More than one Son of God

Shinka

Well-Known Member
Please read passage below, this has been my question for years? God had more than one son? They had sex with the women and had giants.

Isn't that interesting.



Genesis 6 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.



Genesis 6
The Wickedness and Judgment of Man
1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
3 And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive[a] with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
 
Another poster mention Greek Methology.

It does resember the story of Hercules. He was giant who were "heroes of old and men of renown (NIV version).
 
Shinka - Angels were referred to as the Sons of God and according to the scripture above, the angels had sex with women and produced the giants, also called the Nephilim.
 
The bible does not support the notion that spiritual beings were able to propagate with humans. Genesis states that each shall seek its on kind. The Line of Seth were the son's of god and the daughters from the line of Cain were the daughters of man. Reference the curse placed on Cain, and his refusal to repent his male line was weak, corrupted physically and unGodly. Contrary the line of Seth had, up until then, remained Godly and were strong in health and mind.
In the New testament Paul clearly states we came from one man, Adam. The idea that there are these have human creatures on earth contridicts the bible and the need for the salvation from Christ. The flood did not wipe out angels so they would still be free to do this deed now.
Also we as christians are also referred to as children of God.
 
Vintagecoilylocks said:
The bible does not support the notion that spiritual beings were able to propagate with humans. Genesis states that each shall seek its on kind. The Line of Seth were the son's of god and the daughters from the line of Cain were the daughters of man. Reference the curse placed on Cain, and his refusal to repent his male line was weak, corrupted physically and unGodly. Contrary the line of Seth had, up until then, remained Godly and were strong in health and mind.
In the New testament Paul clearly states we came from one man, Adam. The idea that there are these have human creatures on earth contridicts the bible and the need for the salvation from Christ. The flood did not wipe out angels so they would still be free to do this deed now.
Also we as christians are also referred to as children of God.
This topic is an interesting one. Perhaps the angels had the ability to appear as male (or female) as they did throughout the Bible. And I believe humans are divine beings also.
 
Hi Isis,

Yes there were instances where they had an appearance to be seen to humans but from what I remember of some of those instances there was still something about them that also could identified them as angels. But appearance is one thing but taking on the physical properties I think is something else. This way of thinking would also question the sovereignty of our Lord. Not even angels can create or defy the laws of nature God has established. This gives them an air of power they do not possess. Also Angels are messengers, they are not out about doing their own thing out side of Gods will. Even the fallen ones can not change that which God has ordained.
Yes we are of Divine creation but we are human and the Bible teaches us that Christ had to come down and be made flesh to walk among us. The fall in the garden took away a state that we can only return to through Christ. That indicates there is a difference in heavenly beings and us. The Bible teaches us that only one came from heaven and became man. Jesus Christ. He became man so that we might return to our heavnly or Divine state. This is to insure that there be no mistaking any other person or entity with that of the one and only One sent from Heaven to save us. If any theory contridicts or dimenish the gospel or whom Christ is it cannot be a correct way of thinking or interpreting the scriptures.

In John1:12 it states" But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become son's of God," this refers again to those who followed in the will of God and our Savior being referred to as son's of God. Angels were never referred to as son's of God but as messengers of God. They are never put on equal footing as Christ or those who follow Christ. Adam was a follower of Christ looking forward to what was promised. We are followers because of what came to pass.
 
Hello VintageCoilyLocks. I understand the angels were much more beautiful in appearance than humans when they appeared in the Bible and stood out from everyone else. Angels are certainly messengers and intermediaries between God and humans.

When I stated we are also Divine, I'm not saying we are in the same category or level as angels (they are completely different) but that we are spiritual beings also, in human form. It's our connection to God that makes us Divine as we were made in God's image.

The Bible does state the angels found the women to be very beautiful and mated with them. Angels had the ability to materialize in human form to make this possible.
 
I found this site helpful. I

n the King David version the sons of god are called Nephilim as someone mentioned above and this site mentions the book of enoch which is not found in our bible collection, but It's part of the dead sea scrolls. In this book the nephilim are half angel/half human. The Nephilims are demons and encourage people to do evil things and taught the women earthly things such as sorcery, etc

http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/mythology/watchers.asp
 
Shinka said:
I found this site helpful. I

n the King David version the sons of god are called Nephilim as someone mentioned above and this site mentions the book of enoch which is not found in our bible collection, but It's part of the dead sea scrolls. In this book the nephilim are half angel/half human. The Nephilims are demons and encourage people to do evil things and taught the women earthly things such as sorcery, etc

http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/mythology/watchers.asp

That site looks like it has it's own agenda.

I typed this out from two of several versions of the Bible that I own. I chose these since they are common versions. They are both saying the same thing, that the sons of God and the women produced the giants, known as the Nephilim. The Nephilim were not the sons of God, the angels were. This union was allowed by God for the time being.

According to Revised Standard Version of the Bible which is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version of 1901 and the King James Version of 1611:

Genesis 6:1 - 6:4

"When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, "

"The sons of God saw the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose."

"Then the Lord said, My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown."

According to the King James Version:

"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."

"And the Lord said, "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet; his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God cam in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
 
Yes Isis,

I agree we have a divine spirit from God.

However, Cain was referered to as being not of God, but of the evil one. 1John 3:10-12. The line of Seth is the line that christ would come from.

In the verses you refereance Gen6:1-4 needs to be read in completeness with the verses 5-8

God clearly is refering to being displeased with the results of the union of the son's of God with the daughters of man. In John1:12 we who are in Christ are reffered to being the "son's of God"

it goes on in vs Gen 6:5 "And God saw the wickedness of man was great .." Vs 6 " And it repented the Lord that he had made man... and it grieved him at his heart".
vs 7 " and I will destroy man whom I created from the face of the earth, and the beast...for it repenteth me that I have made him.

I Gen1:24-25 it shows God ordained manner of the population of the earth.
"Each after its own kind"

Gen 6:1-8 makes only a reference with Gods displeasure in man and no reference to a third type creation on this earth. Other wise in verse 7 God is planning on destroying man because of what some angels did. In verse 8 God is clearly referring to finding grace in one man.
God continues in his rebuking of the corrution of the flesh through all the earth. vs 11-12.

There is no mention of God allowing a union between female humans and angels and no purpose mentioned for such a union. God is not a God of confusion nor does he unjustly punish.

I could find no reference at all in scripture of angels becoming human and mating with women but ripture does tell us only one came from heaven and became man and that was Jesus Christ.
 
Vintagecoilylocks said:
Yes Isis,

I agree we have a divine spirit from God.

However, Cain was referered to as being not of God, but of the evil one. 1John 3:10-12. The line of Seth is the line that christ would come from.

In the verses you refereance Gen6:1-4 needs to be read in completeness with the verses 5-8

God clearly is refering to being displeased with the results of the union of the son's of God with the daughters of man. In John1:12 we who are in Christ are reffered to being the "son's of God"

it goes on in vs Gen 6:5 "And God saw the wickedness of man was great .." Vs 6 " And it repented the Lord that he had made man... and it grieved him at his heart".
vs 7 " and I will destroy man whom I created from the face of the earth, and the beast...for it repenteth me that I have made him.

I Gen1:24-25 it shows God ordained manner of the population of the earth.
"Each after its own kind"

Gen 6:1-8 makes only a reference with Gods displeasure in man and no reference to a third type creation on this earth. Other wise in verse 7 God is planning on destroying man because of what some angels did. In verse 8 God is clearly referring to finding grace in one man.
God continues in his rebuking of the corrution of the flesh through all the earth. vs 11-12.

There is no mention of God allowing a union between female humans and angels and no purpose mentioned for such a union. God is not a God of confusion nor does he unjustly punish.

I could find no reference at all in scripture of angels becoming human and mating with women but ripture does tell us only one came from heaven and became man and that was Jesus Christ.


I agree we have a divine spirit from God.

However, Cain was referered to as being not of God, but of the evil one. 1John 3:10-12. The line of Seth is the line that christ would come from.

In the verses you refereance Gen6:1-4 needs to be read in completeness with the verses 5-8

Yes, I do understand about the following scriptures in Genesis but since that isn't what this thread is about, I didn't type it out.

God clearly is refering to being displeased with the results of the union of the son's of God with the daughters of man. In John1:12 we who are in Christ are reffered to being the "son's of God"

In the New Testament, you are correct, that is a different reference to the sons of God and has nothing to do with what happened in Genesis. Otherwise, God would not be displeased if those "who are in Christ" mated with the daughters of man. It wouldn't make sense.


it goes on in vs Gen 6:5 "And God saw the wickedness of man was great .." Vs 6 " And it repented the Lord that he had made man... and it grieved him at his heart".
vs 7 " and I will destroy man whom I created from the face of the earth, and the beast...for it repenteth me that I have made him.

I Gen1:24-25 it shows God ordained manner of the population of the earth.
"Each after its own kind"

Gen 6:1-8 makes only a reference with Gods displeasure in man and no reference to a third type creation on this earth. Other wise in verse 7 God is planning on destroying man because of what some angels did. In verse 8 God is clearly referring to finding grace in one man.
God continues in his rebuking of the corrution of the flesh through all the earth. vs 11-12.

There is no mention of God allowing a union between female humans and angels and no purpose mentioned for such a union. God is not a God of confusion nor does he unjustly punish.

God did allow this union between angels and women because it obviously did happen, according to the scriptures. The angels and humankind are under free will. According to the Bible, these angels were later cast from heaven for what they did. Yes, Jesus Christ is the Son of God but the angels were called the "sons of God".

I could find no reference at all in scripture of angels becoming human and mating with women but ripture does tell us only one came from heaven and became man and that was Jesus Christ.

The angels did not become human, they had the ability to materialize in human form and dematerialize, as was revealed throughout the Bible.

We all understand about Jesus Christ. Shinka was wondering if God had more than one son because of the Biblical reference to the "sons of God" in Genesis. From what I've learned, the sons of God as mentioned in Genesis were the angels that God created. I don't believe they were just men who mated with the women and produced hybrids like these giants. That wouldn't make any sense.
 
To Isis,


The reference of the "son's of God" not marrying the daughters of man is the same teachings of, be not unequally yoked. 2 Cor 6:14 " Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and communion hath light with dark?
So it has always been God's way for those who are in Christ not marry the unbelievers. The line of Seth were the righteous and the line of Cain were not. So it would make sense for God not to like those unions.

I did understand the question of the thread, as I can only find reference in scriptures as people in Christ being referred to as "son's of God" and no reference to angels being referred to as such. Then there being Christ as The Son of God.

There also is no further scripture to imply that the use of the word giants to only mean a hybrid form of human. Being a time so close to the fall the people of God, Seths line, lived longer and were stronger than the line of Cain. Remember he was cursed that the earth would not produce for him. His line should have died out if not for this intermarrying. His male line especially would have been weak and small. Where as Seth's line had continued strong and with a physical greatness. Also we call people who have accomplished great things giants to this day and it does not have to reflect on them only being of extreme size. Samson was blessed with great strength and abilities being of God, and there were tribes of giants still being produced. So in physical stature as well as abilities, accomplishments and intelligence these giants were men of renown and not have to be a hybrid human.

Gen 6: 4 is stating that these giants and men of renown exsisted before and after the mating with the daughters of men and not that they were the offspring of the union. As I understand you, you are stating on your belief that this union was what created the giants?
The scriptures Nu13:33, Deut2:10,20,21 3:11, Jos13:12, 17:, 18:16 shows that from the seed of Seth through Noah giants were still being born after the flood. Luke 3:23-38 clearly shows the direct line of blood from Seth through Noah and on to Christ. There were no hybrid/angels humans in this line. Since all life began anew through Noah then giants were from Seths blood for sure.
If indeed the angels only appeared human and not become human than again I ask how could they mate with humans. It seems that is giving them the power of God to alter creation. Again I could not find the scripture that would support this or show it happening as yet. I Cor 15:38" But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. vs 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beast, another of fishes, and another of birds. vs. 40 there are also celestrial bodies, and bodies terrestrial, but the glory of celestrial is one, and the glory of terrestial is another.....vs 47 "the first man is of the earth: the second man is the Lord from heaven. This verse sounds like there are definite distinctions in creation.

Could you state the scriptures which tell of such unions? And what are the offspring? Who are they ?

The idea of a hybrid race of people though seems to conflict with the rest of scriptures. The fallen angels were not wiped away in the flood. What prevented them from continuing in the action or do I understand you to be saying they have continued and these hybrids continued to be produced throught out bible times? If so how does salvation of men apply to them?
 
Vintagecoilylocks said:
To Isis,


The reference of the "son's of God" not marrying the daughters of man is the same teachings of, be not unequally yoked. 2 Cor 6:14 " Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and communion hath light with dark?
So it has always been God's way for those who are in Christ not marry the unbelievers. The line of Seth were the righteous and the line of Cain were not. So it would make sense for God not to like those unions.

I did understand the question of the thread, as I can only find reference in scriptures as people in Christ being referred to as "son's of God" and no reference to angels being referred to as such. Then there being Christ as The Son of God.

There also is no further scripture to imply that the use of the word giants to only mean a hybrid form of human. Being a time so close to the fall the people of God, Seths line, lived longer and were stronger than the line of Cain. Remember he was cursed that the earth would not produce for him. His line should have died out if not for this intermarrying. His male line especially would have been weak and small. Where as Seth's line had continued strong and with a physical greatness. Also we call people who have accomplished great things giants to this day and it does not have to reflect on them only being of extreme size. Samson was blessed with great strength and abilities being of God, and there were tribes of giants still being produced. So in physical stature as well as abilities, accomplishments and intelligence these giants were men of renown and not have to be a hybrid human.

Gen 6: 4 is stating that these giants and men of renown exsisted before and after the mating with the daughters of men and not that they were the offspring of the union. As I understand you, you are stating on your belief that this union was what created the giants?
The scriptures Nu13:33, Deut2:10,20,21 3:11, Jos13:12, 17:, 18:16 shows that from the seed of Seth through Noah giants were still being born after the flood. Luke 3:23-38 clearly shows the direct line of blood from Seth through Noah and on to Christ. There were no hybrid/angels humans in this line. Since all life began anew through Noah then giants were from Seths blood for sure.
If indeed the angels only appeared human and not become human than again I ask how could they mate with humans. It seems that is giving them the power of God to alter creation. Again I could not find the scripture that would support this or show it happening as yet. I Cor 15:38" But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. vs 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beast, another of fishes, and another of birds. vs. 40 there are also celestrial bodies, and bodies terrestrial, but the glory of celestrial is one, and the glory of terrestial is another.....vs 47 "the first man is of the earth: the second man is the Lord from heaven. This verse sounds like there are definite distinctions in creation.

Could you state the scriptures which tell of such unions? And what are the offspring? Who are they ?

The idea of a hybrid race of people though seems to conflict with the rest of scriptures. The fallen angels were not wiped away in the flood. What prevented them from continuing in the action or do I understand you to be saying they have continued and these hybrids continued to be produced throught out bible times? If so how does salvation of men apply to them?

You did not see where I said the scriptures called the giants "hybrids", that was only me. Children born between humans and higher beings in a human form to me are hybrids. According to Webster dictionary, the definition of hybrid is:
"an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera". I was personally using this definition.

What happened between the angels and women had nothing to do with the line of Seth and Cain. The Bible does not say these giants are symbolic of those who have accomplished great things. These gigantic offspring, the Nephilim were destroyed. They were not allowed to multiply like everyone else. Sampson is not an example of the Nephilim or giants. His story and experiences are completely different.

If indeed the angels only appeared human and not become human than again I ask how could they mate with humans. It seems that is giving them the power of God to alter creation. Again I could not find the scripture that would support this or show it happening as yet.

Angels materialized as humans as we can see in the Bible. They could eat and drink like humans and had human bodies. They obviously did mate with humans during that particular time in history.

Humans today do have the power to alter creation and are doing so every day through genetic engineering and cloning. I believe humans cannot create another human from the dust of the ground as God can but yes, they can certainly alter creation.

And yes, there are distinctions and genres of beings on and off this planet as you stated. It sounds as if you have a hard time believing angels could mate with humans, as if it was impossible. As we see in the scriptures, many, many things happened that seems impossible, yet they did occur, if one believes in the Bible.

Could you state the scriptures which tell of such unions? And what are the offspring? Who are they ?

The only offspring we are discussing are from the "sons of God" or angels as mentioned in Genesis and human women and you read the scriptures in the previous posts. The offspring are called the Nephilim or giants (depending on your Biblical translation).

The idea of a hybrid race of people though seems to conflict with the rest of scriptures. The fallen angels were not wiped away in the flood. What prevented them from continuing in the action or do I understand you to be saying they have continued and these hybrids continued to be produced throught out bible times? If so how does salvation of men apply to them?

You never saw me post anything about the fallen angels wiped away in the flood or that hybrids continued to be produced. I do not believe this, it wouldn't make any sense. Please re-read my posts.
 
To Isis,

What I am understanding in this discusion then, is that you are believing that the term son's of God means angels and the historical teachings I know from the Church understand the term son's of God, to only mean the human men who were still godly and of the blood line of Seth. Thus causing a difference of belief and a huge diverse understanding of God, creation and the scriptures and our salvation.
 
Vintagecoilylocks said:
To Isis,

What I am understanding in this discusion then, is that you are believing that the term son's of God means angels and the historical teachings I know from the Church understand the term son's of God, to only mean the human men who were still godly and of the blood line of Seth. Thus causing a difference of belief and a huge diverse understanding of God, creation and the scriptures and our salvation.

I think you both are right. One phrase can mean different things at different time periods and also one phrase can refer to many things. In the Genesis passage I believe its refering to Angels. However in other contexts, I think they are referring to believers.
 
Vintagecoilylocks said:
To Isis,

What I am understanding in this discusion then, is that you are believing that the term son's of God means angels and the historical teachings I know from the Church understand the term son's of God, to only mean the human men who were still godly and of the blood line of Seth. Thus causing a difference of belief and a huge diverse understanding of God, creation and the scriptures and our salvation.
As Shinka stated, in Genesis, "son's of God" does mean the angels as it does in Job 1:6 and Job 38:7. Many Christians do believe this, there is no controversy.

In the New Testament, "sons of God" does have a different meaning and is spoken of in a different context. Again, there is no controversy.
 
Back
Top