SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : So who were the "sons of God" spoken of in Genesis?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Croref,

Quote:
Angels were individually created. In addition, they are sexless__and needed only have been. OMT: Adam was also called a son of God. He, too, was but formed out of dirt.



I understand. That is the modern standard objection to this ancient view. Angels neither marry or are given in marriage; however, this is the 'normal' habitation of angels that the angels that sinned apparently left in order to take to themselves wives of men. They were not procreating as angels, but as angels that had taken on human form. All of the faculties associated with human beings can be taken on by angels. We see this particularly in Genesis 19:

And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. (Genesis 19:1-3)

Here are two angels that have taken on human form. They are moving in supernatural power- even smiting the vile men near the house with blindness. Yet, here they are sitting down with Lot and his family eating a meal. This agrees with our passage in Hebrews where men entertain angels unawares. The words 'they did eat' are insightful. These angels were not merely figures that looked like men, they were actually capable of eating food. This tells me that they had digestive systems. If they were able to form a digestive system, that would require the entire rest of the human physiology to function (heart, lungs, etc), what would reason would we have to think that their technology or power was insufficient to form reproductive faculties? I don't think there is any reasonable argument for saying they could form everything but a reproductive system. Just my view of it. (WKIP) Blessings.



_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2012/11/10 12:56Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi CroRef,

Quote:
OMT2: Kindly read this verse and try to explain it away to be speaking of angels__OK? Gen 4:26. Thanks Robert.



I think this was addressed earlier:

Quote:
The Old Testament only ever seems to use 'sons of God' to describe angels. It is a very apt description of angels in that they were not 'sons' to anyone else; they were created as an entire species by God Himself. Those who have received their life direct from God, without an intermediary, are justifiably described as 'sons of God'; Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.(philologos on Luke 3:38 KJV)



I'm focused on the point, "Those who have received their life direct from God, without an intermediary, are justifiably described as 'sons of God'."

Blessings.




_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2012/11/10 13:00Profile
Croref
Member



Joined: 2008/3/18
Posts: 334


 Re:

by RobertW on 2012/11/10 9:56:24

Hi Croref,

Quote:
Angels were individually created. In addition, they are sexless__and needed only have been. OMT: Adam was also called a son of God. He, too, was but formed out of dirt.



I understand. That is the modern standard objection to this ancient view. Angels neither marry or are given in marriage; however, this is the 'normal' habitation of angels that the angels that sinned apparently left in order to take to themselves wives of men. They were not procreating as angels, but as angels that had taken on human form. All of the faculties associated with human beings can be taken on by angels. We see this particularly in Genesis 19:


That is conjecture, Robert. COMMON sense says so. Human form does not mean human biology! We have no right make that assumption except from unbelief. If that was the case then Jesus went into the grave to preach to a mixed alien crowd not of Himself! NOT possible! What's more it doesn't need be that way at all if you consider that we face the same condition today that unless God shortens the time there will again be no "human flesh" left to save__a condition whereby we see Romans 1 relived by humans__the same way it as in Genesis. The human "sons of God" who no longer wished to retain God in their thinking___right down to where we see Noah__alone.

I asked you to read and comment on Genesis 4:26. Still waiting.

 2012/11/10 13:13Profile
Croref
Member



Joined: 2008/3/18
Posts: 334


 Re:

Hi CroRef,

Quote:
OMT2: Kindly read this verse and try to explain it away to be speaking of angels__OK? Gen 4:26. Thanks Robert.



I think this was addressed earlier:



I'm focused on the point, "Those who have received their life direct from God, without an intermediary, are justifiably described as 'sons of God'."


Yes ___but not in this case. Angels, called men, didn't call upon the Name of the Lord. __Unless you are prepared to now say that men are not always men when men are spoken of when committing an act?

 2012/11/10 13:16Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re:

If the Sons of God are the lineage of Seth and the Daughters of Men are of the lineage of Cain, Why would that mixture create nephilim ??

 2012/11/10 13:27Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: Gen 4:26.

//26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.//

what I see here in this verse is that the sons of Seth are called men.

 2012/11/10 13:39Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Croref,

Quote:
Yes ___but not in this case. Angels, called men, didn't call upon the Name of the Lord. __Unless you are prepared to now say that men are not always men when men are spoken of when committing an act?



I must totally be missing the question here. Rather than me try to guess, please explain exactly what you are asking. Blessings.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2012/11/10 13:42Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re:

Whom are the "sons of God" in Job ch 1 v 6 ??

 2012/11/10 13:46Profile
Croref
Member



Joined: 2008/3/18
Posts: 334


 Re:

by proudpapa on 2012/11/10 10:27:02

If the Sons of God are the lineage of Seth and the Daughters of Men are of the lineage of Cain, Why would that mixture create nephilim ??

Who knows? What do we have go on but conjectured reasoning that might say that men, in this case, sons of God and because they were sons of God by obedience that opened God up to them in a some super way that released Him to them in a might way both intellectually and physically. The "daughters of men" speak of something lesser since, by custom, the male child received the attention and teachings. We must also keep in mind that women were only vessels for procreation__not intended to be the head.

 2012/11/10 13:50Profile
Croref
Member



Joined: 2008/3/18
Posts: 334


 Re:

I would say angels. No reason not to.

 2012/11/10 13:51Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy