Gen 6:1-5 The Historical Views

[CrowCross]

Those who disobey God are NOT His sons. Those who carry out the devil's desires are called sons of the devil (John 8:44). Stop calling fallen angels sons of God. They are not sons of God.

Keep in mind...I didn't. The bible calls them sons of God.

In fact the bible calls Adam a son of God...Adam fell just as the fallen Angels fell.

Once again by your false assumptions...Adam should not be called a son of God.

 

[Arial]

I have presented direct evidence from the bible that angels are called the sons of God. That is indisputable evidence taken from scripture.

You quoted the Bible. Your evidence that fallen angels are sons of God was from Enoch, not the Bible. The dispute is not that angels are called the sons of God. The dispute is that you say fallen angels are called the sons of God.

Yup, and Satan has tried and pretty much tried and succeeded in usurping authority over earth via proxy

Whose proxy, is he? Keep in mind that one of the attributes of God is that he is sovereign over all creation. That makes God the authority over earth. It strikes me that God is almost completely absent from your posts and Christ is completely absent from this as though none of this had anything to do with them.

The ones who are front and center in these posts are fallen angels and Satan and hybrid giants. It reminds me of a passage from 1 Tim 1:3-7 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devoted themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions

Og was ruling for Satan legally via proxy.

You replied to a post that explicitly stated a comment was not made about Og, by saying something more about Og. Why?

You never explained how it wasn't.

You never explained how it was. The definition I gave for "proxy" should have explained it to you. But there is no point in now going off topic in order to avoid the topic.

That argument fails as the bible is speaking of a very large individual.

I wasn't using it as an argument. I do hope at some point you begin posting about things that matter.

Secondly the name Rephaim in the bible is mentioned as individuals who were gifts, tall in stature. From what I read the ancient Jews certainly considered them to be giants. They are described generally as being between 7 and 10 feet tall and are called “mighty men.”

Not any different from what I said except for the unverified qualification you give of seven to ten feet. But that is irrelevant. What is noteworthy is that it does not ever describe them as fallen angel/human hybrids.

Gen 6 tells us...The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward,

No one is disputing that the Bible says that. I even quoted it at one point.
.

 

[Arial]

the sons of God are a direct creation of God. Those created directly into the family of God. This would include the angels as having no "parents" as well as Adam not having a physical mother and father. That is no procreation involved.

Sons of God applied to heavenly beings.

• Direct creation by God (they are not born through natural process — cf. Luke 20:36: angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage”);
• Likeness to God’s nature in that they are spiritual, immortal beings;
• Subordination and service — they are part of God’s heavenly administration or council, not equals to Him;
• Intimate relationship — they belong to His “household” (cf. Job 1–2, 1 Kings 22:19–23).

God would not have a fallen angel in his heavenly administration or council, as we see them in Job.

A human can now be considered as a "son of God"...through adoption. Through the saving work of Christ Jesus.
John 1:12 tells us....But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God.

Would Noah, Seth, Abraham, Jacob, David etc. be sons of God?

Would Cain be a son of God?

 

[Arial]

Sons of God applies to all angels. fallen or not.

If you are not going to provide biblical proof of that, you need to stop saying it. We heard you the first time.

 

[Josheb]

I simply pointed out Joel QUOTED Enoch. See Enoch 1:9
I also pointed out that it looks like Moses also QUOTED Enoch 6.

Josheb...think out of your indoctrinated

So what? Enoch is not a measure of scripture! The book of Enoch we have today is NOT the Enoch referenced in the pages of scripture, either.

Stop being deceptive.

That's laughable. I just dealt with that false accusation by proving Paul quoted the Greeks (but di not treat them as equal to scripture). You are the one trying to have scripture measured by a pseudepigraphic source. You are the one trying to persuade others of the veracity of that method and practice the same. You are the one ignoring what scripture states, preferring instead to measure scripture by an extra-biblical source. You're the one arguing ad nauseam. You're the one with a huge contradiction right at the foundation of your case because scripture states those who do not follow God are not His sons and you've got disobedient angles being calls sons. You're the one being deceptive.

 

[Josheb]

Keep in mind...I didn't. The bible calls them sons of God.

The Bible does not call fallen angels sons of God. You call fallen angels sons of God. Scripture plainly states it those who obey God that are called His children and scripture is just as explicit in its statements those who disobey God are not His children. They are sons of the devil, not God.

In fact the bible calls Adam a son of God...Adam fell just as the fallen Angels fell.

Luke 3:38 is not a reference to post-disobedient Adam. It is a reference to the lineage of men who followed God. Adam had several sons but only Seth is mentioned. Scripture states it was with Seth that men began to follow God: "To Seth also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then people began to call [p]upon the name of the LORD." Scripture then proceeds to recount that bloodline, the bloodline of God-followers. Thousands of other people were born and lived by the time Genesis 6 occurs. Only one ancestry is listed. That ancestry is the lineage of God-followers. This is one more example of scripture that has to be ignored to make Genesis 6:2 about fallen angels.

Since scripture calls Adam a son of God we can infer that it was either a reference to his creation (the most likely explanation) or a reference to his repenting after he disobeyed God he repented and followed God. Because of the scriptures already posted it is not reasonable or rational to interpret Adam's being called a son of God means unrepentant disobedient people are His sons. Otherwise, the labeling of Adam a son of God contradicts the verses posted in Post 40. Since scripture does not and cannot contradict itself, Adam cannot be deemed to be outside of God's sonship, adopted or otherwise.

Once again by your false assumptions...Adam should not be called a son of God.

Not a single statement I have posted has been disproven. Ever accusation thereof has been poorly reasoned, and scripture misused and abused to make it say things it does not state. Your logic is as faulty as your hermeneutic and your exegesis.

 

[makesends]

Gen 6.....how do you not know that?

Actually, it doesn't. Concurrence is not causation.

 

[makesends]

I can't help but wonder if the same logic that claims spirits interbred with flesh is by way of sensationalism. The tendency or habit of sensationalism would explain the overbalanced focus on last days, and DPism.

 

[John Bauer]

Excellent post. For the record: Is there an example in scripture where the phrase "sons of God" is applied to fallen angels?

As far as I know, there is no place in scripture where the phrase "sons of God" is explicitly applied to fallen angels. The phrase always denotes beings who, in their original or present state, stand in some derivative relation of sonship to God—never in rebellion against him.

 

[Josheb]

As far as I know, there is no place in scripture where the phrase "sons of God" is explicitly applied to fallen angels. The phrase always denotes beings who, in their original or present state, stand in some derivative relation of sonship to God—never in rebellion against him.

Yep

Are you paying attention @CrowCross?

 

[CrowCross]

You quoted the Bible. Your evidence that fallen angels are sons of God was from Enoch, not the Bible. The dispute is not that angels are called the sons of God. The dispute is that you say fallen angels are called the sons of God.

I am saying ALL ANGELS.

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....

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.

Now, to open your mind a bit more....who says the angels that procreated with the daughters of men....didn't actually fall until that moment?

Whose proxy, is he? Keep in mind that one of the attributes of God is that he is sovereign over all creation. That makes God the authority over earth. It strikes me that God is almost completely absent from your posts and Christ is completely absent from this as though none of this had anything to do with them.

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?