Help! Sons of God -- Genesis 6:4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maria3m
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw “sons of God” and it was in Genesis. After a quick search, it’s Genesis 6:4.

Can anyone explain it to me? I’ve read an explanation before, it sounded good, but now I can’t recall.
I will PM Valke2 for Jewish (name removed by moderator)ut, which will probably be of the most use.

In the meanwhile, you should note that there is no other passage in the entirety of the Bible which clearly explains this one. That is most probably why chapters 6-14 of 1 Enoch do so: a lot of the apocrypha appear to be made for the purpose of filling in the gaps and tying up the loose ends of the Biblical narratives. You could quite reasonably describe them as Jewish and Christian fanfic.

It should be noted, at this point, that that part of 1 Enoch was most likely written about 200 BC, which puts it anywhere from 350 to 1200 years after the writing of Genesis 6, depending upon whose dates you accept. Thus, there is no reason to assume that the writer of 1 Enoch actually knew anything about the truth of the matter.

That is where I would go in such a conversation. The simple fact is that we do not know what that means, and nor did the writer of 1 Enoch. Instead, we have a few speculations, which have been mentioned in this thread. Do not feel the need to know everything about everything in Judaism, Christianity, or even Catholicism: it is practically impossible to do so, and trying is most likely to end with you making a mistake, and causing your mother to distrust anything else you say or have said about the topic.

Be honest, be open, and keep discussing it, and she will have a more positive view of your beliefs.
My mom is living with a Jehovah Witness
That could be interesting: the Jehovah’s Witnesses commonly use a translation which is much more free than most, and so it might have an interesting version of the text. Take a Catholic-approved translation if they will accept it as valid, or a New King James, which is one of the most faithful to the source texts.
 
Is there a reason in your post that you seperate Christians with Catholic?:confused:

Mystophilus?
 
Most Jewish commentators link the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 with the “giants” who terrified Moses’ spies in Numbers 13:33.
 
Here’s my 2 cents:

As I’ve stated in elsewhere, the word “Elohim” and its root can mean God(s), judges, princes, angels, etc. One of the translations I have reads it as:

“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of the nobles would come to the daughters of man, and they would bear for them; they are the mighty men, who were of old, the men of renown.”

But that might be seen as a “cop out” and if you look at the language in Job 1:6; 2:1 and 38:7, which is identical to the language in Gen. 6:4, the reference seems to be clearly about the angelic host, so I’m going to go with the translation that refers to them as “Divine beings”. This is one of the oddest verses in Torah. And there are various explanations for it. And whenever you have multiple answers it means we don’t know. Why is it here? What does it have to do with the larger story that we’ve been reading up until now? I know I’ll offend some jews and christians alike when I say that I agree with scholars who have concluded that 6:1-4 is a fragment of a story that was probably well known to biblical man. (And I’d say the same of the story of Cain and Able). The theme of gods sleeping with humans is a well known one in pagan mythology.

Having said that…

In the opening chapters of Genesis, we see Adam and Eve cast out of the Garden, “lest they eat from the tree of life and become like us” – immortal. Humans try to become divine and God intervenes. In Gen. 6:1-4, we see divine beings lowering themselves to the level of humans, and here too God intervenes.
The purpose seems to be to combat polytheistic mythology. Because, while we have divine beings knocking boots with humans, there is clearly only one God. Only One God who passes judgment and makes decisions (e.g., limiting our lifespan).

The offspring of the divine/human union are “heros”, but they do not have any divine qualities. Not only are they mortal but they are the first to have thier lifspan severely limited. God and only God holds dominion over life.

This also precedes the story of Noah, and it implies the level of corruption on earth – that even the heavenly host is corrupted at this time. This theme is reinforce somewhat by an interpertation fo Gen. 6:1 – the divine beings say how beautiful the daughters…" The implication being that they were driven by lust. External beauty and not character was the critera used in selecting human mates.
 
mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html

robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm

google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=+church+fathers++%22sons+of+God%22+%22fallen+angels%22+

Hi Maria, you can find church fathers and Jewish scholars who hold to both sides that the sons of God are fallen angels or they are of the line of seth. Follow the above links for documentation.

Ask them plainly, why does it matter if these are the line of seth or are fallen angels? I think they are simply building a strawman argument of distrust of church fathers. No church council ruled on the subject, thus it is a subject that it is ok to disagree on.

Ask them, how does something mate with something not of their kind? After all, lambs give birth to lambs, cows to cows, and so on. How do angels mate with humans?
 
Spoke to a JW elder on this today. He said its Angels period. He says its literal and he flatly refuses to accept the Seth/Cain argument and in fact started getting worked up on that to the point I had to back off on asking him why it was such a hot button for him. 😦
He also thinks that the RCC has not made an official stand on this because he thinks it is evident that they are not able to interpret Scripture and have to start admitting it to us all. :rolleyes:

So, there you have it. JW’s want it to be taken literally and that is that.
 
From a Christocentric view-- Adam and Eve were created as ‘sons of God’ and yet forfeited their inheritance through original sin. But Jesus Christ, the Son of God, made it so that, as Paul says in Galatians 4:4-7
4: But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
5: to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
6: And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
7: So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir.
Eph 1:5
5: He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his wil
We become sons of , God by adoption. Jesus is God’s son by nature.

As the Gospel of John says, ch. 1, vv. 11-13
11: He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.
12: But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;
13:
who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Note that ‘children of God’ is equivalent to ‘sons of God’-- at least inasmuch as ‘filios Dei’ corresponds to sons.

Basically, we become by adoption what Christ is by nature, but that’s a huge difference.

I’m wondering what this has to do with the JW’s, but I’m assuming it has to so with the modern Arian heresy which they profess.

If her purpose is to some how say Jesus isn’t God because ‘sons of God’ is used widely, more than for just Jesus, then it’s a silly idea.

Or maybe I totally miscontrued what is going on?

-Rob
 
I see this is coming from my nondenom brother who tells everyone angels & humans had relations --giant children were born – so God flooded the earth.
The literalist will alway claim that.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Deu 2:11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites called them Emims.

Deu 2:20 (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims;

Deu 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

Deu 3:13 And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants.

Jos 12:4 And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants, that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei,

Jos 13:12 All the kingdom of Og in Bashan, which reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei, who remained of the remnant of the giants: for these did Moses smite, and cast them out.

Jos 15:8 And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants northward:

Jos 17:15 And Joshua answered them, If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee.

Jos 18:16 And the border came down to the end of the mountain that lieth before the valley of the son of Hinnom, and which is in the valley of the giants on the north, and descended to the valley of Hinnom, to the side of Jebusi on the south, and descended to Enrogel,

2Sa 21:16 And Ishbibenob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David.

2Sa 21:18 And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant.

2Sa 21:20 And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.

2Sa 21:22 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.

1Ch 20:4 And it came to pass after this, that there arose war at Gezer with the Philistines; at which time Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Sippai, that was of the children of the giant: and they were subdued.

1Ch 20:6 And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot and he also was the son of the giant.

1Ch 20:8 These were born unto the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.

Job 16:14 He breaketh me with breach upon breach, he runneth upon me like a giant.
 
mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html

robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm

google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=+church+fathers++%22sons+of+God%22+%22fallen+angels%22+

Hi Maria, you can find church fathers and Jewish scholars who hold to both sides that the sons of God are fallen angels or they are of the line of seth. Follow the above links for documentation.

Ask them plainly, why does it matter if these are the line of seth or are fallen angels? I think they are simply building a strawman argument of distrust of church fathers. No church council ruled on the subject, thus it is a subject that it is ok to disagree on.

Ask them, how does something mate with something not of their kind? After all, lambs give birth to lambs, cows to cows, and so on. How do angels mate with humans?
I don’t know how about the church fathers, but I’m fairly certain the Jewish interpertation of the verse has nothing to do with distrusting church fathers. I can’t even begin to guess how it would.
 
I don’t know how about the church fathers, but I’m fairly certain the Jewish interpertation of the verse has nothing to do with distrusting church fathers. I can’t even begin to guess how it would.
You can’t provide any Jewish commentary on this? I have joined Jewish forum and find it not friendly at all, when certain questions are asked. Plus they use too many Yiddish words when talking. Why can’t they just use the English equivalent?
 
You can’t provide any Jewish commentary on this? I have joined Jewish forum and find it not friendly at all, when certain questions are asked. Plus they use too many Yiddish words when talking. Why can’t they just use the English equivalent?
Maybe I am not understanding the vocalbulary here. What exactly are church fathers? Priests? Popes? I’ve never read any Jewish commentary that says verse 6:4 is a dig against Christians.
 
Maybe I am not understanding the vocalbulary here. What exactly are church fathers? Priests? Popes? I’ve never read any Jewish commentary that says verse 6:4 is a dig against Christians.
The Early church fathers were Popes, Priests, Bishops, and Scholars.

I am asking what is the Jewish interpretation of “Sons of God” and “Giants”. Are their in credible commentaries from Jewish Rabbis or Scholars which give an idea about those phrases?

If I read the scripture in the most literal sense, my only interpretation is that “Giants” and “Sons of God” are some other beings created by God which is not mentioned in the creation account. Those beings can only be Angels.

Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Gen 6:2 That the **sons of God **saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the **sons of God **came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the **sons of God **came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the **sons of God **came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the **sons of God **shouted for joy?
 
Maybe I am not understanding the vocalbulary here. What exactly are church fathers? Priests? Popes? I’ve never read any Jewish commentary that says verse 6:4 is a dig against Christians.
The Church Fathers are those writers of the early Church whose writings (often commentaries on Scripture) are valuable resources for us today. They start from the 2nd century and in the West, conclude with the “last” of the Fathers, St. Bernard. Here’s the Wiki article.

They view everything in the Hebrew Scriptures through the lens of the Messiah, so you might find some of their commentary novel from the Jewish perspective. For example, the vestments of the Tabernacle can all be seen as attributes of Jesus Christ. Christians get dizzy with joy over this stuff!
 
The Early church fathers were Popes, Priests, Bishops, and Scholars.

I am asking what is the Jewish interpretation of “Sons of God” and “Giants”. Are their in credible commentaries from Jewish Rabbis or Scholars which give an idea about those phrases?
Got it. I attempted to answer this in post 24.
 
The Church Fathers are those writers of the early Church whose writings (often commentaries on Scripture) are valuable resources for us today. They start from the 2nd century and in the West, conclude with the “last” of the Fathers, St. Bernard. Here’s the Wiki article.

They view everything in the Hebrew Scriptures through the lens of the Messiah, so you might find some of their commentary novel from the Jewish perspective. For example, the vestments of the Tabernacle can all be seen as attributes of Jesus Christ. Christians get dizzy with joy over this stuff!
lol. thanks.
 
Got it. I attempted to answer this in post 24.
Thanks. After reading that, I gather you believe Angels are divine?
In the opening chapters of Genesis, we see Adam and Eve cast out of the Garden, “lest they eat from the tree of life and become like us” – immortal.** Humans try to become divine **and God intervenes. In Gen. 6:1-4, we see divine beings lowering themselves to the level of humans, and here too God intervenes.
The purpose seems to be to combat polytheistic mythology. Because, while we have divine beings knocking boots with humans, there is clearly only one God. Only One God who passes judgment and makes decisions (e.g., limiting our lifespan).
 
Is there a reason in your post that you seperate Christians with Catholic?:confused:

Mystophilus?
Oh, dear! :o

I am truly sorry: I had not imagined that it could be read that way. Looking back at it, I see that it can!

The reason for saying, “Christianity, or even Catholicism” was that I meant to present Catholicism as a subset within Christianity, not as a separate set from Christianity, an idea which I, as a pluralist, find abhorrent.

My apologies: that was just insufficiently clear.
 
If the “sons of God” were angles,then why did God not just destroy those angles? Why did he destroy all human kind.(except Noah and his family)
 
Maybe I am not understanding the vocalbulary here. What exactly are church fathers? Priests? Popes? I’ve never read any Jewish commentary that says verse 6:4 is a dig against Christians.
Sorry, I was not saying it is a dig aganist the church fathers.

I was pointing out, that Jewish scholars ( see links above ) disagree on it being angels and being line of seth.

I also, pointed out that the church fathers likewise disagreed on “sons of God” being angels and being line of seth too.

That there is no offical view on the “sons of God” on a higher authoritive level in catholic or christian theology.

That it is permissivable for a catholic or christian to hold either view that the sons of God are angels or that the sons of God are the line of seth.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses apparently, connect the “sons of god” in the book of Job, with the “sons of god” in Genesis 6 as being angels. But, Jesus teaches us that angels do not marry and there is no reason to believe that angels reproduce at all.

One can argue from Genesis 1, that creatures, reproduce only after their kind, species thus it is illogical to think that angels reproduced with humans. Angels are not humans, nor humans angels.

We christians believe that the Son of God is eternally begotten, that he proceeds from the Father. From Matthew 1 and Luke 1:35, the man Jesus is concieved of Mary’s egg and of the creative power of the Holy Spirit, thus is fully Man and fully God.

If one is interrested in what the church fathers wrote on this, one need only go to newadvent.org and search on “angelic watchers” to locate the fathers who believed them to be angels, and search on “sons of God” plus Seth to find them that believe the sons of god to be of the line of seth.
It professes to give a prophetic vision of the events of the world-weeks, centering about Israel. This part is distinguished by insistence upon a sharp conflict between the righteous of the nation and their wicked opponents both within and without Israel. They triumph and slay their oppressors in a Messianic kingdom without a personal Messias. At its close occurs the final judgment, which inaugurates a blessed immortality in heaven for the righteous. For this purpose all the departed just will rise from a mysterious abode, though apparently not in the body (ciii, 3, 4). The wicked will go into the Sheol of darkness and fire and dwell there forever. This is one of the earliest mentions of Sheol as a hell of torment, preceding portions of the book having described the place of retribution for the wicked as Tartarus and Geennom.
newadvent.org/cathen/01602a.htm

Read Enoch for yourself before using it,
reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top