Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6?

[buttercup]

There's a cryptic scripture in Genesis 6 that has been a source of controversy and debate, for centuries. I'm talking about Genesis 6:4, which says "...the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them."

Today, Christians are divided on how to interpret Genesis 6:4. But among early Christians and Jewish scholars, up until about the 4th century, the standard interpretation was that "the sons of God" in Genesis 6:4 referred to angels. Those angels fell from grace, of course, so they are referred to as fallen angels.

The offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were the Nephilim, who were said to be giants.

As I'm sure the Christians here know, the other interpretation is the "Sethite" view, which is taught in most seminaries today. That's the view that the term "sons of God" was referring to the line of Seth.

If you're a believer, what is your take on Genesis 6:4?

I've studied this topic, and based on what I've learned, the Sethite view doesn't add up. For a number of reasons. So, although I'm not closed-minded on this, I agree with the Angelic view. I'll elaborate later, if this thread gets any response. (Right now I have to get going.)

Here's a very good video on this topic. If you have the time and you're interested in this topic, I highly recommend you watch it:

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If we acknowledge the Book of Enoch and the ancient jewish texts on Lilithe and such, it can be assumed that the "Sons of God" came down before the fall (implying a chronological error in Genesis), fell in love with women, were then forbidden and forcibly broken up by the Almighty.

Seeing that Satan was in love with Lilithe and vice versa, I think it may just be the reason Satan and the other "sons of God" declared war on the Almighty, to retain their wives.

Needless to say they lost.

Yeah, I know it's my own theory, but after parsing all the texts, that seems to be the most likely true story about what caused the war in heaven.

 

[Penelope]

SON OF GOD:
By: Kaufmann Kohler, Emil G. Hirsch
Table of Contents

• The Pious as Sons of God.

Term applied to an angel or demigod, one of the mythological beings whose exploits are described in Gen. vi. 2-4, and whose ill conduct was among the causes of the Flood; to a judge or ruler (Ps. lxxxii. 6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations; comp. Ex. xxi. 6 [R. V., margin] and xxii. 8, 9); and to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Sam. vii. 14, with reference to David and his dynasty; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, 28). "Sons of God" and "children of God" are applied also to Israel as a people (comp. Ex. iv. 22 and Hos. xi. 1) and to all members of the human race.

SON OF GOD - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

and

Bereishit - Genesis - Chapter 6 (Parshah Bereishit and Noach)

www.chabad.org

 

[buttercup]

If we acknowledge the Book of Enoch and the ancient jewish texts on Lilithe and such, it can be assumed that the "Sons of God" came down before the fall (implying a chronological error in Genesis), fell in love with women, were then forbidden and forcibly broken up by the Almighty.

Seeing that Satan was in love with Lilithe and vice versa, I think it may just be the reason Satan and the other "sons of God" declared war on the Almighty, to retain their wives.

Needless to say they lost.

Yeah, I know it's my own theory, but after parsing all the texts, that seems to be the most likely true story about what caused the war in heaven.

Thanks for your thoughts. I've read most of the book of Enoch, but I don't remember it saying that the sons of God came down before the fall. I thought that the book of Enoch pretty much lined up with what the Bible says, although of course it adds so much more that isn't in the Bible. So I've never heard your perspective before, but if you have a specific chapter and verse, please share it.

But it sounds like you're talking about something else… I was talking not about the war in heaven but what took place on earth. And this was after people had already been on the earth for a number of centuries, if I have my dates somewhat correct.

 

[buttercup]

SON OF GOD:
By: Kaufmann Kohler, Emil G. Hirsch
Table of Contents

• The Pious as Sons of God.

Term applied to an angel or demigod, one of the mythological beings whose exploits are described in Gen. vi. 2-4, and whose ill conduct was among the causes of the Flood; to a judge or ruler (Ps. lxxxii. 6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations; comp. Ex. xxi. 6 [R. V., margin] and xxii. 8, 9); and to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Sam. vii. 14, with reference to David and his dynasty; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, 28). "Sons of God" and "children of God" are applied also to Israel as a people (comp. Ex. iv. 22 and Hos. xi. 1) and to all members of the human race.

SON OF GOD - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

and

Bereishit - Genesis - Chapter 6 (Parshah Bereishit and Noach)

www.chabad.org

Thanks for posting that. Yes, in the Old Testament, the term "sons of God" always referred to Angels. That is one of the reasons why the Sethite view doesn't work, iyam. But I think the reason many Christians hold the Sethite view is because the alternative sounds so crazy and hard to wrap one's mind around.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Annunaki, Nephilim.

 

[Penelope]

SON OF GOD:
By: Kaufmann Kohler, Emil G. Hirsch
Table of Contents

• The Pious as Sons of God.

Term applied to an angel or demigod, one of the mythological beings whose exploits are described in Gen. vi. 2-4, and whose ill conduct was among the causes of the Flood; to a judge or ruler (Ps. lxxxii. 6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations; comp. Ex. xxi. 6 [R. V., margin] and xxii. 8, 9); and to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Sam. vii. 14, with reference to David and his dynasty; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, 28). "Sons of God" and "children of God" are applied also to Israel as a people (comp. Ex. iv. 22 and Hos. xi. 1) and to all members of the human race.

SON OF GOD - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

and

Bereishit - Genesis - Chapter 6 (Parshah Bereishit and Noach)

www.chabad.org

Thanks for posting that. Yes, in the Old Testament, the term "sons of God" always referred to Angels. That is one of the reasons why the Sethite view doesn't work, iyam. But I think the reason many Christians hold the Sethite view is because the alternative sounds so crazy and hard to wrap one's mind around.

I never knew about the Sethite view.

According to the Catholic Bible:
* [6:1–4] These enigmatic verses are a transition between the expansion of the human race illustrated in the genealogy of chap. 5 and the flood depicted in chaps. 6–9. The text, apparently alluding to an old legend, shares a common ancient view that the heavenly world was populated by a multitude of beings, some of whom were wicked and rebellious. It is incorporated here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation—the constantly increasing wickedness of humanity. This increasing wickedness leads God to reduce the human life span imposed on the first couple. As the ages in the preceding genealogy show, life spans had been exceptionally long in the early period, but God further reduces them to something near the ordinary life span.

Genesis, CHAPTER 6

Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

bible.usccb.org

 

[there4eyeM]

Angels are gender neutral (at least according to Jesus and others).
Some biblical stories are so extremely autré that they obviously force the reader to see them as metaphor. This is a good thing, and we should be able to agree to this even if unable to agree on the exact interpretation of the metaphor.
Ultimately, religious teaching only points to seeking revelation, and only personal revelation can be entirely convincing. Everything less is mere hearsay.

 

[.oldschool]

John 1:12 KJV

 

[Penelope]

460:The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

Catechism of the Catholic Church - "He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary"

--------------------------------------
men of God became sons of God.

 

[Picaro]

Re the 'Nephelim', they survived the Flood, according to a verse in Numbers, and the term 'sins of God' had many meanings depending on what 'voice' is speaking of them. They area also a reference to the Sumerians of the east as well as to certain non-pagan Jews. They could be 'angels', and though angels are allegedly 'sexless' there is no reason to believe they couldn't induce pregnancy. I would go with the allegories of them being humans of tall stature, and could even have been northern European tribes. 'Sumerians' were definitely a mix of races by the time of their rising civilizations, and it was later in the timetables that the Arab tribes invaded and wiped out the different racial features among them. Also being better fed than most peoples, they would also be larger and taller than the norm, considerably so compared to nomads. We know they ate lots of meat and fish, high protein diets grow bigger people. Vikings looked huge and massive to many European peasants.

More later, but I'm going with a non-Jewish tribe of peoples taller than the average ME stereotype; later post-exilic Jews tend to pretend no other peoples existed or considered them humans, so a 'Flood that killed all of humanity' meant it mostly killed Jews and their offspring, and didn't necessarily mean the Flood covered the entire real world, just the parts that mattered to Jewish tribes.

Other peoples obviously survived, as did the 'Nephelim'. See the genealogies after Noah and the 'nations' his descendants are claimed to have formed; you will note a whole lot of 'missing' peoples and nations we know existed during those timelines, before and after, but they just play no part in the Jewish world view, same as most of their 'histories' completely ignore Christians and their expansion into greatness while they themselves stagnated as a culture and went on to serve as flunkies for Islam, even regularly sweeping and maintaining their Dome of the Rock for them and serving as soldiers and adminstrators in the conquests.

 

[Meriweather]

There's a cryptic scripture in Genesis 6 that has been a source of controversy and debate, for centuries. I'm talking about Genesis 6:4, which says "...the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them."

A few people here have already mentioned that this was based on earlier legends, so once upon a time I undertook a story of earlier legends. These earlier cultures held a belief that the great leaders who had died became gods. Having been mortal men, they, of course had sons. Whoever it was I was reading at the time pointed out that even in today's world many of the children of the rich and powerful become a little dissolute when it comes to morals. You might say these sons of past leaders (now referenced as gods) began visiting the wrong side of the tracks for entertainment and pleasure, and the result was bastard children--most of whom became unwanted in either place. A tale as old as time,

 

[Picaro]

There's a cryptic scripture in Genesis 6 that has been a source of controversy and debate, for centuries. I'm talking about Genesis 6:4, which says "...the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them."

A few people here have already mentioned that this was based on earlier legends, so once upon a time I undertook a story of earlier legends. These earlier cultures held a belief that the great leaders who had died became gods. Having been mortal men, they, of course had sons. Whoever it was I was reading at the time pointed out that even in today's world many of the children of the rich and powerful become a little dissolute when it comes to morals. You might say these sons of past leaders (now referenced as gods) began visiting the wrong side of the tracks for entertainment and pleasure, and the result was bastard children--most of whom became unwanted in either place. A tale as old as time,

Yes. Hence some scholars believing they were Sumerian nobility. Daughters of Cain in some interpretations.

 

[Meriweather]

Yes. Hence some scholars believing they were Sumerian nobility. Daughters of Cain in some interpretations.

That is interesting! If I read about the Cain connection, it didn't stick.

 

[Picaro]

Yes. Hence some scholars believing they were Sumerian nobility. Daughters of Cain in some interpretations.

That is interesting! If I read about the Cain connection, it didn't stick.

There is reference in the footnote to that verse in my Zondervan NKJV, and also in a Wiki article on Enoch, iirc. I'll find the source if you can't find it for yourselves. Maybe it was in Genesis 4 or somewhere else re Seth's offspring?

 

[buttercup]

Angels are gender neutral (at least according to Jesus and others).
Some biblical stories are so extremely autré that they obviously force the reader to see them as metaphor. This is a good thing, and we should be able to agree to this even if unable to agree on the exact interpretation of the metaphor.
Ultimately, religious teaching only points to seeking revelation, and only personal revelation can be entirely convincing. Everything less is mere hearsay.

Yes, in their heavenly form. But according to the bible, angels can take physical form.

This particular issue is explained in this video. The pertinent parts start at 8:41, and 12:10.

 

[buttercup]

John 1:12 KJV

Biblically, the term "sons of God" is used in a few different ways. You are pointing to the New Testament, and yes, in the New Testament, those of us who receive Jesus become "sons" (or daughters) of God. We literally become children of God.

However, in the Old Testament, every time the phrase "sons of God" is used, it is referring to angels.

The only other use of the term son of God that I know of is referring to Jesus.

So, the the 3 uses of that phrase are:

• Angels
• Genuine Christians (those who are spiritually "born" from above)
• Jesus

I believe that the reason angels are referred to as "sons of God" in the Old Testament is because they were direct creations of God.

 

[buttercup]

A few people here have already mentioned that this was based on earlier legends, so once upon a time I undertook a story of earlier legends. These earlier cultures held a belief that the great leaders who had died became gods. Having been mortal men, they, of course had sons. Whoever it was I was reading at the time pointed out that even in today's world many of the children of the rich and powerful become a little dissolute when it comes to morals. You might say these sons of past leaders (now referenced as gods) began visiting the wrong side of the tracks for entertainment and pleasure, and the result was bastard children--most of whom became unwanted in either place. A tale as old as time,

I don't agree that this passage (or the bible) is based on stories from other cultures. In fact, that's the argument that bible skeptics or non-Christians make.

Rather, all the ancient cultures are telling the same story, from different perspectives. Some ancient cultures believed that the angels were deities, but just because they believed that doesn't make it true. They were angels.

And that's one of the things that is fascinating about this topic, imo. Pretty much ALL ancient civilizations tell the same story. They talk about otherwordly beings coming down and mixing with humans.

Of course most people these days consider all of that mere legend.

But when the entire world has a collective memory, that does not go away, there's something there, not mere legend. Also, there is physical evidence too, but maybe I'll get into that later, if time permits.

 

[buttercup]

I never knew about the Sethite view.

I probably should've put that in different words. The Sethite view is just the interpretation that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is about men from the (supposedly Godly) line of Seth.

From what I've heard, that is the interpretation taught in most seminaries today. But as I said before, there are many problems with it. That's what that whole video I shared is about.

 

[there4eyeM]

For some of us, "Angels" are a metaphor and we don't take them for actual entities we're likely to encounter, and even if we did we would think it a hallucination. As for the stories carried across the millennia by the Bible, they are very important and interesting and applicable in adding to knowledge. Our times match so poorly with those of thousands of years ago that the subtleties they would have had for our ancestors of the epoch are imperceptible to us. We have to admit to being incapable of the kind of understanding they might have had. We have to integrate old writings into what we have discovered about economics, politics, psychology, warfare, biology, linguistics...
One may have a sure and certain intimate conviction concerning a point and still allow that other perceptual centers/persons could have another.