Pastor AIO: @Enigma, it seems that there are some underlying issues that you and I need to discuss, and not just brush under the carpet with glib apologies. I'm open to having this discussion, I hope you are. It'll have to be publicly, here on NL though.

this two friends you two really need to meet face to face and sort this out.
Lol

MyJoe: @ihedinobi
If you have had problems with certain discussants and found the exercise unedifying, my sympathies. I will skip the bit about degrading your family heritage since I respect your strong Christian values. But I will like to say that while I do place considerable value on the Bible, I doubt that the “value of the scriptures” would mean exactly the same thing to you and me. That portion of the Bible is not of any particular importance to me – I highlighted your post because I had thought Christians generally accept that the “sons of God” were angels and you are the first person I recall to hold a contrary view. So if you only discuss these matters in a heavy atmosphere and with someone who shares similar interests, feel free to respond no further. Not that I sought a discussion per se. I just hope to understand why you hold your position. I have no intention to debate or that sort of thing.

Now to answer your question:
I have not paid any particular attention to that verse beyond recollections of what I learnt many years back – you know, Sunday school, children’s Bible and CRK stuff. Now that you have made me to think about the matter, I think those who taught me knew what they were talking about because:
1. The expression “sons of God” used here is used in other verses of the Bible to refer to angels. For example, Job 1:6 and 38:7 – or weren’t the guys in Job angels?
2. St Jude talks about angels abandoning their positions (Jude 6).
3. St Peter talks about “the spirits in prison” and links them with the days of Noah (1Pe 3:19, 20).

@Edit
No no. I didn’t mean that the devil was among them, although, funny enough, that seems to fit in somehow. I’m sure you are familiar with the phrase, “the devil is in the detail”. Just a harmless idiomatic expression stretched a bit.

congrat myjoe.
Thats a job well done.
Peace

Ihedinobi:

My beloved brother, I do not mind telling you that that is hard work. But I'll do my best to make it short work and avoid muddling things up along the way.

First off, I also held the notion that they were angels for two reasons: (a) the Nephilim that were mentioned later and I'd assumed were their progeny and (b) the two verses in Job that appeared to include Satan among the sons of God (Job 1:6, 2:1).

(a) The same verse where the Nephilim were mentioned was the same where the notion that they were borne of these marriages was destroyed. In the Amplified, Genesis 6:4 reads

"there were giants on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God lived with the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

The Nephilim, that is, the giants were part of the environment, not the product of those marriages.

(b) I read the two verses in Job from four translations to get the true picture. I didn't quite need to, because there is Psalm 82 to address assumptions. In the Amplified Bible, the word, angels, was put in square brackets to explain the sons of God. In the New Living Translation, the expression is "members of the heavenly court". In the New International Version, the word was angels with a footnote saying that the Hebrew is "sons of God". King James Version, New King James Version, and the Revised Standard Version all run with "sons of God".

Again I declare, nothing in the Scriptures may be interpreted alone. The Scriptures must be interpreted by Scriptures. Eph 3:10 record in the Amplified Bible, "[The purpose is] that through the church the complicated, many-sided wisdom of God in all its infinite variety and innumerable aspects might now be made known to the angelic rulers and authorities (principalities and powers) in the heavenly sphere."

Psalm 82 speaks of God having a council of sorts with authorities. The latter chapters of Daniel are filled with speakings of angelic authorities operating under God. Paul's letters to the Ephesians and the Colossians are quite rife with mentions of spiritual authorities that are not human in nature. These all lend their meaning to Job 1 and 2. So, the sons of God there are most likely angelic authorities charged with oversight of the Old Creation, that which is passing away. But do they as well lend their meaning to Genesis 6? We have Jesus's words to educate us there. Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:36 speak of one essential difference between the human and the angel: the human marries and bears children, the angel doesn't. It is extreme liberality with the Scriptures that result in careless meanings like that the sons of God of Genesis 6 are the sons of God of Job 1 and 2.

However, who are the sons of God in Genesis 6?
Before anything else is said, it must be known without question that they were human. They most definitely were.

Having said that, I'll go on to say that they were, possibly among others Seth's lineage. Adam had two distinctive sons who represented the two paths available to the human race: (1) Cain and (2) Abel. We know what Cain did to Abel. We probably also know why. But do we know the significance of Eve's utterance in Gen 4:25 when she had Seth?

There was a Seed promised. He was going to come from a line of men who held on to God and were faithful to His commands. Abel was the first we saw who indicated understanding of the gravity of Adam's failure in the Garden. His sacrifice pleased the Lord and the Lord accepted his person. Upon his death at the hand of Cain (another incredibly significant thing in itself), Seth replaced him. Seth's lineage was the same as Abel's lineage in the eyes of the Lord. Everyone who was in the same understanding that Abel had about the Righteousness of the Lord and the gravity of Adam's failure was morally and legally, even if not biologically, of that lineage. They are those called sons of God as against sons of men.

From the beginning, there has been two lines: those who are the Lord's and those who are their own. Abel and all in his character are of the first, Cain and all in his character are of the second. And, from the very beginning, there was never supposed to be mixture of the lines or else there would be corruption and loss of purity in that which is the Lord's.

Those who, in those days, made acceptable sacrifices on altars recognized by the Lord are those that proceeded from Seth's line. Like I said, others not of this line biologically may have joined them. They were also accepted. But I'm sure it'll be recognized that they were the exception among their people. . .

imagine ^^^^

(myjoe got this perfectly Right)

This is called twisting scriptures

not when other scriptures made references to it.

CRAP.

Ihedinobi: Likewise those of the line who thought nothing of the sacrifice were rejected by the Lord as being of men and not His, just like Cain was.

If the purity of the line had been maintained and not corrupted by those marriage alliances, wickedness would not have filled the earth resulting in having only one righteous man approved of the Lord in that entire generation. But for the Flood, things would have degenerated to the point that we'd have completely lost God in our imaginations and there'd be no line through which the Messiah would come. This was why the Flood.

In fact, I understood God's statement about His Spirit striving with man for the first time doing this re-examination. The instant the marriages began to happen, it became incontrovertible that even these sons of God were flesh and could no longer be counted on. They would eventually lose sight of the significance of the purity of their line and God's last link to the earth He created would be gone. To secure that link, the Lord destroyed everything that threatened it.

I don't mean to explain the Flood. I mean to explain that the sons of God were certain people with peculiar characteristics. They were people like Abel, like Enoch, like Noah. You'll see the significance of the issue of marital purity later with Abraham and his children, then later the children of Israel and finally us Christians.

There's a great deal in this study. Many things that are thrown up as a result of defining these sons of God. That's one reason I said it's very hard work. And I hate to do it for anyone who doesn't belong in the House because doing so makes nonsense of the sacred things I present and causes incredible bitterness as as result of the wrangling that ensues.

what made you think that all this stuff from your head is supported by the bible!

The catholic church is indeed the first church no doubt, but it needs a revival and its good that it has begun with the exposition of wolves in sheep clothing (pedophiles e.t.c). Return to a God-centered christian life, and a deeper meaning relationship with God instead of meaningless rituals designed to give you a feeling of piety. Shalom!

truthislight:

congrat myjoe.
Thats a job well done.
Peace

I think your is position is much closer to Mr Obi's than mine, but I realise people like to emphasise differences. I mean, the both of you appear to take the Adam and Abel stories to be literal historical accounts. I don't. Not that there is anything particularly non-Christian about my position, as I doubt Enigma, too, takes the stories as literal and historical.

Mr Anony, let me know if you perceive any difficulties in what I have set out as explanations of the verse in Genesis 6.

Ihedinobi: Mr Anony, let me know if you perceive any difficulties in what I have set out as explanations of the verse in Genesis 6.

This is one point where I don't agree with you for now. however, let me give it some study time and then we can discuss properly.

Mr_Anony:
This is one point where I don't agree with you. however, let me give it some study time and then we can discuss properly.

Ok. Give a holla when you're done. If I may add, I wasn't expecting agreement or disagreement given your current belief about the verse. I expected you to point out inconsistencies or oversights in my explanation. The Scriptures are meant for us to understand. If there are inconsistencies, they'll be entirely with our understanding. My hope had been that you would show where my explanation failed of sufficiency.

But if you want a break to examine the issue yourself before discussing it again, then, I'll wait.

MyJoe:
I think your is position is much closer to Mr Obi's than mine, but I realise people like to emphasise differences. I mean, the both of you appear to take the Adam and Abel stories to be literal historical accounts. I don't. Not that there is anything particularly non-Christian about my position, as I doubt Enigma, too, takes the stories as literal and historical.

if it is not literal why will other bible writers make references to it that the blood of innocent Abel cries out?

Why will his name be mention among the line of witnesses in NT?

When the bible says something is illustration it always points that out.

We gamble seriously when we decide on our own to pick which ones are illustration and which ones are not.

Some reasons for this are as a result of doctrine that are not rooted in the bible.

christemmbassey:
u know u r not speaking d truth. How old r u , which set (yr) and which school? Pls lets leave this, we all know that sodomy is a big problem among d priests in rcc. That is y they r conducting gay mariages

why are you lying? show me where the Catholic church conducted a gay marriage