(CORRECTION) Sons of God Were NOT Fallen Angels

[creationliberty]

I have to apologize because in previous teachings on "The Pre-Flood World", I have taught the internet's paradigm that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were "fallen angels." I repeated this error in my ignorance.

Here is the revised section on the article as it now appears on the site:
First of all, I would like to apologize to everyone for previous teachings I've done on this subject because I used to teach the typical "Nephilim" idea, that fallen angels (i.e. devils in disguise) took wives of women, and I did so because of my previous education when I was a young Christian. That doctrine is false, and I'll demonstrate it:

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

The "sons of God" being referred to here is the line (or genealogy) of Seth (Luke 3:38), as opposed to the "daughters of men," which refers to the line of Cain. Just as the children of Abraham were not supposed to mix seed with the pagan nations (Deut 7:1-3), so too were the line of Seth not supposed to mix seed with the line of Cain. The line of Seth were those who began "to call upon the name of the Lord," (Gen 4:26) which is a crying out to God in repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing), whereas the line of Cain did evil in the sight of God.
(Read "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

It should also be noted that angels will not see women as "fair," because angels were not created to have physical attraction to women. Fair is talking about beauty, and wanting to take a wife because of beauty is a function that was created only in mankind; angels of any sort, including fallen angels (i.e. devils) were not created with that same physical function in the flesh.

Furthermore, the Bible says they "took them wives," which means they were married. God would not have acknowledged their marriage in Scripture if they were angels because angels are not given commandment, option, nor desire to marry; that function was created specifically by God for mankind.
(Read "Marriage: What Christians Should Know" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
-Genesis 6:4

What many preachers are doing today looking at giants, and thinking this is referring to the children of the "sons of God," which is a phrase that can refer to both men and angels depending on the context, but in their ignorance, they choose to believe it was angels. They then connect the thought that if women had babies of angels, then the resulting childern were giants, which is nothing more than conjecture (i.e. a guess without facts and evidence to back it up).

I would also like to point out where the Scripture says "after that," which means the Bible tells us that there were very large/tall people who lived on the earth, but then AFTER that, the sons of God (i.e. the line of Seth) impregnated the daughters of men (i.e. the line of Cain from who they took wives), and they became mighty men, which were very strong and famous. This disconnects the two statements, but often, many preachers do not read this slowly and carefully enough to understand the difference.

Although I do not pretend to fully understand this matter (i.e. why there were giant people and what actually caused that to happen), I do believe there were giants on the earth, as the Bible says, both before and after the Flood. It is my position that these were men and women who, just like the animals and insects, grew to larger size in Pre-Flood atmospheric conditions, who would be big enough to swing around a 39-lbs axe head with ease, and some portion of this genetic capability was handed down to men after the Flood.
That is my position on the matter now, and I hope that helps everyone understand the matter more thoroughly from the Scripture.

[Kenneth Winslow]

Chris, people aren't going to be happy about your position on this. It's much more fun to believe the nephilim/fallen angel idea.
Believing that the sons of God are simply the descendants of Seth that rebelled against God by married unbelieving women as not very entertaining or thought-provoking.
In fact, that idea may actually be convicting to some people.
It looks like you are trying to take away their happy, fun time, Oreo cookie goodness, mashed potatoes and gravy, feel good fun time. (FYI: I was unable to write that without laughing out loud.)
No, some folks aren't going to be happy about this.

[creationliberty]

Chris, people aren't going to be happy about your position on this. It's much more fun to believe the nephilim/fallen angel idea.

I already knew before I wrote it. It just took me some time to get around to it because I had forgotten about it until today.

[strangersmind]

Nooooo...  there goes the cotton candy and rainbow story time. Lol
I would like to make an argument by asking questions. If angles can take the form of man and be hungry make animals talk? Could it be possible they can mate with woman? And since giants were there before and after the flood then could that be because the angels were still mating with woman even after the flood?

It say the sons of god took the daughter of men to wife, why would the bible say the daughter of men? It seems to separate them from sons of god.



 

[Jeanne]

Billy, you've already asked these questions in another thread, so there's no need to go into the discussion again here. We've given you the Scripture that shows angels (not angles) do NOT marry, so quit harping on about it.

[ThomasHGW]

What many preachers are doing today looking at giants, and thinking this is referring to the children of the "sons of God," which is a phrase that can refer to both men and angels depending on the context, but in their ignorance, they choose to believe it was angels. They then connect the thought that if women had babies of angels, then the resulting childern were giants, which is nothing more than conjecture (i.e. a guess without facts and evidence to back it up).

Could it be possible they can mate with woman? And since giants were there before and after the flood then could that be because the angels were still mating with woman even after the flood?

There is no biblical proof. You have to come up with that idea outside of scripture.

[Timothy]

There is no biblical proof. You have to come up with that idea outside of scripture.

Agreed. Billy, the fact that the sons of God married the daughters of men is really key here. Just like homosexuals cannot Biblically marry, angels cannot marry even though they can come in the appearance of a man. God never said in the Bible that gays ever married each other, only that they commit fornication. And so with angels marriage is also not recognized.

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Angels cannot become one flesh with mankind. Their bodies are not terrestrial like our flesh and the woman did not come from the bone and flesh of a celestial body. That's not the way God made it. So even if angels could mate with women (which there is no evidence for that in the Bible that I've read) it's completely irrelevant because you are missing the point of marriage in this passage. I think that's important to understanding Genesis 6:4 that the "sons of God" here is not talking about angels.

[strangersmind]

You make a great point tim. Having some one just read it for the first time would not come up with angles. 

Jeanne your right about me asking this already. I was not thinking at the time, or more of I was confused. Right now I am downloading all the teachings for the first half and just got to the 100s where I just listened to where Chris talk about how they were angles.

I also been thinking on what to say before I say things to avoid idle words so when I did not see my reply I thought I just thought about it and not yet ask. So I am sorry for the repeat reply.

[anvilhauler]

I have come to the same conclusion about this as Chris.

[strangersmind]

The more I think upon this the more I come to the conclusion I am wrong. I have what I call the painted picture syndrome. It is when someone paints a picture of a thing and even though it most likely to be wrong, it is hard to excape or see past the picture.

If it was angles who mate with women to make the giants then it would be mentioned els where in bible. But since it can't be found then it can't be so in this case.

Have any of you looked into when this teaching had started? I can only guess it was when the alien agenda started.

[Raymond]

1Corinthians 15 applies?

39  All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.  40  There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

If celestial refers to angelic beings and terrestrial refers to earthly beings, it's a strong indicator that humans and angelic beings are just not compatible in a reproductive sense any more than men and birds would be.

That might call the Holy Spirit "coming over" Mary into question by some, but sexual intercourse could not have been an aspect of Jesus' conception. Not if she's going to conceive and bring forth a son while remaining a virgin anyhow... (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23)

[creationliberty]

Nah, that's just heretics that believe that God has to abide by natural laws for everything He does. In essence, they're trying to drag God down to our pea-brain level; thus, they serve a different god than we do.

[Wynand]

I respect your humble attitude Chris. I wish more pastors and teachers of the bible can be as humble as you in acknowledging their faults or teachings they had wrong. You are a good example.

[Wynand]

I was also mislead in believing the Sons of God were angels.

[strangersmind]

I was too, even today I am finding things that I thought but are not even true. This is one of them, what I did is read it to the people here and ask what do you think it is saying, no one came up with angles. If you trace the teachings back you will find it is just like the gap theory. Made up to add in alien to the bible.

Most who teaching sons of god are angles also believe in gap theory, and most of them are the hole alien and cemtrail conspiracy type of pastor. The rest who teach it are just them who hear other teach them and just repeat it rather than look it up for themselves

[Wynand]

Jesus-is-savior.com also vehemently teaches the gap theory.

[Zoologistkid]

Chris, I know many people will reject your sound reasoning because of one thing: interest. I know many people will reject you because which gives a more "thought-provoking experience", fallen angels breeding with man or man breeding with man. I think this statement sums it up, you can't let truth prevent a good story.