Gen 6:1-5 The Historical Views

[Arial]

Would ties this into the ones described in Bible in NT as lusting and going after strange flesh, and now being chained unto Judgement, so would be fallen angels

In the full body of the letter, Jude is talking about people, false teachers.
V 5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Then Jude says, v. 6. And the angels who did not stary within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgement of the great day---

The first is what Jesus did to people who did not believe in the exodus. The second is what he did to angels who left their assigned positions and duties (fell from obedience to disobedience) so not sons of God.

V. 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

This is the sin that was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah--which is leaving one's station---the created order for a man and a woman. It is not automatically saying that is what the fallen angels did. But fallen angels would not be called sons of God


IOW in Jude the ones lusting after strange flesh were the false teachers. Jude is not saying it was the fallen angels.

 

[CrowCross]

Sure. But start a new thread on it because it's a sufficiently different topic from the one that this thread is exploring.

I've said in this thread what I need to say. No need to start another thread.

I am not aware of anything they got wrong. The manuscript variants are minimal here.

It still shows there were giants.....not simply tall people.

1. I don't know why Goliath wore that.

2. Yes, it's a bit heavy—but not enough to elicit incredulity. The average medieval knight was five-foot-eight and wore 85 pounds of armor, which is a little over 50% of his body weight—heavy but feasible, and comparable to modern soldiers or firefighters in full gear. At six-foot-nine and weighing 280 pounds, Goliath's bronze scale body armor would have been just under 45% of his body weight—heavy but no less feasible.

Why do you think they were afraid to fight Goliath?

—a ruling that appears at odds with the biblical description, textually and scientifically.

A ruling that people such as atheist need to apply. Those same people would say that the flood of Noah was also scientifically.
The resurrection of Jesus was also scientifically impossible. To be honest you don't have much of a point.

 

[CrowCross]

In the full body of the letter, Jude is talking about people, false teachers.
V 5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Then Jude says, v. 6. And the angels who did not stary within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgement of the great day---

The first is what Jesus did to people who did not believe in the exodus. The second is what he did to angels who left their assigned positions and duties (fell from obedience to disobedience) so not sons of God.

V. 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

This is the sin that was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah--which is leaving one's station---the created order for a man and a woman. It is not automatically saying that is what the fallen angels did. But fallen angels would not be called sons of God


IOW in Jude the ones lusting after strange flesh were the false teachers. Jude is not saying it was the fallen angels.

All I said is that Jude...and Moses quoted from the book of Enoch.
Post 57 and 58 provide other examples.

Keep in mind other portions of scripture point out the punishment for the fallen angels who left their first estate and married and procreated with the human women in Gen 6.

 

[Arial]

I have. You just don't accept the biblical truth. Job 38:7

Who on here has denied that in Job angels are called sons of God? That does not prove that "sons of God" in Gen 6 are angels and fallen ones at that.

 

[CrowCross]

Who on here has denied that in Job angels are called sons of God? That does not prove that "sons of God" in Gen 6 are angels and fallen ones at that.

Perhaps....but you still haven't explained how two humans can produce the giants.
Gen 6 does.

 

[John Bauer]

Job 38 calls the angels...sons of God. NOT ME.

You've simply added "fallen" to their title....then said it disqualifies them as being sons of God. If that's what you need to believe...so be it.

Job 38:7 refers to celestial members of God's heavenly court, the angelic host who dwell in the heavens and reflect divine glory. If this rejoicing takes place at creation ("when I laid the foundation of the earth"), arguably the angelic rebellion had not yet occurred (cf. Gen 1:31). Compare this with the bene ha’elohim mentioned in Job 1:6 and 2:1, which unambiguously denotes loyal heavenly beings who appear before the Lord in council. Satan is mentioned among them, but he is explicitly distinguished from them, not included in their identity: "The day came when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also arrived among them to present himself before the LORD."

 

[John Bauer]

Why do you think they were afraid to fight Goliath?

You said, "To be honest, you don't have much of a point," so there is no point to answering this.

 

[Arial]

Perhaps....but you still haven't explained how two humans can produce the giants.
Gen 6 does.

However, I did say a long time ago, that I can't tell you what God hasn't told us. And I don't buy into the myth that giants are a fallen angel/human hybrid or your undefined but implied definition of "giant". Nor do I appreciate all that I have said about it---such as the Bible's connecting every mention of giant or mighty man as human to human by location and tribe and the ability of genetics and gene mutation to produce tall or small humans---being ignored and then have the same question ask of me again. And again. And again. That is not posting in good faith. It is agenda driven, void of listening and respect.

 

[Arial]

All I said is that Jude...and Moses quoted from the book of Enoch.
Post 57 and 58 provide other examples.

I wasn't responding to anything you said.

 

[Arial]

I have. You just don't accept the biblical truth. Job 38:7

That does not prove that the sons of God in Gen 6 are fallen angels. And it does not prove that fallen angels are sons of God. So, about time you did that instead of just quoting a scripture that you have misinterpreted so as to have excitement and drama in Christianity, instead of dull old truth and Christ.

 

[CrowCross]

Job 38:7 refers to celestial members of God's heavenly court, the angelic host who dwell in the heavens and reflect divine glory. If this rejoicing takes place at creation ("when I laid the foundation of the earth"), arguably the angelic rebellion had not yet occurred (cf. Gen 1:31). Compare this with the bene ha’elohim mentioned in Job 1:6 and 2:1, which unambiguously denotes loyal heavenly beings who appear before the Lord in council. Satan is mentioned among them, but he is explicitly distinguished from them, not included in their identity: "The day came when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also arrived among them to present himself before the LORD."

The purpose of the Job account was not to show Satan was distinguished from them.

 

[Arial]

I agree.

If you agree that God would not have fallen angels in his council (or his administration) why would angels who have left their assigned station. rebelling against God, be called sons of God? Hmmm? Even though Moses wrote that, he did so under the inspiration of God so in effect you have God calling fallen angels his sons.

Through adoption.

Does it change something by being through adoption?

Cain would be a son of Adam.

You are a son of Adam also. So am I and everyone else. What does that have to do with anything in this conversation.

 

[Arial]

I am saying ALL ANGELS.

I REALIZE that. It is not news to me. I say fallen angels are not sons of God. They got kicked out of the family just like Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden. They are no longer sons. And they haven't been from the moment they fell. They have been locked up in chains awaiting the Day of the Lord. And if look at the speed with which God banished the first two people from the Tree of Life, it is pretty safe to say, that chaining of the fallen angels took place immediately. Not generations later while they intermarried with human women and produced a race of hybrids.

So now it is up to prove that fallen angels are still the sons of God, and if you can't, every time you say it the comment will be subject to possible deletion as repetitious and unaddressed.

Where does the bible say the good angels who fell and became bad angels are now called the Sons of Satan?
Followers of Satan perhaps....

They don't have to be. As Bob Dylan says, "Everybody has to serve somebody, it might be the devil, or it might be the Lord". He got that from the Bible and Jesus's words. "You can't serve two masters."

Keep in mind....I showed you in the book of Job where the angels who shouted for joy during creation were called the sons of God.

Yes, you did. And they were not fallen angels.

Now, to open your mind a bit more.

You will be getting yet another warning point for that. It is condescending, arrogant, provocative, and completely unnecessary. If I am not mistaken, you get a certain number of them in a given time period, and it is an automatic temp ban. Learn to post without insulting people or looking down your nose at them.

..who says the angels that procreated with the daughters of men....didn't actually fall until that moment?

I know who doesn't say that. God. It is his word. So, no point in speculating about it, though logically, if the giants as you deem them to be were already there and grown (mighty men) you have gotten yourself into a pickle if you suggest that possibility of their falling in that moment. There is such a thing as stretching something to far just to appear to be right.

Yes, God is sovereign over all of His creation....but God also tells us Satan.... Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.........but then again didn't I once read in one of your post that you believe Satan is currently lock up and is out of the picture?

Who controls the Prince of Persia? Who does the Prince of Persia control?

That is all irrelevant, one portion entirely untrue of what I believe or have ever said, and more important, does not answer the question of who gave Satan proxy over creation? The question was asked because that is what you claim.

 

[John Bauer]

The purpose of the Job account was not to show Satan was distinguished from them.

Correct. The purpose of the book of Job is larger than the purpose of a single verse in one chapter.

But we weren't talking about Job overall, but rather that particular verse in that one chapter.

 

[JesusFan]

In the full body of the letter, Jude is talking about people, false teachers.
V 5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Then Jude says, v. 6. And the angels who did not stary within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgement of the great day---

The first is what Jesus did to people who did not believe in the exodus. The second is what he did to angels who left their assigned positions and duties (fell from obedience to disobedience) so not sons of God.

V. 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

This is the sin that was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah--which is leaving one's station---the created order for a man and a woman. It is not automatically saying that is what the fallen angels did. But fallen angels would not be called sons of God


IOW in Jude the ones lusting after strange flesh were the false teachers. Jude is not saying it was the fallen angels.

This would be my view at this present time, as this would be a good summary of main held views on this topic
Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4? | GotQuestions.org

[Moderator note: The view espoused there is that the "sons of God" were fallen angelic beings.]

 

[Josheb]

I would say...as well as scholars...would say that Enoch 1 is......not so sure about Enoch 3.

What i said is that because Joel as well as Moses quoted from the book of Enoch....even provided biblical reference...they are not to be taken lightly.
The apostles of Christ were influenced by the book of Enoch. In this thread I have provided about 2 dozen examples. If you disagree...so be it.

[td]
​

Enoch 64:4	And a voice was heard from heaven	Matthew 3:17	And lo, a voice from heaven, saying
Enoch 6:9	The elect shall possess light, joy, and peace, and they shall inherit the earth.	Matthew 5:5	Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Enoch 50:2, 4, 5	He shall select the righteous and holy from among them; for the day of their salvation has approached. ...and they shall become angels in heaven. Their countenances shall be bright with joy...the earth shall rejoice; and the elect possess it.	Luke 21:28 Matthew 22:30 Matthew 13:43	Your redemption draweth nigh. In the resurrection...they are as the angels of God in heaven. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
Enoch 93:7	Those, too, who acquire gold and silver, shall justly and suddenly perish. Woe to you who are rich, for in your riches have you trusted; but from your riches you shall be removed.	James 5:1 Luke 6:24	Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Woe unto you that are rich! For ye have received your consolation.
Enoch 96:6, 7, 25	Woe unto you, sinners, who say, ‘We are rich, possess wealth, and have acquired everything which we can desire. Now then will we do whatsoever we are disposed to do; for we have amassed silver; our barns are full’... They shall surely die suddenly.	Luke 12:19-20	Compare the parable of the rich man whose barns were full, and who said to himself, ‘Soul, thou has much goods laid up for many years, take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.’ But God said unto him, ‘Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee.’
Enoch 105:26	And I will place each of them on a throne of glory, of glory peculiarly his own	Matthew 19:28	Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Enoch 62:11	In his judgments he pays no respect to persons.	Romans 2:11	For there is no respect of persons with God.
Enoch 38:2	Where will the habitation of sinners be...who have rejected the Lord of spirits. It would have been better for them, had they never been born.	Matthew 26:24	Woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would be good for that man if he had not been born.

[td width="120px"]
Enoch

[/td][td]
Text from Enoch

[/td][td width="150px"]
New Testament

[/td][td]
Text from New Testament, KJV

[/td]​

[/td]​

[td width="800px"]


[/td]​

That was an impressive waste of time, effort, and cyberspace that completely avoided the most salient and deciding factor: Enoch 1 was written four millennia AFTER the Biblical Enoch died. Enoch 1 is pseudepigraphic. Anyone of us could make a similar chart of comparison using the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Code of Hammurabi (both of which were written before the Pentateuch was put to papyrus or vellum). We could even do the same thing with the Bhagavad Gita (which was also written prior to the penning of the Pentateuch) or the Quran. I do not think you understand how foolish it is to make appeals to Enoch and why it is so many here are forceful in their dissent of Enoch's use. Similarities from one text to another prove nothing, especially not regarding the premise of sinfully dead and enslaved fallen angels copulating with human females.

 

[Arial]

I would say...as well as scholars...would say that Enoch 1 is......not so sure about Enoch 3.

What i said is that because Joel as well as Moses quoted from the book of Enoch....even provided biblical reference...they are not to be taken lightly.
The apostles of Christ were influenced by the book of Enoch. In this thread I have provided about 2 dozen examples. If you disagree...so be it.

[td]
​

Enoch 64:4	And a voice was heard from heaven	Matthew 3:17	And lo, a voice from heaven, saying
Enoch 6:9	The elect shall possess light, joy, and peace, and they shall inherit the earth.	Matthew 5:5	Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Enoch 50:2, 4, 5	He shall select the righteous and holy from among them; for the day of their salvation has approached. ...and they shall become angels in heaven. Their countenances shall be bright with joy...the earth shall rejoice; and the elect possess it.	Luke 21:28 Matthew 22:30 Matthew 13:43	Your redemption draweth nigh. In the resurrection...they are as the angels of God in heaven. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
Enoch 93:7	Those, too, who acquire gold and silver, shall justly and suddenly perish. Woe to you who are rich, for in your riches have you trusted; but from your riches you shall be removed.	James 5:1 Luke 6:24	Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Woe unto you that are rich! For ye have received your consolation.
Enoch 96:6, 7, 25	Woe unto you, sinners, who say, ‘We are rich, possess wealth, and have acquired everything which we can desire. Now then will we do whatsoever we are disposed to do; for we have amassed silver; our barns are full’... They shall surely die suddenly.	Luke 12:19-20	Compare the parable of the rich man whose barns were full, and who said to himself, ‘Soul, thou has much goods laid up for many years, take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.’ But God said unto him, ‘Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee.’
Enoch 105:26	And I will place each of them on a throne of glory, of glory peculiarly his own	Matthew 19:28	Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Enoch 62:11	In his judgments he pays no respect to persons.	Romans 2:11	For there is no respect of persons with God.
Enoch 38:2	Where will the habitation of sinners be...who have rejected the Lord of spirits. It would have been better for them, had they never been born.	Matthew 26:24	Woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would be good for that man if he had not been born.

[td width="120px"]
Enoch

[/td][td]
Text from Enoch

[/td][td width="150px"]
New Testament

[/td][td]
Text from New Testament, KJV

[/td]​

[/td]​

[td width="800px"]


[/td]​

What is that supposed to prove?

 

[Arial]

@CrowCross

Please give us your definition of "giant".

 

[Arial]

What i said is that because Joel as well as Moses quoted from the book of Enoch....even provided biblical reference...they are not to be taken lightly.
The apostles of Christ were influenced by the book of Enoch. In this thread I have provided about 2 dozen examples. If you disagree...so be it.

So, the following post was never made?

@CrowCross
Second question for ChatGPT: Who wrote Enoch 6?

2. Traditional Attribution​

Ancient Belief​

Ancient Jewish and some early Christian tradition held that Enoch himself, the seventh from Adam (Gen 5:21–24), was the author.

• The book begins with the claim:
  
  

  “The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous…”

• This pseudonymous authorship gave the book authority, just as other intertestamental writings were attributed to ancient figures (e.g., Jubilees to Moses, 2 Baruch to Baruch).

However, this was a literary convention, not a historical fact.

3. Scholarly Understanding (Historical-Critical View)​

Modern scholars are in near-universal agreement that 1 Enoch was not written by Enoch, but by multiple Jewish authors between roughly 300 BC and 100 BC, during the Second Temple period.

The Book of the Watchers (chs. 1–36):​

• Likely the oldest part of 1 Enoch.
• Composed originally in Aramaic, probably in Palestine.
• Dates around 300–250 BC, possibly earlier.
• Author: Unknown Jewish writer or group of writers, steeped in Genesis, early apocalyptic thought, and wisdom traditions.

They wrote under the name of “Enoch” to:

• Lend ancient authority to their message,
• Provide an explanation for the origin of evil, violence, and forbidden knowledge,
• Teach about God’s coming judgment on both angels and humanity.

Linguistic and Literary Evidence​

• Aramaic fragments of Enoch were found at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) — confirming its pre-Christian Jewish origin.
• The language, theology, and cosmology all match other Second Temple apocalyptic works (e.g., Jubilees, Daniel, 1QHodayot).

4. Likely Authorship Context​

Scholars believe the Book of the Watchers (including ch. 6) was written by:

• A Jewish priestly or scribal group dissatisfied with temple corruption,
• Possibly part of the Hasidim or proto-Essene circles,
• Writing in a period of Hellenistic influence (after Alexander the Great) when questions about evil, suffering, and divine justice were pressing.

Their main message:

The root of human corruption is not only human sin (as in Genesis 3) but cosmic rebellion by angelic beings — yet God remains just and will bring judgment and restoration.

So:

Enoch 6 was not written by the biblical Enoch, but by an anonymous Jewish writer (or small group) in the early Hellenistic period, using Enoch’s name to frame a theological reflection on Genesis 6.

 

[Arial]

This would be my view at this present time, as this would be a good summary of main held views on this topic
Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4? | GotQuestions.org

[Moderator note: The view espoused there is that the "sons of God" were fallen angelic beings.]

Quotes in bold are from the gotquestions link.

The three primary views on the identity of the sons of God are 1) they were fallen angels, 2) they were powerful human rulers, or 3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to the first theory is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).
That would mean that the sons of God spoken of in Gen 6 were fallen angels, which would make them not sons of God. There are godly men who are referred to as a son of God in the OT and if the passage is speaking of more than one, it would be plural "sons". Gen 6 is not a chapter isolated from what came before it. What came before it in Chapt 4:25-26 is And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him." To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.

In Chapt 5 we have a genealogy that follows only the line of Seth to Noah and his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth. These could be called "sons of God" because God speaks of those who follow him as sons and daughters. So, who are the "men" in the "daughters of man"? If it is godly men who are the sons of God, then the "man" would be ungodly men. That word translated "man" is adam. I looked up both the Hebrew and Greek text analysis and discovered a curious thing. And it is the same in both languages.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
another, hypocrite, common sort, low, man mean, of low degree, person
From 'adam; ruddy i.e. A human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.) -- X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

Since the passage is making a sharp contrast between sons of God and man and absent any preceding mention of angels procreating with humans, and no mention of it afterwards anywhere, it seems safe to assume the contrast is being made between the godly and the ungodly.

Got Questions assertion that "sons of God" always refers to angels is false. There are godly men who are called a son of God, and if, as in Gen 6 it is speaking of many, it would be phrased sons of God.

. A potential problem with this is in Matthew 22:30, which indicates that angels do not marry. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that angels have a gender or are able to reproduce. The other two views do not present this problem.
It is not a potential problem. It is a problem. Jesus' words cannot be ignored. Gen 6 says the sons of God married the women, took them as wives.
The weakness of views 2) and 3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were “giants” or “heroes of old, men of renown.”

The passage does not say they were giants. It says the Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward. There are a number of references to the mighty men, Nephilim, and by other names, but all are associated geographically and with specific people groups. Some were tyrant kings as was Og.


Further, why would God decide to bring the flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbidden powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain?
There was a law in Israel forbidding the Israelites to marry pagans. Though it had not been given at the time of the flood, the principle is sound and eternal. Bad company corrupts good morals. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. The good by the time we get to Gen 6 had been so polluted and corrupted that only Noah remained.

Only the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment.

Oh really?!