Hi Darryl, you wrote:
>It doe appear that way though why I don't know unless they have already
>answered the questions about who were the "daugheters of men" and the "sons
>of god" who caused all the trouble to begin with. I havn't a clue who they
>were . Perhaps some has some thoughts?
Here is my "two cents."
Some contend these are angels, perhaps fallen angels. But is that
the case here? The Hebrew phrase in this passage, and elsewhere in
the Old Testament, can refer to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psa.
29:1; 89:6). But the same term also describes humans who lived their
lives in service to God (Deut. 14:1; 32:5; Psa. 73:15; Hosea 1:10).
How should it be interpreted here?
For a start, what are angels supposed to do regarding us humans? In
Hebrews 1:14, "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to
minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" If that is their
proper role, wouldn't it be out of character for them to be involved
in these trysts? Also, even if they had the desire to sire human
offspring would they be capable of that? Angels, while appearing as
men at certain times, do not possess physical bodies as we do, and
should not be able to father human children.
Furthermore, angels do not marry. "The children of this world marry,
and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy
to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither
marry, nor are given in marriage; neither can they die anymore, for
they are equal unto the angels and are the children of God, being the
children of the resurrection" (Luke 20:34-36). And in Mark 12:25,
"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are
given in marriage, but are as the angels which are in heaven.î
Two relevant bits of information exude from these passages. Angels
do not die or marry. Sons of God, who marry, should be humans.
Throughout the New Testament, the term "sons of God" or "children of
God" is applied exclusively to humans (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14,19; Rom.
9:26; II Cor. 6:18; Gal. 3:26). Nowhere in the New Testament do
these terms apply to angels.
Could they have been fallen angels? Would it have been possible that
disenfranchised angels took possession of the bodies of humans in
order to engage in marriage and procreation? Not likely; fallen
angels or demons are not called "sons of God" anywhere in Scripture.
They have forfeited that right.
Furthermore, if these had been fallen angels dabbling with the human
race, then the flood would have brought only temporary relief.
Demons would not drown. Any marriage-minded demons could have just
waited and preyed upon the next batch of humans. Besides, the notion
of demons desiring to enter into holy matrimony is a bit curious.
If the term "sons of God" refers to humans, then who could they have
been? Perhaps those "who called upon the name of the Lord," the
generations of Seth. Then who were the "daughters of menî? The
daughters of men could have been the generations of Cain, or perhaps
they came from the indigenous populations who co-existed with the
Adamite population in the same region.
Some have contended that what has been translated "sons of God" (bene
elohim), refers instead to sons, or servants, of pagan gods. An
example can be found in Exodus 18:11 which states, "the Lord is
greater than all gods (elohim) ..." Daughters of ha'adam or "the
Adam," then, would be Adamite women. Using this line of logic,
Genesis 6:1-2 could be translated: "And it came to pass, when the
Adamites began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters
were born unto them, that the sons [or servants] of the gods saw the
daughters of the Adamites that they were fair ..."
What comes through in either translation is that there were two
distinct populations, some were in the covenant line from Adam,
others were not, and they were intermarrying. What was the
consequence of such mixed marriages? Reduced life spans.
Mixed marriages, probably between long-lived descendants from Adam
and the indigenous populations, reduced life spans, not the flood..
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orislol.com
ìThe Answer we should have known about 150 years agoî
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 26 2002 - 18:36:39 EDT