all understand it the same and that's ok. If you have another view, you want me to see please show it, I always study what is not the same as my understanding. Truth is what is important not being right or wrong.
God bless,
RLW
All these scriptures you have referenced to understand Genesis 6, add a few more, get them in correct order, and I believe you will SEE.
God Bless YOU!
Good deal, I agree it takes all scripture to see the truth. Missler writes that it was in the fifth century it flourished which is probably true, but we see it started way before. We see in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 and what Jesus said about the Nicolaitans in Revelation.
Augustine did support the Sethite and Cainite view of Gen. 6 teaching, he also brought in other teachings.
We should deliberate; whether it is philosophy, the love of wisdom, or truth, that is in the scriptures unveiled by the Spirit of Truth to eyes and ears open to see and hear it.
Thanks, and God bless,
RLW
Continued.
PS. The Origin of the Sethite View should have ended midway through Part 2, right before the problems with the Seth view.
Part 9 and final.
In Summary
If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should "tie together." It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the "Sethite View" is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record.
It should also be pointed out that most conservative Bible scholars accept the "angel" view.28 Among those supporting the "angel" view are G. H. Pember, M. R. DeHaan, C. H. McIntosh, F. Delitzsch, A. C. Gaebelein, A. W. Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Henry Morris, Merril F. Unger, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Hal Lindsey, and Chuck Smith, being among the best known.
For those who take the Bible seriously, the arguments supporting the "Angel View" appear compelling. For those who indulge in a willingness to take liberties with the straightforward presentation of the text, no defense can prove final. (And greater dangers than the implications attending these issues await them!)
For further exploration of this critical topic, see the following:
George Hawkins Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, first published by Hodder and Stoughton in 1875, and presently available by Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids MI, 1975.
John Fleming, The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology, Hodges, Foster, and Figgis, Dublin, 1879.
Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1976.
Merrill F. Unger, Biblical Demonology, Scripture Press, Chicago IL, 1952.
Clarence Larkin, Spirit World, Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate, Philadelphia PA, 1921.
I hope this Helps.
God bless.
Origin of the Sethite View Continued.
Part 8.
The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oivkhth,rion, refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.24)
These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies.
7. Post-Flood Implications
The strange offspring also continued after the flood: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that..."25 The "Sethite" view fails to meaningfully address the prevailing conditions "also after that." It offers no insight into the presence of the subsequent "giants" in the land of Canaan.
One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty.
8. Prophetic Implications
Another reason that an understanding of Genesis 6 is so essential is that it also is a prerequisite to understanding (and anticipating) Satan's devices26 and, in particular, the specific delusions to come upon the whole earth as a major feature of end-time prophecy.27 We will take up these topics in Part 2, "The Return Of The Nephilim.")
See Part 9.
Origin of the Sethite View Continued.
Part 7.
6. New Testament Confirmations
"In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."20 In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare Scripture with Scripture. The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.21
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5
Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah.
Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven."22 In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus.
The Epistle of Jude23 also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process:
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6,7
See Part 8.
Origin of the Sethite View Continued.
Part 5.
All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)
Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God,13 it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.
3. The Inferred Lines of Separation
The concept of separate "lines" itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture.14 National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later.15 Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.
4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth
There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, "The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers," whose sonship is "distinctly a New Testament revelation."16
The "Sons of Elohim" saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?)
See Part 6.
Part 4.
Origin of the Sethite View Continued.
The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order.6 In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God."7 The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God.8 Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation,9 at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God10 and in every respect equal to the angels.11 The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.12
The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term.
2. The Daughters of Cain
The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2
It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam." There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain?
See Part 5
Part 3.
Origin of the Sethite View Continued.
Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")
The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5
The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth.
If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)
And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.
See Part 4.
Part 2.
Origin of the Sethite View
It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)
Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.
Problems with the Sethite View
Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah."3 Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following:
1. The Text Itself
Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")
The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5
See Part 3.
Mark 3:23-26 . Observe what occurs when a kingdom or anything is divided against itself, i.e. opposes or is the opposite of itself. It cannot stand!
All of us are in a state of dissociation which is a distorted process of thinking whereby two systems of belief which cannot coexist are both maintained. What we can decide between, though, is fixed , because there are no alternatives except truth and what is not true. And there is no overlap between them, because they are opposites which cannot be reconciled and cannot both be true. You are guilty or guiltless, bound or free, at peace in your mind or at war. Opposites must brought together, not kept apart. For their separation is only in our mind, and they are reconciled by union, as we are. In union, everything that is not real must disappear, for truth IS union. In other words, whenever light enters darkness (its opposite) the darkness is abolished. It shows us the darkness is not there i.e. it does not exist.
Peace
GOD IS
Your not going to understand everything at one time, Christs feeds you daily, as he see fit; keep studying, when Christ wants you to see, YOU WILL SEE, it's HIS WORKS and HIS TIME FRAME, there are about 750,000 words and thy all have a key to understanding, when you don't understand something, move on to other scriptures, Christ will reveal himself as you study. The more he reveals of himself the more you will want to know, you will come to the point when you can't get enough, you will hunger and thirst after his righteousness.
God Bless You!
This is a tough scripture, the sons of God and the daughters of men. Some consider the sons of God to be the line of Seth and the daughters of men the line of Cain. Then if we throw in what Jesus said in Matt. 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven, wow.
There is no need for angels in heaven to marry, they are immortal, and no need to reproduce as we will be after the resurrection in the kingdom on the new earth. Angels are called sons of God in Hebrew b'nai Elohim in Job 1:6 Job 2:1 Job 38:7.
Through scripture angels take on human form, they eat and drink Gen. 18:7-8 Gen. 19:3 and physically wrestle with man, Gen. 32:24. If they eat and drink would that mean they have all the organs of man on earth? Scripture tells us there are devils/demons and fallen angels on earth along with Satan but there is another group of angels. These angels are different, they are locked in chains of darkness in the bottomless pit until judgment. 2 Peter 2:4-7 Jude 1:6-7. We see in Rev. 9:11 this pit has a king, and this is where Satan will be locked up for 1000 years.
They left their first estate, heaven and in 2 Peter and Jude it says making them an example, (going after strange flesh), they corrupted God's creation Gen. 6:5-7. Even though there are fallen angels roaming the earth this set of angels God made an example to the others they will be locked in chains of darkness until judgment. We see the devils in Mark 5:9-10 were in fear Jesus might cast them down to the bottomless pit.
We see that this happened again after the flood, Gen. 6:4 "and also after." The description in scripture is clear these are not just tall people. 2 Samuel 21:16 Joshua 12:4 Numbers 13:33 Deuteronomy 2:19-21 Deuteronomy 20:17 Amos 2:9. This is just a small amount of information but may it will help in your study.
God bless,
RLW
Sons of GOD: John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Philippians 2:15, Psalms 82,= John 10:34-42, John 3:1,2,
The Hebrew word for Angel is "mal'ak" Sons of GOD in Hebrew "ben elohiym"
James 1:5, Colossians 2:8, 2Timothy 2:15,
Hopefully these are helpful
.....But Joseph means adding a son and Benjamin was the added Son in the flesh ...But being Joseph was a type of Christ in over 100 ways thus there has to be a Son added to Jesus...In the Spiritual realm ...Which is the H.G. that Child of Promise...Whosoever receiveth one such Child in my name receiveth me...She brought forth a man child that is gonna rule all nations with a rod of iron...And Jesus is the Bridegroom...The Kingdom does not come till the woman births the manchild the H.G. That added son...k Gbu