St. Joseph
Member
People spend too much valuable time looking for imps and demons than they do seeking spiritual growth.
Who are the sons of God and the daughters of men
- Thread starter Marty fox
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
John is referring to Psalm 2, which was a coronation Psalm to be read upon the crowning of the king. I note the fact that although it speaks of a grown man, it says "Today I have begotten thee."
“I will announce the decree of the Lord:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
Today I have fathered You.
8 Ask it of Me, and I will certainly give the nations as Your inheritance,
He isn't speaking to a woman or a mother or a child. He is speaking to a grown man and the grown man becomes the begotten of God at the moment that God declares him to be his son.
All the kings of Israel were called "son." which is why Jesus is called the "monogenes" son or the "one-of-a-kind, unique son."
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
ewq1938
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 7,295
- 1,453
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
ewq1938
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 7,295
- 1,453
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I maintain that the phrase "son of God" is not intended to connote biological association.
Consider, for instance, Paul's argument concerning the status of believers.
In the following passage, Paul argues that we are the sons of Abraham, not on the basis of ancestry, but on the basis of faith.
Galatians 3:6-8
Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Therefore, recognize that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.”
To be a "son" of someone, is an idiomatic expression connoting a relationship based on a common and shared identity. We are Abraham's "sons" because we share the same faith as Abraham. Right?Okay? We can multiply examples.
Galatians 3:25-27
But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
In the passage above, Paul argues that we are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Putting on clothing is an idiomatic expression indicating that a person is committed himself to a particular course of action. As we walk in faith, we are committed to "tes eusebeias" -- a way of life meant to show proper regard for God. (sometimes translated "godliness" refer to 1Timothy 4) Since we are the "sons" of whomever we imitate, we are the "sons of God" because we have dedicated ourselves to walk in a manner worthy of being called an imitator of God. Those who walk in Christ by faith are "sons of God" because we strive to be like God in all we do and we always show the proper regard for God.
Galatians 4:6
Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba! Father!”
Paul indicates one of the attributes of the "sons of God." God has poured out his spirit into our hearts, and in this case, he has poured out the spirit of his son into our hearts. The phrase "Abba! Father!" takes its meaning from the passion story where Jesus himself said,
Mark 14:6
And He was saying, “Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will.”
Because we are sons, our primary concern is to do the will of the Father, just as Jesus Christ did.
So then, in conclusion, the phrase "sons of God" is not intended to denote or connote a biological relationship.
ewq1938
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 7,295
- 1,453
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Please answer the question. So you deny that Jesus is literally the son of the Father?
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Others would say reinterpreting.
That was the preincarnate Jesus. God stays God and since the fall of Adam, man cannot see God and live!
Yes it is. go check with a 2nd grade english teacher. God the Father has been in heaven since shortly after the fall.
If you let grammar and not some agenda dictate how you read a passage- yes the Nephilim and gibborim and men of renown are the offspring of angels and man.
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 which were of old, men of renown.
The Nephilim during and after is predicated on the angels having intercourse with woman.
Also you r insertion of nobility and commoners is a complete fabrication placed in the Bible. The bible said Sons of God had sex with daughters of humanity or mankind! No caste system or designation of specific types of human woman- just human woman.
'āḏām
Pronunciation
aw-dam'
Part of Speech
masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From אָדַם (H119)
Dictionary Aids
TWOT Reference: 25a
KJV Translation Count — Total: 552x
The KJV translates Strong's H120 in the following manner: man (408x), men (121x), Adam (13x), person(s) (8x), common sort (with H7230) (1x), hypocrite (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
- man, mankind
- man, human being
- man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
- Adam, first man
- city in Jordan valley
אָדַם ʼâdam, aw-dam'; from H119; ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):—× another, hypocrite,
ewq1938
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 7,295
- 1,453
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
That God the Father is his actual Father. Not a step father or symbolic father but his real father. Being related that way to God means Jesus is also God, part of the basis of the Trinity...ie: God the Son. I infer that you deny these things, Trinity, that Christ is God and obviously you don't believe Jesus is the actual and real son of the Father.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I agree, In my view, an "interpretation" of Biblical text is an "understanding" of the text and the question is whether or not I have come to the correct understanding of the text or not. In discussions such as this, we approach each other with our own assessment of the text at hand and we exchange our opinions of what meaning the text conveys. Logically, those like me who bring an opinion different than the customary opinion are giving a "new and different" interpretation.
What you don't seem to understand is that there is always more than one "plausible" interpretation to a given passage, due to the flexibility of language. Many words have more than one meaning. Even entire phrases can have more than one meaning. Even so, the Biblical text has an objective meaning, that is, the meaning that the author intended.
This discussion is focused on the question; what did Moses mean by the phrases, "sons of God and daughters of men?" A review of the Bible taken as a whole will reveal several different meanings of the phrase "sons of God." In Paul's epistle to the Galatians, for instance, he employs the phrase "sons of God" to indicate human beings who imitate God, trust in God, and organize life in respect to God's will. From this we learn that the phrase "sons of God" does not exclusively refer to angelic beings.
God is transcendent over his creation. As such, whenever he interacts with his creation, he manifests himself in a tangible way, a burning bush for example. We call these "theophanies", manifestations of the creator within the context of our reality.
When Abraham and Sarah met with The Lord, they saw him and experienced him as a man. This particular "angel" was a theophany of God. But he appeared to be a man, which is why Abraham offered him water and bread.
So then, when John declares that no one has seen God at any time, he speaks of the transcendent creator. No one can ever see God directly, one must "see" the manifestation of God. The Bible is filled with stories when people have seen theophanies of the Lord.
The Transcendent creator is "seen" in heaven, but again, he appears as a theophany -- a male that appears like Jasper stone, accompanied by flashes of lightning and peals of thunder.
The point is this. God can appear anywhere at anytime and he is not located in any particular space or time. He can appear as a burning bush or he can appear as a man to dialog with Abraham over the status of Sodom. He doesn't exist in heaven, he only manifests himself in heaven. Heaven is part of our reality. So then, when it says in Job that Satan and the Sons of God stood before the Lord, we have no reason to think that the event took place in heaven.
As I said before, due to the flexibility of language, a passage can have more than one meaning, which is why we don't find the correct interpretation of a passage using grammar alone. The grammar of a passage can still imply two or more plausible meanings. We need more than grammar to decide which plausible interpretation is the correct one. This is why you and I attempt to see how the phrase "son of God" is used elsewhere.
We both speak English and we both understand the grammar. Our disagreement is not focused on the grammar of the passage. The locus of our disagreement is the "preunderstanding" we bring to the passage.
We are talking about Satan and Heaven because in your examination of the Bible, you found OT passages where the phrase "sons of God" were found -- Job for instance. What you didn't find was the phrase "daughters of man" anywhere else in the Bible.
You are ignoring the phrase "and also afterward, when" which is unfortunate since it changes the meaning of the passage. The phrase "and also afterward, when" indicates a time when the Nephilim existed: before the Sons of God came into the Daughters of men, and also when the Sons of God came into the daughters of men.
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days . . . " What is the referent to the phrase "those days" in verse 4? Moses is speaking about the time when mankind began to multiply on the land.
Moses has adopted a particular writing style that challenges his readers to draw inferences from limited clues. He never spells anything out. He expects his readers to meditate on his word and to draw conclusions from limited information
Let's look at some of the clues.
Genesis 6:1-3
Now it came about, when mankind 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 mankind were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not remain with man forever, because he is also flesh; nevertheless his days shall be 120 years.”
daughters were born to them . . .
Obviously sons were born to them also. Moses decides to focus on daughters for some reason.
saw that the daughters of man were beautiful . . .
It isn't likely that all the daughters were beautiful. The point seems to be that beauty was the sole criteria for choosing a mate.
they took wives for themselves . . .
This wording suggests a selfish course of action. They took wives "for themselves" and not for the unification of two families but for breeding with a beautiful woman.
whomever they chose . . .
The women had no choice in the matter and neither did the father. Out of all the daughters born to mankind, this particular group of "sons" chose only beautiful women and for selfish reasons and without the woman's or her father's consent.
because he is also flesh . . .
The account is focused on the "flesh" of mankind. The Sons were focused on the flesh of the daughters, taking them as wives because of their beauty. God says that he will not strive with mankind's lust for pleasure for long. He has 120 years.
Given all of these clues, what main idea does Moses expect his readers to understand? Mankind was selfish and focused on pleasure from the very beginning, even with regard to choosing a mate.
THAT message is lost when people mistakenly think that the sons were angelic beings.
Last edited:
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Was Solomon the biological offspring of God? No, and so why do you think biology has anything to do with it?
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
No there is only one plausible interpretation or understanding. what is written is what is meant! god is not a mystery novel writer. You have failed toe show from history how your plausible interpretation of noble kings/common woman has even any historical validity.
And the New Testament is vastly different than the old. We are the sons of God by rebirth. there is no rebirth in the OT. that is exclusively for the church.
We must focus on the oldest writings of the OT. Job and Genesis. YOu assume sons of God in Job means men- but offer no proof. You assume these sons of god met God face to face on earth, when we know that since the fall- man cannot look upon the face of God and live.
You have failed to show how the nephilim and gibborim and men of renown are the result of noble and common birth.
Even in pagan mythology we see the corrupted roots of these angelic beings and the hybrids they produced!
All the myths and legends of the gods having sex with women and producing the demi-gods (hercules, Apollo, Icarus etc.) are most likely corrupted stories that happened after the Babel dispersion.
JOb 38:7 shows the sons of God singing during teh days of creation- before man was even created!
ewq1938
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 7,295
- 1,453
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
1Jn_4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I agree with your sentiment, but we should be more accurate in our thinking about this subject. You object to my explanation of Genesis 6, asserting that I am not paying attention to the grammar. My answer to your objection is to locate the true locus of our disagreement.
Grammar is not where our disagreement is evident. The true locus of our disagreement is centered on our presupposed background information.
Background information is an aspect of the literary context, which informs our understanding of what the author intended to say. I agree, what the author wrote is what he meant. But unless we know the background or the context, the author can be misunderstood.
Consider the following sentence. Notice how one simple sentence is able to connote more than one plausible idea depending on the context.
"The spring is here."
Plausible interpretation #1:
I ordered a new spring for my watch and Zoe is letting me know that the part has arrived in our mail box.
Plausible interpretation #2:
The season is changing, Zoe sees the butterflies, hears the birds, and notices that the trees have formed new leaves. Zoe is letting me know that Spring has arrived.
Plausible interpretation #3:
Zoe and are hiking in the woods, and we are looking for a place to find water. Zoe is letting me know that we have found source of the creek we found.
As we can see above, one sentence, "the spring is here" can have more than one plausible interpretation depending on the context. The same is true of the phrase "sons of God". This simple phrase also depends on the context or the background information. I am using historical background information to help me understand Moses.
Yes, I agree. I simply assert what I know from history. But my argument doesn't rest solely on historical background. It also takes account of the many clues that Moses gives the reader as to what was objectionable to the Creator. Interspecies marriage doesn't enter into it. The opening lines of Genesis 6 stand as a testimony against antediluvian man, which is why God punished man. And the exempli gratia Moses offers is the fact that the beauty of a woman was the primary criteria for choosing a wife.
If Moses intended so say that interspecies marriage exemplifies human evil, he wouldn't need to point out that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful. The very act of interspecies marriage is already an example of evil on the face of it. No need to mention that the women were beautiful.
Consider an act of murder, for example. If a man should kill a woman does it matter whether or not she was beautiful? Not really. Beauty doesn't justify murder. Likewise, if angelic beings were mating with human women, does it matter if the women were beautiful? Not at all. But Moses makes this aspect an essential point of evidence to support his claim that man had become corrupted in ALL his ways. What is the prime example that mankind had become corrupted: men were focused on a woman's beauty, and they were so selfish, they didn't consider the woman's wishes or the wishes of her father.
So you agree, the phrase "sons of God" can have more than one meaning.
You assume they refer to angels without proof.
You reject the concept of "theophany"
I don't need to prove the origins of the Nephilim. I simply point out that since these giants existed prior to the mating of the sons of God and the daughters of men, this mating could not be the origin of the Nephilim.
Pagan mythology?
Myths and legends?
As we have seen, the phrase "sons of God" has more than one meaning depending on context. To assume that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are the sons of God in Job 38:7 is not justified.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I believe you are mistaken about the meaning of "monogenes" in this context, which is mistakenly translated as "only begotten" rather than only son. John isn't saying that God gave birth to a son. John is saying that among all the sons of God, Jesus is unique, one of a kind.
One meaning of the Greek word "monogenes" is "only son", which we find in passages such as Luke 7:12, Luke 9:38. In Luke 7:12 a mother cries because she lost her only son. In Luke 9:38 a man cries out to Jesus to heal his son because he is his "only son."
Another meaning of the Greek word "monogenes" is "unique son" with respect to a promise. God promised Abraham that he would establish an everlasting covenant with his son Isaac and not his son Ishmael. In this context, although Isaac is not Abram's only son, Isaac is a unique son with respect to the covenant that God will make with him.
John is telling his readers that although God has had many sons (Refer to 2Samuel 7:12-17) Jesus is God's unique son with respect to his promise to become the savior of the world.
In the opening lines of Paul's epistle to the Romans, Paul points out two qualifications Jesus met, proving that he was indeed the coming messiah. The only biological requirement Jesus met was the fact that he was a son of David. Romans 1:3
John is not suggesting that God literally sired a son. He is asserting that Jesus is the one of whom the prophets spoke concerning a unique son who would become the savior of the world.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
nice trickery here.
Now show from historical example there are more than one plausible scenarios for who the sons of God are. Scripture in the OT shows us as only angels.
BTW I would conclude based on teh definite article that some sort of spring arrived, and not a season. God is supremely careful when He inspires grammar.
Sorry but no. Based on the definite article, one can only conclude a spring of some sort arrived. But nice try. To use "the" with spring is improper grammar and god does not inspire sloppy grammar.
This is merely conjecture on your part. MOses is merely writing what Noah recorded and saw for Himself. Weren't there any daughters of God that were pretty? And who are the "noble kings" as you called them? Can you name a few? Please show where god condemned interspecies marriage is inherently evil? Sex between man and animal is forb idden, But once again Moses is merely writing what Noah saw first hand.
From the old to the new? Yes! Many terms had different focuses between the two testaments. Jesus is called God's only begotten son, for the angels were not begotten, nor Adam who is called the son of God. Context determines.
No with proof. As I gave it to you. It occurs only five times. four in Job and once here. Teh four times in JOb can only be angels and consistency requires the same here. YOu have added an entire narrative without one jot of biblical proof. At least I have the common sense of the bible.
It seems odd that you contend that the sons of God in JOb are men who parade themselves before god and yet there is not even one hint of mention of it before the flood or after. and then there is the fact that god told Moses man cannot look upon god and live.
I appreciate your philosophical ramblings on this, but Scripture and not human logic defines scripture.
No I accept it 100% But all OT theophanies where God appeared of man were Christophanies. but what you need to show from Scripture is whenever a christophany occurred, "noble kings" gathered and passed before the theophany.
Your poor grammar is glaring here.
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 which were of old, men of renown.
The cause of the Nephilim, Gibborim and men of renown is WHEN the sons of God came into the daughters of men.
According to youo. But the phrase is used consistently in the New as well as the old. You need to bring forth compelling evidence to show why we should not accept "the sons of God" as angels in Genesis when they clearly are inJOb. You h ave failed to show why consistency must be broken.
ewq1938
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 7,295
- 1,453
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Of course God sired a Son. It's one of the pillars of the faith.
Mat_1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mat_1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Did they survive the Flood? Were they tall enough to stand on the mountains? Why did God say that all flesh and living things were killed except those in the ark?
Were Noah and his sons married to giants?
The sons of God were humans and someone on the ark carried those genetic traits in them. They more than likely were the 4 females. Unless Noah married his sister, and his mom and dad were siblings, back several generations. Noah himself could have been carrying the genes from his mother's side. Still does not mean angels were involved. The sons of God did not have Adam's dead corruptible flesh. They also could have been very large compared to Adam's dead flesh. It was Adam's dead corruptible flesh that changed the sons of God into wicked sinners, and mixing the genetics of perfect sons of God changed the genetics of Adam's dead corruptible flesh.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Not once were those words used in the OT as angels.
The stars are the angels in the Bible. The sons of God are the humans in the Bible. They are not interdefined nor did they have intermarriage. The stars always appear as human in Scripture. They don't become human. In heaven the sons of God don't become angels. They just no longer procreate. The stars don't multiply and have babies contrary to modern science which claim they do. They don't explode and start new star systems either.
Your premise starts out on the wrong foot. Every time the term is used it is describing those humans created on the 6th day. That is their defined and given name. Adam is the father of current humanity, and Adam means mankind. But Adam was a created Son of God first, before he disobeyed, and was placed in a state of death. Adam was not the only Son of God, and Adam was not an angel either.
Similar threads
