Who are the sons of God and the daughters of men

[Dropship]

You use the term (God sent them)?
From the human lineage of Adam and Eve?
From outer space?
From where in your opinion?

We can only guess.
They're described as "sons of God" in this verse, so they might have been angels in fleshy human form-
“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 which were of old, men of renown.” (Genesis 6:4)

As for where exactly they came from, again we can only speculate and assume they came from wherever God is..:)
Jesus said- "You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things, so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?....
....I know where I came from and where I am going, but you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.....you are of this world, I am not of this world" (John 3:12,John 10:38,John 8:14,John 8:23)

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So you are not pre-mill?

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

As I pointed out to the Amil who agrees with you, the future Day of the Lord will last for 1,000 years. It starts out with Jesus cleaning up all the mess.

It is ridiculous for you to state it will take Jesus 1,000 years to destroy the evil in the world. I never posted that, nor ever will. You do realize that after the Second Coming, humans still wait for 1,000 years before the NHNE of Revelation 21? 2 Peter 3 has nothing in the chapter whatsoever to prove Amillenialism.

I am pre mil.

Your philosophy implies it takes Jesus 1,000 years. Scripture says the Day of the Lord will destroy evil and you stated the Day of Adonai (the Lord ) is 1,000 years.

 

[Truth7t7]

We can only guess.
They're described as "sons of God" in this verse, so they might have been angels in fleshy human form-
“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 which were of old, men of renown.” (Genesis 6:4)

As for where exactly they came from, again we can only speculate and assume they came from wherever God is..:)
Jesus said- "You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things, so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?....
....I know where I came from and where I am going, but you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.....you are of this world, I am not of this world" (John 3:12,John 10:38,John 8:14,John 8:23)

Thanks for the response!

It's my observation that "The Giants" were mortal humans in the lineage of Adam and Eve, they had kings, cities, wives and children,the Anakims with king Anak and his sons being one example

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[Timtofly]

I am pre mil.

Your philosophy implies it takes Jesus 1,000 years. Scripture says the Day of the Lord will destroy evil and you stated the Day of Adonai (the Lord ) is 1,000 years.

The Day of the Lord has a beginning and an end. It also has 1,000 years in the middle.

The Second Coming finishes the last half of Daniel's 70th week. That is the start of the Day of the Lord. The end of the 1,000 years has Satan's little season. That is the end of the Day of the Lord. It does not take 1,000 years for Satan's little season either. Why would the completion of Daniel's 70th week take 1,000 years? My point, not philosophy nor theology just states the Day of the Lord is the Millennium.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day....

.... But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night;"

Peter just declares a day with the Lord, and then says the Day of the Lord. Explain to me how these are not referring to a same type of Day?

John then claims: "and shall reign with him a thousand years."

So we have 1,000 years mentioned in both places as literal. The Day of the Lord and Day with the Lord is the figurative term for this same 1,000 years. Unless you are amil, and then the day of the Lord is an indefinite period of time known as the fulness of the Gentiles for the last 1992 years.

Peter does not say, "But the day of the Lord will end as a thief in the night, after some 2,000 years called the fulness of the Gentiles."

The Day of the Lord is a future 1,000 years.

In Genesis 2 the Day of Adonai, a Day of the Lord, is said to contain generations, plural. Many generations over a 1,000 year period. The NT via Peter and John shed light on the time known as the Sabbath. It was 1,000 years. It was not multiple Days of the Lord, but one single time span of 1,000 years.

The 6 literal 24 hour days of creation started that Day of the Lord with a figurative big bang. No one was alive to see that "thief in the night" decision to start a new created reality. But Genesis 1:1 was just as sudden and quick as the Second Coming. Now in Genesis 1, we have a 6 literal day time span. In Revelation we have the remainder of a 3.5 year 70th week to resolve from Daniel 9. The Lord's Day doesn't just suddenly change reality around us. God has to remove all the trash and corruption from 6,000 years of Adam's dead flesh. That is why the Second Coming is a thief in the night. The majority of humans on earth will not know when, nor really expect it to happen. Even many pre-mill will not expect it, because they are waiting for some AC to set up shop prior to a thief in the night moment.

 

[Truth7t7]

The Day of the Lord has a beginning and an end. It also has 1,000 years in the middle.

"NO" The Day Of The Lord Isn't A Literal Thousand Years Long As You Continue To Claim

Scripture teaches the day of the Lord comes quick, like a thief in the night, as a woman in child birth

This is a far cry from your claims of it being 1,000 literal years long "Wrong"

1 Thessalonians 5:2-3KJV
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

 

[ewq1938]

We can only guess.
They're described as "sons of God" in this verse, so they might have been angels in fleshy human form-

Or angels in fleshy angel form, the only form they have.

Jud 1:6 And those angels not having kept their first place, but having deserted their dwelling-place, He has kept in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of a great Day;

Angels left the place they were supposed to remain in...this is found in Gen 6

 

[BeyondET]

Yes, giants mating with earth women would have been uncomfortable for the gals to say the least, that's why they must have contributed their DNA to the human gene pool in some other way.
They possibly also gave the human race some help by teaching them how to do stuff like you say, like inventing the wheel, spinning wool into clothing, and in modern times creating great new TV quiz show formats etc..:)

Well I think the gaints were on the earth before the garden and after when man was kicked out. Cain descendants pretty much only lasted to tubal-Cain reason why the sons of God looking to carry on their genes

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The Day of the Lord has a beginning and an end. It also has 1,000 years in the middle.

The Second Coming finishes the last half of Daniel's 70th week. That is the start of the Day of the Lord. The end of the 1,000 years has Satan's little season. That is the end of the Day of the Lord. It does not take 1,000 years for Satan's little season either. Why would the completion of Daniel's 70th week take 1,000 years? My point, not philosophy nor theology just states the Day of the Lord is the Millennium.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day....

.... But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night;"

Peter just declares a day with the Lord, and then says the Day of the Lord. Explain to me how these are not referring to a same type of Day?

John then claims: "and shall reign with him a thousand years."

So we have 1,000 years mentioned in both places as literal. The Day of the Lord and Day with the Lord is the figurative term for this same 1,000 years. Unless you are amil, and then the day of the Lord is an indefinite period of time known as the fulness of the Gentiles for the last 1992 years.

Peter does not say, "But the day of the Lord will end as a thief in the night, after some 2,000 years called the fulness of the Gentiles."

The Day of the Lord is a future 1,000 years.

In Genesis 2 the Day of Adonai, a Day of the Lord, is said to contain generations, plural. Many generations over a 1,000 year period. The NT via Peter and John shed light on the time known as the Sabbath. It was 1,000 years. It was not multiple Days of the Lord, but one single time span of 1,000 years.

The 6 literal 24 hour days of creation started that Day of the Lord with a figurative big bang. No one was alive to see that "thief in the night" decision to start a new created reality. But Genesis 1:1 was just as sudden and quick as the Second Coming. Now in Genesis 1, we have a 6 literal day time span. In Revelation we have the remainder of a 3.5 year 70th week to resolve from Daniel 9. The Lord's Day doesn't just suddenly change reality around us. God has to remove all the trash and corruption from 6,000 years of Adam's dead flesh. That is why the Second Coming is a thief in the night. The majority of humans on earth will not know when, nor really expect it to happen. Even many pre-mill will not expect it, because they are waiting for some AC to set up shop prior to a thief in the night moment.

thus endeth this useless conversation.

 

[Timtofly]

Well I think the gaints were on the earth before the garden and after when man was kicked out. Cain descendants pretty much only lasted to tubal-Cain reason why the sons of God looking to carry on their genes

Cain's descendants only lasted that long, because all were destroyed in the Flood.

Those created on the 6th day were the giants and the sons of God. Angels were never involved in Genesis 6.

 

[BeyondET]

Cain's descendants only lasted that long, because all were destroyed in the Flood.

Those created on the 6th day were the giants and the sons of God. Angels were never involved in Genesis 6.

I do agree with angels were not involved that's preposterous

 

[Waiting on him]

1 Timothy 1:4 KJV
[4] Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

 

[ShineTheLight]

Cain's descendants only lasted that long, because all were destroyed in the Flood.

Those created on the 6th day were the giants and the sons of God. Angels were never involved in Genesis 6.

I do agree with angels were not involved that's preposterous

Jude verse 6

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.

 

[Timtofly]

Jude verse 6

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.

They stopped doing their job in the firmament. They ended up in chains of darkness in the pit, sheol.

They were never on the earth procreating with the sons of God. The stars are used to describe angels, created on the 4th day. The sons of God describe humans created on the 6th day.

Those rebel angels never procreated with the sons of God. The sons of God procreated with Adam's fallen offspring. Adam was a son of God in the Garden of Eden. Paradise where God came down and walked with Adam a son of God.

This was the same type as God visiting the Holy of Holies once a year with Israel. With Adam it was more often than once a year. That stopped when Adam disobeyed God. Adam was kicked out of Paradise. Adam had lots of dead offspring no longer in God's image. These were called men, because after Noah and the Flood it was just Adam's dead flesh on earth. The sons of God had lots of offspring. After many generations, the offspring of one group procreated with Adam's sinful flesh.

It was always humans as the sons of God. One group obedient, still in God's image. The other group in Adam's image. No angels involved ever. Scripture would have said, the stars came down and procreated with the sons of God.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I do agree with angels were not involved that's preposterous

Why is it preposterous?

the only other tiumes in the entire Old Testament that bene -elohim is used, it is used of angels. Why should this be for a disobedient line of seth?

Always (excluding this debated verse) sons of God are angels. what authority do you use to say here it does not mean angels but some godly line of men.?

Angels can have sex. In heaven they do not have sex but that does not mean they are imotent.

Remember in Jude:

6 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.

These cannot be teh angels who rebelled with Satan. they are free to roam around and torment and possess people. so these are different angels.

Estate refers to a place. It is "arche" and refers to either a first or a principality or . these angels kept not their first posotion- that of angels.

they left their own habitation- heaven. this is another reason why these are not th eangels that rebelled with Satan. These are called angels (not demons) in the NT and were found in heaven.

So staying consistent (as God is) sons of God refers to angels who left their angelic power, came to earth, married human women and produced a hybrid race of men that were the seeds of much ancient pagan mythology. the gods, demi-gods etc..

Sorry but the available evidence all says these were angels.

Disobedient men of Seth, marrying disobedient daughters of Cain would not produce the gibborim, mighty and valiant men, men of renown! as for the Nephilim? Some were very tall, some were not. Giants is an unfortunate translation based from the Hebrew being translated to teh Greek and the Septuagint authors picking titanus for nephilim.

these were powerful wise and many were also gigantic in height!.

How did goliath ( a Nephilim maybe) com eto be after the flood?

This is only a hypothesis but one of the wives of Noahs sons could have been from a family where the interunion of men and angle took place and so she would carry the genes for a giant to be produiced one day.

 

[BeyondET]

Why is it preposterous?

the only other tiumes in the entire Old Testament that bene -elohim is used, it is used of angels. Why should this be for a disobedient line of seth?

Always (excluding this debated verse) sons of God are angels. what authority do you use to say here it does not mean angels but some godly line of men.?

Angels can have sex. In heaven they do not have sex but that does not mean they are imotent.

Remember in Jude:

6 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.

These cannot be teh angels who rebelled with Satan. they are free to roam around and torment and possess people. so these are different angels.

Estate refers to a place. It is "arche" and refers to either a first or a principality or . these angels kept not their first posotion- that of angels.

they left their own habitation- heaven. this is another reason why these are not th eangels that rebelled with Satan. These are called angels (not demons) in the NT and were found in heaven.

So staying consistent (as God is) sons of God refers to angels who left their angelic power, came to earth, married human women and produced a hybrid race of men that were the seeds of much ancient pagan mythology. the gods, demi-gods etc..

Sorry but the available evidence all says these were angels.

Disobedient men of Seth, marrying disobedient daughters of Cain would not produce the gibborim, mighty and valiant men, men of renown! as for the Nephilim? Some were very tall, some were not. Giants is an unfortunate translation based from the Hebrew being translated to teh Greek and the Septuagint authors picking titanus for nephilim.

these were powerful wise and many were also gigantic in height!.

How did goliath ( a Nephilim maybe) com eto be after the flood?

This is only a hypothesis but one of the wives of Noahs sons could have been from a family where the interunion of men and angle took place and so she would carry the genes for a giant to be produiced one day.

There is no available evidence that a angel (a non physical being) can have physical sex with a physical human. That wouldn't have been allowed by God.

And there are about 4 human gaint species mentioned in scripture.

all angels, humans, stars and what ever are sons of God that isn't a title only of angels.

 

[ewq1938]

There is no available evidence that a angel (a non physical being)

All angels are physical beings.

can have physical sex with a physical human. That wouldn't have been allowed by God.

Sin happens. You make it sound like God would stop sin from happening which isn't what the bible presents.

And there are about 4 human gaint species mentioned in scripture.

all angels, humans, stars and what ever are sons of God that isn't a title only of angels.

Sons of God in the OT is ONLY for angels, not humans. Two humans cannot produce a giant.

 

[BeyondET]

All angels are physical beings.




Sin happens. You make it sound like God would stop sin from happening which isn't what the bible presents.




Sons of God in the OT is ONLY for angels, not humans. Two humans cannot produce a giant.

Angels are spiritual beings they do not have flesh and bone but it has been nessesary for a reason in the bible from God who made it possible, once sat and ate some food not to procreate a gaint race of humans.

luke. 24:39
Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself. Touch Me and see—for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

 

[ewq1938]

Angels are spiritual beings they do not have flesh and bone

Angels are physical beings. Everything about them in the bible tells us this. There is nothing in the bible that says they are bodiless, and then somehow change into human like form.

 

[BeyondET]

Angels are physical beings. Everything about them in the bible tells us this. There is nothing in the bible that says they are bodiless, and then somehow change into human like form.

Somehow, no God is the Creator there is no other, angels are his servants, the ones that left didn't take the ability to do such things with them.

 

[BeyondET]

If the thinking is God made gaint human vessels for angels is a stretch. Though stretched out the heavens for other grasshoppers to dwell in hehe