Who are the Sons of God?

[Matt]

My name is Matt, I am new to the forum and a strong practising christian.
I decided this topic could not really be a debate because of the completely ambiguous nature of the question.
Recently I started, once again, to read the bible from the very start. However this time, something stopped me. Genesis 6:4 states "That was when the sons of God had sexual relations with the daughters of human beings". This made me wonder why such a distinction was made. I wondered who was classed, at this early time, as a son of god. I feel the existence of human beings coming down to just Adam and Eve has always been controversial and wondered whether this was anything to do with it? Also, Genesis 6:1 states that "The number of people on earth began to grow and daughters were born to them". I am baffled by this as to why the sons were from God and the daughters from the people or human beings.
Can anyone enlighten me?

[McCulloch]

My name is Matt, I am new to the forum

Welcome

and a strong practicing christian.

I think that may be changing soon.

I decided this topic could not really be a debate because of the completely ambiguous nature of the question.

Or perhaps due to the mythological nature of the subject.

Recently I started, once again, to read the bible from the very start.

Might I suggest you embark on a study of how the Bible came to be. It is a fascinating study and ironically one which many strong practicing Christians are quite uneducated about.

However this time, something stopped me. Genesis 6:4 states "That was when the sons of God had sexual relations with the daughters of human beings". This made me wonder why such a distinction was made. I wondered who was classed, at this early time, as a son of god.

Many early human religions had the gods having sexual relations with humans, almost always male gods and female humans. This is probably a passage inherited by the ancient Jews that escaped the censor of the later monotheists, who edited out a certain amount of the original myth.

[Matt]

I do see your point but this is not a God, these are the sons of God, who, do not seem to be any form of a God. I say this because Genesis also gives reference to Adam's family and how they all live for more or less 900 years until this son of god and daughters of humans act occurs. It states that the spirit of god is with these and will not stay in the human beings. After which god punishes us to 'only' 120 years of life: "because they are flesh. They will live only 120 years". I keep thinking this must be something to do with there being some other line of human existence outside of Adam and Eve, one created separately. Also, you reference to the monotheists editing out some of the story is quite unjustified and, i feel, a bit of a guess to reinforce your, I am guessing, atheist views, unless you have anything which can counteract this statement?

[GentleDove]

My name is Matt, I am new to the forum and a strong practising christian.
I decided this topic could not really be a debate because of the completely ambiguous nature of the question.
Recently I started, once again, to read the bible from the very start. However this time, something stopped me. Genesis 6:4 states "That was when the sons of God had sexual relations with the daughters of human beings". This made me wonder why such a distinction was made. I wondered who was classed, at this early time, as a son of god. I feel the existence of human beings coming down to just Adam and Eve has always been controversial and wondered whether this was anything to do with it? Also, Genesis 6:1 states that "The number of people on earth began to grow and daughters were born to them". I am baffled by this as to why the sons were from God and the daughters from the people or human beings.
Can anyone enlighten me?

Hi Matt, and welcome!

I think "sons of God" refers to the men who knew Jehovah and were taught by their fathers and mothers to remember God. The "daughters of men" refers to women who did not know Jehovah and whose fathers and mothers did not pass on the knowledge of Jehovah.

It was an offense to God that men who knew Him should marry women who did not know Him. In other words, families were being formed wherein the heads of those familes (the men) rejected God in favor of being yoked with women who were not godly because the men lusted after these ungodly women's outward beauty, and the children from those unions would likely not have the faith (of God's promise that he would send a Seed of the woman as Savior from sin) passed on to them.

It was a time of apostasy and of great wickedness in the hearts of men which grieved the LORD.

[Matt]

Thanks very much,
This seems like an excellent analysis and pretty much solves my problem, except, I was wondering if you had any references of where Jehova is mentioned in the bible if at all. I am in no way denying your theory its just that I have not read about him.
Thanks very much
Matt

[GentleDove]

Thanks very much,
This seems like an excellent analysis and pretty much solves my problem, except, I was wondering if you had any references of where Jehova is mentioned in the bible if at all. I am in no way denying your theory its just that I have not read about him.
Thanks very much
Matt

Hi Matt,

When "LORD" is in capital letters in the Bible, it means that in the original Hebrew, "lord" wasn't used, rather the personal name of God, YHWH (or "Jehovah" is another English translation and so is "Yahweh") was used in the text there. YHWH is the personal name of God that He revealed, and it means "I AM WHO I AM" (see Exodus 3:13-15). I think it is all caps out of reverence for God.

Blessings,
GentleDove

[Matt]

Thanks very much Gentledove, I think that's cleared a lot of things up, right, onto reading the great flood!! =D x