Sons of God and daughters of Men

1. You didn't address the "sons of God", exact term used in Gen 6, rejoicing at Earth's creation in Job 38. Adam, Seth, Job, or any other human you want to name wasn't there for that.

2. Jude is ABSOLUTELY linking the sexual sin that Sodom committed by going after strange flesh to the Angels likewise indulging in going after strange flesh.

3. The "habitation" the Angels left, has to do with their Heavenly bodies they abandoned. The word used is oiketerion. It is used only one other time in Scripture:

2 Corinthians 5 New King James Version (NKJV)
Assurance of the Resurrection
5 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our HABITATION which is from heaven,

This is the incorruptible Heavenly body we will receive.

Point one - Yes, I have addressed it repeatedly. You cannot show anywhere in Gen. 6 where the word angel appears. You are supplying that out of your own imagination. In Job 38 we are also not supplied a definition for the term 'sons of God.' I may not know to whom this may refer, but I do know that the text does not say they are angels. That is nothing more than human speculation. It may indeed be good speculation, but it is still only speculation.

Point two - Look at the syntactical structure of the text. I do not know if you can read the Greek but, if you can, look at the Greek syntax of verses 6-7. The meaning is clear. If you want angels to be the antecedent of "Which likewise indulged in sexual immorality" then you will have to change the entire construct of these two verses. It is a simple matter of grammar.

Point three - Again, you are making an unwarranted assumption and a monumental leap. Verse 6 simply says they left their own domain and habitation. It does not say they made earth their new abode. What Peter says is that when the angels sinned (which Jude says was by leaving their first domain) they were "committed to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;” Nowhere in any of this is there even the merest suggestion that angles came to earth. What we are told is that when they left their first domain, they were cast into torment (ταρταρώσας – the abyss) .

Ever heard of dinosaurs and why aren't they mentioned in the bible? Maybe they were mentioned right there.

You probably won't read this, so I'll give you a main highlight. In the Septuagint, THE SCRIPTURES JESUS ALMOST CERTAINLY USED, they use the word ANGELS in Genesis 6.

WERE THE “SONS OF GOD” FALLEN ANGELS? Dr. Elmer Towns

Several Bible teachers believe that the “sons of God” (Gen. 6:2) which were angels, cohabited with the “daughters of men” (Gen. 6:2), who were human women and produced giants (v. 4). God saw the wicked results, as well as potential ruin and destroyed the earth with a flood. The angels who were responsible were placed in Tartarus to wait for judgment at the Great White Throne judgment. Lawlor gives support for this view.

The Sons of God
The title “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2,4 is used in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 to designate angels. Moreover, in the Septuagint the word “sons” in these passages is the Greek for “angels,” and where the Authorized Version reads “sons of God” in Geneses 6:2,4 the Septuagint reads “angels of God.” Nowhere in the Old Testament are God’s people called “sons of God,” with one notable exception in Hosea 1:10, and the meaning there is obvious.

The term “sons of God” denotes beings brought into existence by the creative act of God. Such were the angels, and in the Old Testament the title refers to angels. Men are not “sons” until they are redeemed (Gal. 4:4,5), born again in the New Testament sense (Jn. 1:12,13; 3:3-7).

There was a strong Jewish stream of tradition with regard to Genesis 6:1-4 as being the description of a terrible sin committed by angels attracted by the beauty of mortal women, and who forsook their proper habitation in order to live on earth with the daughters of men.


The early church held that Jude’s statement in verse 6 refers to Genesis 6:1-4. It was not until the latter part of the fourth century that any other view was suggested.

The language of the text is foreign to the view that the “sons of God” are the sons of Seth, while the “daughters of men” are the offspring of Cain. If the “sons of God” are the sons of Seth, and the “daughters of men” are the offspring of Cain, then at the time of the amalgamation God’s true people were limited to the male sex, for the “sons of God” were the ones who married the “daughters of men.” And if the “sons of God” were believers, they perished in the Flood, yet Peter states that it was the ungodly who received that judgment (2 Pet. 2:5).

Daughters of Men
The “daughters of men” can surely be held to include the daughters of Seth as well as the daughters of Cain, and this being so, then the “sons of God” must refer to something entirely different from the human race.

The progeny of the union between the “sons of God” and the daughters of men” was of such a character as to indicate a super-human union. The word rendered “giants” in Genesis 6:4 is the same word as that found in Numbers 13:33, where it is used to describe the sons of Anak, seen by the spies, and who were gigantic in stature. The Hebrew words designate these giants as “fallen ones.” The result of this union was wickedness of such fearful character as to demand a new beginning of the human race (Gen. 6:5-7).

The Corruption of the Human Race
This corruption of the human race by the “sons of God” was in harmony with Satan’s continued policy of trying to frustrate the plan and purpose of God, and thus answers the question of why these angels sinned. Herein is to be found the cause of their evil act. By influencing these angels to rebel, become insubordinate to God, abandon their first estate, leave their own habitation, and come down into the realm of the daughters of men and seek them out for themselves, Satan aimed at the monstrous destruction of the human race (the channel through which the seed of the woman, Genesis 3:15, should come), and at its immediate perversion, by producing a race of frightful monstrosities.

He almost succeeded. Genesis 6:12 says, “All flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” Only one family remained by the grace of God: Noah’s. Genesis 6:2,4 shows that monstrosities were produced.


The Scriptures reveal that angels fell, came down, and went after strange flesh (Jude 6,7 with 2 Pet. 2:4), and the testimony strongly suggests that their sin was that of Genesis 6. The passage in Jude 6,7 shows the awful sin of the people in Sodom and Gomorrah in comparison with the sin of the angels who fell.

Angels or Not?
Matthew 22:30 is used in refutation of the “angels” view. But in this passage, the words “in heaven” make a great difference with the meaning. The angels in heaven do not marry, nor are given in marriage. But the “sons of God” in Geneses 6:1-4 were no longer in heaven. They left their own place, forsook their habitation, and came seeking after strange flesh, hunting after unlawful alliance with the daughters of men.

This gentleman is making the same speculations you and others are making. There is nothing new here. He has not provided any proof from scripture that the term sons of God and angels are ever mentioned in the same text. Such an example simply does not exist in scripture. Hebrews 1:5 is very plain. God has NEVER called any angel his son. I cannot imagine why anyone would insist this statement is untrue. When we insist that angels are called sons of God, we are charging that this statement by the psalmist is false. Either they are or they are not; there is no middle ground here. If they are then you are going to have to find a passage that clearly defines sons of God as angels in so many words. There is simply no such passage. The only thing that connects sons of God to angels is human speculation. It does not show up anywhere in scripture.

As for Matt 22:30, the location is irrelevant. The point Jesus is making is that in the resurrection, men will be like the angels. they will neither marry. Angels are non-sexual beings. It matters not where they are.

You are gonna believe whatever you want to believe. Something about leading a horse to water... But it seems to me YOU are the one engaging in speculation.

We have given quite a bit of evidence to support angels mating with human women producing a hybrid race, called the nephillim. The idea that the "sons of God" are really the sons of Adam, or sons of Seth are frankly ludicrous and have no Scriptural support.

I have come to believe this is a more important issue than just a side show. You will not understand large chunks of the Bible until you get this right.

WHY did God have to destroy the world with a flood? Because of sin in the sense that WE think? If that is so we better ALL start building an ark!

No. It was a specific sin. God's creation was almost completely corrupted. But Noah was found to be perfect in his generation. Read that GENES! By which we actually get the word generations.

Why were there giants, and whole races of people that Israel again and again were told to utterly destroy EVERY man, woman, child, and baby, and animal? Imagine an Israeli looking in the eyes of 3 yr old little boy or girl and chopping their head off! You cannot explain that except that God was again trying to keep the Messiah's line uncorrupted.

This is important because Jesus says as in the days of Noah.... Once again, we see the corruption of God's Creation here at the end times. Who could possibly be blind to both DNA and transhumanist tinkering of Creation today?

So I know you are unlikely to change your stance on this issue, but hopefully others will read and not buy the ridiculous line of Seth story.

The key word here is begotten. Angels are not begotten of God. They are created beings of God. Jesus was begotten of His Father.

Hebrews 1:5 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?

And as for the Matthew 22:30 verse, angels are all male. They can not procreate with each other. The text does not say non-sexual.

What you have no answer for is Job 38 and the sons of God shouting for joy when God laid the foundations of the earth. No man was present. The morning stars are mentioned as being part of the sons of God. Morning stars in Scripture are angels, thus angels are sons of God.

Hebrews 1:5 presents us with two immediate truths. 1. God has not called any angel "My son." 2. That he has not called any angel "begotten."

You are correct. I have no answer to Job 38. At the same time, you cannot point to anything in that text that defines them as angels. The word angel appears nowhere in that text. To infer they are angels is speculation that is mapped onto the text. It is not information that is provided by the text. All anyone has to do to convince me that angels are called sons of God in scripture is to simply present me with a text that says that. If you can do that, I will concede the point.

Ive read both sides and still really dont know which one is right so sorry cant help you as both arguments are plausible.

Certainly Hebrews declares Jesus was better than any angel and God had singled him out as His only begotten son. And all the angels worship Him. But note Jesus is the FIRST begotten so, maybe there are other sons.

And certainly us believers do become sons (and daughters) of God upon being born again.

I have already showed you that the Septuagint translates it Angels.

May I have a concession?

Verse 9 suggests Jesus has brothers or at least angels are related some how 'above thy fellows'
Although the other verses imply angels are ministers to serve the heirs. Servants arent the same as sons. But they can become sons if they are adopted. Hmm
Just reading the whole first chapter of Hebrews here.

Someone can post it if they like.

Also remember Jesus also referred to himself as the son of man.

Maybe look up the defintion of begotten? It might mean more than we think it does.

Reading the entire chapter of Job 38. GOd asks a lot of questions. They are not all related to the beginning of creation they are separate questions because He does seem to refer to the flood as well see verse 13 and also see verse 32 talking about star constellations.

Enoch is a pretty good book. throughout the middle ages corrupt church leaders went to great lengths to discredit the book. their most common fabrication against it was that it was a forgery copied with info from the NT 800-1000 years after Jesus. this argument blew up when the DSS were found and there were many Enoch scrolls, these scrolls sync up with the middle age manuscript, and dating back to 200 BC. they really ended up with egg on their face on that one. its sad that many still want to call Enoch pseudo today. Enoch was always a secret book but some see secret and think that means false. Jesus Himself confirms secret teachings, this just means some are not ready for the knowledge, it does not mean you have to be part of a secret club.

I do not know what version of the LXX you are reading, there are different ones, but the copy I have reads οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ which means the sons of God. The LXX I have does not translate it as angels. The word ἄγγελοι does not appear anywhere in the text of verses 1-4. The Hebrew text reads, הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ בְנֵי This translates to sons of God in verses 2 and 4, not angels.

LXX Chapter 38 7

7 When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice.

The LXX does translate that text as angels but remember, the LXX is merely a translation. The Hebrew text of verse 7 still says, הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ בְנֵי which means sons of God, not angels. The translation is incorrect. Even if it were correct, the phrase sons of God and angels still do not appear in the same text thus providing a definition. The English translation does not offer a definition of the sons of God and the LXX in 38:7 does not refer to angels as sons of God.

Look people, the issue with Gen 6 is simply this. Since the text does not specifically tell us that those 'sons of God' are angels, we are left with no alternative but to supply a definition to 'sons of God' so, the question is what definition do we assign to the 'sons of God'? There are only two possibilities for assigning meaning - human imagination or scripture. If we assign angelic beings to this term then we must then find where scripture itself assigns such a definition to 'sons of God'. We see repeated passages where 'sons of God' is used to describe men as the subject both in the old and new testament, but there is no text that ever defines angels in this way. The only possible passage that may indicate that this refers to angels is Job 38:6-7 but even this is inconclusive because the text does not mention angels. Scripture must ALWAYS be allowed to define its own use of language. We are not free to assign our own definitions to biblical terms.The term sons of God must be understood according to the pattern of its usage in scripture. Every other time this phrase is used, it refers to man. That being true, by what rule of interpretation does one assign some other definition to this term?

It is from the Codex Alexindrinus:

Here is just one of the men, with his credentials, that follow the angelic view. I must reiterate that there is NOTHING to suggest the beings in Genesis 6 are human. The text ITSELF distinguishes human women from the beings that took them and mated with them.

Think how utterly silly it would be to say Seth's sons mated with Cain's daughters, and that union created Giants and mighty men.


Dr. Elmer Towns
Dr. Elmer Towns is a college and seminary professor, an author of popular and scholarly works (the editor of two encyclopedias), a popular seminar lecturer, and dedicated worker in Sunday school, and has developed over 20 resource packets for leadership education.His personal education includes a B.S. from Northwestern College in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a M.A. from Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary also in Dallas, a MRE from Garrett Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois, and a D.Min. from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California.He is co-founder of Liberty University, with Jerry Falwell, in 1971, and was the only full-time teacher in the first year of Liberty’s existence. Today, the University has over 11,400 students on campus with 39,000 in the Distance Learning Program (now Liberty University Online), and he is the Dean of the School of Religion.Dr. Towns has given theological lectures and taught intensive seminars at over 50 theological seminaries in America and abroad. He holds visiting professorship rank in five seminaries. He has written over 2,000 reference and/or popular articles and received six honorary doctoral degrees. Four doctoral dissertations have analyzed his contribution to religious education and evangelism.


Posting again for those who are confused about this:
WERE THE “SONS OF GOD” FALLEN ANGELS?

Several Bible teachers believe that the “sons of God” (Gen. 6:2) which were angels, cohabited with the “daughters of men” (Gen. 6:2), who were human women and produced giants (v. 4). God saw the wicked results, as well as potential ruin and destroyed the earth with a flood. The angels who were responsible were placed in Tartarus to wait for judgment at the Great White Throne judgment. Lawlor gives support for this view.

The Sons of God
The title “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2,4 is used in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 to designate angels. Moreover, in the Septuagint the word “sons” in these passages is the Greek for “angels,” and where the Authorized Version reads “sons of God” in Geneses 6:2,4 the Septuagint reads “angels of God.” Nowhere in the Old Testament are God’s people called “sons of God,” with one notable exception in Hosea 1:10, and the meaning there is obvious.

The term “sons of God” denotes beings brought into existence by the creative act of God. Such were the angels, and in the Old Testament the title refers to angels. Men are not “sons” until they are redeemed (Gal. 4:4,5), born again in the New Testament sense (Jn. 1:12,13; 3:3-7).

There was a strong Jewish stream of tradition with regard to Genesis 6:1-4 as being the description of a terrible sin committed by angels attracted by the beauty of mortal women, and who forsook their proper habitation in order to live on earth with the daughters of men.


The early church held that Jude’s statement in verse 6 refers to Genesis 6:1-4. It was not until the latter part of the fourth century that any other view was suggested.

The language of the text is foreign to the view that the “sons of God” are the sons of Seth, while the “daughters of men” are the offspring of Cain. If the “sons of God” are the sons of Seth, and the “daughters of men” are the offspring of Cain, then at the time of the amalgamation God’s true people were limited to the male sex, for the “sons of God” were the ones who married the “daughters of men.” And if the “sons of God” were believers, they perished in the Flood, yet Peter states that it was the ungodly who received that judgment (2 Pet. 2:5).

Daughters of Men
The “daughters of men” can surely be held to include the daughters of Seth as well as the daughters of Cain, and this being so, then the “sons of God” must refer to something entirely different from the human race.

The progeny of the union between the “sons of God” and the daughters of men” was of such a character as to indicate a super-human union. The word rendered “giants” in Genesis 6:4 is the same word as that found in Numbers 13:33, where it is used to describe the sons of Anak, seen by the spies, and who were gigantic in stature. The Hebrew words designate these giants as “fallen ones.” The result of this union was wickedness of such fearful character as to demand a new beginning of the human race (Gen. 6:5-7).

The Corruption of the Human Race
This corruption of the human race by the “sons of God” was in harmony with Satan’s continued policy of trying to frustrate the plan and purpose of God, and thus answers the question of why these angels sinned. Herein is to be found the cause of their evil act. By influencing these angels to rebel, become insubordinate to God, abandon their first estate, leave their own habitation, and come down into the realm of the daughters of men and seek them out for themselves, Satan aimed at the monstrous destruction of the human race (the channel through which the seed of the woman, Genesis 3:15, should come), and at its immediate perversion, by producing a race of frightful monstrosities.

He almost succeeded. Genesis 6:12 says, “All flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” Only one family remained by the grace of God: Noah’s. Genesis 6:2,4 shows that monstrosities were produced.

The Scriptures reveal that angels fell, came down, and went after strange flesh (Jude 6,7 with 2 Pet. 2:4), and the testimony strongly suggests that their sin was that of Genesis 6. The passage in Jude 6,7 shows the awful sin of the people in Sodom and Gomorrah in comparison with the sin of the angels who fell.

Angels or Not?
Matthew 22:30 is used in refutation of the “angels” view. But in this passage, the words “in heaven” make a great difference with the meaning. The angels in heaven do not marry, nor are given in marriage. But the “sons of God” in Geneses 6:1-4 were no longer in heaven. They left their own place, forsook their habitation, and came seeking after strange flesh, hunting after unlawful alliance with the daughters of men.

Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee

One continuous thought, not two. God's referring to a Son who was begotten.

And as far as Job 38 goes, like many other examples, God does not always define everything in one text, but wants us to compare Scripture with Scripture to get the full understanding.