• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Genesis 6:1-5 who are the sons of God and daughters of man that is talked about?

Got to understand what is meant by the use Son of God and Son of Man, as the title “Son of God” is given, in the Bible, to those who followed God. After the fall in the Garden of Eden, the children from Seth remained separate from Cain. But Cain found a wife and the race of Cain, spread out into the plains and valleys it wasnt long before they got to where the children of Seth dwelt.. So long as a separation was kept by the descendants of Seth, they maintained the worship of God. But as they saw the beautiful daughters of Cain and began to come into contact, it had the worst results, and thats were you see “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair.” The children of Seth, attracted by the beauty of the daughters of Cain's descendants, began intermarrying with them.

Here is a good study on this.. https://www.christiankura.com/what-does-son-of-god-and-son-of-man-mean/
I know that alternate take. It will not explain with intellectual honesty why suddenly giants were born of them.

Adam was called a "son of God" while he was yet unfallen. From God's hand came a son of God.
After Adam fell he became (in his nature) the seed of Satan.
 
In Luke chapter 3:

The Original Authors are naming the genealogy of Mary " Beginning with Mary and Elisabeth’s father “ - Heli

The Phrase - " which was the son of _ " which was the son of “ ' over and over and over, over 30 times repeating over and over, this is not in the manuscripts.

This phrase was inserted by the King James translators " which was the son of “ this is why they are in italics, they are inserted and added into the translation and not a part of the original message of the manuscript.

Luk 3:23

And himself it is him Jesus about year thirty and he began and was as supposed son of Joseph - - of Heli

και And - αυτος himself - ην it is - ο him - ιησους Jesus - ωσει about - ετων year - τριακοντα thirty - αρχομενος and he began - ων and was - ως as - ενομιζετο supposed - υιος son - ιωσηφ of Joseph - του of - ηλι Heli

the manuscripts do not continue to next say { which was the son of. }

here below - is exactly how the manuscripts are written

of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi, of Janna, of Joseph, of Mattathias, of Amos, of Naum, of Esli, of Nagge, of Maath, of Mattathias, of Semei, of Joseph, of Juda, of Joanna, of Rhesa, of Zorobabel, of Salathiel, of Neri, of Melchi, of Addi, of Cosam, of Elmodam, of Er, of Jose, of Eliezer, of Jorim, of Matthat, of Levi, of Simeon, of Juda, of Joseph, of Jonan, of Eliakim, of Melea, of Menan, of Mattatha, of Nathan, of David, of Jesse, of Obed, of Booz, of Salmon, of Naasson,
of Aminadab, of Aram, of Esrom, of Phares, of Juda, of Jacob, of Isaac, of Abraham, of Thara, of Nachor, of Saruch, of Ragau, of Phalec, of Heber, of Sala, of Cainan, of Arphaxad, of Sem, of Noe, of Lamech, of Mathusala, of Enoch, of Jared, of Maleleel, of Cainan, ------ of Enos, of Seth, of Adam, of God.

" which was the son of “ never exists In any manuscripts to indicate that Adam was a Son Of God.

there are simply no manuscripts for this faith
 
ara, of Nachor, of Saruch, of Ragau, of Phalec, of Heber, of Sala, of Cainan, of Arphaxad, of Sem, of Noe, of Lamech, of Mathusala, of Enoch, of Jared, of Maleleel, of Cainan, ------ of Enos, of Seth, of Adam, of God.

" which was the son of “ never exists In any manuscripts to indicate that Adam was a Son Of God.

there are simply no manuscripts for this faith

Luke 3:37-38.....​
the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.
Name some manuscripts where its not found.
 
Last edited:
The NET (the most text notes per verse) says:

  • Luke 3:38 sn The reference to the son of God here is not to a divine being, but to one directly formed by the hand of God. He is made in God’s image, so this phrase could be read as appositional (“Adam, that is, the son of God”). See Acts 17:28-29.
 



:36 - word for word exactly - manuscript text - word for word


NEITHER FOR DYING ANY MORE THEY CAN LIKE ANGELS

FOR ARE ALSO CHILDREN ARE OF GOD THE RESURRECTED CHILDREN ARE.


are these passages simply saying that that the resurrected will also be like Angels whom are not able to die - and concluding saying

FOR ARE ALSO CHILDREN ARE OF GOD THE RESURRECTED CHILDREN ARE.

and not specifically attempting to say that Angels are themselves - CHILDREN OF GOD. I do believe the scriptures say exactly this.
what other way - how else would you say or explain that


- the resurrected

NEITHER FOR DYING ANY MORE THEY CAN LIKE ANGELS

FOR ARE ALSO CHILDREN ARE OF GOD - THE RESURRECTED CHILDREN ARE.

it is not saying the Angels are children - if we look exactly to what the manuscripts say exactly - word by word, what is the passage saying and explaining ?​


There are at least 24 verses, JUST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT - and at least 24 verses IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - that say that it is Humans Servants Of God / mankind, whom are called - “ The Sons Of God.

And that God is a Father to mankind, God is a Father to his servants. AND THAT THE HUMANS ARE GOD’S CHILDREN

FOR ARE ALSO CHILDREN OF GOD - THE RESURRECTED CHILDREN ARE.

NOT THE ANGELS.\ - not even one single instance in the the entire Bible describe Angels, as Sons Of God

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one
father ? Hath not one God created us?
Isa 1:2 The LORD hath spoken,
I have nourished and brought up children
Hos 1:10 it shall be said unto Israel, Ye are the sons of the living God.
Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD,
Israel is my son, Even my firstborn:
Deu 1:31
The LORD thy God bare thee, As a man doth bear his son,
Deu 8:5 as a man chasteneth
his son, So the LORD thy God chasteneth thee.
Jer 31:20 Is Ephraim
my dear son.
Mal 3:17 I will spare them,
As a man spareth his own son that serveth him.
Psa 82:6 all of
you are children / children / sons of the most High.
Deu 32:6 the LORD, O foolish people and unwise
? Is not he thy father that hath bought thee?
Isa 43:6 The Lord will say -
bring my children / sons from far, MY DAUGHTERS from ends of the earth;
Isa 63:8 The Lord said
- they are my children that will not lie.
Isa 63:16 Doubtless
thou art our father, - : thou, O LORD, Art our father
Psa 103:13 Like as a father pitieth his children, So the LORD pitieth them
Isa 64:8 But now, O LORD,
Thou art our father; we are the clay,
Jer 3:4 + :19 Will you not from this time cry unto me,
My father,
Jer 3:14 + :22 Turn, O backsliding
children.
Jer 31:9
I am a father to Israel, And Ephraim is my firstborn.
Jer 3:19 Thou shalt call me, "
THE LORD " My father; and shalt not turn away from me.
Deu 1:31 The LORD thy
God bare thee, As a man doth bear his son.
Mal 1:6 If then I " THE LORD "
be a father, Where is mine honour?
1Ch 17:13 I will be his father,
And he shall be my son:
1Ch 29:10 David said, Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel
our father, For ever and ever.

Even in the New Testament - the believers in Yahashua are called The - SONS OF GOD

NEVER THE ANGELS


Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time
, THOU ART MY SON, this day have I begotten thee ?

And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? - UNTO AN ANGEL .... NEVER EVER,.,

God has never once proclaimed OR PRONOUNCED that an Angel is his son - - HE HAS BEGOTTEN NOT A SINGLE ANGEL.



symbolically God as a creator can be said to be a Father of all of his Creation, but God does not bring forth to conceive birth or begot or have children except for - Jesus Christ alone is the ONLY BORN / BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.


not an angel.


I think you missed the early Job reference to when all the sons of God rejoiced on the day of creation.
 
2 Peter 2:4 (KJV 1900): 4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

They were not angels for they were locked up before God created man.
It is impossible for the sons of God in Genesis 6 to be angels. If they were angels why didn’t the Holy Spirit use the Hebrew “Malak” for “angel?”
These sons of God were human men of the Sethian line of believers of God who became unequally yoked with unbelieving daughters of MEN and had children that were influenced by their unbelieving mothers and grew up without law and without restriction on their behavior. They became “tyrants” and “bullies” as the word “nephal/nephalim” is defined by James Strong.

BUT let’s say for the sake of argument they were angels.
Angels are spirit beings.
Women are material beings.
Angels are fixed in number.
The number of angels total are millions and millions. By the time of Genesis 6 would there have been millions of women to mate with one-third of the millions and millions of angels that left their “first estate of habitation?
Angels have no genitals because genitals are unnecessary. Angels are male and there are neither homosexual or heterosexual angels. They are asexual.
Angels - IF their first estate was their original habitation in heaven - came down to earth to sin would they reasonably become involved in HOLY matrimony?
God ordained that cats mate with cats and have more cats, etc., and angels are of a different created order of “flesh” (celestial) and for lack of a better word, species and don’t have DNA and don’t have sperm and cannot violate the God-ordained order of generational offspring between like beings, animals, mammals, etc., “after their kind.”
Angels do not have creative powers and could not create bodies, nor do they have the engineering wisdom of God to create bodies that would have the necessary bio-engineering to match human biology down to the very cells that would generate offspring.
But thank God for the following:

2 Peter 2:4 (KJV 1900): 4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

And this means that all the sin in the world originates with man and there are no angels that sinned to complicate matters. Man is on his own on the planet without any sinful interference from fallen, sinful angels. They’re ALL locked up by God. And I believe God did this between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Notice that Gen 1 is full of establishing the fact that species should reproduce after their kind. Makes you wonder if this was an issue, and how widely the experimenting went. This happens to match an indigenous account about cosmology from across the world, from the Sequalish near Seattle. An evil gets going among men in which they have the power of 'form-changing.' (A flaw in the account is that the Creator lets them do this). But this development is evil and harmful and the Creator retracts the ability to do so.

I don't know that it would be that difficult for angels to figure out that seed from one species could be transfered to another. There are some records of amazing technology from the pre-cataclysm world.
 
How do you know?

The manna fed to the Jews in the wilderness from heaven? It was the food of angels.

Evidently... angels have saliva and digestive abilities similar to our own.


Yet he gave a command to the skies above
and opened the doors of the heavens;
he rained down manna for the people to eat,
he gave them the grain of heaven.
Human beings ate the bread of angels;
he sent them all the food they could eat.'
Psalm 78:23-25​


Just because angels have the power to make themselves invisible? That does not mean they have no real body.

Genesis 18. Have you studied it? The angels that later went to Sodom to deliver Lot's family, ate human food!


He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your
servant by. Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your
feet and rest under this tree. Let me get you something to eat, so you
can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come
to your servant.”
“Very well,” they answered, “do as you say.”
So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. “Quick,” he said, “get three seahs of
the finest flour and knead it and bake some bread.”
Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant,
who hurried to prepare it. He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that
had been prepared, and set these before them.
While they ate, he stood near them under a tree." Genesis 18:3-8





grace and peace .............................


Important reference when so few are available.
 
Robert wadlow?
Andre the giant?

Genesis 6:4
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.

Scripture declares there were giants in the land before the sons of God married the daughters

Not offspring of angels
Thanks

Unless the term 'sons of God' carries that, as it seems to in Job about the dawn of creation.
 
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

He made them make and female being naturally attracted to each other!

Men see women as beautiful not angels
It’s a natural not supernatural attraction

Angels did not marry!
Angels did not have sex!
Angels do not have offspring!

You can provide no scripture that says they do or did!
Thanks


Jude and 2 Peter 2
 
Notice that Gen 1 is full of establishing the fact that species should reproduce after their kind. Makes you wonder if this was an issue, and how widely the experimenting went. This happens to match an indigenous account about cosmology from across the world, from the Sequalish near Seattle. An evil gets going among men in which they have the power of 'form-changing.' (A flaw in the account is that the Creator lets them do this). But this development is evil and harmful and the Creator retracts the ability to do so.

I don't know that it would be that difficult for angels to figure out that seed from one species could be transfered to another. There are some records of amazing technology from the pre-cataclysm world.
Humans and Klingons can't have offspring.
You should know that. Only in the movies and TV.
 
Notice that Gen 1 is full of establishing the fact that species should reproduce after their kind. Makes you wonder if this was an issue, and how widely the experimenting went. This happens to match an indigenous account about cosmology from across the world, from the Sequalish near Seattle. An evil gets going among men in which they have the power of 'form-changing.' (A flaw in the account is that the Creator lets them do this). But this development is evil and harmful and the Creator retracts the ability to do so.

I don't know that it would be that difficult for angels to figure out that seed from one species could be transfered to another. There are some records of amazing technology from the pre-cataclysm world.

I Googled Sequalish near Seattle and form changing... Nothing showed but some abstract sculpture.
 
Notice that Gen 1 is full of establishing the fact that species should reproduce after their kind. Makes you wonder if this was an issue, and how widely the experimenting went. This happens to match an indigenous account about cosmology from across the world, from the Sequalish near Seattle. An evil gets going among men in which they have the power of 'form-changing.' (A flaw in the account is that the Creator lets them do this). But this development is evil and harmful and the Creator retracts the ability to do so.

I don't know that it would be that difficult for angels to figure out that seed from one species could be transfered to another. There are some records of amazing technology from the pre-cataclysm world.
We know empirically that husbandry, selective breeding and domestication were some of the main technological advancements of prehistoric mankind.

We also know that both in history and prehistory, ranchers and farmers do NOT get along. The Amarna Letters, for instance, testify to repeated and ongoing conflict between the two groups in the 12th-14th century BC, in what today we would call Israel. That turns out to be a pretty significant place and time for the study of the Bible. :)
 
thanks, hope everyone is doing great tonight.

but as far as I know none of the manuscripts describe Adam specifically as a son of God.

if you look - the Greek manuscripts simply say " of Enos, of Seth, of Adam, of God. -
I have looked extensively at all of the Greek manuscripts describing the Luk 3 genealogy of Joseph

this is why the words " son of God " are all in italica / italics - in the King James Version when providing the genealogy listing. Also I believe the Catholic translation does not even include the " son of God " in italics

i am being a little rude and just taking up way too much space, may I wait for a few days and allow other believers here opportunity to post, after some time if you permit I would like to post about the early Job reference to when all the sons of God rejoiced on the day of creation.

but thank you so very much for taking time and consideration to someone whom you may disagree.
 
thanks, hope everyone is doing great tonight.

but as far as I know none of the manuscripts describe Adam specifically as a son of God.

if you look - the Greek manuscripts simply say " of Enos, of Seth, of Adam, of God. -
I have looked extensively at all of the Greek manuscripts describing the Luk 3 genealogy of Joseph

this is why the words " son of God " are all in italica / italics - in the King James Version when providing the genealogy listing. Also I believe the Catholic translation does not even include the " son of God " in italics

i am being a little rude and just taking up way too much space, may I wait for a few days and allow other believers here opportunity to post, after some time if you permit I would like to post about the early Job reference to when all the sons of God rejoiced on the day of creation.

but thank you so very much for taking time and consideration to someone whom you may disagree.
Like the Granville Sharp rule demands how something should translated, there may be a factor in translation that renders 'son of God' as an assumed translation, since its at the tail end of a long list of sons of another.

I would have to see how my Greek scholar pastor exegeted it, and the reasons for agreeing with Adam son of God.
 
I Googled Sequalish near Seattle and form changing... Nothing showed but some abstract sculpture.

Check the museum in Bainbridge WA near the ferry terminal. Otherwise there is Clark's NW INDIAN MYTH AND LEGENDS that has some of these things. They are not confined to one tribe. I've run into 'form-changing' several places.
 
thanks, hope everyone is doing great tonight.

but as far as I know none of the manuscripts describe Adam specifically as a son of God.

if you look - the Greek manuscripts simply say " of Enos, of Seth, of Adam, of God. -
I have looked extensively at all of the Greek manuscripts describing the Luk 3 genealogy of Joseph

this is why the words " son of God " are all in italica / italics - in the King James Version when providing the genealogy listing. Also I believe the Catholic translation does not even include the " son of God " in italics

i am being a little rude and just taking up way too much space, may I wait for a few days and allow other believers here opportunity to post, after some time if you permit I would like to post about the early Job reference to when all the sons of God rejoiced on the day of creation.

but thank you so very much for taking time and consideration to someone whom you may disagree.

The formula is a type of short-hand when 'son of...' is intended.
 
We know empirically that husbandry, selective breeding and domestication were some of the main technological advancements of prehistoric mankind.

We also know that both in history and prehistory, ranchers and farmers do NOT get along. The Amarna Letters, for instance, testify to repeated and ongoing conflict between the two groups in the 12th-14th century BC, in what today we would call Israel. That turns out to be a pretty significant place and time for the study of the Bible. :)

I think the sense of Gen 6, Jude, 2 Pet 2, is more deliberate, to defile God's creation, to change it into something else. A rabbi once said that the Law gave us humans a very specific limitation for sexual activity, so of course, forces hostile to God would be trying the reverse on any level possible.
 
Unless the term 'sons of God' carries that, as it seems to in Job about the dawn of creation.
When do angels marry?
When did God say to one of the angels “Thou art my son” this day I have begotten thee?
 
Jude says nothing about angels marrying or having sex or offspring

2 pet 2 just says angels sinned
Thanks

It does give this detail in Jude:

So also[ag] Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns,[ah] since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire[ai] in a way similar to[aj] these angels,[ak]

The humans followed the way of the rebellious angels. Best to read note 'ai'.

It has been said that the pursuit of the angels by the S&Gs implies a pre-existing experience; why would they even think it a possibility?
 
Back
Top