# The Nephilim



## Scott Bushey (Jan 17, 2017)

What position do you take on Gen 6:2?

If you take the view that these Nephilim were actual angels and not just men of Seth, do you think it was sinful for angels to mate w/ humankind given that it goes against the creation ordinance, i.e. 'be fruitful and multiply'?


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 17, 2017)

> Gen 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:6 And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."





Scott Bushey said:


> What position do you take on Gen 6:2?



The sons of God were children of covenant parents who loved the Lord (line of Seth - Gen. 5) 
The daughters of man were children of unbelievers (line of Cain - Gn. 4).

Same thing as warned about in Proverbs/Ephesians/etc. Covenant children were attracted to pagans not because of one's character but because of the 'daughters of men' were physically attractive and so they married them (intermarrying - NOT marrying those who are "in the Lord"; i.e. a Christian marrying a non-Christian).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jack K (Jan 17, 2017)

Two discussions from the Reformed Forum are the best discussions I've heard on this topic.
_Proclaiming Christ_, Genesis 6:1-8
_Christ the Center,_ The Sons and Daughters of Men in Genesis 6


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 17, 2017)

Andrew,
I held to the Sethite view as well; however, after reading some of the Book of Enoch and how Jude cites from this writing, it would seem as if that lends some respectable credence to the angelic view given that Jude is inspired.

Thoughts?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jan 17, 2017)

How can an angel procreate? Even if they used human bodies (possessed them) how would that create something other than what would have been procreated naturally anyways? To say otherwise would give the fallen angels power that God alone has.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 17, 2017)

Jude v.6 is talking about the reprobate angels abandoning their proper place in Heaven through their prideful attempt to "be like God" and take His throne, which wasn't their place.

Any other explanation than the Sethite one has to explain how angels who were not created to pro-create, and don't need to, had the parts in order to have relations with women. I suppose it could be argued that these essentially spiritual beings can appear as men, with male parts.

Also, the Sethite interpretation serves as an explanation of the fact that there was eventually only one godly family left, and gives therefore, also, a lesson on not marrying unbelievers.

Moreover, it seems that terrible bloodshed and offense against the image of God and the Sixth Commandment was the order of the day ( Gen. 6:11) in that that particular sin is noted. The Lord gave man the authority and command to take the life of the murderer after the Flood ( Genesis 9) in order to restrain this. The mention of giants and mighty men of fame would then serve as part of the introduction/ explanation of the violence, if the inhabited earth was divided up between these competing warlords.

One question I have is, Is Moses saying in verse four that stories of these Nephilim and men of fame somehow survived the Flood, and do we have any such pre-Flood stories/legends extant today in the ancient literature? Any suggestions on this? Do we have (some) of these stories, or do we have them in legendary form?

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 17, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Andrew,
> I held to the Sethite view as well; however, after reading some of the Book of Enoch and how Jude cites from this writing, it would seem as if that lends some respectable credence to the angelic view given that Jude is inspired.
> 
> Thoughts?



I would say the book of Enoch has no authority over how we interpret Scripture because we interpret Scripture with Scripture.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 17, 2017)

There may be elements of truth mixed with error in the Book of Enoch, and Jude was only citing the truth as the Holy Spirit taught him. Moreover, do we know that Jude was referencing Enoch at all but that God had shown Jude these things without Enoch?

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 18, 2017)

Andrew,
I was not implying that we use a non canonical book to validate scripture but that there is some credence to the historical data that the B of E provides as Jude thought it respectable in that light as he quotes from it.

Richard, I agree and thats my premise as well....it would be uncanny, but not impossible that God showed Enoch this in a vision, no doubt; but that he cites Enoch, in my opinion, lends more credence to the book itself.

From the B of E:

'121 Before these things Enoch was hidden, and no one of the children of men knew where he was hidden, and where he abode, and what had become of him. 2 And his activities had to do with the Watchers, and his days were with the holy ones.
3 And I Enoch was blessing the Lord of majesty and the King of the ages, and lo! the Watchers called me—Enoch the scribe—and said to me: 4 ‘Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, †declare† to the Watchers of the heaven who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto themselves wives:'

Robert Henry Charles, ed., Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 195–196.

Jude:

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Jud 14–15.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 18, 2017)

I have always held the view that demons possessed humans in Gen 6 to intermarry with the chosen line, thus endangering the promised seed. In my view, this is the only view that makes sense. It avoids the problem of whether angels can mate with humans (which I think is ridiculous), but it also allows Jude (and 1 Peter 3!) to have their full weight as favoring demonic involvement.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------



## lynnie (Jan 18, 2017)

It makes sense that fallen angels/demons could posses humans, and that maintains the gist of Enoch. But if manna is angel's food, and bread from heaven, can we rule out that angels cross over into our dimensions in ways we don't know about? Abraham fed them and they ate the food he gave them, They can eat our food. Good angels can appear as men. Can fallen angels take on bodily form as well, even so far as to impregnate women? I don't know, but I am hesitant to say it is impossible. Maybe something about the preflood world relating to fallen angels was different than after, and they no longer are able to do so. People lived to be 800, 900 years, and so human life itself was vastly different. We can only speculate.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 18, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> I have always held the view that demons possessed humans in Gen 6 to intermarry with the chosen line, thus endangering the promised seed. In my view, this is the only view that makes sense. It avoids the problem of whether angels can mate with humans (which I think is ridiculous), but it also allows Jude (and 1 Peter 3!) to have their full weight as favoring demonic involvement.



So in your opinion can this happen today? Also did the "demon" pass on some type of extraordinary stuff by the possession and procreation? I ask because I would look for another view if I were you.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 18, 2017)

"I would say the book of Enoch has no authority over how we interpret Scripture because we interpret Scripture with Scripture"

Solid scholarship often considers outside texts for any words or phrases that are difficult to interpret within the Biblical text. Examples include using Josephus to understand the persecution noted in the epistles. The apacrypha is used enough by scholars like G. Vos that you need to know the abbreviations for these extrabiblical works in some editions of his work. This by NO means elevates an outside text to a Biblical text. That's one of the reasons the defining of the Nephilim is debated -- we don't have a definitive answer in scripures and outside sources are tenuous at best.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 18, 2017)

Romans922 (Elder Barnes) alluded to the following in his first and early response in the thread, but please let me elaborate.

Why is this item (Gen.6:2-4) even in the text? Surely, there's more here in the narrative of the people God is saving for himself by his mighty acts than a footnote of historical trivia, something to make the pre-flood era exotic, right?

But first, note there's no causative relation established in the text between the "sons of God" and the giants/Nephilim. All the text establishes is that both a) the relations between "sons" and "daughters," and b) the existence of giants/Nephilim, are concurrent.

And, we are alerted to what sounds like carry-over into the age after the flood; the giants are not unknown in the present world. Or... because of a built-in ambiguity in the word "erets" (the word can refer to land in anything from the widest sense to the narrowest), might there be a present interest in the fact of Nephilim? Consider Num.13:33, "There also we saw the *Nephilim* (the sons of Anak are part of the *Nephilim*); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

There are two connections in this passage between what was going on in the pre-flood world, and what was taking place in the present--that is, in the days of Israel coming out of Egypt, when this text is given in the form that we now know it. The first is the persistent problem of intermarriage with idolatrous neighbors. The second is the presence of Nephilim in the land (erets).

Moses paints a picture of the pre-flood world and its problems, which leads to destruction of the world-that-was (2Pet.3:6), a picture that is analogous to Israel's present moment, resonant, relational.

As far as I can see, the one linguistic connection between "sons of God" and angels comes in Job 1:6 & 2:1 (and 38:7), where we observe what presumably are angels (undifferentiated?) presenting themselves before God. There we also find Satan come in before the Lord. But note here that a quite natural reading of the passage separates Satan from these "sons of God;" he is said to come _also. _So, is it natural (on the basis of 38:7) to say that angels both unfallen and fallen are properly designated "sons of God?" 38:7 points to a time before rebellion in heaven (Rev.12:7).

What is proposed, on the basis of the theory of angelic/human interspecies sexual relations (something out of star-trek, It seems to me), or even demonic possession theory--is that a name of glory, sons of God, is put upon the evilest of personalities whose aim is to destroy the work of God and overthrow his intent to save. May I put it mildly? This is a very curious expectation from reading the text or having it read to the hearing.

It is far more natural a reading--given the immediate background of two separate genealogies: the first of an ungodly sort; the second of the godly--that those who were constituted _adopted sons, _even Israel's new self-awareness (see Is.43:6; cf. 2Cor.6:18), that they should identify the "sons of God" with the godly heritage of Seth (also adopted), over against those whose identity was purely of the earth (1Cor.15:47) and of mankind in general condemned to sink forever back into the dust from which he was raised.

In short, the notion of angelic-human interbreeding is quite speculative. It certainly seems to contradict a very clear teaching of our Lord on marriage and the nature of angels, Mt.22:30, forcing an attenuated sense upon one Scripture or another for harmonious interpretation. Whereas, the warning connection between the times past and present (to the Exodus), and the connection to the immediate context require no gymnastics, neither contextual reach to the book of Job.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 3 | Edifying 4


----------



## MW (Jan 18, 2017)

To confirm Rev. Buchanan's exegesis, (1) There is nothing in the contextual use of the word Nephilim to suggest the individuals possessed super-human qualities. The word might be used in the same way the word "Spartan" was used to describe a military people. (2) The Nephilim are already in existence before the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. "After that" refers to a time following the period when the Nephilim are in the earth. (3) The word "became" is in italics as an attempt to fill out the contextual tense in which the pronoun is used. The Hebrew can naturally be read as simply explaining what had been brought forth as a result of the union with the daughters of men -- "they were mighty men which were of old, men of renown." There is no reason to take this as referring to the Nephilim. (5) The Nephilim, together with the fact that the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, together with the fact that the offspring of the sons of God became men of renown like Cain and Lamech, are all part of the picture of wickedness at the time. There is no reason to make an identification between the Nephilim and the offspring of the sons of God. (6) The sons of God are pointed out in the previous chapter as the line of believers who sprung from Adam's likeness as one made in the likeness of God, and who called on the name of the Lord. Luke 3:38 interprets this as meaning that Adam was the Son of God.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 2 | Edifying 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 18, 2017)

I disagree in part. If you hold to a Sethite view, you will read the text like I did prior to my most recent studies on the subject-which in part is presuppositional.

*6* And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 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.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 6.


Sons of God: is used in the OT to refer to heavenly beings; in the NT, the people of God.


*Job 1:6 *

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. 
_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Job 1:6.


*Job 38:7 *

7 When the morning stars sang together,

And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
_
The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Job 38:7.

'The “angel” interpretation is at once the oldest view and that of most modern commentators. It is assumed in the earliest Jewish exegesis (e.g., the books of 1 Enoch 6:2ff; Jubilees 5:1), LXX, Philo De Gigant 2:358), Josephus (Ant. 1.31) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QapGen 2:1; CD 2:17–19). The NT (2 Pet 2:4, Jude 6, 7) and the earliest Christian writers (e.g., Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen) also take this line.'

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MW (Jan 18, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Sons of God: is used in the OT to refer to heavenly beings; in the NT, the people of God.



The people of God are called His sons and His children in the Old Testament.

There are contextual reasons for understanding "sons of God" as referring to the heavenly court in Job, all of which are absent from the narrative in Genesis.

Moreover the Job narrative presents Satan as insinuating himself with the sons of God as if he were not to be numbered among them.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 18, 2017)

MW posted while I was typing away; my comments shouldn't detract from his.

Scott,
You're putting much to close a demand on the exact term "sons of God," treating it like a technical term, and also borrowing from a later and prosaic/poetic text (Job) to force a meaning on it in the earlier.

The precise timing of the lives of the characters in Job (patriarchal setting) tells us literally nothing about when it was written, and we certainly are not free to ascribe its origin to that age, or that Israel had possession of it; any more than we should think Shakespeare must have been a contemporary of Julius Caesar. We are forced to first consider the local context of the book; and then to note what later authors say when speaking not only in an exact parallel of language, but also similar language.

You pay scant attention to any distinction in Job between those who present themselves before God in chs.1&2, and on one hand the harmony of an unfallen chorus in Job 38:7, and on the other hand the presence of a single figure in chs.1&2 (Satan) who attends the audience of the sons of God, who is clearly _not _one of them (those texts say the sons of God, and _also _Satan). There is very little in Job 1&2 that indicates the general presence of both angels and demons before God.

Plus, if there is already an OT _literary_ _context _prior to Job the literary creation, then "sons of God" in Job is actually informed BY earlier literary references of the same idea. On that rule, it is just as likely to suppose the "sons of God" in Job 1&2 refer to all, both angels and men (!) who enjoy the beatific vision. Ch.38 would involve only the restriction of the language brought on by temporal order to those angelic beings (all then unfallen) who rejoiced to see the universe brought to life.

There are numerous texts in the OT that refer to God's people as his sons. Hear where he says "Thus saith Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: Ask me of the things that are to come; concerning *my* *sons*, and concerning the work of my hands, command ye me." Is.45:11; cf.Is.63:16; 64:8. Also Hos.11:1, "Out of Egypt I called *my son*." Ex.4:22-23, "Israel is *my son*.... Let *my son* go." 1Chron.17:13, "I will be his father, and he shall be *my* *son*," N.B. 22:10; 28:6. Ps.2:7,12. Ps.82:6.

Consider Deut. 14:1, "Ye are the children [literally, *sons*] *of* Jehovah your *God*." That's as plain as you could possibly want it. It is absurd to say that "sons of God" in reference to believers or saints is a NT idea.

Please rethink.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 18, 2017)

Bruce,
I am not saying that the term 'sons of God' is a NT idea-I never said that. I did say, however that the term 'sons of God' is only used in the OT 5 times and that being, in my opinion, to refer to spiritual beings the majority of the time, depending on your view.

I addressed Job 38:7. I believe these S of G are the heavenly host, not the local church singing.

Poole:


> 1. These stars are not here the objects or matter, but the authors or instruments, of God’s praises for the founding of the earth. 2. The stars were not created when the earth was founded, but upon the fourth day. 3. There is no satisfactory reason given why all the stars should be called _morning stars_, especially when there is but one star known by that name. Or rather, 2. The sons of God, as it here follows, the latter clause of the verse being explicatory of the former, as is most frequent in this and some other books of Scripture, to wit, the angels, who may well be called _stars_, as even men of eminent note, and particularly ministers of God’s word, are called, Dan. 8:10; 12:3; Rev. 1:16, 20; and _morning stars_, because of their excellent lustre and glory, for which they are called _angels_ of _light_, 2 Cor. 11:14, and Christ for the same reason is called the _Morning Star_, Rev. 22:16. _The sons of God;_ the blessed angels; for man not being yet made, God had then no other sons; and these are called _the sons of God_, partly because they had their whole being from him, and partly because they were made partakers of his Divine and glorious image. And _all_ these are said to join in this work of praising God, probably because none of the angels were as yet fallen from their first estate, though they did fall within a very little time after.



Job 2;1


> _There was a day_, i. e. a certain time appointed by God. _The sons of God_, i. e. the holy angels, so called Job 38:7; Dan. 3:25, 28, because of their creation by God, as Adam also was, Luke 3:38, and for their great resemblance of him in power, and dignity, and holiness, and for their filial affection and obedience to him. _Before the Lord_, i. e. before his throne, to receive his commands, and to give him an account of their negociations.



Matthew Poole, _Annotations upon the Holy Bible_, vol. 1 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 922.

Matthew Poole, _Annotations upon the Holy Bible_, vol. 1 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 1018.

In regard to the Deut citation, I am not addressing the cognates. Thats a whole nother chapter....

I have taken into consideration all the obvious citations; I believe one is harder pressed to hold to a Sethite view than an angelic one at this point.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 18, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> I am not addressing the cognates


What could you possibly mean? What is "cognate" about the exact term in question in Dt.14:1, namely "sons of God." That there are personal pronouns thrown in, and the divine name, is to no purpose for changing the language.

You're just wrong about this; and since so much seems to be riding on this very contention for you, you might want to reconsider how tenuously you hold to it. The fact that many translations choose a more inclusive term like "children" rather than "sons" is immaterial to the underlying Hebrew.

Ezk.16:20-21, "Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, *whom thou hast borne unto me*, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Were thy whoredoms a small matter, that thou hast slain *my children* [*sons*, again], and delivered them up, in causing them to pass through _the fire_ unto them?"

This is not a _late _development in the thinking of Israel or her prophetic spokesmen, as if on the verge of the NT. These are the oldest conceptions that the prophets are drawing on, and Deut. 14:1 is simply the strongest proof of it.

You argue that "sons of God" in Gen.6:2, 4 are depraved and disobedient angels, and you appeal to the supposed Job refs as proof. The Matthew Poole quote isn't helpful to your contention; the fact that one may restrict the term in Job 1,2 as Poole does, _exclusive to _the HOLY angels (and not to the entire host of heaven, which would include spirits of just men made perfect) does not free you up to allow the language to refer to "HOLY and UNHOLY angels" all together. That's a gratuitous proposal; and the appeal to authority hasn't upheld your contention.

What Poole has to say on Gen.6 might be relevant:


> In all ages there has been a peculiar curse of God upon marriages between professors of true religion and its avowed enemies. The evil example of the ungodly party corrupts or greatly hurts the other. Family religion is put an end to, and the children are trained up according to the worldly maxims of that parent who is without the fear of God. If we profess to be the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty, we must not marry without his consent.


Matthew Poole would not support your proposal, though you invoked him with respect to Job, and that appeal does not hold the weight you ask of it.

At this point, my goal is not to change your mind. But for readers from the outside, I think I have to answer the proposal.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 18, 2017)

'You're just wrong about this;'

Bruce, you act as if no one else in all of Christiandom held this view.....as if I hatched it or something; in fact, the majority hold to this view.


Fair enough; thanks for the interaction.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 18, 2017)

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5d82/238d6f9935fc2c043e0cfee79a494026ad97.pdf

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 18, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> 'You're just wrong about this;'
> Bruce, you act as if no one else in all of Christiandom held this view.....as if I hatched it or something; in fact, the majority hold to this view.
> Fair enough; thanks for the interaction.


Scott,
If your argument is based on what you've offered up as "proof," then it just doesn't hold. The fact you appeal to two passages of Scripture, both in the same book, as though they established a "technical use" for this language for the whole OT; then make an interpretive call concerning one passage at the beginning of the first book in the Bible... this should be shown to our readership as poor reasoning. They shouldn't follow it. No matter how many people have held it. And Matthew Poole isn't one of them.

Not one appeal to Job is the least demonstrative that God holds (or held) audiences with--get this--_angels and demons._ It is NOT there in the text, simple as that. M.Poole says that this reference is to--wait for it--holy angels, period. And I'm willing to grant his proposal. It's a red herring to focus on my suggestion the divine audience could even include others beside them; then you exclude them, and stuff the demons into the term.

You have to stuff them in, in order to make the Gen.2 reference be suitable to them. "Demons are sons-of-God, by a technical use of this terminology." And we know this...? "Well, because Gen.2 demands it." That's viciously circular.

Please, deal with Deut. 14:1. Teach us how that reference to "sons of God," which uses the SAME (not "cognate") terminology is somehow "exceptional" to the "technical use" established by Job and Genesis. Teach us why Luke in reference to Adam calls him a "Son of God," but this does not impact the "technical OT use" of "sons of God" for any-and-all subordinate spiritual intelligences, good or bad. The NT does not (certainly not Lk.3:38) come up with this term absent the OT background.

Then, we still haven't dealt with the matter of literary priority. There is little basis for thinking Job properly _informs _our reading in any part of Genesis. All the evidence points the other way. We understand Job better _because _we have Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch. If Job is the product of a much later age, inspired indeed, but looking back on a time long past, a sanctified rehearsal of an old story that dealt with inexplicable suffering; then it actually _borrows _imagery of angels (et al) who are in the presence of God--borrows from the extant Scriptural language of God's people.

In that case, the idea that "sons of God" could reasonably include demonic figures becomes incredible. No, for the idea to work at all, this use of language has to be as ancient--yea, more ancient and therefore conventional speech--before Moses even writes. And Job as literary product has to be as old or older than the Pentateuch. No such evidence exists for that notion; not unless one believes Job had to be written by a contemporary witness to the events it describes.

I'm not trying to "change your mind," in the sense that I don't feel like treating you like an enemy to be conquered. Who else or how many may hold the view you have embraced is not determinative to me. I simply have to challenge the weakness of argument put forward in its defense. I wish you would reconsider, but you are not my enemy.

This goofy notion, on the other hand, is early fantasy/sci-fi.

edit: [Having read the GTJ article, I'm not impressed by his treatment especially of the NT "evidence." The fact that early Christian interpretation is "mixed" is sufficient to show that the non-supernatural interpretation is as early as the other; I'm glad he quotes Augustin as one who pooh-poohs interpretations that rely on "fables" of apocrypha. Our side has the very best men.]

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2 | Edifying 2


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 19, 2017)

Known as the first edition of the Westminster Annotations, this might be helpful:

https://archive.org/stream/annotationsupona00down#page/n57/mode/2up

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 19, 2017)

This rendering of the Septuagint uses the term 'angels':












Taken from:

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## MW (Jan 19, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> This rendering of the Septuagint uses the term 'angels':



The author of the Book of Enoch and the person who translated this particular portion into Greek shared similar cultic influences. Neither spoke by divine inspiration. Instead of commending the interpretation it should demonstrate the capability of fallible man to fall into errors and the importance of going back to authentic sources. In this case the authentic source is the Old Testament in Hebrew, which was immediately inspired by God and preserved pure by His singular care and providence.

There is no sound exegetical basis for this Greek translation. The contextual reasons for understanding sons of God as "angels" in the book of Job are not present in the narrative of Genesis. It is a natural reading within the flow of a narrative to look for antecedent markers which point to the identification of specific referents; and the narrative flow from chapters 4-6 of Genesis points to human lines of descent and provides the necessary background information to the statement in chapter 6.

Reactions: Like 5 | Edifying 2


----------



## Edward (Jan 19, 2017)

Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. 

Neanderthals were stockier and had larger skulls than contemporary HS with stronger arms. In other words, men of renown. 

Not much post flood DNA. 

And a totally unprovable theory.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Jan 19, 2017)

This is a quote from the canon, written by the Holy Spirit:

_And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, *7* just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh......_

So how exactly did angels indulge in immorality and go after strange flesh? 

Why can't we take this literally? In some way angels committed immorality and perversion. Either by direct manifestation in 3D bodies, or by possession of such bodies. 

Jude directly quotes a passage in Enoch which says they are fallen angels and refers back to Gen 6 events, but we are supposed to think that in Jude, inerrant scripture by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit actually intended us to separate Jude's quote from the rest of the section, and we are supposed to know that Enoch talks about spirit being angels but Jude is really talking about people? 

"Goofy early fantasy Sci-fi?" The book of Jude??? 

I am shaking my head. Its like the angelic spirit realm doesn't even exist with some Reformed folk.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## MW (Jan 19, 2017)

lynnie said:


> So how exactly did angels indulge in immorality and go after strange flesh?



They didn't. Please read the text without any inclination to justify the strange exegesis of Genesis 6. It is clear that we are being given different examples of decisive and final judgment on sin. The sin is different in each case, but there is decisive and final judgment which is characteristic in each instance.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 19, 2017)

MW said:


> There is no sound exegetical basis for this Greek translation. The contextual reasons for understanding sons of God as "angels" in the book of Job are not present in the narrative of Genesis. It is a natural reading within the flow of a narrative to look for antecedent markers which point to the identification of specific referents; and the narrative flow from chapters 4-6 of Genesis points to human lines of descent and provides the necessary background information to the statement in chapter 6.



This is the definitive evidence for me, even more so than the science-fiction involved in the other view. It is just too natural a flow into the first verses of Gen. 6 from the immediately preceding lines of Seth and Cain in Gen. 4-5. First Cain's line is outlined, and we see men building the kingdom of men and fulfilling their own lusts - capped off in Lamech the Less's polygamy and murder. Then we see men beginning to call upon the name of the Lord, and Seth's line is outlined. Then the sons of God see that the daughters of men, etc., and the Lord is grieved that he made man because every imagination of their hearts is only evil continually. Nothing is said about the Lord being grieved that he made angels.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 19, 2017)

Just wondering, is there a reason not to reference Calvin's comments here or are we all familiar with his comments? I think he nails it. 




> Genesis 6:1
> 
> 1.And it came to pass, when men began to multiply. Moses, having enumerated in order, ten patriarchs, with whom the worship of God remained pure, now relates, that their families also were corrupted. But this narration must be traced to an earlier period than the five hundredth year of Noah. For, in order to make a transition to the history of the deluge, he prefaces it by declaring the whole world to have been so corrupt, that scarcely anything was left to God, out of the widely spread defection. That this may be the more apparent, the principle is to be kept in memory, that the world was then as if divided into two parts; because the family of Seth cherished the pure and lawful worship of Good, from which the rest had fallen. Now, although all mankind had been formed for the worship of God, and therefore sincere religion ought everywhere to have reigned; yet since the greater part had prostituted itself, either to an entire contempt of God, or to depraved superstitions; it was fitting that the small portion which God had adopted, by special privilege, to himself, should remain separate from others. It was, therefore, base ingratitude in the posterity of Seth, to mingle themselves with the children of Cain, and with other profane races; because they voluntarily deprived themselves of the inestimable grace of God. For it was an intolerable profanation, to pervert, and to confound, the order appointed by God. It seems at first sight frivolous, that the sons of God should be so severely condemned, for having chosen for themselves beautiful wives from the daughters of men. But we must know first, that it is not a light crime to violate a distinction established by the Lord; secondly, that for the worshippers of God to be separated from profane nations, was a sacred appointment which ought reverently to have been observed, in order that a Church of God might exist upon earth; thirdly, that the disease was desperate, seeing that men rejected the remedy divinely prescribed for them. In short, Moses points it out as the most extreme disorder; when the sons of the pious, whom God had separated to himself from others, as a peculiar and hidden treasure, became degenerate.
> That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious. The opinion also of the Chaldean paraphrase is frigid; namely, that promiscuous marriages between the sons of nobles, and the daughters of plebeians, is condemned. Moses, then, does not distinguish the sons of God from the daughters of men, because they were of dissimilar nature, or of different origin; but because they were the sons of God by adoption, whom he had set apart for himself; while the rest remained in their original condition. Should any one object, that they who had shamefully departed from the faith, and the obedience which God required, were unworthy to be accounted the sons of God; the answer is easy, that the honor is not ascribed to them, but to the grace of God, which had hitherto been conspicuous in their families. For when Scripture speaks of the sons of God, sometimes it has respect to eternal election, which extends only to the lawful heirs; sometimes to external vocations according to which many wolves are within the fold; and thought in fact, they are strangers, yet they obtain the name of sons, until the Lord shall disown them. Yea, even by giving them a title so honorable, Moses reproves their ingratitude, because, leaving their heavenly Father, they prostituted themselves as deserters.
> ...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Jan 19, 2017)

Scott- you might enjoy this link from MacArthur. He holds to Lane's position that the angels inhabited humans to have their children. A few snips below. 

I guess I'll quit after this. No time for war of the commentaries. I think the spirits in prison who sinned in the time of Noah are clearly fallen angels, not descendants of Seth. 

The only reason I care is that being amil, at the end of the mil there is a final unloosing of Satan for a time. And if things will be like it was in the days of Noah, and if-if- we are drawing near to that final time, I want to be ready theologically for what may be ahead. Of course I hope the post mils turn out to be right.....

https://www.gty.org/resources/bible-qna/BQ080612/between-death-and-the-resurrection

"The demons incarcerated in the abyss are undoubtedly the most wicked, vile, and perverted of all the fallen angels. Jude describes some of them as “angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode,” noting that God “has kept [them] in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 6–7). That passage describes certain fallen angels who left the angelic domain to indulge in sexual sin with humans, just as the men of Sodom and Gomorrah attempted to engage in perverted sex with angels (Gen. 19:1, 4–5)."

"Peter reveals when this angelic sin occurred:

-For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. (1 Peter 3:18–20).

The “spirits now in prison” in the abyss are those “who once were disobedient … in the days of Noah.” They are the demons who cohabited with human women in Satan’s failed attempt to corrupt the human race … (Gen. 6:1–4). That demons still fear being sent to the abyss is evident from the fact that some pled with Jesus not to send them there (Luke 8:31). That suggests that other demons have been incarcerated there since the events of Genesis 6." 

"The phrase “sons of God” (Heb., _bene haelohim_) always refers to angels in its other Old Testament uses (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss. 29:1; 89:6). The term is always used of those brought directly into being by God—not those who are procreated through human birth, such as Sethites, nobles, kings, or aristocracy. Heavenly spirits are being contrasted with earthly women. These, then, are fallen angels who acted perversely, overstepping the boundaries of their realm. They defied God by leaving their spirit world to enter the human realm (as Satan had entered the animal world in Eden). This is the first biblical record of demon-possession, demons indwelling people.

Those wicked spirits were drawn to females, whom they saw as “beautiful” in some perverse and lascivious way. They are “the daughters” mentioned in 6:1 (not a special class of women), whom the demons took for wives. The Hebrew is _Laqach,_ which describes marriage transactions (Gen. 4:19; 11:29; 12:19; 20:2–3; 25:1), not rape or fornication."


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 19, 2017)

lynnie said:


> I am shaking my head. Its like the angelic spirit realm doesn't even exist with some Reformed folk.



That's a little crude don't you think? Just because we don't see in this particular passage angels/demons being referred to doesn't mean we think the 'angelic spirit realm doesn't even exist.' 

The one doesn't determine the other.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jan 19, 2017)

Im still waiting for any evidence that angels can procreate (Jesus seemed pretty clear that they couldn't). If they can't, then why is it even an option as a legitimate interpretation of Gen 6?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 19, 2017)

MacArthur is wrong, when he says this "special phrase" *always* refers to angels, since minimally there is one plain contradiction of the contention in Deut.14:1; and numerous other paternal/filial references in and out of the Pentatueuch to the familial relation God establishes with his people. Here is proof that fascinations are tilting the exegetical outcome.

In terms of vocabulary of the same author, Deut. 14:1 alone is actually Mosaic; all the other references (chiefly poetic) are later in origin. MW has already pointed out that that context OF those other cases points within them to an angelic interpretation of those words at those places. And we've already seen several times the decisive proximal contextual judgment which should take precedence in Gen.6.

Then, there's the arbitrary constraint on excluding similar NT expressions from bringing any exegetical weight to bear. As if the NT writers were not steeped in OT vocabulary and concepts.

The question of the phrase, Jude 7, "in like manner;" it may refer to either of several elements in the passage.

1) Choosing to connect the indisputable facts of S&G to the supposed sin of the angels who left their station puts the inspired writer (allegedly) in dependence on an uninspired writer.

2) As Austin observes, the phrase most proximally within the text makes connection of _other cities _nearby to S&G, being sharers in their sin, and so their devastation.

3) Or, the phrase may make connection to the justice of God in the second case just as (in like manner as) the first.​I say with Calvin of the contrary position: it "is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious."

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 19, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> 2) As Austin observes, the phrase most proximally within the text makes connection of _other cities _nearby to S&G, being sharers in their sin, and so their devastation.
> 
> 3) Or, the phrase may make connection to the justice of God in the second case just as (in like manner as) the first.



I apologize - After re-reading the passage I decided option 3 was a more natural reading even of the AV rendering, and removed my post with the intent to replace it later, thinking no one had seen it. I still think the translation Lynnie quoted confuses matters by attributing the same act of going after strange flesh to the angels, rather than connecting the judgment received. This also fits better with the examples that follow of those who are spots in feasts of charity. The whole epistle is about judgment, and this provides the tie. It begins very early with a reference to those who were "ordained of old to this condemnation."


----------



## lynnie (Jan 19, 2017)

_Im still waiting for any evidence that angels can procreate (Jesus seemed pretty clear that they couldn't). If they can't, then why is it even an option as a legitimate interpretation of Gen 6?_

It is an option as demon possession/fallen angel possession. 

If people don't believe in demon possession that's up to them, and I don't care what people say about my posts, but calling Lane/Green Baggins "science fiction" or implying he is absurd is disgraceful, in my opinion. 

If they did mate with women directly, as opposed to demon possession, the FACT that they can and do eat food (such as with Abraham), and manna was angel's food, shows an ability to enter into our known material existence. They are created beings and all created beings need some form of energy imput for activity. God alone and only God is a self sufficient being. Angels are not God nor are they therefore self sufficient. I assume those in heaven may be able to absorb energy from God's radiance (like plants use sunlight). Perhaps they can live off cosmic rays, or starlight, or some form of energy unknown to us. Maybe they just eat manna. We hardly know anything at all about them except glimpses, and yet people seem to proclaim that they can eat food but they can't mate with women? If their ( holy) bodies can chew and swallow and talk, then their ( fallen) bodies can maybe do other things as well. Jesus said there is no marriage of angels in heaven, but he didn't say the fallen ones on earth can't do what Enoch said they did.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 19, 2017)

lynnie said:


> but calling Lane/Green Baggins "science fiction" or implying he is absurd is disgraceful


Lynnie,
Here is a case where "niceness" is being used in an attempt to shut down strong disagreement. Lane has my utmost respect as a man, a minister, and an intellect; just as Calvin acknowledges the "learned men" he has in mind. That respectful nod does not prevent him from separating men from their ideas, which in this case he calls "absurd... ravings so gross and prodigious." My sentiments are with Augustin as well in this matter.

Perhaps I am wrong to travel in these men's company, but I must let Lane, and Scott, and JMA, and you go your way in this question, along with others. And I will say what my fellow travelers say about what seems like an amazingly wild swing into speculations unmoored from what the majority of the soundest men of our tradition have judged Scripture to teach.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## earl40 (Jan 20, 2017)

lynnie said:


> If they did mate with women directly, as opposed to demon possession, the FACT that they can and do eat food (such as with Abraham), and manna was angel's food, shows an ability to enter into our known material existence.



Manna is angel's food? Angels are spiritual beings who do not eat or drink in their natural spiritual state. Jesus showed Thomas that He arose, in His body, by eating food.


----------



## lynnie (Jan 20, 2017)

earl:

Psalm 78:
24 He rained down manna upon them to eat And gave them food from heaven. 25 Man did eat the bread of angels; He sent them food in abundance. 

Contra- Lane refers to demon possession allowing them to use human bodies. I don't see how demon possession is absurd in the least. The speculation you refer to as asburd sci fi would be angels mating directly. Just to clarify. Both are different from the Seth line, but one is clearly possible biblically and one is more speculative- unless you put Jude and Peter and Enoch together in which case it isn't speculative at all.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jan 20, 2017)

Eating is one thing, but being able to inseminate "angel" DNA is absurd. Even if they possessed a body how did they transfer their DNA as opposed to the possessed person's to bring about giants?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 20, 2017)

Lynnie,
If you do a control-F search for science fiction/sci-fi in this thread, as I did, I think you will find that no one ever actually referred to the demon-possession view as such. We were talking about the physical-descent view. To be perfectly honest, with all due respect intended to you and Rev. Keister, I did not take the possession view (which I had never heard of before this thread) seriously enough to mention it at all.

How does the possession view account for "they took to themselves wives of all which they chose"? Possessing a man in the conjugal act is not "taking a wife." Even your quotation from Dr. MacArthur points out that this terminology refers to actual marriages.

As for Scott's view: why is this event immediately followed by God being displeased that he made "man" because man is "flesh"? Why isn't God displeased with angels, or man/angel hybrids, or women who marry angels instead? Does this view undermine the historic Reformed application of "every imagination of his heart was only evil continually (i.e., total depravity)? Perhaps this is only true of men with angelic DNA and there is some good in pure men. And where did all the godly men from the previous chapter go?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2017)

> As for Scott's view: why is this event immediately followed by God being displeased that he made "man" because man is "flesh"? Why isn't God displeased with angels, or man/angel hybrids, or women who marry angels instead? Does this view undermine the historic Reformed application of "every imagination of his heart was only evil continually (i.e., total depravity)? Perhaps this is only true of men with angelic DNA and there is some good in pure men. And where did all the godly men from the previous chapter go?



These angels that took on flesh were demons; they were not, in my estimation, given the creation order, Godly angels.
Since these demons took possession of human bodies, they still remained men in most regards; they could fornicate, eat etc. They had equipment to reproduce.

In Gen 19, how is it that the angels were sought after for sexual gratification if in fact the idea wasn't tangible? Surely they knew the difference between virgins and male angels.

Does it undermine the doctrine of total depravity? I don't believe so.

Angels that came to Earth are much akin to Christ taking on flesh, sans the deity factor.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2017)

> THE SUPERNATURAL INTERPRETATION Among extant materials interpreting Gen 6:2, 4, the supernatural view is older, though we cannot be sure in which work it appears first, the LXX or I Enoch. LXX The Old Greek version of the Pentateuch, traditionally known as the LXX, was probably produced in the middle of the 3rd century B.C.4 Extant MSS of Genesis render Myhlxh ynb variously as ui[oi< tou? qeou? and [email protected] tou? qeou?.5 The latter alternative clearly moves the text in a supernatural direction, even though [email protected] sometimes means a human messenger (e.g., Gen 32:3, 6). This variant is already cited and discussed by Philo,6 so apparently predates the 1st century A.D. In Gen 6:4 Mylpn is translated gi<gantej; without textual variation. The Greek word, usually rendered "giant," indicates a warrior of
> large stature7 and translates rbg in Gen 10:8, 9.
> 
> I Enoch
> ...



TAKEN FROM : https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5d82/238d6f9935fc2c043e0cfee79a494026ad97.pdf


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 20, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Since these demons took possession of human bodies, they still remained men in most regards; they could fornicate, eat etc. They had equipment to reproduce.



So the answer to my question is "yes:" It was not mere men who imagined only evil continually - It was demons and their demonic offspring! Perhaps purebred men have some good inside them. Perhaps that is why God delivered Noah - he did not have any angel/demon blood.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2017)

You miss the point, my friend; that being, demon possession is real and it happens in every age. Why would u think that demons do not think evil continually? The scriptures tell us that they do. Is it possible that you have talked with a Godly angel today, being unaware? If you were unaware, wouldn't this person have to have been in the flesh?

In reference to Noah-the elect cannot be taken captive like this as a house divided cannot stand. 'Greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world'.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 20, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> You miss the point, my friend; that being, demon possession is real and it happens in every age. Why would u think that demons do not think evil continually? The scriptures tell us that they do. Is it possible that you have talked with a Godly angel today, being unaware? If you were unaware, wouldn't this person have to have been in the flesh?
> 
> In reference to Noah-the elect cannot be taken captive like this as a house divided cannot stand. 'Greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world'.



I did not miss the point. Of course devils think evil continually. But if this verse is about demons or their progeny, then the doctrine of total depravity as it pertains to men is undermined.

I cannot keep track - I thought you were arguing for physical manifestation of demons? Where did possession come into play?


----------



## earl40 (Jan 20, 2017)

lynnie said:


> earl:
> 
> Psalm 78:
> 24 He rained down manna upon them to eat And gave them food from heaven. 25 Man did eat the bread of angels; He sent them food in abundance.



How many teeth do angels have? (Real question BTW)  Make no mistake I take that God literally fed Israel in the wilderness, but to take vs. 25 in a wooden literal fashion as some type of angel bread that angels eat insinuates angels have physical bodies which they do not naturally.

As Matthew Henry says about angel food...."Justly might God take it ill that they should distrust him when he had been so very kind to them that he had rained down manna upon them to eat, substantial food, daily, duly, enough for all, enough for each. Man did eat angels’ food, such as angels, if they had occasion for food, would eat and be thankful for"


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2017)

Angels are spiritual beings. The angels in Gen 19 were in the form of flesh, yet still fully angels. They present themselves in the form of flesh or take 'possession' of flesh.



> Why isn't God displeased with angels, or man/angel hybrids, or women who marry angels instead?



In an absolute sense, God was displeased with both at this point; however, the angels had already been punished for their evil rebellion and since they were flesh, God destroyed all. I see no reason why this levels any attack on TD.

Robert Leighton 1611-1684 seems to take the angelic view as well:


----------



## earl40 (Jan 20, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> The angels in Gen 17 were in the form of flesh, yet still fully angels.



Where in Gen 17 are you speaking of?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2017)

My bad. Gen 19


----------



## MW (Jan 20, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Robert Leighton 1611-1684 seems to take the angelic view as well:



Is that Robert Leighton or Griffith Thomas? Leighton wrote on 1 Peter.

Don't you think, instead of trying to accumulate any and every supporter who might lend an air of respectability to the groundless theory that time would be better spent considering the solid and weighty arguments which have been brought against it?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2017)

Matt,
Thanks for all you bring to the table. Bruce, u2. 

Yes, It was GT. I stand corrected. Matt, to be honest, I held the Sethite view a week ago; however, in my estimation, from the scriptures I have read, the way they are worded, looking at some of the original languages, etc, I come away w/ my present condition. I will add finally, in my estimation, both ideas are reputable. I am at a place where I wouldn't argue for any specific position per se at this point. This thread was an exercise of sorts to see if I was able to defend the position. So, having said that, I would say that I remain in the middle. I know you call the idea a 'theory' and 'groundless', to which I would have saiid that as well, a week ago. However, it is not like no one in the church held the view. In that, since most all of the early church held to the angelic position, I thought I would test it under some scrutiny. One cannot hold me guilty of sin in this regard; it should encourage you that I am endeavoring to know the Lord and His word. Many of the antiquarians held to the view-great men of faith. Why can't I side with them on the subject (today)? 

My theology has changed over the years. I am cognizant of that. No one's theology should be static. We are all growing in grace, in faith. I thank God for you all; in fact, as you all know, I have quoted you and Bruce in many papers I have written-I thank God for you and this site. Though I no longer have my teeth in PB, it remains a valuable resource for me.

So, pray for me as I continue to work through some of these things. 

Love you, brother.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Jan 20, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> it should encourage you that I am endeavoring to know the Lord and His word. Many of the antiquarians held to the view-great men of faith. Why can't I side with them on the subject (today)?



Scott, I am encouraged by your earnestness in seeking to understand the revelation of God and His will, but it should be conducted for the edification of faith. You earlier spoke of presuppositions. I prefer to think of it in terms of contextual reading and responsible interpretation which gives consideration to a wide range of exegetical and systematic factors. One should not abandon sensible, well-grounded conclusions in favour of something that has the support of those who are thinking outside the box of reasonable interpretation. You will find men of faith who haven't agreed on the unity of the covenant of grace, or even on the doctrines of grace. One doesn't just get up and follow them because they happen to have a few respectable names on their supporter's list. You can obviously side with the "angel" interpretation if you so choose, but I think the choice is ill-advised.

Matthew, not Matt.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2017)

Thanks Matthew, but I didn't come to the conclusion based upon 'support of those who are thinking outside the box of reasonable interpretation'. I will continue to study the subject and pray. In my estimation, this is what I am walking away from the idea with-thats today, but at this point, this is where I am. We will see tomorrow if God allows me another breath


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2017)

Exposing the deficiencies of the Sethite view isn’t difficult. The position is deeply flawed. First, Genesis 4:26 never says the only people who “called on the name of the Lord” were men from Seth’s lineage. That idea is imposed on the text. Second, as we’ll see in the next chapter, the view fails miserably in explaining the Nephilim. Third, the text never calls the women in the episode “daughters of Cain.” Rather, they are “daughters of humankind.” There is no actual link in the text to Cain. This means that the Sethite view of the text is supported by something not present in the text, which is the very antithesis of exegesis. Fourth, there is no command in the text regarding marriages or any prohibition against marrying certain persons. There are no “Jews and Gentiles” at this time. 6 Fifth, nothing in Genesis 6:1–4 or anywhere else in the Bible identifies people who come from Seth’s lineage with the descriptive phrase “sons of God.” That connection is purely an assumption through which the story is filtered by those who hold the Sethite view. A close reading of Genesis 6:1–4 makes it clear that a contrast is being created between two classes of individuals, one human and the other divine. When speaking of how humanity was multiplying on earth (v. 1 ), the text mentions only daughters (“daughters were born to them”). The point is not literally that every birth in the history of the earth after Cain and Abel resulted in a girl. 7 Rather, the writer is setting up a contrast of two groups. The first group is human and female (the “daughters of humankind”). Verse 2 introduces the other group for the contrast: the sons of God. That group is not human, but divine. There are more deficiencies in this viewpoint than I will take time here to expose, but the point is evident. The Sethite hypothesis collapses under the weight of its own incoherence. 

Source: Heiser, _Unseen Realm_


----------



## MW (Jan 20, 2017)

For your benefit, Scott, I will interact with the material you have posted, but I hope you will seriously consider what is said. You objected to the Sethite view on the basis of presuppositions. The person from whom you have quoted has a paper on Ps. 82 arguing that there are "divine beings" other than Jehovah, and that these are a part of His “divine council.” Instead of using the Bible to establish this presupposition he argues from the idolatrous worldview of the ancient near east, which the Bible explicitly opposes. "There is but one only, the living and true God."



Scott Bushey said:


> First, Genesis 4:26 never says the only people who “called on the name of the Lord” were men from Seth’s lineage. That idea is imposed on the text.



This is irrelevant. The line of descent is stated from Adam through Seth to Noah in distinct opposition to the line of Cain. The two lines are clearly distinct. The line of Cain is the progenitor of polygamy and violence. The line of Seth maintains the promise of the seed. Seth is named as another seed appointed of God in the place of Abel. And Noah is named as the one who will bring comfort.



Scott Bushey said:


> Second, as we’ll see in the next chapter, the view fails miserably in explaining the Nephilim.



It only fails miserably if one is open to the possibility that there might be out-of-the-ordinary, super-human procreation. There is no reason for one to believe in this possibility if he has genuinely accepted the Genesis account of things producing after their kind.



Scott Bushey said:


> Third, the text never calls the women in the episode “daughters of Cain.” Rather, they are “daughters of humankind.” There is no actual link in the text to Cain. This means that the Sethite view of the text is supported by something not present in the text, which is the very antithesis of exegesis.



The text never calls the sons of God in the episode "divine beings," so this criterion equally weighs against the author's view. But there is a link in the text to Cain; it is the flow of the narrative itself, which has established the two lines of human descent and forms the background to the statement in question. There is no mention of "divine beings" in the narrative-flow; one is required to produce the idea of "divine beings" out of thin air.



Scott Bushey said:


> Fourth, there is no command in the text regarding marriages or any prohibition against marrying certain persons. There are no “Jews and Gentiles” at this time.



This objection is to no avail. There was no prohibition of violence, and yet it is marked out for special condemnation.



Scott Bushey said:


> Fifth, nothing in Genesis 6:1–4 or anywhere else in the Bible identifies people who come from Seth’s lineage with the descriptive phrase “sons of God.”



The author has committed an oversight. Adopting the interpretation that "son of" in Luke 3:23, is to be read through the whole series of genitives, we find that Luke makes a special point of tracing the lineage of our Lord back to Adam, the Son of God.



Scott Bushey said:


> A close reading of Genesis 6:1–4 makes it clear that a contrast is being created between two classes of individuals, one human and the other divine.



The text says nothing about "divine beings." The flow of the narrative contains nothing about "divine beings." The idea of "divine beings" is always identified by the Bible as a species of false worship. Not to mention the fact that the author's view would make it impossible to believe that Jesus Christ is true God, because any reference to Christ's divinity might be construed as a reference to a "lesser god," which of course is Arianism, and to be outrightly rejected.

Reactions: Edifying 4


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 21, 2017)

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DivineCouncilLBD.pdf


----------



## lynnie (Jan 21, 2017)

Already, right now today, there are labs that are making human animal hybrids ( although allegedly destroying them at a certain early stage, which I personally don't believe for one second) , and working on ways to make souped up designer babies. And this is just people doing it, not brilliant fallen angels.

The evidence of superior technology before the flood (items in the sediment layers) and for a while after, including airplanes and space ships and nuclear power is considerable.

It's barely been the most recent moments of our modern history post Babel ( probably post Noah was high tech) that we discovered all the invisible powers we use every day. Can you imagine John Calvin if I told him that I could talk into a little black box in my hand and somebody in China could hear it and talk back? He would call that absurd. So much modern tech used to be sci fi. 

How can anybody say what an angel can't do? We don't even know how they go from visible to invisible, or how they can move from heaven to earth assuming heaven is light years away outside the galaxies. We don't even know where Heaven is or what exactly it is like. We know angels are created and therefore need "food" or some sort of energy to keep moving and we don't even know what their power source is. 

Can you imagine telling somebody 200 years ago that you could make paper with a written message come out of a little box? Or that a little machine could make a small three dimensional exact replica of something across the ocean, just from an invisible message traveling in the air? 

Satan is the prince of the power of the air. His name implies an ability to manipulate invisible yet created reality, and maybe there is a lot more out there than the electromagnetic spectrum. To say an angel can't take on human form and impregnate a woman is like saying modern technology can't exist. Right now a lab technician can impregnate a virgin with an embryo, and given enough time the embryo will carry the genes for a souped up strong, big-maybe giant- soldier or whatever. It is no wonder God wiped out the earth before Noah, and when I read about what they are doing in labs I think we are getting real close to something similar. 

It is presumptuous to think we have the invisible world all figured out. We don't.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 21, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DivineCouncilLBD.pdf



Scott,

You have proffered a video without supporting commentary that would demonstrate the author of the video actually understands what is being claimed therein. I am wondering if you have read Heiser's book. I have. This man is the main reason why I actually had to stop subscribing to Logos's _Bible Study_ magazine.

Let's take a peek at some of what Heiser has to say in his book.

On Psalm 82:1, his _locus classicus_ around which he has constructed an entire "_divine council worldview_" doctrine, Logos employee Heiser, in his book, _The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible_, Lexham Press September, 2015, (see also his book's companion site: http://www.moreunseenrealm.com/) writes in various sections...

Many Christians who object to the plain meaning of the Hebrew text of Psalm 82 assert that this psalm is actually describing God the Father speaking to the other members of the Trinity. This view results in heresy. I’m confident you can see why— the psalm has God judging the other elohim for corruption (vv. 2– 4). The corrupt elohim are sentenced to die like humans (v. 7). These observations alone should make any Christian who cares about the doctrine of God abandon this idea. It has other flaws. The end of the psalm makes it evident that the elohim being chastised were given some sort of authority over the nations of the earth, a task at which they failed. This doesn’t fit the Trinity.

The Bible makes it clear that divine beings can (and did) assume physical human form, and even corporeal flesh, for interaction with people, but that is not their normal estate. Spiritual beings are “spirits” (1 Kgs 22: 19– 22; John 4: 24; Heb 1: 14; Rev 1: 4). In like manner, humans can be transported to the divine realm (e.g., Isa 6), but that is not our normal plane of existence. As I explained earlier in this chapter, the word elohim is a “place of residence” term. It has nothing to do with a specific set of attributes.

Another misguided strategy is to argue that statements in the Old Testament that have God saying “there is none besides me” mean that no other elohim exist. This isn’t the case.

Humankind was created as God’s image. If we think of imaging as a verb or function, that translation makes sense. We are created to image God, to be his imagers. It is what we are by definition. The image is not an ability we have, but a status. We are God’s representatives on earth. To be human is to image God.​
Psalm 82:1 is especially interesting since elohim occurs twice in that single verse. In Psalm 82: 1, the first elohim must be singular, since the Hebrew grammar has the word as the subject of a singular verbal form (“ stands”). The second elohim must be plural, since the preposition in front of it (“ in the midst of”) requires more than one. You can’t be “in the midst of” one. The preposition calls for a group— as does the earlier noun, assembly. The meaning of the verse is inescapable: The singular elohim of Israel presides over an assembly of elohim.

But since I knew my Hebrew grammar, I saw immediately that the second instance [_nb_: _elohim_] needed to be translated as plural. There it was, plain as day: _The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly— a pantheon— of other gods._​
I soon discovered that the ground I was exploring was a place where evangelicals had feared to tread. The explanations I found from evangelical scholars were disturbingly weak, mostly maintaining that the gods (elohim) in the verse were just men— Jewish elders— or that the verse was about the Trinity. I knew neither of those could be correct.

A quick read of Psalm 82 informs us that God has called this council meeting to judge the elohim for corrupt rule of the nations.​
As we proceed, I’ll be referring to the “divine council worldview” of the biblical writers. This phrase and others like it refer to God’s rule over all things, visible or invisible, through his intelligent agents— his imagers— both human and nonhuman. Since, as we will discover, it was God’s original intention for humanity (and thus humanity’s original destiny) that they rule and reign with him as part of his heavenly nonhuman household, human affairs are encompassed in the divine council worldview. In biblical theology, there is a symbiosis of both realms, whether in loyal service to God, or in spiritual conflict in the wake of divine and human rebellions.​
The odds are very high that you’ve never heard that Psalm 82 plays a pivotal role in biblical theology (including New Testament theology). I’ve been a Christian for over thirty years and I’ve never heard a sermon on it.​
How are we supposed to understand the identity of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6: 1– 4? Why did Jesus angrily rebuke Peter by saying “Get behind me, Satan”? Why does Paul tell the Corinthian church to stop arguing because they would someday “rule over angels”? There are lots of explanations offered by pastors and teachers of the Bible for these and other strange passages, but most are offered without consideration of how that explanation works with the rest of the Bible, with passages strange or not-so-strange.​
...my contention in this book is that if it’s weird, it’s important.​
Job 38...
When God laid the foundations of the earth, the “sons of God” were there, shouting for joy. But who are the sons of God? Obviously, they aren’t humans. This is before the creation of the world. We might think of them as angels, but that wouldn’t be quite correct.​
In the ancient Semitic world, sons of God (Hebrew: beney elohim) is a phrase used to identify divine beings with higher-level responsibilities or jurisdictions. The term angel (Hebrew: mal?ak) describes an important but still lesser task: delivering messages.​
The original morning stars, the sons of God, saw the beginning of life as we know it— the creation of earth. Right from the start, then, God has company— other divine beings, the sons of God. Most discussions of what’s around before creation omit the members of the heavenly host. That’s unfortunate, because God and the sons of God, the divine family, are the first pieces of the mosaic.​
God has created a host of nonhuman divine beings whose domain is (to human eyes) an unseen realm. And because he created them, he claims them as his sons, in the same way you claim your children as your sons and daughters because you played a part in their creation.

Scholars have learned a lot from this library [_nb_: clay tablets of Ugarit], about both Ugarit and the content of the Old Testament. The chief deity of Ugarit was El— one of the names that appear in the Old Testament for the God of Israel. El had a divine council whose members were “the sons of El,” and he had a coruler, Baal. Since El’s and Baal’s duties sometimes appeared to overlap, and since Ugarit was so geographically close to Israel, it was small wonder that Baal worship was such a problem in Israel. The discoveries at Ugarit put all of that Old Testament history in context. El and Baal were, to say the least, markedly different in behavior from Yahweh of Israel. But the literature of Ugarit proved very illuminating in other respects, especially as to where El, Baal, and the Ugaritic divine council lived and held court.

As we’ll see in the ensuing chapters, the biblical version of the divine council at the divine abode includes a human presence. The theological message is that the God of Israel created this place not just as his own domain, but because he desires to live among his people. Yahweh desires a kingdom rule on this new Earth that he has created, and that rule will be shared with humanity. Since the heavenly council is also where Yahweh is, both family-households should function together. Had the fall not occurred, humanity would have been glorified and made part of the council.
​At his companion site,  Heiser writes:

I realize that, since angels and demons are created beings, they must be made of something because there can only be one uncreated being . . . and that angels and demons might be from another dimension of reality – and so angels are demons might be thought of as natural (i.e., material), making supernatural an imprecise word.​
I have no inclination to dissect his book to note the numerous instances wherein his claim to disavow presuppositions in order to _let the text speak for itself_ is just plain wrong, especially given his reliance upon the Lexham translation of Scripture, and assumes exactly what he complains about. I do think that searching about for men who appear to be in agreement with your position is not serving the discussion, especially when these sources establish just how far beyond the bounds of historical-grammatical hermeneutics these men have traveled. Let's not turn the discussion into a war of competing appeals to others.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 21, 2017)

Patrick,
You may close the thread as you see fit. Nothing left to say on my behalf.

Thanks all for your counsel.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Jan 21, 2017)

I don't want to sound overly simplistic, but I would encourage all subscribers to the angelic theory to read and think through two passages: Gen. 19:30-38 and Deuteronomy 2. Consider all the names, peoples, and places referenced in relation to giants. Look at preserving the seed. Review the genealogy and land distribution.
________________

_26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Gen 1:26, 27)_

_1.And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.
2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord. (Gen 4:1,2, 25, 26)_

_1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters (Gen 5:1-4)

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and *daughters were born unto them*,
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.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
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.
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the Lord that he had *made man on the earth*, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the Lord said, *I will destroy man* whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (Gen 6:1-7)_
______________

I think the readings are plain. God creates man and woman, they have sons and daughters, some of whom are godly, while others are not. Some of those born were taller and mightier than others and they are referenced in the Scriptures as part of the ungodly line. I don't find "sons of God" or "daughters of men" as overtly technical. In fact, Eve calls Cain "a man from the Lord." A very straightforward reading suggests that sons of God may refer to both the line of Seth and the line of Cain, though the two lines are helpful in understanding what's taking place. But I wouldn't confine myself to an idea that giants (men, that is) are the product a strange angelic relations.

A daughter of Seth may come unto a son of Cain, which may result in a "giant or Emims or Anakims or Zamzummims or Nephilims." Noah was born at a time when many from the line of Seth had existed. Yet God waited to bring the flood and only saved Noah and his his household because of the increase of wickedness. Giants were born after the flood. Angels did not supernaturally inhabit/possess only male bodies (which sounds like a sexist interpretation) in order to make men (and possibly women) taller in body height in the same way the angelic sexual relations was not necessary to extend life expectancy. This was life "in those days/in times past/old time." Deuteronomy and Joshua speak of a remnant of the giants. Goliath is recorded as a very tall person in Holy Writ.

Here is another thought that I think some don't always flesh out. We know angels are not given in marriage on the authority of God's Word. But some have drawn strange connections to possible procreative ability (outside of marriage). But our text restricts these relations to marital ones. It expressly states that "they took them wives of all which they chose." This reads rather plain.

Also, God explicitly is concerned with destroying man (and beast), not some superhuman mutation of the created order. God does this repeatedly everywhere giants and other wicked male and female sinners are mentioned in the OT.

Furthermore, if one is to attempt at using "sons of God" and "daughters of men" as a technical term that is employed differently in the OT and NT, an argument which Reverend Buchanan has already addressed, I would feebly add that the interpretation contradicts itself. For "sons of God" to be established by either Genesis 6 or Job, regardless of provenance, one would have to hold that "sons of God" are fallen angels in Genesis but heavenly beings in Job, suggesting that giants are the sons of God, not the sons of Anak, as Numbers 13:33 inarguably states. But maybe one suggests that the sons of Anak are actually just later descendants from the sons of God (fallen angels). That's possible. But the sons of God in Job are referenced apart from Satan in "the presence of the Lord" and would be in existence after the Fall. This "technical language," replete throughout Scripture, is first mentioned in Genesis 3 and 4. In both contexts, it refers to indisputably human men and women: Adam and Eve (chap 3) and Cain (chap 4) encountering God. I am not arguing for an interpretation of Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 as humans (and angels), though I don't think it would cause much issue if I were. I just find it intellectually inconsistent to maintain the position from Job when other markers should then take one away from that conclusion.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 22, 2017)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> I don't want to sound overly simplistic, but I would encourage all subscribers to the angelic theory to read and think through two passages: Gen. 19:30-38 and Deuteronomy 2. Consider all the names, peoples, and places referenced in relation to giants. Look at preserving the seed. Review the genealogy and land distribution.
> ________________
> 
> _26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
> ...


You have to remember, though, that "sexism" is not a category or standard by which to judge whether something is biblical or not. It is very much a post-Enlightenment concept that is tied to "feminism" which is also a post-Enlightenment concept. 

The Bible does not concern itself with whether we are sexist or not, but just that we treat men, women and children appropriately out of love for God and His image, mankind.

I see from Etymonline, the online etymological dictionary, that "feminism" as advocacy of "women's rights" only dates from 1895, and the word "sexist" only dates from 1965.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Jan 22, 2017)

Peairtach said:


> You have to remember, though, that "sexism" is not a category or standard by which to judge whether something is biblical or not. It is very much a post-Enlightenment concept that is tied to "feminism" which is also a post-Enlightenment concept.
> 
> The Bible does not concern itself with whether we are sexist or not, but just that we treat men, women and children appropriately out of love for God and His image, mankind.
> 
> ...



I appreciate that you found one word in the entire post and decided to respond. It doesn't matter from whence the word originated. If the Bible says "all of mankind" or "men" and the text includes women, the interpretation for only men would be sexist. You know, because we have a word that describes favoring of one sex over another.

If the text is only speaking about men exclusively and someone says that the view is sexist, then so be it. It doesn't matter because that's what Scripture teaches. Examples are complementarianism, submission, "weaker vessel," etc. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 24, 2017)

MW said:


> Matthew, not Matt.



It seems like I heard Timothy McGlynn refer to you as _Matt. _


----------



## MW (Jan 24, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> It seems like I heard Timothy McGlynn refer to you as _Matt. _



The Scottish propensity to pet names, perhaps.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 21, 2017)

Further to my earlier post:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-nephilim.91956/page-2#post-1124628

See this helpful critique of Heiser's many assumptions:

http://bnonn.com/constructive-criticism-of-the-unseen-realm-1/
http://bnonn.com/constructive-criticism-of-the-unseen-realm-2/
http://bnonn.com/constructive-criticism-of-the-unseen-realm-3/
http://bnonn.com/constructive-criticism-of-the-unseen-realm-4/

Reactions: Like 1


----------

