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.
