There is this scripture in Job 1:66Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.Does anyone have any ideas as to what is going on here?Who were the sons of God?Why did satan join them before God?p.s. This is the KJV of this scripture, the NIV has 'angels' instead of 'sons of God'.
The sons of God are angels so far I know.That satan came along only means that he's an angel.I heard this at a study at a biblecamp that there was a time where every angel (fallen or not) had to present themselves before God. satan is not more powerfull then God so he has to obey. :-)
I agree with Warrior.Sons of God = AngelsSatan = Fallen Angel Job 1:6 is one of the instances that shows God created Satan and all the other angels, and commands and uses them whether they are fallen or holy angels. Other Scriptures about these fallen angels are Gen 6:2, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 1:6.The assembling of the angels before God shows they are still accountable to Him, and that even though they are given the ability to try us, they still can only do what God gives them the ability to do.
The assembling of the angels before God shows they are still accountable to Him, and that even though they are given the ability to try us, they still can only do what God gives them the ability to do.
There is mystery here, but that "God is on His throne" is the core message of the Revelation.
Who said anything about a mystery.
and all the stuff about the Nephilim.
It's interesting to note that satan had to give account also in the Job scriptures you referenced.
I think I've missed something in the translation here... What is the linguistic or otherwise basis for translating 'sons of God' to mean [i]angels[/i]?We know that Job was an Elamite Genesis 10:22 The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram. and that God was still appearing to man in Exodus 2410 And they saw the God of Israel: and under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in clearness.11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.12 And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount,...so what is the basis for assuming that the 'sons of God' were [u]not[/u] on earth... and therefore angels? Earth, after all, is where Satan had been spending his time... Let's face it, there's no way he could have appeared in God's presence without God noticing, because of the attitude he brought with him.And there is Luke 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of [b]Adam, which was [the son] [u]of God[/u][/b].Now that I've written this, I see '[son of]' - which is not in the original. Still, my other questions stand, please. OK. So I'm suggesting there is an underlying assumption that God was not on earth when the 'sons of God' assembled in His presence, which has led translators to believe 'sons of God' must be angels. Can this assumption be justified?
'ben elohim' = 'sons of God'In scripture thats only used for angels, the reference Ron gave was from Gen. and JobDo you have Albert Barnes notes on the bible? or any other commentary? that might be helpful. From what I've read 'ben elohim' is not used when it refers to human beings. When I had read what Ron had put down I had an explosion of understanding on satan having to give account or answer to God. That's what my comments were mainly of.
I must admit I tend to look the whole way across scripture for consistency, regardless of what commentaries say.There is no other place where it is suggested that angels are God's 'sons' and that worries me, because the link between man being in His image, and the only begotten Son of the Father being made Flesh so irrevocably connects God with man, that I feel very resistant to the idea 'sons of God' could ever mean angels. And I want to give it a good fight before capitulating - if you know what I mean.There is also a clear separation at the beginning of Hebrews, between angels and man and the idea that angels (fallen) and women had children is just nonsense.To me, there is more sense in thinking the phrase is linked to Adam being breathed into by God and Eve being taken out of Adam's side, as an explanation for the separation 'sons of God' and 'daughters of men'. But, I can't justify that thought from translation - it just makes sense to my understanding. With due respect to venerable translators, you can all laugh now :-P Daryl,Nothing I've said militates against Satan having to make an account to God. My points are simply that there was a time when God was with man without a tabernacle and that the assumption God was in heaven [i]above the earth[/i], is just that - an assumption - and this means that if the sons of God were actually human, then their having children with the daughters of men makes much more sense and doesn't interfere with any other premise in scripture. Satan's appearance in the presence of God, in the company of [i]men[/i] (sons of God), is what he has been doing from the beginning, and ties in with several other scriptures. We know he can make himself look like anything from a serpent to an angel of light, so why not a man? - but, God would have 'recognised' him.
It is a very old fashioned view and one which I dislike in many ways, but I am forced to interpret the 'sons of God' in Genesis or Nephilim (fallen ones) as rebellious angels.