by RobertW on 2012/11/10 12:57:39Hi proudpapa,I know this was not addressed to me, but I wanted to mention it earlier anyway. The phrase 'sons of God' in the Hebrew is simply ben Elohiym (בן אלהים). 'Ben' can be translated as son, sons, child, children, etc. The exact phrase 'sons of God' is only used in Genesis 6 and Job 1 & 2. In reference to the OT we have this passage in Luke 3:38, Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God. So the only definite place where a man is called a 'son of God' prior to the New Testament is Luke 3:38 and it is to Adam. The sons of God motif in the New Testament are defined strictly as those that are led by the Spirit. I think to suggest that there were 'sons of God' in the OT other than Adam is to inadvertantly imply that there were men born again of the Spirit and led of the Spirit in the OT. Just some added thoughts. Blessings.
And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Luke 17:26-29There has been a strong inference presented in this post that links the two historical events of the flood and the destruction of Sodom together. That link has been drawn from an idea and that idea is darker than most people imagine it to be. There has also been a claim that the sin of Sodom is primarily not a sin of biological males desiring to have familiar relations with other biological males. Instead it has been presented as men desiring to have familiar relations with angels. The link is the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis chapter six who have been presented as the offspring of angelic and human relations. The idea is that the men of Sodom were primarily interested in the fact that Lots guests were angels and as such knew either by knowledge or experience that his guests were angelic and therefore something to be earnestly desired even above the flesh of men. I want to say that this is occult thinking and even were it true has no place in the thoughts of those who are seeking to serve God in truth. Regardless of what happened in Genesis chapter six there is no such connection between those events and Genesis chapter nineteen. Further in the passage from Luke chapter seventeen concerning the days of Noah and the days of Lot the sum of the activities mentioned all relate to reasonable and natural activities. There is no reference to immorality let alone men desiring the flesh of angels. The overwhelming purpose of this passage is to draw attention to the suddenness as well as the foolishness of disobedience to God laws. That their were angels who left their dwellings and took company with men in order to participate in marriage is clear enough but that these angels, which in Peters letter are said to be in chains of darkness awaiting judgment, are not said to have desired the flesh of men, but in seeing the beauty of the daughters of men, desired to be married, a thing not permitted to them. As a matter of certain knowledge I tell you plainly that in drawing this link as I have presented it simply above amounts to a pure satanic fantasy. Apart from this it is a misrepresentation of the facts of Genesis nineteen where it is clearly stated that the young men and the old men from every quarter of the city of Sodom surrounded Lots house and demanded to have familiar relations with the two men whom Lot was seeking to preserve. That Lot held these two men is high regard is obvious from the passage where he calls them lords, but to infer from the descriptor angels that the men of the city knew this and therefore strongly desired it, being somehow of a more desirable familiarity is again occult and attends to pure satanic knowledge. To press into the true meaning of the passage is not so difficult if it is read in simplicity without the attendant occult knowledge that is implicit in this thread. Verse four of chapter nineteen makes the matter straightforward and clear. This verse tells us who are present at Lots door men of Sodom surrounded the house both young and old, and all the people from every quarter. The saying all the people must include women as well as biblically people are always both men and women. This fact gives a proper meaning to what homosexuality really is. Today this abomination is itself being changed in meaning to become a psychological equivalence of natural sexual desire between a man and a woman in marriage. In Lot day perverse women were just as complicit in the activities of men and were given over to the same lusts and perverse inclinations. Homosexuality is not a psychological phenomena it is primarily sexual degeneracy and the fulfilling of lusts that are gender neutral. Male and female alike with mutual admiration and complicity therefore seek homosexual gratification from both male and female. Lot understood this because he offered the men his daughters in a desperate need to preserve the two men in his house. It is for this reason that Lot is called righteous. If the possibility that Lot two virgin daughters were likely to have been refused he would not have thought to offer them in the first place. It is only in the last fifty years or so that homosexuality has been systematically presented as a biologically discreet reality attended by appropriate psychological self-identity. This presentation is a construct of wicked imaginations and has to do with the breakdown of discreet gender identities for the purpose of once again pressing societies into open sexual degeneracy. Biblically when women press into this exchange of the natural for the unnatural it is considered more abominable than men and hence why the Greek expression of heterosexual desire is used in Jude in describing those women who desired what to them were biological males. This does nothing to detract from the principle sin of Sodom that of homosexuality of both men and women. The apostle Paul made this point clear enough (Romans 1:25).On a careful reading of Genesis chapter six it is possible to see that the Nephilim mentioned there is both a reality at that time and a future reality as well. Yet the imprisonment of the angels in chains of eternal darkness in Peter is singular in its account. That is to say there is just one such prison. It may well be that the first time the angels left their abodes and took wives from amongst the daughters of men; the consequence was not as severe as it was the second time it happened. Either way it is clear that the consequence for some angels was singular and final. It is also clear from the passage in Genesis chapter six that this was not a homosexual ambition, but rather an ambition to be like men, having wives. It is also clear that God didnt judge this activity with regards to judging the whole earth until the establishment of the Nephilim in physical reality. This was not just an ambition it became a physical reality. Yet it is not until Numbers 13:33 that the future activity of disobedient angels is seen to have a genealogical identity in the lineage of Anak, who himself was of the Nephilim and therefore in obedience to God law flesh begets flesh, Anak gave issue to sons who are also called Nephilim. The issue of Anak is not an issue of angels and women, but an issue of Anak himself and his wife or else wives. In short the giants in the land were at least 2nd generation offspring of a disobedient union between an angel and a women in the first instance. The judgement of the angels who abandoned their heavenly estate to take wives was so severe and so complete it would serve as a terrible and fearful reminder that all such unions would be dealt with swiftly and decisively. It stands to reason therefore that to attribute this knowledge and ambition on the part of the Sodomites would be a truly exceptional thing to both desire and to provoke. If it were true then it would amount to a wickedness of almost incomprehensible proportions. It would amount to men and women setting themselves in the way of angels in heaven to tempt them. It is for this reason that I have said that this idea is occult and could only have its final root in Satan seeking to draw the angels away for an end time activity or effect. To my own knowledge such cooperation would amount to directly serving Satan. It could not be entered into without certain knowledge. Whatever it is however, it is a dangerous well of knowledge to be drinking of.
hi, i think a more important question that makes more sense to ask is"where are the sons that are in the satement "the whole earth groaneth for the manifestations of the sons of God" that is a now question and you could be the answer.jimp
Since most here believe God gave man a freewill and that freewill was never taken away due to Adam's transgression, why not strongly consider that the men who called upon the Name of Lord were declared by God to be His sons, by Him? 1. They recognized His presence 2.They prayed to Him 3.They obeyed Him__and He answered them with prosperity of all sorts. __and then we read Romans 1.