The Narrow Path Ministries

>I wouldn't say the arguments that the "sons of God" or b'nai elohim are
>human beings is impressive at all. In fact, I would say it is ludicrous to
>say a b'nai elohim is a human being. Every time that Hebrew phrase is used
>in the OT, it is clearly referring to angelic beings. Why different in
>Genesis 6?
>
>My book is finished...my second one that is. Both of books are available
>on
>my website and my publishers online marketplace. I'm getting very solid
>reviews from normal readers so far...I just don't know how to get important
>people to read it. I sent a copy to Steve, and he said thanks and he would
>read it when he "got time". Check out this link to see a picture of me
>holding my new book <http>.
>
>Dave





Regarding the sons of God in Genesis 6, why do you think they were angels?


There are many reasons, but I'll touch on five below:

1. Because everytime the phrase beneha'elohim is used in the OT, it refers to angels:
Gen 6:2 the sons of God [beneha'elohim] saw that the daughters of humankind were beautiful. Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose.
Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) when the sons of God [beneha'elohim] were having sexual relations with the daughters of humankind, who gave birth to their children...
Job 1:6 Now the day came when the sons of God [beneha'elohim] came to present themselves before the LORD — and Satan also arrived among them.
Job 2:1 Again the day came when the sons of God [beneha'elohim] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also arrived among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38:7 when the morning stars sang in chorus, and all the sons of God [beneha'elohim] shouted for joy?

2. Because in Genesis 6, they are kept distinct from human beings. Notice how they are contrasted with the daughters of humankind in both 6:2 and 6:4? This is because the beneha'elohim were not human.

3. Because their offspring were called giants [nephilim], not little boys or girls. The other occurrence of this word in the OT is:
Num 13:33 We even saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak came from the Nephilim), and we seemed liked grasshoppers both to ourselves and to them ."

4. Because besides the evidence in Genesis 6, there is abundant evidence in the ancient books of I Enoch and Jubilees, as well as Jospehus, that they were angels. The early church fathers also discuss this topic.

5. Because both Peter and Jude referred to the "angels that sinned" who are locked in Tartarus, who went after "unnatural fleshly desires". Jude 1:7 is the key in my view:
2Pe 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment,
Jud 1:6 You also know that the angels who did not keep within their proper domain but abandoned their own place of residence [oiketerion], he has kept in eternal chains in utter darkness, locked up for the judgment of the great Day.
Jud 1:7 So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels , are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

See? The angels indulged in sexual immortality and unnatural unions with humans just like the Sodomites (their unnatural unions were men having intercourse with men). The Sodomites were compared to angels because they had in common the desire to commit sexual acts that were against their nature. In both II Peter and Jude, the acts of the angels and the presence of their nephilim offspring were said to have occurred in the time of Noah, which is in agreement with Genesis 6.

Is it possible for angels to mate and reproduce like humans?


No, but it is possible for angels to fall, and to take on human form. I'm sure I don't have to point out the numerous OT examples of angels who appeared to humans in human form...who ate food, who wrestled, who walked and talked just like humans. I want you to notice something about Jude 1:6. Notice that the angels "abandoned their own place of residence [ oiketerion]? The word [oiketerion] is found only one other time in Greek, and it is referring to the different body believers will have after the glorification/resurrection:
2Co 5:2 For in this earthly house we groan, because we desire to put on our heavenly dwelling [oiketerion ],

Our earthly house, or body, is contrasted with a body we will put on in the future. So, angels transformed into human form when they sinned, just as humans will be transformed into glorified bodies:
Jud 1:6 You also know that the angels who did not keep within their proper domain but abandoned their own place of residence [oiketerion], he has kept in eternal chains in utter darkness, locked up for the judgment of the great Day.
Phi 3:21 who will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself.

This should be no surprise, because Paul tells us that angels can be transformed into human form:
Heb 13:2 Do not neglect hospitality, because through it some have entertained angels without knowing it .

Jude 1:6 is telling us that angels left their proper domain (the spirit world) and abandoned their normal bodily structure (oiketerion-body) to indulge in sexual relations.

Do they have DNA?


I don't know if they have DNA in their spirit form...I doubt it since I think human flesh is made up of blood, where the DNA would be located, and angels are spiritual beings in their proper domain. However, in a fallen, transformed, human state, they might. But I don't know.

Jesus said that the angels don't marry and are not "given in marriage".


Correct. Angels in the spiritual, heavenly realm do not do this. However, angels who take on human form, and who fall from their proper domain and take on unnatural flesh, clearly do things that humans do. This verse is used every time someone argues against Genesis 6 beings angel/human sexual relations, but Jesus was saying nothing about what angels can or can't do in fallen form on the earth, but rather what they do in heaven. And marriage (the Pharisee's question was concerning whose wife a woman who had seven husbands would be in heaven) has nothing to do with sexual relations in that context.

It seems to me to go against the created order of God. Dogs can't mate with
fish, and so on.
You mentioned "Bnai elohim". I looked up the phrase in Genesis 6. The Hebrew
term used here is "Ben 'elohiym in refference to the "sons of God". It
literally means rulers, judges, divine ones, angels."


As I pointed out above, the phrase used in Genesis 6:2 is found four other times in the OT. In the three times it is used in Job, it is clearly referring to angels.

I believe the first choice of "rulers and judges" would be more consistant.


Consistent with what?

You said that this
term is only used of fallen angels in Hebrew lit, this may be. But the term
"son of God is used in the NT to refer to Adam in Luke 3:38.


Doesn't matter. The English phrase "son of God" has nothing to do with the Hebrew phrase beneha'elohim. Look up Luke 3:38, please. The "son of" in front of God, and all the rest of the men in that chronological list, is not present in the Greek...it's only supplied in the English translation for clarification (Steve Gregg agrees with this, by the way). So, the verse really says:
Luk 3:38 which was of Enosh, which was of Seth, which was of Adam, which was of God.

And the OT uses
"elohiym" in refference to men in Psalm 82.


Elohiym in Psalm 82 is not referring to human judges or rulers, but rather to the divine council. Angelic beings. Psalm 82 is a very deep theological issue that has been debated for centuries (along with the Masoretic Text of Deut. 32:8-9 vs. the Septuagint and Ugaritic texts), but I'm deeply intimate with the study of Psalm 82 due to the work of Dr. Michael Heiser. If you are interested in studying it, there are two short, introductory PDF's by Dr. Heiser on my website that you can read when you have time:
http://www.earthquakeresurrection/heise ... erview.pdf
http://www.earthquakeresurrection/heise ... lIntro.pdf


My Hebrew knowledge is not very
deep, I use Strongs to get my info.


Neither is mine!

Also, if you look at the text(Genesis 6), look at the 3rd verse Gen 6:3 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. Why would God
call these hybrids men? Nowhere does God mention destroying angels in the
chapter.


I believe you are confusing the fallen angels [beneha'elohim] with their offspring [ nephilim] from relations with human women. The hybrid offspring nephilim had not yet even been mentioned in the passage prior to verse 3. They are introduced in verse 4.

The angels were already punished, in Tartarus chains. The nephilim are their hybrid offspring, not angels. There are other verses that tell us what God did with the angels (II Peter 2:4; Jude 1:-6-7). You should read Genesis 6:3 in other versions, namely the Septuagint Greek. Below is the verse in the NET Bible:
Gen 6:3 So the LORD said, "My spirit will not remain in humankind indefinitely, since they are mortal. They will remain for 120 more years."

Here is an explanation of that translation from the NET notes:
The verb form יָדוֹן (yadon) only occurs here. Some derive it from the verbal root דִּין (din, "to judge") and translate "strive" or "contend with" (so NIV), but in this case one expects the form to be יָדִין (yadin). The Old Greek has "remain with," a rendering which may find support from an Arabic cognate (see C. Westermann, Genesis, 1:375). If one interprets the verb in this way, then it is possible to understand רוּחַ (ruakh) as a reference to the divine life-giving spirit or breath, rather than the LORD's personal Spirit. E. A. Speiser argues that the term is cognate with an Akkadian word meaning "protect" or "shield." In this case, the LORD's Spirit will not always protect humankind, for the race will suddenly be destroyed (E. A. Speiser, "YDWN, Gen_6:3," JBL 75 [1956]: 126-29).


Just my thoughts.

P.S When I get some cash, I will try and purchase your book. I am very
interested in reading it. Peace Brother.


That's great! I promise there is nothing in Then His Voice Shook the Earth about the nephilim or fallen angels. I consider it a speculative topic, but something we can still have a crystal clear understanding about. My book is definitely not like the traditional explanation of the rapture that Steve Gregg used to believe in (aka Left Behind).

I look forward to your response and your feedback about the book!
Dave

P.S. May I "quote" from your emails? That is to say, if I can find some spare time! Thanx.

Yes.

Why would those from the "Godly line of Seth" father giants if they were the ones who "went into" the women who were descended from Cain?

According to The Book of Enoch, the rebel angels, or 'watchers', "took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments... They became pregnant, and they bore great giants, who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones." (VII.1)