The Books of Enoch.

Just so you know it is not the only time used in the Bible, it is also found in the New

and ANGELOS is never in context to aner or man.


You have no proof that Moses wrote JOB, that is speculation.

I said 4 times in the Old Testament, this is where this discussion point is being emphasized at.
I know Pentecostals, like I was raised, differ here. But then again, they did not have a Pastor and Grandfather who was Yiddish, knew the Tanakh, converted to Yeshua, and since the early 1900's been asked to teach the KJV Old Testament in line with the Tanakh. I firmly stand on those views in this matter.

don't get personal and try to deflect with " I know Pentecostals differ', the facts are

1. you don't know if Moses wrote Job.
2. The full biblical use of the term " Sons' of God " in both old and new must be considered
3. the authorial intent is neither pentecostal nor non-pentecostal.
4. The context of sons of God found in Genesis 6 has nothing to do with the context of sons of God found in the book of Job chapter one.


Now you can allegorize genesis 6 and make the BOOK of Job gnostic if you like. But you are not going to rightly prove genesis 6 and Job chapter one where the term sons of God are said to mean something. Why? All the words of the bible have many meanings and we must use what caused the context to be clearly seen, not what we think it says but what actually fits best.

because the very Bible proves this point in both Old and New Testaments

In the old, the words son of god are used for angels and man. in the New Testament, it is used for man.

That point is biblical it is not pentecostal or non-pentecostal

Agreed!
And excellent point about the connection to Moses and the Book of Job. We can affirmingly go back to the origins of the Tanakh and then later the Talmud and see where this connection is made. But as far as Moses being known from the literal content of Job, there are no indications.

dear brother, you can't say "actually it does, though not directly". God did not mix words. God actually said it or HE did not.

The reason why Genesis " son of God " is earthly men is that the context draws that truth out from all other words in that chapter and the previous chapter.

Just for the sake of argument because you are not going to agree with what I say as I am not with you, let's place everywhere you see in Genesis chapter 6 the words " sons of God" with "angel".
Then reread it.

two things happen:

1. confusion which God is not the author of

2. it makes angels the problem not the sin of man even though God said it was the man who caused HIM to be offended.

God has so much anger with angels he has to destroy all man or unless you think water will drown an angel a spiritual being?

no, actually I have read Genesis chapters 5-7.

Incorrect, and I can prove it with a logical syllogism:

A implies B
B implies C
Therefore, A implies C

The connection between A and C is not direct, but indirect. The connection between Job 38 and Genesis 6 is similarly indirect, but nonetheless implies what I have stated. It's not "mixing words" at all, and there need not be a direct statement for it to be true.


I disagree. See my third point below.


Firstly, replacing one word with another might be useful to illustrate an idea, but it's not how we interpret Scripture.
Secondly, making a blanket application of a single verse from far later in the scriptural essay is simply poor hermeneutics. In Genesis 11:7-9, God confused the languages.
Thirdly, the story remains coherent with "sons of God" being non-human entities, because God's intent was to cleanse the human race from both the genetic and spiritual corruption brought about by those entities.

Incorrect, and I can prove it with a logical syllogism:

A implies B
B implies C
Therefore, A implies C

The connection between A and C is not direct, but indirect. The connection between Job 38 and Genesis 6 is similarly indirect, but nonetheless implies what I have stated. It's not "mixing words" at all, and there need not be a direct statement for it to be true.


I disagree. See my third point below.


Firstly, replacing one word with another might be useful to illustrate an idea, but it's not how we interpret Scripture.
Secondly, making a blanket application of a single verse from far later in the scriptural essay is simply poor hermeneutics. In Genesis 11:7-9, God confused the languages.
Thirdly, the story remains coherent with "sons of God" being non-human entities, because God's intent was to cleanse the human race from both the genetic and spiritual corruption brought about by those entities.

Romans 8:14KJV
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Exodus 31:3KJV
3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,

1 Samuel 10:10KJV
10 And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.

2 Chronicles 15:1KJV
And the Spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Oded:

2 Chronicles 24:20KJV
20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the Lord, he hath also forsaken you.

There are many sources that would disagree. But since you wish to make an argument from Gen 6: 1-3, did you think that up until v. 1, women only produced sons and when they produced daughters, God became angry when 'nobles' desired them? That is about the weakest and silliest idea yet. How did these normal human men produce giants then?

v.4 does not make any sense when viewed in the way you suggest. But I suppose it does satisfy certain mind sets.

7And the Lord said, "I will blot out man, whom I created, from upon the face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping thing, to the fowl of the heavens, for I regret that I made them."

So God destroyed the earth because men had sex with women. That, is what you are saying. Guess we are all in for it now.

The Nephilim (נְפִילִים; a word only ever found in plural form in OT) only appears three times in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 (twice). The word in 1 Ch 20:8 (also 1 Ch 20:6 and 1 Ch 8:2; cf. also 1 Ch 4:12) is Rapha (רָפָא; singular), also only found these three times (though that depends on interpretation of homonyms, see below). In Josh 15:8 is the word Rephaim (רְפָאִים; plural), which is always found its eight times (also Josh 18:16; 2 Sam 5:18, 22; 23:13; Isa 17:5; 1 Ch 11:15; 14:9) in connection with the word for valley, Emeq (עֵמֶק), hence in the translations either translated "valley of giants" or transliterated "valley of Rephaim."

Second, many major lexicons essentially uphold the word "giant(s)" as the translation in these spots, though you will find some differences as to what "giant" even should "mean." Many choose not to translate the words because of issues in knowing what translation is best, and so they transliterate the Hebrew sounds into English (hence, Nephilim and Rephaim).

the term Giant = Nephilim means mighty men not 11 feet tall

We agree on probably most things, but we do not agree on this one.

As I have said before I think that these type threads are fascinating to me because they never follow groups of supporters or non-supporters aligned by the position they hold in eschatology. I notice that for the most part these type threads never evolve past the argument of the book of Enoch's validity and then into debating the content of what is in the book itself. In such it occurs to me that it is probably because the different camps in eschatology may see the book as indefensible based on their position and so it is rejected. At times I wonder if the book it's self had been read/studied by many who make comments in these threads based on their post.

If so I think these type threads would instead center around different topics other than the author being in support of fallen angels being the sons of God and more on the other topics in the book. I'll give an example of another from Enoch 10:12 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Enoch_(Charles)/Chapter_10 in that Enoch states that Semjaza and his associates would be bound fast for "seventy generation's" until they were judged which in Luke is the exact number of generation's from Enoch to Jesus in Mary"s line given by Luke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus ... It begs the question of why Luke is pointing out that there is 77 generation's from God to Jesus but from Enoch exactly 70 as in Enoch 10:12 and how did the author of the book know this before Jesus was born.

We agree on probably most things, but we do not agree on this one.

It is not essential you agree with me on non-essentials as much as it is important to not lead people astray, I am not suggesting you are doing that.

The only point that I think is made to sensationalize scripture because the idea that angel has sexually interacted with men and women is not the message God is conveying with the genesis account nor did that happen.

There are many things that cause great apprehension to accept the idea angel slept with women.

1. The range of meaning of the "son of God".
2. The words of Jesus that speak of the LAST DAYS BEFORE his return will be as the days of Noah. And if this egregious sin that Caused God to flooded the whole earth Jesus did not even mention it or even hint at it. Jesus said they would be Marrying and giving in marriage all the way up until Noah entered the Ark.
3. to do so takes the context and meaning away and causes confusion.

Actually, those angels are bound in Tartarus until the great white throne judgment, which doesn't take place until after the millennial kingdom.

Also, much of the content of the book is given over to angelology and demonology. Enoch lends support to the Genesis account and more detail to what the angels did and why God flooded the earth.

And Enoch mentions that he spoke with God, so, why wouldn't He know the Son of God before He became human?

dear brother, you can't say "actually it does, though not directly". God did not mix words. God actually said it or HE did not.

Moses was the writer of genesis Who wrote Job the oldest book in the bible?
The author(writer) is uncertain (we know God is the author).

The name of the author is not indicated in the book. That Job himself could not have written all of it is shown by the inclusion of the record of his death. There is speculation it is Moses but we just don't know.

The reason why Genesis " son of God " is earthly men is that the context draws that truth out from all other words in that chapter and the previous chapter.

Just for the sake of argument because you are not going to agree with what I say as I am not with you, let's place everywhere you see in Genesis chapter 6 the words " sons of God" with "angel".

Then reread it.


two things happen:

1. confusion which God is not the author of

2. it makes angels the problem not the sin of man even though God said it was the man who caused HIM to be offended.

God has so much anger with angels he has to destroy all man or unless you think water will drown an angel a spiritual being?

The reason why Genesis " son of God " is earthly men is that the context draws that truth out from all other words in that chapter and the previous chapter.

2. it makes angels the problem not the sin of man even though God said it was the man who caused HIM to be offended.

Thanks. I do understand your point and what you are saying. But.....I just do not understand the passage as do you.

And, I did not gain an understanding from reading books, but just from scripture and my own studies

It's ok. this topic has come up quite a few times in the forum I think and no one ever changed their mind as far as I know

Hello CS1,



I see the 'sons of God' as a distinction from 'the daughters of men.'

I also disagree in that, 'the sons of God' presenting themselves before the Lord in Job 1:6 & 2:1, demonstrates that this title is referring to angelic beings. And the fact that Satan presents himself with them strengthens it even more.



I disagree with the above as well, because Adam and Eve had a choice to eat or to not eat the fruit, which puts accountability squarely on them.

Their sin is that God said, "in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die." Satan came along and said "no you won't die." Adam and Eve made the decision to not believe God, but Satan. God has been looking for people who will believe in Him ever since.