Aliens, Angels, or Adopted? Who Are the Sons of God?

News and Features

Inside Report Archives

| Aliens, Angels, or Adopted? Who Are the Sons of God?

By Pastor Doug Batchelor

October 30, 1938. It was Halloween night, and much of America had tuned their radios to the Columbia Broadcasting System, which had just finished reporting on the weather and began playing music. Within moments, the broadcast was interrupted by a news flash about strange explosions on Mars. The announcer reassured the audience that as more information became available, more announcements would be made. Then the music continued.

As the night progressed, the music was interrupted frequently, now with terrifying reports of an invasion. Aliens from Mars had landed in New Jersey and in cities around the world. The Earth was under attack. Panic filled the streets as many people fled their homes.

But it was all fiction.

A young Orson Wells had adapted the H.G. Wells’ book War of the Worlds for broadcast and modified the script to present the story as though it was happening in real time. Many listeners took the fictional radio play to be real.

Those who panicked were operating with incomplete information. They had failed to hear the station announce at the beginning and the end of the broadcast that it was all mere drama. Coming in at the middle, hearing only part of the story, they had no context and ran off thinking the sky was falling.

Similarly, a passage in Genesis when read out of context has caused many to believe that Earth has been invaded by aliens from outer space. Let’s take a look at that challenging verse:

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose (Genesis 6:1, 2).

Some believe that the term “sons of God” refers to extraterrestrial invaders. They believe that these beings are fallen angels or aliens from space who took human females as wives and produced offspring. They rationalize this belief by saying that the progeny produced by these unions were “giants” (v. 4). They believe these unholy unions were ultimately responsible for the increased wickedness of man.

On the surface, this seems to be a reasonable explanation of Scripture. But as we shall see, without understanding the context that surrounds this passage, you can actually be confused into believing that certain fictions are real. Fortunately, we can clear up any confusion on the sons of God quite easily by gathering more information from the Bible.

Angels Are Spirits
The King James Bible uses the term “sons of God” 11 times in two primary ways. However, it never uses the term to refer to an angelic being.

“He who makes his angels spirits …” (Psalms 104:4). Angels are spirits; they are not flesh. They are all around us now, but we cannot see them. They generally remain in their spiritual form and have no physical integration in our world—they don’t go to school, get jobs, or raise families. They are here to “minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Hebrews 1:14).

Even if they wanted to marry and have babies, they couldn’t; they don’t have human DNA. It would be easier for a jellyfish to marry a mountain goat than for angels to marry people. Thus, it doesn’t make practical sense to believe that our passage in Genesis refers to the marriage of angels, fallen or holy, to humans.

Angels are not born; they are created. If God wanted more angels, He wouldn’t need to marry them off to humans or other angels to reproduce. He could create them from scratch. Speaking of Lucifer, God said, “The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes Was prepared for you on the day you were created (Ezekiel 28:13 NKJV, emphasis added).

Moreover, Jesus tells us plainly that angels do not marry. Marriage is a uniquely human institution, reserved for mankind. “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). Mark and Luke suggest the same thing: “Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God” (Luke 20:36; some translations render it “sons of God”). Notice here that Jesus makes a distinction between angels and sons of God. They are classified separately, which means they are not the same thing.

So if the sons of God are not angels, what are they?

Cosmic Life?
While the sons of God were not space invaders, the Bible does appear to teach that there is other life in the cosmos. It is clear in Scripture that Jesus made other planets: God “has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds” (Hebrews 1:2 NKJV).

In the parable of the lost sheep, the Earth represents the one lost sheep, a wandering world that went astray, the one Christ came to save. It’s easy to imagine that God, in His infinite existence, created other worlds with other physical beings. Of course, we know He had seraphim and cherubim and other angels prior to our world, so at a minimum we know there are at least those extraterrestrial creatures. “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth” (Colossians 1:16 NKJV). “And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth ... I heard saying: ‘Blessing and honor and glory and power Be to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!’ ” (Revelation 5:13 NKJV).

However, most of these other created beings do not visit this world. The Earth is infected with a deadly contagious disease called sin, and we are likely quarantined. The only ones allowed to go into a quarantined hospital ward are the hospital staff; in this case, God’s angels. They are ministering spirits.

Princes of Planets
Thousands of years ago, an intriguing meeting took place in heaven. “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them” (Job 1:6).

In attendance at this meeting are sons of God, as well as Satan himself. Satan says that he has come from the Earth. The sons of God were there representing their un-fallen worlds in God’s universe. Satan was there to represent the Earth.

Why would Satan be representing our world? Originally, Adam had dominion over the Earth. He was created by God to subdue and manage it. God said to Adam and Eve, “Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth on the earth” (Genesis 1:28).

While Adam was in obedience to God, he enjoyed dominion over the world. But once Adam sinned and obeyed Satan, that dominion was forfeited to the enemy. “To whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness” (Romans 6:16 NKJV).

Even Jesus referred to Satan as “the prince of this world” (John 12:31).

In the Gospel of Luke, the genealogy of Jesus is traced all the way back to Adam. Notice what Luke says about this lineage: “the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God” (Luke 3:38, emphasis added).

The difference between Seth and Adam is the bellybutton. Adam was created by the hand of God; Seth was born of Eve. Adam was the son of God, created to have dominion over the Earth. Thus one definition for sons of God is those beings God Himself created to have dominion over the worlds He made. These beings were not born but were created directly by God.

Job 38:7 tells us that when our world was created, “the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy.” The “morning stars” are angels, whereas “the sons of God” are the leaders of other worlds. (See Revelation 1:20.)

With that cleared up, let’s talk about the second way the term “sons of God” is used.

Heirs of Righteousness
The other meaning of sons of God refers to human beings who have been recreated by God’s Spirit. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Romans 8:14). Matthew 5:9 adds, “Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God” (NKJV).

Here Jesus is obviously referring to human beings, but not just any human beings; these are peacemakers, the righteous children of God. In no way should this be construed to refer to angels or aliens.

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12). Notice that there were those who were not sons of God, but that through receiving Him became sons of God.

It should be mentioned that “sons of God” doesn’t mean just males. Many Bible translations render the phrase “children of God.” Galatians 3:26 says, “For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” It is by faith that a man or woman becomes a “child of God.” (See also Isaiah 56:5; Philippians 2:15.)

The inescapable conclusion from these verses and others is that the sons of God in Genesis 6 refers to the righteous children of God.

Daughters of Men
The term “daughters of men,” therefore, refers to the unrighteous children of men, those human beings who do not call on the name of the Lord. In the context of our Bible passage, “daughters of men” refers to the offspring of Cain and his wife.

Originally, Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain murdered Abel, so God gave Adam and Eve another son, Seth. He began to have children of his own, and they “began to call on the name of the Lord” (Genesis 4:25, 26). And from what we’ve seen in the Bible, those who call on the name of the Lord are called the sons of God.

Now Cain had been banished from God’s presence. He settled “in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch” (Genesis 4:16–18).

Here, before the Flood, we have the descendants of Cain living in cities and the descendants of Seth living in the country. As long as they remained separate, the sons of God remained pure in their religious beliefs and practices.

However, eventually they began to intermingle. Maybe the sons of God needed supplies that could be easily obtained in the cities where the daughters of men resided. The sons of God and daughters of men became familiar with each other, even friendly. Whatever the case, soon the descendants of Seth, or sons of God, began to marry the daughters of men, or the descendants of Cain.

Mixed Marriages
It’s even quite possible the sons of God went into this situation with good intentions. Maybe they believed they could convert these daughters of Cain, introducing them to the Lord their God. However, the counsel of God is clear:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God (2 Corinthians 6:14–18).

God does not want His children marrying the unconverted or the unbelieving, even if they have a pretty face, the nicest disposition, or a passionate belief in another religion. It makes no difference; God says that relationship will have problems.

So the result of these intermarriages was not only giants, but sorrow. Instead of the sons of God influencing the daughters of men, the daughters of men influenced the sons of God.

Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly (Deuteronomy 7:3, 4; emphasis added).

The Bible is filled with stories about the sons of God mingling with the daughters of men and the disasters that follow as a result. Samson, chosen by God, was derailed by the Philistine women. His parents pled with him to avoid marrying a pagan bride, but he insisted on having what he wanted (Judges 14:3).

Solomon no doubt believed that he could marry the daughters from pagan nations and convert them. However, those pagan daughters drew away Solomon’s heart. This is why God is so adamant about His children not marrying unbelievers. It is almost always the case that the believer is gradually transformed by the unbeliever, not the other way around.

Jesus likewise has a warning for us in these end-times:

But as the days of [Noah] were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that [Noah] entered into the ark (Matthew 24:37, 38).

Jesus here is likely referring to the mixed marriages of Genesis 6 that brought on the universal wickedness leading to the Flood.

As in Noah’s day, before the Flood, things that led to the destruction of the world with a deluge by water are going to happen again. They are a preview of what’s going to happen before the destruction of the world by a flood of fire when Jesus returns. History is going to repeat itself, but we don’t have to be among the repeat offenders.

Adoption Choices
Not everyone who thinks they are a son or daughter of God really is. The Pharisees boasted to Jesus that they were the children of Abraham. Jesus corrected them. “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham” (John 8:39). This is a simple principle to test our heritage. Which “father” do we follow in our actions? Jesus told the religious leaders, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do” (John 8:44).

When we are born again and adopted into the family of God, we will want to imitate our heavenly Father. “He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked” (1 John 2:6 NKJV).

If you are not a son or daughter of God now, the wonderful news is that you can choose a new family.

By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward (Hebrews 11:24–26 NKJV).

When called by God, Moses traded in his Egyptian adoption for a heavenly one. Through Jesus, you can too.

When the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ (Galatians 4:4–7 NKJV).

Right now you can choose to be a child of the King, an heir of eternal life, and become a son or daughter of God in whom He is well pleased! Just ask Him.

Download PDF

The Bible on Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage

Comments

When you post, you agree to the terms and conditions of our comments policy. Click here to read it.

If you have a Bible question for Pastor Doug Batchelor or the Amazing Facts Bible answer team, please submit it by clicking here. Due to staff size, we are unable to answer Bible questions posted in the comments.

To help maintain a Christian environment, we closely moderate all comments.

Please be patient. We strive to approve comments the day they are made, but please allow at least 24 hours for your comment to appear. Comments made on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday may not be approved until the following Monday.

Comments that include name-calling, profanity, harassment, ridicule, etc. will be automatically deleted and the invitation to participate revoked.

Comments containing URLs outside the family of Amazing Facts websites will not be approved.

Comments containing telephone numbers or email addresses will not be approved.

Comments off topic may be deleted.

Please do not comment in languages other than English.

Please note: Approved comments do not constitute an endorsement by the ministry of Amazing Facts or by Pastor Doug Batchelor. This website allows dissenting comments and beliefs, but our comment sections are not a forum for ongoing debate.

Leave a Comment Below

Just leave your name and comment below. No need to create an account. All comments are moderated. Spam comments will not be approved.

Enter your email to verify your comment.

We won't send you any marketing or solicitation emails.

69 Comments

Henry

The text does not explicitly endorse a polarized view; rather, it invites readers to engage with the ambiguities inherent in human experience. The genealogy presented in Genesis may not be exhaustive but serves to illustrate the continuum of human behavior—both virtuous and flawed—rather than establishing clear lines of demarcation between good and evil.

The Bible has a habit of briefly discussing or omitting significant insightful details if not directly related to salvation story toward Jesus. This omission doesn't mean certain things did or didn't happen, this ambiguity can easily leads to subjectivity.

For example, imagine that King David wasnt directly related to salvation story & that only one portion/instance of his life was told (Bathsheba - 2 Samuel 11). Without more comprehensive/whole information, we would probably have a differemt, more dim view of him (like Lamech) as: lacking self control, polygamist, decietful, manupulative, indifferent to consequences (concerned with maintaining his image and covering up his sin than with the lives affected by it), careless idleness, etc.

Each person deserves to be understood in the fullness of context when judging their overall character rather than a brief, vague instance. Can't Lamech and other Cainite descendants be understood as complex/nuanced, ambiguous individuals rather than definitively wicked?

Henry

I dont really understand why or where in Genesis context (Chapters 1-7), does it clearly support a polarized view between Sethites & Cainites/simplistic good vs evil based on exegesis?

The text does not provide comprehensive details about Cain's descendants (Genesis 4:17-24), which limits our understanding of their character and moral standing. This omission raises valid questions about whether we can justly categorize these groups into strictly good or evil factions. Without a deeper context about their lives, motivations, and choices, to me it seem unjust to categorize them uniformly as "evil?"

Also, I don't understand why there cant be a morally ambiguous possibility or an imperfectly complex struggling space for individuals of this period? The Bible expresses the complexity and nuances of human life, which plausibly occured during this Genesis time even if omitted.

Gideon: Initially called by God to save Israel from Midianites (Judges 6), Gideon showed doubt about God's promises but ultimately led Israel to victory; however, he later made an ephod that became an object of idolatry (Judges 8:27).
Saul: The first king of Israel (1 Samuel 9-10), Saul started well but became increasingly paranoid and disobedient to God’s commands (1 Samuel 15). His tragic downfall illustrates the complexities of leadership and personal failure.
David: Known as a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14), David committed adultery with Bathsheba and orchestrated her husband Uriah's death (2 Samuel 11). His life reflects both deep faith and significant moral failings.
Jehu: Who exemplified a complex character in executing God's judgment yet allowed personal ambition and violence to cloud his leadership. Jehu was neither entirely good nor entirely wicked, as evidenced by his actions and the outcomes of his reign.
Manasseh: King of Judah who initially led the nation into idolatry and horrendous sins (2 Kings 21). After being taken captive, he repented and turned back to God, illustrating profound transformation.

The complexities presented in these and other narratives seems to encourage us to embrace a more nuanced understanding of human nature as depicted in scripture. They reflect a God who interacts with flawed individuals, offering grace rather than demanding perfection. This perspective aligns with themes found throughout the Bible regarding sin, redemption, and the human condition.

Biblical characters are often portrayed with rich moral dimensions rather than as archetypal figures of good or evil. The Bible frequently showcases characters who struggle with faith, doubt, ambition, and repentance, suggesting that moral clarity is not always attainable. This recognition can lead to a more profound understanding of God’s grace and the human condition.

Lionel

Question: Do we clearly know Lamech's intent in comparing himself to Cain (Arrogance, contriteness, desperation, etc)?

Answer: No, Lamech’s comparison to Cain is ambiguous; thus we do not clearly know his intent definitively. His declaration implies a sense of superiority over Cain by suggesting that if Cain was avenged sevenfold for his transgression (Genesis 4:15), then he would be avenged seventy-sevenfold (Genesis 4:24). This could suggest arrogance—a boastful claim indicating he believes himself beyond reproach or consequence. However, some interpretations posit that this comparison could also reflect desperation or insecurity; he feels threatened by potential retaliation for his own violent acts and seeks reassurance through hyperbolic claims about vengeance. Ultimately, without explicit clarification from the text regarding his emotional state or motivations at the time he made this declaration, we cannot ascertain with certainty whether he acted out of arrogance or another sentiment such as contriteness or desperation.

Question: Do we clearly understand the significance or meaning of the number 77 in this specific context?

Answer: We do not clearly understand the significance or meaning of the number 77 in this context. The number 77 mentioned by Lamech has been interpreted variously within theological discussions such as the proposed intensification of vengeance. However, without additional textual evidence or explicit explanation within scripture itself regarding its significance at that moment in history, we do not clearly understand the significance or meaning of the number 77 in this specific context.

Lionel

Question: Are compact poems/songs, such as Lamech's, subjective and easily prone to misinterpretation unlike author's original intent?

Answer: Yes, Compact poems and songs often encapsulate complex emotions and ideas in a limited space, which can lead to multiple interpretations depending on the reader’s perspective and context. In the case of Lamech’s poem in Genesis 4:23-24, its brevity and poetic form invite various readings—some may see it as an expression of arrogance and pride, while others might interpret it as a lamentation or a reflection on human nature. The subjective nature of poetry means that readers bring their own experiences and biases to their interpretations. This subjectivity can result in misinterpretations that stray from the author’s original intent. In ancient texts like those found in the Bible, cultural context plays a significant role in understanding meaning; thus, modern readers might misinterpret nuances due to differences in cultural background and historical knowledge.

Question: If yes, how does this affect our view of Lamech, does it further complicate his status?

Answer: If we accept that compact poems are subjective and prone to misinterpretation, this significantly complicates our understanding of Lamech’s character and status within the biblical narrative. The ambiguity surrounding his intentions, whether he is boasting about his capacity for violence or expressing some form of desperation, this can lead to divergent views about him. For instance, if one interprets Lamech's words as arrogant boasting about vengeance exceeding Cain’s punishment (Genesis 4:24), he may be seen as a symbol of unchecked human aggression and moral decay. Conversely, if one reads his poem as an expression of fear or insecurity regarding retribution for violence (suggesting he feels threatened), it could evoke sympathy rather than condemnation. Thus, varying interpretations can lead to contrasting assessments of Lamech’s moral standing, ranging from villainous figure to tragic character, thereby complicating his status within theological discussions.

Lionel

Question: Should any human's character be judged as immoral or righteous solely based on one instance of questionable conduct (eg. Genesis 4:23-24) or ancestry (eg. Cain)?

Answer: No human's character should be judged solely based on one instance of questionable conduct or ancestry alone. Ethical evaluations typically consider broader patterns over time rather than isolated incidents unless those incidents reveal consistent behavioral traits indicative of deeper moral failings. In many philosophical frameworks—including those found within religious contexts—character assessment involves examining intentions behind actions alongside their consequences.

9. Question: Do we know what role or perspective that Lamech's wives or God had on this matter?

Answer: We do not have clear insights into the perspectives held by Lamech’s wives nor God's role concerning this matter from the text itself. The narrative provides no dialogue from either wife nor direct commentary from God regarding their thoughts on Lamech’s actions following his declaration about killing a man; thus leaving us without substantial insight into how they perceived these events.

10. Question: Do we confidently know God punished, condemned or was displeased by Lamech's actions?

Answer: In the biblical narrative, particularly in Genesis 4:23-24, Lamech's declaration is presented as a poetic statement that reflects his own perception of his actions. The text does not explicitly state that God punished or condemned Lamech for his actions or words. Instead, it focuses on Lamech's perspective in relation to Cain’s earlier punishment from God for murder. This absence of direct divine condemnation suggests that while Lamech's actions may or may not be viewed negatively within the broader context of biblical morality, there is no clear indication from the text itself that God intervened or expressed displeasure at this moment. Since the scripture does not provide explicit commentary on God's feelings towards Lamech's actions, we cannot confidently assert that God punished or condemned him based solely on the text.

Lionel

Question: Do we know the aggressor, his relationship to Lamech, his purpose for harming, or the extent/severity of the attack?
Answer: We do not have clear information about the aggressor related to Lamech nor details about their relationship or motives for harm. The biblical account mentions an unnamed individual whom Lamech claims to have killed but does not provide specifics regarding this person's identity or their connection to him beyond being an aggressor who wounded him (Genesis 4:24). The lack of detail raises questions about whether this act was premeditated violence or an act committed in self-defense; however, no explicit narrative supports either interpretation conclusively. As such, any understanding regarding motive or severity is largely speculative based on limited textual evidence.
Question: Are we certain if Lamech acted in justified self defense (Dueteronmy 19:4-5) or excessively forceful revenge?
Answer: We are not certain if Lamech acted in justified self-defense or excessively forceful revenge. The text implies that there was some form of provocation ("a man wounded me"), but it does not provide enough detail to assess whether Lamech's response was proportionate to this provocation. Interpretations vary widely; some view it as an act driven by fear for survival while others see it as an escalation indicative of violent tendencies.
Question: What do we know of Lamech's character prior to this event?
Answer: Lamech’s character prior to this event is largely unknown due to limited textual information. He is introduced briefly within genealogies without much characterization beyond being described as a descendant of Cain who took two wives (Genesis 4:19). This polygamous relationship might suggest certain traits such as ambition or desire for status; however, these are speculative interpretations rather than definitive assessments based on textual evidence.

Lionel

1. Question: Are there noteworthy uncertainities regarding Cain's lineage?

Answer: Yes, there are noteworthy uncertainties regarding Cain's lineage. The biblical narrative in Genesis provides limited information about Cain's descendants, primarily focusing on his immediate family and the figure of Lamech. The text mentions that Cain had a son named Enoch and built a city named after him (Genesis 4:17). However, the genealogical details following Enoch are sparse and do not provide a comprehensive understanding of Cain's lineage.

Question: Do we definitively know the purpose of Lamech speaking to his wives (boastful dominance, humble confession or regretful validation)?

Answer: We do not definitively know the purpose of Lamech speaking to his wives. The text in Genesis 4:23-24 presents Lamech’s speech as a declaration that can be interpreted in multiple ways. Some scholars argue that it reflects boastful dominance, as Lamech seems to assert his strength and superiority by comparing himself to Cain and claiming that if Cain is avenged sevenfold, then he will be avenged seventy-sevenfold. Others suggest it could represent a form of humble confession or regretful validation, indicating an awareness of moral transgression or violence associated with his actions. The ambiguity in tone and intent leaves room for various interpretations based on cultural context and literary analysis. Therefore, while several perspectives exist regarding Lamech’s purpose in addressing his wives, none can be conclusively proven.

Question: Do we confidently know or understand the cultural norms and environmental context of his time?

Answer: We do not confidently know or understand the cultural norms and environmental context of Lamech's time. The period described in Genesis is often referred to as pre-flood antiquity, characterized by limited archaeological evidence directly correlating with biblical narratives.

Question: Do we definitively know Lamech's tone (prideful, regretful or desperate) or significance of phrases such as "hear my voice" & "listen to my speech"?

Answer: We do not definitively know Lamech's tone or significance behind phrases like "hear my voice" & "listen to my speech." The interpretation of tone is inherently subjective and varies among readers and scholars alike. The phrases themselves could imply authority or urgency; however, without additional contextual clues from surrounding texts or historical background, their precise meaning remains ambiguous.

Lionel

Question: How would each of the 4 predominant interpretations (fallen angels, godly Sethites, abusive kings or judges) fit in the narrative?

Answer:

》Fallen Angels:
Now it came to pass, when humankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to humankind,

That angels saw womankind, that they were beautiful; and the angels took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

And the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with mankind forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be 120 years."

There were Nephilim on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the angels came in to womankind and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

》Godly Sethites
Now it came to pass, when humankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to humankind,

That the sons of Seth saw womankind, that they were beautiful; and the Sethites took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

And the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with mankind forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be 120 years."

There were Nephilim on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the Sethites came in to womankind and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

》Abusive Kings
Now it came to pass, when humankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to humankind,

That the kings saw womankind, that they were beautiful; and the kings took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

And the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with mankind forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be 120 years."

There were Nephilim on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the kings came in to womankind and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

》Judges
Now it came to pass, when humankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to humankind,

That the judges saw womankind, that they were beautiful; and the judges took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

And the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with mankind forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be 120 years."

There were Nephilim on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the judges came in to womankind and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Lionel

19. Question: Were the Nephilim their offspring or contemporaries?

Answer: The prevailing interpretation among biblical scholars is that the Nephilim were indeed offspring resulting from the unions between "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men." This understanding aligns with Genesis 6:4, which states that they were born as a result of these unions and were characterized as mighty men or giants on earth. However, some interpretations suggest they could also be contemporaries who existed alongside these unions without being direct descendants. While both have merit, offspring interpretation aligns more closely based on historical, grammatical and contextual evidence.

20. Question: How are Nephilim described and do they align with other cultural backdrops?

Answer: In biblical texts, particularly Genesis 6:4, Nephilim are described as "mighty men" and "men of renown," suggesting they possessed extraordinary strength, stature (be it physically, metaphorically or both) or legendary status. This description aligns with various ancient Near Eastern myths where demigods or giants are prominent figures such as in Mesopotamian epics like Gilgamesh or Ugaritic texts featuring similar beings known for their prowess and larger-than-life characteristics. These parallels indicate that stories about giant beings may have been common across cultures in antiquity, possibly reflecting shared themes.

Lionel

11. Question: What does "My Spirit" refer to in this context?

Answer: In this context, the Hebrew term for "Spirit" is רוּחִי (ruach), which can mean "spirit," "breath," or "wind." There is noteworthy debate about this specifically whether God's life giving breath, His Holy Spirit or both.

12. Question: Who is being referred to as "man" in verse 3?

Answer: In verse 3, man (ʾādām) is referring to humankind of that specific era. Moreover, any proposed claims that the 120-year limit in Genesis 6:3 applies to all mankind for all time is a misinterpretation of the text, and it is more accurate to understand this statement as specific to the humans of Noah's era. This interpretation aligns with the context of Genesis 6 and avoids eisegesis (reading one's own ideas into the text).

13. Question: What does it mean for God's Spirit to "not strive with man forever"?

Answer: This phrase indicates a limit on God's patience with human sinfulness; it suggests that there will come a time when divine intervention becomes necessary due to persistent disobedience or rebellion against God's will as seen with the Great Flood.

14. Question: What does "for he is indeed flesh" imply about human nature?

Answer: This statement implies that humans are inherently weak, mortal, and prone to sin. This highlights their physicality and limitations compared to divine standards or expectations set forth by God.

15. Question: What was the purpose of the 120 year timeframe for humanity?

Answer: The 120-year timeframe mentioned in Genesis 6:3 serves as a period of divine patience and grace, allowing humanity time to repent before the judgment of the Flood. This interpretation is supported by the context of Genesis 6 and corroborated by other biblical passages (eg. 1 Peter 3:20).

16. Question: How do we define the Nephilim?

Answer: The word is translated as "giants, tyrants or fallen ones" in different versions of the Bible, but its exact meaning is debated/uncertain among scholars. The most basic, widely recognized interpretation is that the Nephilim were the offspring of "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men." The ambiguity surrounding their definition stems from the lack of extensive biblical context and varying translations over time.

17. Question: What does "in those days and also after that" mean?

Answer: The phrase "in those days and also after that," found in Genesis 6:4, suggests a temporal context for the events described concerning the Nephilim. It indicates that their presence was notable both during the time leading up to the Flood and plausibly afterwards.

18. Question: When did this intercourse occur between the two groups?

Answer: The intercourse between "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men," which is believed to have led to the birth of the Nephilim, is traditionally placed before the Great Flood and sometime afterwards.

Lionel

6. Question: Who are the sons of God mentioned?

Answer: The identity of the "sons of God" has been interpreted and debated in various ways: fallen angels, godly Sethites, abusive kings or judges. The intriguing ambiguity within the passage invites deeper reflection.

7. Question: What does it mean that the sons of God "saw" the daughters of men?

Answer: The phrase indicates an active observation or desire; it suggests that these sons were drawn to the physical beauty or attractiveness of these women. This seeing implies more than mere observation; it connotes an emotional or lustful response leading to action.

8. Question: Why did the sons of God notice the daughters of men appearance at this specifc time?

Answer: The increase in population naturally brought about more interactions between different groups within humanity, whether spiritual or social distinctions. The timing is significant because it suggests that with greater numbers came greater opportunities for sin and rebellion against God’s design. This population boom created an environment where the “sons of God” could observe and act upon their desires toward the “daughters of men - womankind.” The text implies that these unions were not merely incidental but part of a broader pattern of disobedience that contributed to widespread wickedness on earth.

9. Question: Why did the sons of God choose wives from among the daughters of men aka womankind?

Answer: Physical beauty was a primary motivator for their actions. The Hebrew word used for "attractive" (טוֹבָה, tovah) conveys a sense of goodness or desirability, which parallels other instances in Scripture where something seen as good leads to taking action. For example, in Genesis 3:6, Eve "saw that the tree was good for food" and desirable before taking it. Similarly, in Genesis 6:2, the sons of God saw something desirable (the daughters' beauty) and acted upon it. This language suggests that their decision was driven by lust or desire rather than divine instruction or moral considerations.

10. Question: What is the significance of mentioning that they took wives "of all whom they chose"?

Answer: The phrase emphasizes that the "sons of God" acted without regard for divine will or moral boundaries. By taking wives "of all whom they chose," these beings (whether interpreted as fallen angels, descendants of Seth, judges or abusive kings) prioritized their own desires over God's intentions for marriage and human relationships. This unbridled choice suggests a breakdown in the sanctity and orderliness of marriage as instituted by God in Genesis 2:24. Instead of seeking partners within the framework of godly principles, they acted based on lust and personal gratification. Additionally, Genesis 6:2 does not clearly indicate polygamy like the case of Lamech in Genesis 4:19. Claiming that it does is an example of eisegesis rather than exegesis. The text simply indicates that they married upon their choices.

Lionel

Genesis 6:

1. Question: Why is the multiplication of mankind highlighted at this point in Genesis?

Answer: The multiplication of mankind is emphasized in Genesis 6 to illustrate the rapid growth and expansion of humanity, which sets the stage for the ensuing narrative about divine judgment.

2. Question: What is the intended definition of "men" in this context?

Answer: In this context, "men" refers to human beings in general, specifically those descended from Adam. It encompasses all humanity rather than being restricted to a specific group or lineage (Seth, Cain, etc.), highlighting their collective actions in multiplying. The word translated as "man or mankind" here is derived from the Hebrew term ʾādām, which is often used to refer to humanity as a whole. This usage reflects its broader application in earlier chapters of Genesis (e.g., Genesis 1:26-28), where ʾādām refers collectively to all humans created in God's image & similarly in Genesis 6:5 where (ʾādām) refers broadly to all people living at that time, underscoring their collective status rather than isolating one group over another.

3. Question: Why was their a noteworthy increase of humans on various places of Earth?

Answer: The noteworthy increase can be attributed to several factors such as the command given by God to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28), favorable living conditions in early post-creation, and possibly the extended lifespans according to biblical accounts. This demographic expansion reflects the fulfillment of divine intention for humanity's growth.

4. Question: What is the contextual definition of daughters of men?

Answer: The "daughters of men" refers specifically to female descendants of humanity aka womankind, essentially women who are part of the human race. The term “daughters of men” unequivocally refers to womankind in general without restriction by lineage (Seth, Cain, etc.) or group affiliation as seen in the Genesis 6:1 context. Additionally, some individuals attempt to use New Testament references (eg. Romans 3:23) and Genesis 11's portrayal of "men" as sinful to apply eisegesis (reading their own interpretations into the text) to Genesis 6:1–4. Eisegesis occurs when interpreters impose external ideas onto a text rather than drawing meaning from it (exegesis). Attempts to reinterpret daughters of men as merely sinful women rely on assumptions not supported by the passage instead of careful exegesis (Bible speaking to reader its intended message).

5. Question: How does this definition of daughters of men contribute to the latter passage?

Answer: This definition contributes to latter passage by establishing universality. This aspect is important because it sets up a contrast between two distinct groups mentioned in the passage: the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men." By defining womankind broadly, the text highlights that these women were not from a specific lineage (e.g., Sethite or Cainite) but represented humanity universally.

Ariel

Next, there seems to be generalizations without sufficent evidence to back up. For instance, one of the statement is "Adam was created by the hand of God; Seth was born of Eve. Adam was the son of God, created to have dominion over the Earth; thus one definition for sons of God is those beings God Himself created to have dominion over the worlds He made"

The statement infers a general definition of "sons of God" based solely on Adam's unique creation. This is problematic because:

Adam's creation was unique. He was the first man, created directly from dust (Genesis 2:7). This is distinct from how subsequent humans are brought into existence through procreation.

Dominion is not exclusive to Adam or directly created beings. God gave dominion over creation to humanity in general (Genesis 1:26-28, Psalms 8:4-9), not just to Adam.

The above statement seems like inferential leap. The argument proposes that because Adam is called a "son of God" and had dominion, all beings directly created by God to have dominion can be defined as "sons of God." There doesnt seem to be sufficient Scriptural warrant here to move from a single description to a universal definition.

The argument makes a broad claim about all beings based solely on one instance (Adam). This could be classified as a hasty generalization because it draws a conclusion about all beings based on insufficient evidence (only one example).

Conversely, composition fallacy, which assumes that what is true for one part (Adam being a son of God) must also be true for the whole group (all beings created by God). Just because Adam fits this definition does not necessarily mean that all other beings created by God share this characteristic.

Context is important. Luke is establishing Jesus' (2nd Adam) lineage and divine origin. The designation "son of God" for Adam in this context emphasizes his creation by God, not necessarily a broader definitional category.

Next, there are possible concerns about the supporting scriptures application and relevance within their respective contexts. The claim reads a later understanding of "son of God" (from the New Testament, applied retrospectively to Adam) back into the Old Testament without sufficient biblical justification.
Also, it isolates Luke 3:38 from its primary purpose (establishing Jesus' lineage) and emphasizes Adam's creation as the sole defining characteristic of sonship.

I don't quite see the valid exegesis connection?

Ariel

Hi, my name is Ariel. I have a lot respect for Pastor Bachelor, in his profound commitment to spreading the Word of God. I ussually agree with much of his teachings, but I respectfully disagree with certain statements above. For example, one of specific statement in Princes of Planets section "Satan was there to represent the Earth."

Genesis 1:26-28 grants humanity dominion over creation. This dominion is not absolute ownership but stewardship. Psalm 8:6-8 reinforces this, highlighting humanity's delegated authority under God. Sin marred this dominion but did not transfer ownership of the Earth to Satan.

Sin introduced disorder into creation (as seen in Genesis 3). However, this does not equate to a transfer of ownership from humanity to Satan. Instead, sin affects how humans exercise their stewardship.

Ownership implies complete control without accountability; stewardship involves responsibility for care and management under a higher authority (in this case, God). While sin has marred human relationships with both God and creation (Romans 8:20-22), it does not negate humanity’s role as stewards.

While Romans 6:16 states that obedience to sin makes one a slave to sin, it doesn't imply a transfer of earthly ownership to Satan. It refers to spiritual enslavement and its consequences. Adam's sin brought corruption and death into the world (Romans 5:12), impacting the exercise of dominion, but not ceding the planet to Satan.

Jesus calling Satan "the prince of this world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) does not mean Satan owns the Earth. "Prince" here signifies Satan's influence and power over the world system such as the ungodly values, philosophies, and structures opposed to God (1 John 5:19). This influence is permitted by God within the context of the ongoing spiritual battle, not a legitimate transfer of ownership.

Adam is the first human and therefore, the initial representative of humanity on Earth, point agreed. According to Genesis 1:26-28, God created humanity in His image and granted them dominion over creation. This passage indicates that Adam (and by extension, humanity) was given authority to steward the Earth. This establishes Adam’s role as a steward rather than an absolute owner.

Jesus Christ is often referred to as a new representative (eg. New Heavenly Adam) for humanity. Through His life, death, and resurrection, He is seen as restoring what was tainted through sin.

Satan is depicted as an influential adversary or tempter rather than a legitimate representative of Earth. While some interpretations suggest that Satan gained influence over creation due to humanity’s disobedience (as seen in Genesis 3), Ive never seen in my Bible clear concrete evidence that he holds any rightful ownership or representation of Earth.

Satan's challenge isn't to represent Earth's perspective but was to impugn Job's integrity and, by extension, God's judgment. That above statement along with few others seems problematic to me.

Leida

This books makes sense to me concerning giants. But, why don’t we have anymore giants. Robert Wadlow was the last one recorded in our life time. We still have sons of God and sons of men….. so where are all the giants?!

LEONARD KIPNGENO

The point is, in every age of human existence there has always been a defined boundary ,be it physical or spiritual. Even now there is a particular way in which Gods people and those of the world are defined. The very basis of drawing definition and boundary, as at now is nothing else but the living word of God-THE BIBLE. We are privileged to have the bible now with us as the basis from which this clear line is drawn. Of course during the time of Cain and Seth there was no bible and boundaries during this time would have even be physical. Am happy the bible is preserved up to this time to teach us ,as a historical spiritual book. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.(Romans 15:4 KJV)

Daniel

Context is Paramount:
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither (Won't - CEB Translation) marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Luke 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
Luke 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither (Won't - CEB Translation) marry, nor are given in marriage:
Luke 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
I don't understand how this constitiutes definitive proof of refutation,
Jesus in these scriptures is teaching on the afterlife particularly the resurrection & marriage/relationships in that age to the crafty, tempting, unbelieving Sadducees, but He doesn’t directly address the issue of angelic procreation or their reproductive ability whether yes or no.
For example, imagine a group of individuals debating the intricacies of a complex mathematical theorem. One particularly cunning mathematician, similar to the crafty Sadducees, poses a question about a specific aspect of the theorem that others had not considered. The main mathematician, like Jesus in the scriptures, addresses the core principles of the theorem and its applications but does not delve into the specific question raised by that crafty mathematician. This omission does not invalidate the main argument presented by the leading mathematician but rather highlights the focus on the broader concepts at hand.
In this analogy, Jesus engaging with the Sadducees on the topics of resurrection and marriage/relationships in the afterlife mirrors a scenario where a knowledgeable individual is discussing a complex subject with a group that includes a particularly astute and challenging member. While Jesus addresses the fundamental teachings on resurrection and relationships in the afterlife, he does not directly respond to the topic of angelic procreation or reproductive abilities. This selective focus does not diminish the significance of Jesus’ teachings on the afterlife but rather underscores his emphasis on essential principles rather than getting entangled in peripheral, nonessential debates. The Bible warns about such questions posed by the Sadducess, (see 1 Timothy 1:4, 1 Timothy 6:4, 2 Timothy 2:23, & Titus 3:9): Therefore, I dont understand how this is definitive proof.
1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
1 Timothy 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Daniel

There are more things that don't quite compute in my mind for this interpretation, amd I'm not quick to accept fallen angels for Genesis 6, but...
Things/passages like Jude 1:6, 7, & 14:
Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first [Original/Highest/Chief] estate [Position/Place], but left their own habitation (Deserted their own home - CEB Translation, Deserted their Proper Dwelling - CSB & LEB Translation, Abandoned their Proper Dwelling - NIV Translation, Left their Proper Dwelling - NRS Translation), he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jude 1:7 Even as (In the same way - CEB & CSB Translation, Just as - ESV Translation, In the same way as these - LEB Translation, In a similar way - NIV Translation, Likewise - NRS Translation) Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
(Likewise Sodom & Gomorrah - Practiced immoral sexual relations and pursued other sexual urges - CEB Translation, Committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions just as they (Fallen angels of Jude 1:6) did - CSB Translation, Which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire - ESV Translation, Indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in the same way as these [Fallen angels of Jude 1:6] - LEB Translation, Gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion - NIV Translation, Which in the same manner as they [Fallen angels of Jude 1:6], indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust - NRS Translation, Since they [Sodom & Gomorrah inhabitants] in the same way as these [Fallen angels of Jude 1:6] indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh - NAS Translation, Since they [Sodom & Gomorrah inhabitants] indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels - NET Translation, Having indulged in sexual immorality in a similar way as these angels and gone after unnatural flesh - REV Translation), are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these [The Ungodly which would include both humans & the fallen angels of Jude 1:6], saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
[Strange Flesh = Unnatural/forbidden sexual unions which violate/rebel against God's design & order or what is natural] [The word prophesied in this verse being a kind of broad term can mean predict, forsee/tell, expound]

Daniel

I definitely agree that Cain’s descendants were a worldly lineage & Seth’s descendents (specifically Enos his firstborn lineage) were the Messianic lineage, their environment would defintitely had a significant impact on them (Potientially causing the majority to be goodly or badly influenced), but there is not enough biblical evidence to conclusively categorize one or the other as wholly good or bad.
The Bible very often omits info on objectives not directly related to the story of salvation/Jesus & selectively focuses on certain individuals & scenarios. However, Adam had at least 2 more lineages based on plural use like sons & daughters in Genesis 5:3-4 besides Cain & Seth (Cain, Abel, & Seth were already born, so these are additional sons & daughters in Genesis 5 in the 800 year period), who also could have been righteous or wicked present in Genesis 6.
Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat (Other - CEB, ESV, NIV, NAS & NRS Translations) sons and daughters:
The Following is approximate Estimate based available biblical info from KJV Translation, the Septuagint is approximately 3/5 (Times KJV Estimates by 0.6) for Children/Lineage Total:

Adam: 130 years old/3 Children (Cain, Abel, Seth) ≈ 44 years per child,
Lifespan: 930 years/44 year rate ≈ 21 Children - 1 Child (Abel was Murdered) = 20 Children/2 Genders ≈ 10 Lineages Total
Septuagint Translation: ≈ 6 Lineages Total
There are least 2 other lineages besides Cain and Seth present in Genesis 6 for the daughters of man/mankind to be descended from Genesis 6:1.

Daniel

Daniel
Another part of the context that makes it hard for me to accept this interpretation is Genesis 6:1 states "men" (Which is equivalent/synonymous with mankind/humankind [Both men & women] in the Bible) multiplied & daughters were born to them/general human population, these are whom the sons of God took for wives. These sons of God are depicted as being forbidden to interact/join union with these daughters of man/mankind which caused the earth/all flesh to become corrupt. God's command was for all mankind to be fruitful & multiply in Genesis 1. He also said a man would leave his father & mother to go & cling unto his wife & they would become one in Genesis 2. The phrase “Began to multiply on the face of the Earth” in Genesis 6:1 is an echo from Genesis 1 where God commanded/blessed Man (Mankind - Male & Female) to be fruitful, multiply, and replenish/fill the Earth which begins to come to pass in Genesis 6:1 as God ordained. If this is Seth's sons in this context, their actions would seem to align with God's command. For example,

Genesis 6:1, 2, & 4 And it came to pass, when men/mankind/human beings/people/human race began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them (mankind/human race),
That the sons of God/Seth's sons saw the daughters of mankind/human race that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Based on biblical context/depiction that men/mankind multiplied bearing daughters/women filling the Earth, daughters of men can be understood as "daughters of mankind/human race or womankind/regular human women." Genesis 6 states the sons of God saw womankind that they were beautiful/fair & married them. Womankind/regular human women aren't depicted as wicked or of a specific lineage. Neither are the men of Genesis 6:1 specified as a specific group which the Bible very often/consistently gives context clues when reffering to a specific group (Like men of Sodom, men of Abraham’s house, men of the city, men of the house, men of the Hebrews, men of Moab, men of the children of Israel, men of the elders of Israel, men of Galaliee, men of Israel, men of the land, etc.) For example, if you placed this into the text,
And it came to pass, when men/mankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them (mankind/human race),
Genesis 6:2 That the Seth's sons saw Womankind that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
These daughters of men are depicted as an extensive, spread out, collective group of women throughout the earth born to mankind/human race according to Genesis 6:1-2 which greatly/strongly aligns with the modern term womankind. According to the Bible, marriage is blessed, favored, undefiled, honorable before God. However, here this marriage/union, God response is the complete opposite. I dont understand why God's immense displeasure, judgement response, or worldwide corruption if Seth's sons who simply took wives of womankind.

Daniel

Daniel

Hi, I do want to believe this interpretation, but there are few things that don't fully add up for me. In my high school, my English teacher often stresses the importance of considering context & time period when reading. To effectively, accurately understand & interpret any text, time & context are paramount. For example, if I was reading a book with lamps from the Medevial Age say 1300's, I'd have to realize that lamps during those days would be different than lamps in the 1960's. First, we biblically & definitively know that the children of Israel were considered children/sons of God several centuries later from Genesis 6 (At least 350 years til Abram/Abraham, at least 450 years til Issac, at least 500 years til Jacob/Israel who fathered the 12 Patriach of the 12 tribes of Israel, at least 1,000 years before Moses stated to Pharaoh let Israel my son go [Exodus 4:22-23], & at least 1,050 years before God/LORD said to Israel through Moses ye are my children [Dueteronmy 14:1]). Next, we biblically & definitively know that the Spiritual Israel/Adopted Heirs/Inward Jews/Followers of Christ later from Genesis 6 (At least 2,000 years) are children/sons of God. According to the Bible, the depiction of believers as sons of God was not necessarily spontaneous, but rather a gradual development/evolvement. Just as in the analogy where lamps of the 1300's evolved into something else by 1960's with time; the term “sons of God” meaning could have also evolved/differed/expanded from Genesis 6 to another future time. We also biblically & definitively know that angels/divine beings were considered sons of God during Genesis 6, for example, according to the book of Job from the laying of the Earth’s foundation (Genesis 1:9 & Job 38:7) to the time or story of Job/the Patriarch Age of Abraham, Issac, & Jacob (Job 1:6) angelic/divine beings are referenced/considered as sons of God. The question would believers like Seth's sons also have been considered sons of God in this specific time period & context?
Daughters of men/mankind is not expressly connected to Cain's daughters & this term would include both Seth’s, Cain's, & the 2 Other Unnamed Lineages of Genesis 5:4 in essence any group of human woman (daughters descended from Adam) & there is no direct biblical evidence to support these women were wicked/immoral/forsaking God. The Bible very often/consistently gives context clues when referring to a specific group of women (like daughters of the Canaanites, daughters of the men of the city, daughters of Heth, daughters of Canaan, daughters of Laban, daughters of the land, daughters of Moab, daughters of Israel, daughters of Philistines, daughters of Jerusalem, daughters of Job, daughters of Zion, etc), this lack here seems to reinforce this broad, collective group of human women.

Buttercup

Is there a full book I can get and read

Hide Replies 1

Moderator

Amazing Facts

You can read the full book here: https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/23444/t/who-are-the-sons-of-god- or order your own copy here: https://www.afbookstore.com/products/who-are-the-sons-of-god-pb-by-doug-batchelor-af-wsg

RainyDay

Thank you Lord Jesus, my cobwebs have now cleared up! You are awesome!

Marumo Kgari Abram SA

Its a confusion, this teachings brings in more confusion than clarity.
Its a fact that the sons of Seth joined the sons of Cain to sin along with them. They were already backslided in their hearts before joining them and intermarry. They were well instrucred not to mix or have any relations with them. So to even think that they went there for witnessing with intentions to win them to the Lord is a lie or is wrong.

To say the sons of Seth are those who attended the meeting with God in the book of Job is also wrong, the sons of Seth were eventually won away by the son's of Cain, hence the flood because the earth was flooded with the sins of Cain's descendants which affected all the sons kf Cain.
Only 8 people were saved and they were the only people from the generation of Seth who continued to fear God. Enoch had to be taken away and Noah was left alone being an obedient human species

Hide Replies 1

RainyDay

Please read carefully this article; the sons of God attending the meeting with God are not the sons of Seth!

geraldmcdonald

I have the same idea as what was brought here. But there is one problem. If the "Son's of God" were the ones that met with God in the book of Job, then why would they be on earth meeting the "daughters of men" . Although the Job verses make sense, this idea is nullified by the fact that "they" should not be able to come to this planet to associate with man from this earth, not even the "daughters" of man.
What does make better sense is that the "son's of God" were those who have been following God.

Anonymous

Hi there! Love
this Sons of God write up.I do have a follow up question though hopefully you can answer for me.Is it not true that the Books of Enoch were in the original inspired Canon of Scripture? and that the Roman Catholic Church had it removed?Were they also not found in The recent discovery of The "Dead Sea Scrolls"? If this is indeed a fact of our History,then the Books of Enoch tie up a whole lot of loose ends in relation to The Pre Deluvian or Pre flood era.Fallen Angels did indeed have everything to do with why God chose to destroy this world.Because of there intermingling,and Procreating a Hybrid race a half human half Angels.There influences,and teachings eventually caused nothing but only Wickedness in there every thought from there hearts.Are these claims not true? Thank you for your time.In Christ,C.J

Hide Replies 1

Jelzy

The Book of Enoch is considered a pseudepigrapha, or book written under a false name. It is a compilation of various stories dating between 300 BC and 100 AD. For this reason it considered to be a spurious work because it claims to be authored by Enoch before the Flood.

There are number of questionable things found in the Book of Enoch that contradict sound Biblical doctrine:

The demons make a covenant on the summit of Mount Hermon. This is problematic because prior to the Flood the topography of the Earth was basically made up of flat lands. This is confirmed by science as well.
Giants born from the union of human and demons. This fable has spread as “truth” throughout Christendom. The Bible says that the “sons of God went to the daughters of men.” The expression “sons of God” refers to the descendants of Seth, while the “daughters of men” refers to the descendants of Cain.
Four angels that do the work of the Holy Spirit. It names Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Phanuel as the four angels and the four voices standing on four sides of the Lord of Spirits. Two of those are named in the Bible: Michael and Gabriel. But Michael is called “the archangel” and Gabriel answers to Michael in the Bible. The Bible never calls Gabriel an “archangel.”
Summary:

The Book of Enoch is of questionable origin promoting false doctrine. It should be regarded as a work of fiction, like the Iliad and the Odyssey and nothing more.

Mayungasamuel

I love this discussion.
Yet I got one question to ask something related to this topic,
Who are those 24 Elders of revelation? Are they from earth or from other worlds or just belongs there and there is no definite answer.
Please say something about this

SimpeJao

it just amuses me to learn that Adam had no belly button and so with Eve, but it really make sense since he was created. Belly button is a proof of the bodily connection of a child to his/her mother for sustenance while in the gestation period.

adrienneprince

Wait - if God created Adam and Eve as the only humans - and their only children were boys, then who was Cain's wife?

Hide Replies 3

ivan

This has always been a question. In the creation story we are only told of Cain, Abel and a quick mention of their third son Seth. But there is mention of other children that Adam and Eve had in Gen 5:4 "After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters." Too bad the Bible does not elaborate more on those other children.

Anonymous

And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. Gen 5:3-5
Well Adrienne there is your answer right there. Adam actually had a lot of son's and daughters. When you are young for a couple hundred years you can build a pretty large family and this is where Cain as well as Adam's other son's got their wives, from their sisters. That close to God's creation you didn't have all the mutant DNA like we do today that causes all kinds of health issues.
Most believe that after Cain slew Abel there were only 3 people on the earth until Seth was born "about" 130 years later. This would be an incorrect conclusion. Do you really think Adam would wait all that time to "know" Eve again? Adam and Eve had many many son's and daughters before Seth. Seth was the one that was in the likeness and image of Adam. This does not mean that Adam's other son's and daughters did not look like him physically. Seth was "Christlike" as Adam was. Adam continued to have son's and daughters before and after Seth. This is the only natural conclusion.
Genesis mentions that Adam had son's and daughters and they all married each other. Seth probably married a cousin (a daughter from one of his older brothers and sisters) but this is not important to the timeline of Adam to Noah. There were a lot of things that happened in this time period that is not mentioned in Genesis because it is not important to the plan of salvation such as who Cain married but you can accurately conclude he married one of his sisters.

AFacts_Editor

Hello, Adrienne. See this link: https://www.amazingfacts.org/news-and-features/news/item/id/10922/t/sons-of-god-where-did-cain-get-his-wife. Blessings.

michaelamoah

Thank you

michaelamoah

I am confused. The sons of God in Job 1:6 are representatives of the
unfallen worlds got that. Why then does it say in Great Controversy
518.3 "The
Scriptures declare that upon one occasion, when the angels of God came to
present themselves before the Lord, Satan came also among them (Job 1:6), not to bow before the Eternal King, but to
further his own malicious designs against the righteous."

Hide Replies 1

AFacts_Editor

Thank you for your question, Michael! If you'd like to get an answer directly from the team at Amazing Facts, please fill out this form here: https://www.amazingfacts.org/about-us/bible-questions. God bless you!

seanswader

As long as a man or women is born again by the Blood of JESUS, Now sense I brought up Blood from Adam to our SAVIOR JESUS seems the devils been tying to contaminate the blood sense the beginning and still is, As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Matthew 24:37. I love the word of GOD

Godsamazinggrace

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" (Hebrews 1:5).
This is just another one of Satan's tactics to get us to debate over something that is of no importance to our salvation.

Anonymous

Appearing and manifesting does not make angels human,they are spiritual beings and have no dna or flesh properties,Breaking Peter out of jail is such a simple task for a Angel sent by God, and altho the devil can appear as a 'angel of light',the mear statement in itself tells you that he 'appears as '.You ask since when has mankind in their natural ways given birth to giants,,,,,obviously you didn't understand the context and or content of the Genesis events,,,,As pastor Doug has tried to put in context for you, you seem to not want to be realistic about the passages he provides several times to verify the event. True that many have different opinions and beliefs,that is why we turn to the Bible for answers which pastor Doug has to understand those events. What do you base you're foolhearty opinion on other than misinterpretation of events you don't understand.Is that what you base you're concept on that Peter was broke out of jail by a Angel,and that the devil appears as a'angel of light'.Where are the passages that make this so unbelievable to you.Obviously if the fallen angels were responsible for these events as a few on this site has stated,then what keeps them from continuing to do so today,where are the giants that you think they are responsible for creating,,,,this alone tells you that the events were tied to a specific event that happened in Noah's time.Think about if they could procreate with humans the world would be full of giants running around because there are millions of fallen angels,you're concept is simple minded and not thought out very well,

Anonymous

It is foolhearty to say that Angels can not manifest into our earthly realm. Did not an angel break Peter out of prison? And if the devil can "appear as an angel of light" that would obviously suggest he is manifesting to be seen. And please also tell me this, since when have mankind in thier natural way have ever given birth to giants? Ya know......everybody thinks they seem to know everything. The fact of the matter is, is that we really don't know jack. Look at the way we argue over what the Word says.....smh.....I love you guys. Shalom.

Anonymous

You are teaching false doctrine, and I can not believe how many of you consider this truth. Stop listening to other people who are leading the flock astray. Read the word of God yourselves and you will know that the scripture he is referring in Genesis about the sons of God the went into the daughters of men were not of man. You're twisting scripture, and causing others to believe you instead of God's word. Also, read the book of Enoch! It is one of the books that was taken out of the bible, but it is still scripture... scripture that was followed even after the death and resurrection of our Messiah. It is a book quoted in the bible. Do your research, and quit listening to this false teaching.

Hide Replies 13

georgemargerum

Just because a man has writings from a long time ago does not make it Gods word. I studied Enochs writtings and they contridict scripture. Enocjh was of Cain. If you follow bloodlines it is clear in old testment God made sure any that made the bible were not of Cains blood lines.The seed of Abraham. If i write a book and you write a book doesnt mean they both should be in th ebible. God gave us his word. The kjv bible came after 1260 yearsa of being suppressed. If enochs writtngs were to be part of Gods word they would be,. They are not. So to take his words is taking something written outside of it. Precep upon precep. the bible explains itself says God without outside influences.the only things i use of the world are to conform to the bible never the other way around.

Hide Replies 1

georgemargerum

Enoch s writtings are fake. proof. it states him describing Moses on hill. He was already dead. Also there are many historical lies from Gods truth. Keep studying. harder. today we have all these protestant reiligons. none are true church. they keep sunday. except sda. history is interesting in the fact the writtings in our kjv bible all matched form different centires. but wriotting like enochs doesnt match. and doesnt match other writtings. which proves fake news. same as niv today is changed from kjv bible. written by same company that created satanic bible. so keep studying please. dont just accept historical books that are twisted. thats satans handy work. i have studied daily for years now. enochs wqrittings contridict truth. that is not gods book. see he told us over and over jesus also. the word is a double edged sword. stronger than any flesh, it is our armour. so we either have faith in it and study it nor read it as he says. or die. i said in other messages. 21 points in bible tell you who beast of the sea is. papacy only one to match. the one that protestants forget about. and now respect. cant respect Satans house.

Anonymous

Yes Shelby you are correct! These false teachers as Doug himself state now where in the bible does the bible refer to the "son's of God as Angels" this makes you wounder what bible they are reading! Hmmm maybe they need to throw their Clear word bible in the trash.. First, let's look at all of the Old Testament references to "sons of God." This phrase is translated from the Hebrew beney 'elohim (בני אלהים), beney ha'elohim (בני האלהים), and beney 'elim (בני אלים):This word is indeed referring to the "angels"..
GENESIS 6:1 When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the divine beings [beney ha'elohim]
saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives from among
those that pleased them. 3 The Lord said, "My breath shall not abide in
man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one
hundred and twenty years." 4 It was then, and later too, that the
Nephilim appeared on earth when the divine beings [beney ha'elohim] cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown. (Tanakh, the new Jewish Publication Society translation according to the traditional Hebrew text)
DEUTERONOMY 32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their
inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of
the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [beney 'elohim].
JOB 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God [beney ha'elohim] came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan also came among them.
JOB 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God [beney ha'elohim] came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.
JOB 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 To what were
its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 when the
morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God [beney 'elohim] shouted for joy?
PSALM 29:1 O give the Lord you sons of God [beney 'elim], give the Lord glory and power; 2 give the Lord the glory of his name. Adore the Lord in his holy court. (The Psalms: A New Translation)
PSALM 89:5 The heavens proclaim your wonders, O Lord; the assembly of your holy ones proclaims your truth. 6 For who in the skies can compare with the Lord or who is like the Lord among the sons of God [beney 'elim]? (The Psalms: A New Translation)
As you can see, each reference above is to angels. There are no
instances in the Old Testament where the phrase "sons of God" refers to
men. Let's see what E.W. Bullinger has to say about these "sons of God"
in Appendix 23 to The Companion Bible:
"The Sons of God" in Gen. 6.2, 4. It is only by the Divine specific
act of creation that any created being can be called "a son of God."
For that which is "born of the flesh is flesh." God is spirit and that
which is "born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3.6). Hence Adam is
called a "son of God" in Luke 3.38. Those "in Christ" having the "new
nature" which is by the direct creation of God (2 Cor. 5.17; Eph. 2.10)
can be, and are called "sons of God" (John 1.13; Rom. 8.14, 15; 1 John
3.1).
This is why angels are called "sons of God" in every other place where
the expression is used in the Old Testament. Job 1.6; 2.1; 38.7; Ps.
29.1; 89.6; Dan. 3.25 (no art.). We have no authority or right to take
the expression in Gen. 6.4 in any other sense. Moreover in Gen. 6.2 the
Sept. renders it "angels". (pp. 26, 27, Companion Bible Appendixes)
Now let's look at Genesis 6:9, which discusses Noah's genealogy.
This Scripture is further proof that fallen angels had interbred with
humans:
GENESIS 6:9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect [tamim] in his generations. Noah walked with God.

Hide Replies 3

alan_ljungberg

Look, I understand that it's fun to hear about stories of giants and stories of angels getting married to women and having descendants. The book of Enoch is interesting reading that's partly the reason it survived I would guess.
The problem is some people have taken these stories from the Book of Enoch and put it on parallel with the bible. This is something the Jewish scholars never did. It was never considered canon. Anyone who is familiar with scripture and reads the Book of Enoch can easily tell it just does not fit into the bible narrative. Not only that it makes some outlandish claims and even contradicts scripture on many points. This is something that many fans of the book gloss over or are just not familiar enough with scripture or the plan of salvation to know any better. I'll touch on three points but really there is a lot more.

The Book of Enoch, claims there is an angel named Phanuel, "who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life" (Enoch 40:9). Christians would almost universally agree that is blasphemous. Christ is our mediator, there is no other. (Timothy 2:5, 1 Peter 1:18-21 and many more).
The Book of Enoch claims that the supposed offspring of this angel-human union were 450 feet tall.
"Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labor of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them;" Enoch 7:12
Hmm. There might be some people in the medical sciences that would question how it's possible for regular human women to deliver such a child. I'm not a medical expert but I question it too, and so should we all.
There is a lot more in The Book of Enoch including and angel named Gadreel that supposedly was the one that led Eve astray, not Satan as the Bible is very clear about.
So you can cherry pick the Book of Enoch and say it's a hidden book that should have been considered part of canon. Or, you can look at the entire book and realize that it contradicts scripture and makes outrageous claims that cannot be taken seriously. It's an exciting story but really it's a work of fiction.

Hide Replies 2

Evelyn

Thank you! I have never read the book of Enoch and now that I read your explanation I don't believe any of it
I trust pastor Doug
I'm happy with his explanation
GOD ALMIGHTY bless you ALLEN

Anonymous

not to mention the book of enoch claims the angels built the ark instead of noah,,,and the book of enoch is not canon nor was it ever part of the bible,,there are multiple contradictions and false accounts that turn it into a mythical story,,

Anonymous

my friend, have you ever seen the supposedly original bible? if so then please share. if not then just open your mind to God's truth. the devil is transformed as an angel of light, so please let no man beguile you of your reward ( salvation through Jesus Christ), and trying to get into things which have been hidden from man for his own good. My bro. in Christ, Pastor Batchelor keep on working in the good news of salvation for all men. Now for my contribution, no spirited being can impregnate a human unless he is Jehovah God. None of the fallen angels which we now call demons has ever done such. think about it! if they could have done this then there would be no need for further humans except the linage of Satan. Jesus came from the bosom of the Heavenly Father and was born of a woman, the only being to have such privilege, The enemy wants to imitate Christ in everything. Let us be sober, be vigilant for the devil is like a roaring lion walking about seeking whom he may devour.

Hide Replies 2

Evelyn

Angels are spirits
They can't have physical relationship with humans
GOD bless EVERYONE
KEEP on studying GOD'S WONDERFUL WORD

Hide Replies 1

D@N

-> who physically opened the door of Peter's jail ?
-> who fought with (i don't remember guy's name) that guy and finally broke his hips before leaving ?
-> who protected Daniel and his companions right in the middle of extremely strong flames (such strong it killed the people alimenting them) right in front of that king ?
-> who killed over 130'000 people in just 1 night on behalf of God to ensure israel to survive a war ?
..if those, and some others, interesting events of the bible are not DIRECT effects of so called impotent spiritual beings into the really physical world, then what is ?

Have a nice life, sister in Christ.

Anonymous

I agree Shelby. The book of Enoch rounds this whole discussion out. Enoch and the book of Enoch are certainly not fairy tales (Jude 1:14). I think of the book of Enoch much like I think of the Gospel of Thomas. I don't understand why they aren't in the canon, especially because most of what is written dovetails what is written in other books that made the canon. In short, there's lots of cross-referencing that can be done.
Saying that angels don't marry may not be accurate. Jesus said in Matthew 22:30 - "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." Well, in case you skipped over it, the ending says "they will be like the angels in heaven." Jesus referenced the angels in heaven, not fallen angels who are on earth who HAVE taken wives. According to the book of Enoch, these angels lusted after the beautiful women on earth and wanted to take to have them - take wives - which is why they came to the earth. The result was a genetic mishap that created giants - and much wickedness ensued. Noah was of a pure bloodline, and therefore was set aside to carry on the DNA.

Hide Replies 1

georgemargerum

Noah was a good man and a just man. Is what bible says. Now you are basing our salvation upon blood lines. Its not that he was a just man but that his blood was good. So today i hope i dont have any giant blood in me, so i can be saved. Jesus spoke of baptism and faith. keeping the law. not of blood. he died for our sins. sin is the transgression of law. this is blood of today,no more greek or jew or gentile. just two. wheat and tares. mixing enoch with bible is like mixing harry potter with bible.

Anonymous

Shelby, this is what the book of Enoch, speaking of angels (Michael Gabriel, Raphael, Suryal, and Uriel), says:

"And now to you, O ye holy ones of heaven, the
souls of men complain, saying, Obtain Justice for us with the Most
High." Enoch 9:1-3
After that this book says they intercede with God for mankind. This is blasphemy!
Paul wrote, "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5), Peter said, "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12), even Jesus said of himself, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)
Jesus is my Advocate and Savior, the only one, with the Father.
May God bless, and continue to open his word to us. Amen.

Hide Replies 1

gatluakjockchol

By the way, I believe book of Enoch is not inspired because if God did it it should be one of 66 books now, the very reason why God cannot put it there is because it may contradict to rest of scriptures, I read it myself ....example it say only 200 angels were cast to earth with Satan when Satan was cast down and bible say1/3 which is huge numbers.......... because bible say God angel are innumerable and 1/3 of ten thousand time ten thousand and thousand of thousand, so folks let use advantage what is in our hand as Bible say in Deuteronomy 29: 29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law so Bible is reveal to us by God Himself

consuelosheppardgarcia

continue to do the good work .

thruth777

@Ken, can u tell me what it mean to be in human form?

Hide Replies 1

georgemargerum

Jesus rose and came back ands said he was hungry twice, he ate food. so angels are not allowed to eat unless they transform to humans. why is it people are getting into dna. lol get your microscopes out test all our bloods. yet an amazing thing is this. all maerican presidents are blood related. from the beginning even til now. makes you wonder about bloodlines. but anyone of them i am sure can come to Jesus. Jesus warns us not to judge each other. we can see lies that dont fit with bible. but rwe do not know ones changer of heart. we dont know their heart. i was biker 30 years ago and hurt alot of people. today i study the word and preach. trying my best to keep the commandments of god trhough the holy spirit. because Jesus told me too. hebrews 4. kjv. we keep the day of rest even the works are finished. the works is ordiances not th elaw of god. jesus hung orainces on cross. the law is on the wall. a mirror to know sin. my blood has spirit in it. god made us. not satan.

bobbybtourigny

Be blessed and may the truth of Elohim's Word transform you.

Anonymous

I agree that the sons of God are not angels. No where in the bible does it say God told angels to be fruitful and multiply, I believe angels can look like us but they don't have the ability to procreate.

Anonymous

Donetta McCall u need to read ur bible more, stop going on what others tell u is true and start trusting in the word of god. Yes we r saved by grace, no our works won't save us but if u truly love Jesus u will keep his commandments. Grace and works cannot be separated, I pray that god will open ur heart so u will c the truth

Anonymous

It always saddens me when I see a works based gospel taught. You do not focus on the New Covenant the church is under once Jesus died and gave believers life from Pentecost until today. Christ in us is our hope of glory the bible says. Not by our works. Read Philippians 1:6. We do not need to concentrate on cleaning up the outside of our bodies. Christ made us clean once and for all and He says in the New Testament we can eat and drink anything in moderation. I do not drink, smoke or eat bad foods but that is my choice and it is not a RULE! I was under bondage for years to misguided teaching like this and it hurts me to know how many people will listen to you instead of opening up the New Testament for themselves and praying for themselves. If we are REALLY born again Jesus will clean us up from the inside out. We need to be in the Word instead of listening to the opinions of teachers that mix up what God taught the Jews and what was given to the Church. The law was given to the Jews and fulfilled on Calvary. All scripture is relevant but it fits the time it was given and you cannot mix it up without remembering who the Lord was talking to at the time. It means the suffering that Jesus Christ went through when you act like we can work our way to heaven. True baptism comes from the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation and new birth. Baptism in water is an act of showing you are a follower of Christ but it does not affect a person's salvation. Why do you brag about water baptism? Brag about Jesus!
We may be brothers and sisters in Christ since you have trusted in Jesus for payment for your sins and you have new life due to His resurrection. My concern is with the rest of the stuff you teach that I think people will focus on instead of the true object of their faith, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Hide Replies 2

D@N

Thank you so much for saying what i had to fight agains for so long.. all my life, to say it in short, against family and other church members that were soooo much focusing on a belief that "if you don't get baptised by water, you are not saved".
Now, first there is another baptism that is from FIRE, and not the fire we burn wood with, but from the Holy Spirit which is sometimes called fire.
Then, as i understand is as well, all Christ messages are explaining that it is giving a sincere heart to him that saves..
No surfers are baptized dozens of times a day when they go surfing.. And churches are sometimes very mixed between sincere believers and social twerks that want to appear to be saints when they are absolutely not (use of lies, hypocricy and manipulations/politism among the members).
I am grateful you put this point to light, and thank you from the deepest .

Anonymous

Donnetta, are you trying to be a troll? This article has no mention of the stuff you've brought up. Mind you, there are answers to your objections but this is not the place since the discussion is not here dealing with such things.

Anonymous

When God said "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt...." Who He was referring to?Exodus 16:23,29; 31:13-18. Were we slaves before in Egypt?

Hide Replies 1

Anonymous

Aldrin,
Since Egypt is a symbol of sin--slavery to sin, then yes, we were slaves in Egypt if we have been delivered from sin. :)

Anonymous

Ken, it is true that Abraham fed angels on their way to Sodom, but these angels were sent for a purpose-to remove Lot from the offending Sodom and to destroy the city. They were not sent to live among men as human beings. If you'd read the article thoroughly, you'd have noticed that the "sons of God" who sang, were not "us", but the beings who never succumbed to sin from other created worlds. Evidently, they were created before we were.

Anonymous

This is a comment to the student who claims Hebrew parallelism concerning Job 38:7. Where this verse may very well be an example of Hebrew parallelism, it does not follow that each word or phrase in part A, have an exact meaning to a word or phrase in part B. The verse is simply saying that both the "morning stars" and the "sons of God" were praising God at the creation of our world. Nowhere in scripture is the phrase, "sons of God" used to refer to angels. Look them up.