J
Jaybones
Guest
Does anyone here happen to know the meaning of -(the sons of heaven and the cohabitating with daughters of man) verses? Any help would be appreciated . Thanks !!
- Status
B
Benadam
Guest
Most Catholic theologians believe that the sons of God (heaven) were the decendants of Seth. A child born in the likeness and image of his father. The daughters of men were the decendants of Cain.
The sons of God intermarried with the daughters of Cain.
The sons of God intermarried with the daughters of Cain.
G
grannymh
Guest
Suggestion: Check the footnotes for those verses.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
I believe “sons of God” refers to Adam’s lineage through Seth (after blessed Abel was murdered and only Cain remained). One important thing to consider is Genesis 5, the chapter right before Gen 6 
. There it gives a lineage of Seth to Noah and these men could very logically be the “sons of God”. Also, end of Ch 4 gives the lineage of Cain. So Genesis 6 is a culmination of the two lineages.
One interesting fact is that ch 5 mentions how these men lived hundreds of years, yet ch 6:3 makes the claim to reduce men’s lifespans to 100, thus another proof sons of God refers to the men of Gen 5.
Another very interesting clue I came across a while ago for why I say Seth is in Luke 3:23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
…
…
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.
So Adam was in a sense a “son of God,” and thus “sons of God” can be Seth’s lineage.
The theory of fallen angels doesnt seem to fit the evidence, in my opinion. That would require the idea that angels (pure spirits) could have relations with women, which would be impossible and could not produce humans. True the “Nephilim” (Giants) are mentioned in Ch 6, but nothing about devils and women having relations logically results in “giants”. The term “Nephilim” (Giants) appears in Numbers and it reference to a human race of giants with no hint of fallen angels involved.
Further, Gen 6 makes it clear the whole world went corrupt at that point, except Noah, and that would include Noah’s relatives. Thus this further fits the claim that the “sons of God” who are the lineage of Seth turned to wicked lifestyles themselves, where as before it was pretty much Cain’s lineage.
. There it gives a lineage of Seth to Noah and these men could very logically be the “sons of God”. Also, end of Ch 4 gives the lineage of Cain. So Genesis 6 is a culmination of the two lineages.One interesting fact is that ch 5 mentions how these men lived hundreds of years, yet ch 6:3 makes the claim to reduce men’s lifespans to 100, thus another proof sons of God refers to the men of Gen 5.
Another very interesting clue I came across a while ago for why I say Seth is in Luke 3:23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
…
…
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.
So Adam was in a sense a “son of God,” and thus “sons of God” can be Seth’s lineage.
The theory of fallen angels doesnt seem to fit the evidence, in my opinion. That would require the idea that angels (pure spirits) could have relations with women, which would be impossible and could not produce humans. True the “Nephilim” (Giants) are mentioned in Ch 6, but nothing about devils and women having relations logically results in “giants”. The term “Nephilim” (Giants) appears in Numbers and it reference to a human race of giants with no hint of fallen angels involved.
Further, Gen 6 makes it clear the whole world went corrupt at that point, except Noah, and that would include Noah’s relatives. Thus this further fits the claim that the “sons of God” who are the lineage of Seth turned to wicked lifestyles themselves, where as before it was pretty much Cain’s lineage.
T
thistle
Guest
D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:
Ver. 2. The sons of God. The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called Sons of God, from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion. (Challoner) — See St. Chrysostom, hom. 22, &c. Some copies of the Septuagint having the angels of God, induced some of the ancients to suppose, that these spiritual beings (to whom, by another mistake, they attributed a sort of aerial bodies) had commerce with women, as the pagans derived their heroes from a mortal and a god. But this notion, which is borrowed from the book of Henoch, is quite exploded. (Calmet) — The distinction of the true Church from the synagogue of satan, here established, has been ever since retained, as heretics are still distinguished from Catholics. (Worthington) (St. Augustine)
J
Jaybones
Guest
I did check the footnotes and it sad “literally sons of the gods” or "the sons of God"i.e. the celestial beings of mythology . Which for some reason seems a little off unless I am misunderstanding something .
J
JM3
Guest
A Jewish commentary I found online:
The B’nai Elohim [translated as “the sons of God”] saw the daughters of men, that they were fair, and they took them wives, whomsoever whom·so·ev·er
pron.
The objective case of whosoever. they chose (Gen. 6:2). Jewish Bible commentators pay scant attention to this pre-Abrahamic reference to angels, by contending that the B’nai Elohim are not angels at all, but the privileged aristocracy of that era. They interpret Elohim to mean “mighty,” as it is sometimes used in Hebrew. (1) Accordingly, in the afore-cited quotation, the B’nai Elohim are interpreted to mean that the privileged nobility crossed over the social barriers by consorting with the underclasses, thereby undermining the very fabric of an ordered society and its sexual mores. Christian theologians, on the other hand, developed an elaborate pantheon of angels stemming from these B’nai Elohim, referring to them as “Fallen Angels” headed by Satan who figures prominently in their belief system. (2) Judaism, however, recognized early on the dangers of these beliefs as being contrary to its strict adherence to the unity and sovereignty of the One God. The concept of rebellious/fallen angels consorting with humans is totally alien to traditional Jewish thinking.
Footnote from the RSV2CE:
“The writer, however, may be using an old story or myth to point out the progressive degradation of Mankind before the Flood and to warn against the evil effects of intermarriage either of the descendants of Seth with the Kenites or, more probably, of the Israelites with the native populations of Canaan.”
The B’nai Elohim [translated as “the sons of God”] saw the daughters of men, that they were fair, and they took them wives, whomsoever whom·so·ev·er
pron.
The objective case of whosoever. they chose (Gen. 6:2). Jewish Bible commentators pay scant attention to this pre-Abrahamic reference to angels, by contending that the B’nai Elohim are not angels at all, but the privileged aristocracy of that era. They interpret Elohim to mean “mighty,” as it is sometimes used in Hebrew. (1) Accordingly, in the afore-cited quotation, the B’nai Elohim are interpreted to mean that the privileged nobility crossed over the social barriers by consorting with the underclasses, thereby undermining the very fabric of an ordered society and its sexual mores. Christian theologians, on the other hand, developed an elaborate pantheon of angels stemming from these B’nai Elohim, referring to them as “Fallen Angels” headed by Satan who figures prominently in their belief system. (2) Judaism, however, recognized early on the dangers of these beliefs as being contrary to its strict adherence to the unity and sovereignty of the One God. The concept of rebellious/fallen angels consorting with humans is totally alien to traditional Jewish thinking.
Footnote from the RSV2CE:
“The writer, however, may be using an old story or myth to point out the progressive degradation of Mankind before the Flood and to warn against the evil effects of intermarriage either of the descendants of Seth with the Kenites or, more probably, of the Israelites with the native populations of Canaan.”
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No definitive answer from Catholic teaching.
Most scholars suggest this refers to beings who were neither fully human nor divine. Likely some reference that people (pagans) of the time would have understood.
- Status