New look days of Noah and the sons of God

[Ps82]

This is what we are debating Ps82! Right now!

LOL. Yes ... but I still hold to that idea. Just laughing at myself due to how strongly I feel about my interpretations.

And you have already agreed that "sons of God" refers to angels, in Job and in the NT!

I've said I believe that sons of God refers to both humans and angels ... according to Psalm 82 God has called ALL of YOU [both men and angels] the children of the Most High. You see, I believe that statement made in Ps 82 makes it the truth. Adam, Eve, and any sons born to them in the Garden were direct children/sons of God.

Those son/sons born in the Garden would have been the sons of God who came naturally unto their female/wives on earth and had children who became grown men of renown.

Now, there is a caveat to identifying "the sons of God," for the New Testament. I also accept that all of humanity, after The Fall, are now like orphans, afflicted, needy, clueless and so forth. In Ps 82 Satan described us that way as he complained to God his judge. I think there is evidence in our everyday lives which bears out that this is the truth about us. But, I suggest before The Fall they were his direct children - not his orphans.

I also suggest that if we are 'saved souls filled with the Holy Spirit,' we could even now be called sons and daughters of God.

Humanity is clueless to all truth and I guess that is why you, I, and others are seeking it. That's a good thing, because God wants us to seek Him. He promises if we seek Him we will find Him.

That's evidence spanning 1000's of years, of people understanding "sons of God" to mean "angels". And then in the NT Jesus says sons of the resurrection are also "sons of God"

Evidence or the suggestions/interpretations of commentators?
Well, that many years and more were between Adam and the priests of Jesus's day. Look at what Jesus said about the ignorance of so called experts.
READ John 5:37-40, 45-47 for yourself, but I will paraphrase what I see for brevity.
37 The Father has sent me and borne witness of me. You have neither beheld his voice or his shape.
38 You don't have His WORD abiding in you ... for whom he [the Father] sent, [ME Jesus] him [ME] you don't believe either.
39-40 This is The Father's will - that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing ... but should raise it up again at the last day .. including believers.
45 The prophets foretold: "And they [the seekers] shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father, cometh unto me [The Messiah].
46 Not that just any person has seen the Father, except for him [a specific person] which is of God. That person has seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I [Jesus] say unto you [teachers of the law], He that believeth on ME hath everlasting life.

Remember, VladtheDestroyer, there were Sadducees among the Sanhedrin who didn't even believe in the truth of resurrection by the days of Jesus. These teachers of the law were suppose to be experts ... and they got it wrong. I trust the Holy Spirit to teach me. I know that sounds prideful ... but scripture tells me he will; so, I seek.

I set out to write a book about seeking the Father ... as I studied I kept finding the promised Christ. Then as I wrote I discovered I was not a good author ... and believe me LIFE got in the way. So, my book exists of only 5 chapters so far.

But when it's used in Genesis 6, you want it to mean something else. You want it to mean "Sons of Adam who were born before him and Eve got kicked out of Eden" Right?

Yes ... that is because these particular "sons of God" came to earth from somewhere else ... they were not the typical sons born unto Adam on earth after the Fall.

• I just can't deny that Adam formed language to describe the birth of a son in Genesis. If there was one, then there was the potential of more sons after that. No one knows how long Adam and Woman existed before the Fall.
• Also, Adam gave Woman a new name - Eve. He then told us plainly what his new word meant: She WAS THE MOTHER OF ALL THE LIVING ... not she shall become the mother of living children ...
• Also it was only after The Fall that it was mentioned that Adam and Eve had any daughters.

QUESTION:
Where else were the sons of God going to find their predestined females so they could leave their father and mother in order to cleave and have other ones like themselves?

Gen. 6 says they became the men of renown in their days. Whether they were the giants of those days or not ... ??? I'm suspecting yes, but they were still MEN not angelic mutates.

But your meaning is nowhere close to being implicitly stated anywhere in the Bible. So it seems the only hope you have of being right is if "sons of God" is just too archaic of term for anyone today to fully understand what it means.

You see, I think I do have evidence. Adam's words. God's Word in Ps82 ... and the recount told by Moses in Gen. 6. He NEVER used the words angel in the entire account of the days which preceded the Flood. I'll keep my eye open for other evidence.

Show me more of your scripture which proves there is no possibility for my interpretations.
Love discussing this.

 

[7djengo7]

they were not the typical sons born unto Adam on earth after the Fall.

Let's hear your "proof" for your extra-Biblical claim that Adam had other sons before he had Cain and Abel.

 

[Derf]

Regarding a man or men being called a son of God, I know of 2 instances prior to our adoption as sons and fellow heirs with the begotten son of God, both in the New Testament.
Luke 3:38 KJV — Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
John 10:34 KJV — Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Which was a quote from the one in the Old Testament
Psalm 82:6 KJV — I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

The one from Luke makes me think the title can only be applied to sentient beings who are created directly by God (like Adam was and like angels presumably were). But that leaves us wondering about the Ps 82 passage, because it doesn't apply there. Rather, it looks like God thinks of His chosen people, or at least the leaders of His people, as His sons.

Then, if we apply that last concept back to Gen 6, it could explain why one group of humans was called "sons of God" while another was called "men". But that doesn't explain the "giants".

@7djengo7 Regarding the "giants", the word "Nephilim" does seem to include the idea of "fallen", and it allows for them to be "children of the fallen" with the "im" suffix (you can find many references to a group being the offspring of someone where the someone's name has "im" added). But the suffix can also be used for plural, so it isn't clear to me.

 

[7djengo7]

The one from Luke makes me think the title can only be applied to sentient beings who are created directly by God (like Adam was and like angels presumably were).

This is something I have heard often -- the "created directly" thing -- but have never known quite what to make of it. When people say God "created directly" this or that, I take it that they likely would not wish to say that whatever they'd say He did not "create directly", He did not create at all. So, their use of the "created directly" phrase would seem to set up a division of all He created into two subgroups: things He "created directly", on the one hand, and things He "created indirectly", on the other. But, it's never been clear to me just what it would be for God to create, say, John Smith "indirectly".

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

No it wouldn't. It would just mean you have to translate from the spoken Greek instead of the written.

I have no idea. I'm so dumb I can hardly read or write anything. But aren't there like more rules in the greek language that might make it more clear what "these" is referring to, in Jude 6-7, depending on how the sentence is constructed?

.
6 And the angels who did not keep their [c]proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the [d]vengeance of eternal fire

Because to me in seem like its referring to the fallen angels. Meaning Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities comitted sexual immorality similiar to the angels.

 

[7djengo7]

I have no idea. I'm so dumb I can hardly read or write anything. But aren't there like more rules in the greek language that might make it more clear what "these" is referring to, in Jude 6-7, depending on how the sentence is constructed?

.
6 And the angels who did not keep their [c]proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the [d]vengeance of eternal fire

Because to me in seem like its referring to the fallen angels. Meaning Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities comitted sexual immorality similiar to the angels.

On the face of it, at least, to me it appears that in "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh," in the NKJV, the similarity indicated is the similarity between the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, on the one hand, and the sins of other unnamed, unnumbered cities "around them". In other words, a similarity of sinfulness amongst most or all of the inhabitants of that neighborhood. The Dead Sea "Deliverance" community, if you will.

But, even if somehow an angel could have -- or even could desire to have -- sexual relations with a woman, I fail to see any necessary similarity between sexual relations with a woman, on the one hand, and the sin of sodomy, on the other. Sure, it is sin to have sexual relations with a woman outside of marriage. But, in and of itself, sexual relations with a woman is obviously not sin; whereas sodomy is sin, always. So, even if Genesis 6 were really saying that fallen angels were somehow having sexual relations with women, and that it were sin for them to do so, what more particular similarity would that really have with the sin of sodomy, beyond merely the general similarity of being sin?

 

[Ps82]

Regarding a man or men being called a son of God, I know of 2 instances prior to our adoption as sons and fellow heirs with the begotten son of God, both in the New Testament.
Luke 3:38 KJV — Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Great verse. This is what I conclude ... it was Adam who was a son of God ... after that his descendants were just Adam's sons [son of man]

John 10:34 KJV — Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

This is a quote from Ps 82 and that chapter is where the Most High God is presiding over a court to judge those who sinned in the Garden. Satan was standing before God pleading his case ... by saying God is an unfair judge for HE is too nice to kicked out Adam and his descendants.

Yet, God was speaking to and judging Satan [I assume along with his 1/3 angels] and to mankind when he said,"I have said [past tense] Ye [Satan and your kind] are gods; and ALL OF YOU are children of the most High."

"All of you" denotes God was speaking to a broader group.Well, that leaves Adam and his kind... Mankind WAS considered sons of God too ... Pre-Fall!

But Satan, in his dialogue, described us as orphans/fatherless, afflicted, clueless, etc ... and after all was said and done that sure seemed to be the time when Satan told the truth. Anyway it stuck to us.

Now, we can only become sons and daughter [children] of God again is by our Lord Jesus adopting us.

Psalm 82:6 KJV — I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

The one from Luke makes me think the title can only be applied to sentient beings who are created directly by God (like Adam was and like angels presumably were).

I agree with that ... to all the angels and to all those who would come forth from Adam in the future. That means IF I am correct and Adam and Woman had several sons while in the Garden that would have applied to them - sons of God.
BUT ... but not to those sons of man [Adam and Eve] after they were kicked out.

But that leaves us wondering about the Ps 82 passage, because it doesn't apply there. Rather, it looks like God thinks of His chosen people, or at least the leaders of His people, as His sons.

I'd like to see the verses that say that the Israelites were sons of God or that the Priests, Moses, and the prophets were sons of God. That MIGHT change my mind. BUT, if God knew in the OT they were already among the saved then maybe not. You know Father Abraham was already in a heavenly place before Christ came. You see the OT people believe like Abraham by faith in the Messiah and it was counted to him as righteousness. Just saying there may have been "select people who received salvation before Jesus came and died on the cross to provide the WAY for believers to follow him and enter The Kingdom. I don't know what you think, but I think The Kingdom is different from the bosom of Abraham. ANOTHER TOPIC.

Then, if we apply that last concept back to Gen 6, it could explain why one group of humans was called "sons of God" while another was called "men". But that doesn't explain the "giants".

Yes, you see. And I know ... explaining the giants is out for speculation at this time ... and would not be based on thread of truth in scripture which I think I do see. Perhaps those sons of God who were men born before the Fall could be likened to as "Supermen, and it led to giant men who became renown." ???? Renown is more than looking big and scary ... they were famous and admired.

@7djengo7 Regarding the "giants", the word "Nephilim" does seem to include the idea of "fallen", and it allows for them to be "children of the fallen" with the "im" suffix (you can find many references to a group being the offspring of someone where the someone's name has "im" added). But the suffix can also be used for plural, so it isn't clear to me.

Well, Nephilim is a word used after the Fall to describe the giants who seem to have been born of the sons of God, but they were also born to daughters coming from Fallen cast out Adam and Eve. Wouldn't that make those sons just men. I think the people/descendants of these unions built nations of their own and did not necessarily hang out at the home of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve started their own family which can be traced through Abraham and King David to the Christ.

Thanks Derf ... enjoyed thinking back over how I see things.

 

[Ps82]

I have no idea. I'm so dumb I can hardly read or write anything. But aren't there like more rules in the greek language that might make it more clear what "these" is referring to, in Jude 6-7, depending on how the sentence is constructed?

Well, you are smart enough to know that discovering the antecedents for pronouns is IMPORTANT. Sometimes it can take a chapter or two in scripture before you find the right one. I know. I've had to search! But the right one makes all the difference.

Another important grammar skill is this: Finding the appositive for a noun mentioned in a sentence. I had to diagram the KJV sentence John 1:18 to discover that the appositive for God was "begotten Son. " An appositive renames a noun: Like Mr. Jones, the principle. Martha, my mother. Trump, the best President. etc. In John 1:18 it show us that No man had ever seen God, the Son ... until He, John the Baptist, introduced HIM, the Son. to the world.

There you go: one appositive and two antecedents!!! Makes all the difference when you want to know the truth. Some people want to say that No one has ever seen God the Father when OT scripture refutes that almost constantly.

.
6 And the angels who did not keep their [c]proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;

Yes ... truth. You need to look back. It tells why they were cast out /left their own abode. I can give my take on that from using scripture... how God managed to do do it, why they are now in darkness and what the chains are which bind them. Now, I know some would say I am theorizing, guessing, adding to scripture but I say: I have my reasons and sources for my conclusions.

My take on verse 6b-7:
... He [God] has reserved [angels] in everlasting chains under darkness [a place of waiting] for the judgment of the great day; as [with] Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them [who also] in a similar manner [of waiting] to these [angels] [The people of Sodom and Gohmorrah etc. having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the [d]vengeance of eternal fire.

There you go: Sinful angels plus the people of S&G have been made an example to the world due to their sins. Yet, each group for different sins; yet, God sent them both to a place of darkness [spiritual invisibility] and suffering.

Watch. This is a mystery:
We are told Jesus went to another place/realm/world where the people from the days of Noah, who were great sinners as well, were kept. He preached to them so that they might repent!!!!! Think about that shocker!!!

We are not told Jesus went to the place where the lost souls of S & G are kept.
Why?
My thoughts: The LORD went down to S & G and spent the night in the streets witnessing to the people about their sins. Looking for 10 people so he would have mercy. Seems he may have not done that for those in Noah's day but just chose Noah and family to save. Yet, we have a good fair God. Just saying.

But from this people should understand that God can put created beings into his barns ... places to keep them until the end comes. It seems angels and the people in S & G went to the same place and not to the place where people in the days of Noah went.

Because to me in seem like its referring to the fallen angels. Meaning Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities committed sexual immorality similar to the angels.

Well, I haven't tried diagramming that long sentence but I think I see what was happening ... Both angels and the people had committed grievous sins; though not the same sins; so,
WHAT were the sins of the angels?
I think you have to go back before Adam and Eve. One third of them chose to follow Satan in a rebellions to follow Satan ... and some where after that event Satan chose to try and kill Adam and his Woman who were in the Garden. Then came the trial in Ps 82 [exact timing I don't know].

Since scripture does not tell us a lot about the angels pre-Adam one might have to investigate some books not included in the Biblical cannon, but if rebellion against God isn't enough then perhaps their sins were displayed by Satan, their leader's, behaviors. He is a liar, he had murder in his heart, he was very prideful of his own perfections and became a fool even to the point of challenging God, he faced God in Ps 82 and accused Him of being an unfair judge and wanted to shift blame to humanity.

These would be my suggestions for the sins of angels. Ezekiel 28. Some Bible students suggest Isaiah 14:12-17 is talking about Satan.

If you research this, let me know what you find.

 

[Derf]

I have no idea. I'm so dumb I can hardly read or write anything. But aren't there like more rules in the greek language that might make it more clear what "these" is referring to, in Jude 6-7, depending on how the sentence is constructed?

.
6 And the angels who did not keep their [c]proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the [d]vengeance of eternal fire

Because to me in seem like its referring to the fallen angels. Meaning Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities comitted sexual immorality similiar to the angels.

I think you have to keep the whole context for each group. The angels "left their first estate" or as your version states "left their own abode." This is not immediately the same as "sexual immorality" and "strange flesh". So if the angels' first estate were to have sex with, say, other angels, or maybe to never have sex at all, then it becomes more similar (though still not about an "abode"), but those things are not explicit in the text of Jude. I think the most we can take from Jude is that the angels had a proper place/domain, and they left it. And the men of Sodom had a proper relationship with women, and they rejected it for homosexuality.

I think that still leaves a possibility that angels are sexual beings in some way, and they took human sexual partners, but since angels are rarely (never?) pictured as female, the similarities end at some point.

 

[Derf]

This is something I have heard often -- the "created directly" thing -- but have never known quite what to make of it. When people say God "created directly" this or that, I take it that they likely would not wish to say that whatever they'd say He did not "create directly", He did not create at all. So, their use of the "created directly" phrase would seem to set up a division of all He created into two subgroups: things He "created directly", on the one hand, and things He "created indirectly", on the other. But, it's never been clear to me just what it would be for God to create, say, John Smith "indirectly".

I'm not sure what they mean, but if God made a body out of clay and breathed life into it, John Smith would have been created directly. If he were born to Momma Smith, it's indirectly.

Much like all the houses man builds were not created by God directly, but the materials came, eventually, from things He created directly. I don't think God is creating physical things directly today.

Edit: a human soul is created when John Smith is conceived, so I guess I'll walk back that statement and acknowledge that God is still creating things, but the human soul is part new creature and part old dust.

 

[Ps82]

I think you have to keep the whole context for each group. The angels "left their first estate" or as your version states "left their own abode." This is not immediately the same as "sexual immorality" and "strange flesh". So if the angels' first estate were to have sex with, say, other angels, or maybe to never have sex at all, then it becomes more similar (though still not about an "abode"), but those things are not explicit in the text of Jude. I think the most we can take from Jude is that the angels had a proper place/domain, and they left it. And the men of Sodom had a proper relationship with women, and they rejected it for homosexuality.

Agree ... according to Jude. But the Bible tells us the whole picture here and there ... bit by bit. We must seek if we want to know.

I think that still leaves a possibility that angels are sexual beings in some way, and they took human sexual partners, but since angels are rarely (never?) pictured as female, the similarities end at some point.

So far have to disagree here. I don't think angels were/are sexual beings. No where do we read that Satan's kingdom grew because his 1/3 of the angels reproduced. His kingdom grows by his robbing humanity from God. He has been cast down to the ground/Earth and is the Prince of the power of the air. He has access to posses mankind.

You are correct there are no female angels mentioned in the OT. And none mentioned regarding mankind in the Garden either. We only get a glimpse of the one Son, but that does leave open the possibility of more sons.