PROOF THE SON'S OF GOD ARE NOT ANGELS
|
|
The Bible Says Angels Were Never Called Sons of God
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" Hebrews 1:5 KJV
Hebrews 1:5 is a challenge to find one passage in the Old Testament where God called an angel his son. Of course, the answer according to Hebrews 1:5, is that God never called an angel or angels his son. Therefore, if anyone calls an angel a "son of God," they are contradicting God. This should be the end of the issue. However, this answer is not be enough for those who are deep in the false belief that angels are sons of God. Therefore, for their sake, let us continue further with the study.
Hebrews 1:5 is a challenge to find one passage in the Old Testament where God called an angel his son. Of course, the answer according to Hebrews 1:5, is that God never called an angel or angels his son. Therefore, if anyone calls an angel a "son of God," they are contradicting God. This should be the end of the issue. However, this answer is not be enough for those who are deep in the false belief that angels are sons of God. Therefore, for their sake, let us continue further with the study.
The Hebrew Textual Confusion
The confusion about the sons of God is in large part because of the Masoretic Hebrew text. The Masoretic Hebrew text is a 9th century AD (Post-New Testament) Hebrew Old Testament text that is used for most English translations today.
The Masoretic text is not without its issues. Scholars have identified certain errors within the text, and there are Old Testament quotes by New Testament writers that do not match the Masoretic Hebrew text, which was developed by rabbinical and scribal authorities in opposition to Christianity. Regarding the topic of the "Sons of God," the Masoretic text adds confusion to the topic rather than clarifies.
In the Masoretic Hebrew text, the term "Sons of God," is used in Genesis 6:2, 6:4; Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7, and most people that read those passages conclude that the sons of God must angels. However, the confusing part is that the Masoretic text also labels men and even the nation of Israel as "Sons of God," as seen in the following passages:
"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God." Hosea 1:10 KJV
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Hosea 11:1 KJV
"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22 KJV
"And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me..." Exodus 4:23 KJV
Are the sons of God angels or are they men?
If one relies on the Masoretic Hebrew text alone (or translations based on the Masoretic), the confusion will never be resolved. Especially, when Hebrews 1:5 clearly states that God never called an angel "son," but yet you have the Masoretic Hebrew using the title "Sons of God" for angels and for men.
A solid doctrine cannot be built on text that is ambiguous (unclear) and the Masoretic text is very ambiguous on this subject. However, thanks be to God for preserving his word and for giving us numerous texts (other than the Masoretic) that we can cross-examine to get to the truth.
The Masoretic text is not without its issues. Scholars have identified certain errors within the text, and there are Old Testament quotes by New Testament writers that do not match the Masoretic Hebrew text, which was developed by rabbinical and scribal authorities in opposition to Christianity. Regarding the topic of the "Sons of God," the Masoretic text adds confusion to the topic rather than clarifies.
In the Masoretic Hebrew text, the term "Sons of God," is used in Genesis 6:2, 6:4; Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7, and most people that read those passages conclude that the sons of God must angels. However, the confusing part is that the Masoretic text also labels men and even the nation of Israel as "Sons of God," as seen in the following passages:
"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God." Hosea 1:10 KJV
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Hosea 11:1 KJV
"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22 KJV
"And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me..." Exodus 4:23 KJV
Are the sons of God angels or are they men?
If one relies on the Masoretic Hebrew text alone (or translations based on the Masoretic), the confusion will never be resolved. Especially, when Hebrews 1:5 clearly states that God never called an angel "son," but yet you have the Masoretic Hebrew using the title "Sons of God" for angels and for men.
A solid doctrine cannot be built on text that is ambiguous (unclear) and the Masoretic text is very ambiguous on this subject. However, thanks be to God for preserving his word and for giving us numerous texts (other than the Masoretic) that we can cross-examine to get to the truth.
Let Us Resolve The Confusion By Using The Greek Text of The
Old Testament (The Text The New Testament Writers Quoted From)
The Greek text of the Old Testament (LXX) solves the mystery of the sons of God.
- The Septuagint is the Greek translation of a much older Hebrew text. Older than the Masoretic text.
- The Septuagint can be found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and copies of the entire Greek Old Testament can be dated as far back as 300 - 350 AD. (1)
- Not only is the Septuagint older than the Hebrew Masoretic text, but the Septuagint often agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
- The Septuagint is almost a word for word match with the Old Testament quotations recorded in the New Testament. Therefore, If the apostles trusted the Septuagint, why shouldn't we?
1) The Septuagint Says Job 1:6 Are Angels
"And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them." LXX2012
There is a perfectly good word in Hebrew for angels or angel "Malak/מֲלְאָךְ" so there was no need for the Masoretic text to be elusive or cryptic in its description of angels by calling them sons of God. Thankfully, the Septuagint gets right to the point and calls it like it is.
According to the Septuagint, Job 1:6 is about angels, not men, so let us move to Job 2:1.
There is a perfectly good word in Hebrew for angels or angel "Malak/מֲלְאָךְ" so there was no need for the Masoretic text to be elusive or cryptic in its description of angels by calling them sons of God. Thankfully, the Septuagint gets right to the point and calls it like it is.
According to the Septuagint, Job 1:6 is about angels, not men, so let us move to Job 2:1.
2) The Septuagint Says Job 2:1 Are Angels
"And it came to pass on a certain day, that the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came among them to stand before the Lord." Job 2:1 LXX 2012
No speculation, just clear and simple truth from the Greek text. So, now we have Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 clearly defined as angels thanks to the Septuagint.
No speculation, just clear and simple truth from the Greek text. So, now we have Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 clearly defined as angels thanks to the Septuagint.
3) What About Job 38:7?
"When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice." Job 38:7 LXX2012
The Septuagint has a different read than the Masoretic text. First, notice there is no mention of the "morning stars," in the Septuagint which had people guessing and wondering if it meant Jesus or another class of angels when they read the Masoretic. Second, there is nothing in this verse to suggest that angels are sons of God because that term is not used. Instead, the Septuagint clearly states that angels (not sons of God) praised God during the creation of the stars.
For anyone who doubts the accuracy of this Septuagint reading, they should look at Job 38:7 in the Targum of Job, which is found in Dead Sea Scrolls. In the Targum of Job, verse 38:7 is closer to the Septuagint, than the Masoretic text. Again, this proves the Septuagint is more aligned to a more ancient Hebrew text than the 9th century AD Masoretic text, which many English translations use.
So, while the Masoretic text is confusing about who the sons of God are, the Septuagint eliminates the confusion. With the Septuagint, we can know 100% that Job 1:6, 2:1, and 37:8 are all referencing angels, not men.
******************
Now, let's take everything learned so far and use it to prove the sons of God in Genesis chapter six are not angels.
*******************
The Septuagint has a different read than the Masoretic text. First, notice there is no mention of the "morning stars," in the Septuagint which had people guessing and wondering if it meant Jesus or another class of angels when they read the Masoretic. Second, there is nothing in this verse to suggest that angels are sons of God because that term is not used. Instead, the Septuagint clearly states that angels (not sons of God) praised God during the creation of the stars.
For anyone who doubts the accuracy of this Septuagint reading, they should look at Job 38:7 in the Targum of Job, which is found in Dead Sea Scrolls. In the Targum of Job, verse 38:7 is closer to the Septuagint, than the Masoretic text. Again, this proves the Septuagint is more aligned to a more ancient Hebrew text than the 9th century AD Masoretic text, which many English translations use.
So, while the Masoretic text is confusing about who the sons of God are, the Septuagint eliminates the confusion. With the Septuagint, we can know 100% that Job 1:6, 2:1, and 37:8 are all referencing angels, not men.
******************
Now, let's take everything learned so far and use it to prove the sons of God in Genesis chapter six are not angels.
*******************
4) The Sons of God in Genesis Chapter Six
The Masoretic text used the term, "sons of God" for Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, and also in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4.
"that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose." (JPS Tanakh)
"The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown." (JPS Tanakh)
No wonder people are confused when they only read the Masoretic text. People tie Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 to Genesis 6:2 and 6:4, and speculate that Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 must mean that angels married human women. However, that is a wrong conclusion and a conclusion people should never have come up with if they used the Septuagint text. The Septuagint is a critical tool in knowing the intent of the original writers.
The Septuagint gives us clarity once again and proves the sons of God in Genesis are men not angels
Unlike the Masoretic scribes that had a perfect word for angels (Malak/מֲלְאָךְ), and refused to use it, the Septuagint is a much more accurate and straight to the point text. So, while the Masoretic text used an obscure term "sons of God" in the Book of Job and Genesis, the Septuagint calls it for what it is. In the Septuagint, an angel is an angel, and a man is a man. The Septuagint clarifies that angels are involved in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7, but in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 angels are not mentioned. The term "sons of God" is not an alternative phrase for angels in the Septuagint.
Here is the Septuagint read:
"that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose." Genesis 6:2 LXX2012
"Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore [children] to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown." Genesis 6:4 LXX2012
In the Septuagint, Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 (angels) cannot be used to claim Genesis 6:2, and 6:4 (sons of God) are fallen angels because Genesis and Job use different terms in the Septuagint. Therefore, the Septuagint eliminates Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 as proof text to interpret Genesis 6:2 and 6:4.
The Septuagint has a proven pattern of identifying when angels are involved in a text, and when the Sons of God (men) are involved.
Therefore, since angels are not mentioned in Genesis 6:2 or 6:4 in the Septuagint, then the obvious conclusion is that the sons of God are men not fallen angels. If the Septuagint would have used the Greek word for angels instead of sons of God, then that would have been undeniable proof that Genesis 6 was about fallen angels.
Need More Proof That The Sons of God Are Different Than Angels?
Let us look at Deuteronomy 32:43 in the Septuagint to see proof that the Septuagint defines sons of God as men and not angels.
"Rejoice, you heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice you Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people." Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX2012
As seen in this verse (Deut. 32:43), angels of God are mentioned, Gentiles are mentioned, and the sons of God are mentioned. So, the sons of God are different from the angels. How can that be proven? If sons of God were the same as angels, then we need to ask when did angels shed blood? The verse says, "let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons." So, if the sons of God are angels, then somewhere angels had to shed blood. However, the Bible says angels are spirits (Hebrews 1:7 and 1:14), and spirits do not have flesh and bone (Luke 24:39), so they cannot not have blood either.
This evidence is not available in the Masoretic text because Deuteronomy 32:43 in the Masoretic text reads differently, but we can trust the Septuagint, because it is what the New Testament writers used when they quoted Deuteronomy 32:43. Look up Hebrews 1:6, which quotes Deuteronomy 32:43 (the passage we just studied) and compare it to Masoretic text and then compare it to the Septuagint. The Septuagint text is what Hebrews 1:6 is quoting, not the Masoretic text. The sons of God are not angels in Deuteronomy 32:43, and the Septuagint shows they are not angels in Genesis chapter six either. The Septuagint solves the mystery about the identity of the sons of God.
What about the Nephilim? Aren't They Proof the Sons of God Are Angels?
The Septuagint says, "Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore [children] to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown." Genesis 6:4 LXX2012
Nephilim are not the children of human women and angels. The Bible says, "the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after." So, the Nephilim were on the earth before, during, and after the sons of God had their children. Therefore, no one can claim that the sons of God have to be supernatural creatures because their children are Nephilim / giants. The Bible debunks that claim. Genesis 6:4 proves that Nephilim are not exclusive to the sons of God and the daughters of men.
Angels mating with women is a myth that people likely got from the Book of Enoch.(2) The truth about Genesis 6 is that it is an account of wicked humanity, not wicked angels. People should not assign a title to angels that contradicts God's word (Hebrews 1:5). Sons of God are men clear and simple, and the Septuagint proves that point, whereas the Masoretic text gives little to no clarity in the matter.
Need More Proof?
If Nephilim/giants are only the children of fallen angels, then how did Cush, the son of Ham, which is the son of Noah have a giant for a son?
"And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan. And the sons of Cush: Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabteca; and the sons of Raamah: Sheba, and Dedan. And Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; wherefore it is said: ‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.’ " Genesis 10:6-9 JPS Tanakh
The word "mighty" is the Hebrew word "gibbor," which is the same word used in Genesis 6:4, "the same became mighty men which were of old."
The Septuagint text reads, "And the sons of Cham, Chus, and Mesrain, Phud, and Chanaan. And the sons of Chus, Saba, and Evila, and Sabatha, and Rhegma, and Sabathaca. And the sons of Rhegma, Saba, and Dadan. And Chus begot Nebrod: he began to be a giant upon the earth. He was a giant hunter before the Lord God; therefore they say, As Nebrod the giant hunter before the Lord." Genesis 10:6-9 LXX2012
Cush/Chus gave birth to Nimrod/Nebrod, and Nimrod began to be a giant. Nimrod was not the son of a fallen angel, but he began to become a giant. This verse shows us that angels are not needed to produce giants, so that fairytale can end. Also, this passage of scripture shows that the word giant may mean something different besides a person's physical stature. We use similar terms today when a person is a "giant of industry" or a "giant fan" of something. We are not talking about their physical size but rather the size of their achievement, skills, or depth of involvement. Therefore, an ancient giant may be larger than the average man of the past, but a giant could also mean a skilled hunter or warrior.
"that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose." (JPS Tanakh)
"The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown." (JPS Tanakh)
No wonder people are confused when they only read the Masoretic text. People tie Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 to Genesis 6:2 and 6:4, and speculate that Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 must mean that angels married human women. However, that is a wrong conclusion and a conclusion people should never have come up with if they used the Septuagint text. The Septuagint is a critical tool in knowing the intent of the original writers.
The Septuagint gives us clarity once again and proves the sons of God in Genesis are men not angels
Unlike the Masoretic scribes that had a perfect word for angels (Malak/מֲלְאָךְ), and refused to use it, the Septuagint is a much more accurate and straight to the point text. So, while the Masoretic text used an obscure term "sons of God" in the Book of Job and Genesis, the Septuagint calls it for what it is. In the Septuagint, an angel is an angel, and a man is a man. The Septuagint clarifies that angels are involved in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7, but in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 angels are not mentioned. The term "sons of God" is not an alternative phrase for angels in the Septuagint.
Here is the Septuagint read:
"that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose." Genesis 6:2 LXX2012
"Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore [children] to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown." Genesis 6:4 LXX2012
In the Septuagint, Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 (angels) cannot be used to claim Genesis 6:2, and 6:4 (sons of God) are fallen angels because Genesis and Job use different terms in the Septuagint. Therefore, the Septuagint eliminates Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 as proof text to interpret Genesis 6:2 and 6:4.
The Septuagint has a proven pattern of identifying when angels are involved in a text, and when the Sons of God (men) are involved.
Therefore, since angels are not mentioned in Genesis 6:2 or 6:4 in the Septuagint, then the obvious conclusion is that the sons of God are men not fallen angels. If the Septuagint would have used the Greek word for angels instead of sons of God, then that would have been undeniable proof that Genesis 6 was about fallen angels.
Need More Proof That The Sons of God Are Different Than Angels?
Let us look at Deuteronomy 32:43 in the Septuagint to see proof that the Septuagint defines sons of God as men and not angels.
"Rejoice, you heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice you Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people." Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX2012
As seen in this verse (Deut. 32:43), angels of God are mentioned, Gentiles are mentioned, and the sons of God are mentioned. So, the sons of God are different from the angels. How can that be proven? If sons of God were the same as angels, then we need to ask when did angels shed blood? The verse says, "let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons." So, if the sons of God are angels, then somewhere angels had to shed blood. However, the Bible says angels are spirits (Hebrews 1:7 and 1:14), and spirits do not have flesh and bone (Luke 24:39), so they cannot not have blood either.
This evidence is not available in the Masoretic text because Deuteronomy 32:43 in the Masoretic text reads differently, but we can trust the Septuagint, because it is what the New Testament writers used when they quoted Deuteronomy 32:43. Look up Hebrews 1:6, which quotes Deuteronomy 32:43 (the passage we just studied) and compare it to Masoretic text and then compare it to the Septuagint. The Septuagint text is what Hebrews 1:6 is quoting, not the Masoretic text. The sons of God are not angels in Deuteronomy 32:43, and the Septuagint shows they are not angels in Genesis chapter six either. The Septuagint solves the mystery about the identity of the sons of God.
What about the Nephilim? Aren't They Proof the Sons of God Are Angels?
The Septuagint says, "Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore [children] to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown." Genesis 6:4 LXX2012
Nephilim are not the children of human women and angels. The Bible says, "the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after." So, the Nephilim were on the earth before, during, and after the sons of God had their children. Therefore, no one can claim that the sons of God have to be supernatural creatures because their children are Nephilim / giants. The Bible debunks that claim. Genesis 6:4 proves that Nephilim are not exclusive to the sons of God and the daughters of men.
Angels mating with women is a myth that people likely got from the Book of Enoch.(2) The truth about Genesis 6 is that it is an account of wicked humanity, not wicked angels. People should not assign a title to angels that contradicts God's word (Hebrews 1:5). Sons of God are men clear and simple, and the Septuagint proves that point, whereas the Masoretic text gives little to no clarity in the matter.
Need More Proof?
If Nephilim/giants are only the children of fallen angels, then how did Cush, the son of Ham, which is the son of Noah have a giant for a son?
"And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan. And the sons of Cush: Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabteca; and the sons of Raamah: Sheba, and Dedan. And Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; wherefore it is said: ‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.’ " Genesis 10:6-9 JPS Tanakh
The word "mighty" is the Hebrew word "gibbor," which is the same word used in Genesis 6:4, "the same became mighty men which were of old."
The Septuagint text reads, "And the sons of Cham, Chus, and Mesrain, Phud, and Chanaan. And the sons of Chus, Saba, and Evila, and Sabatha, and Rhegma, and Sabathaca. And the sons of Rhegma, Saba, and Dadan. And Chus begot Nebrod: he began to be a giant upon the earth. He was a giant hunter before the Lord God; therefore they say, As Nebrod the giant hunter before the Lord." Genesis 10:6-9 LXX2012
Cush/Chus gave birth to Nimrod/Nebrod, and Nimrod began to be a giant. Nimrod was not the son of a fallen angel, but he began to become a giant. This verse shows us that angels are not needed to produce giants, so that fairytale can end. Also, this passage of scripture shows that the word giant may mean something different besides a person's physical stature. We use similar terms today when a person is a "giant of industry" or a "giant fan" of something. We are not talking about their physical size but rather the size of their achievement, skills, or depth of involvement. Therefore, an ancient giant may be larger than the average man of the past, but a giant could also mean a skilled hunter or warrior.
CONCLUSION: The Sons of God Are Not Angels!
1. Hebrews 1:5 says that God never called an angel his son. Therefore, angels cannot be the sons of God in the Bible.
2. In the Old and New Testaments, men and women are regarded as the sons and daughters of God, not angels.
3. The Septuagint shows that Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 are angels of God and never uses the term "sons of God" in those verses. However, in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4, the Septuagint uses the term "sons of God," which means Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 cannot be used to define what a son of God is, which people attempt to do in the Masoretic text. Therefore, the sons of God in Genesis six are men.
4. The Septuagint shows in Deuteronomy 32:43 that angels and sons of God are not the same. The Septuagint even takes it a step further by showing that angels can't be sons of God because it says the sons of God "shed blood," and angels don't bleed or even have blood. Therefore, the sons of God are men.
5. Genesis 6:4 shows that the Nephilim were on the earth before, during, and after the sons of God and the daughters of man were married. The Nephilim are not exclusive to the relationship between the sons of God and the daughters of men.
6. Genesis 10 shows that Nimrod became a Nephilim, and he was the grandson of Ham (Noah's son), not the son of a fallen angel.
When people push aside rhetoric and myths and do a careful examination of the Bible, they will be able to see that the sons of God are not angels, the sons of God are men.
Final Caution: Do not mix the Septuagint reading with the Masoretic and come to the conclusion that the Septuagint interprets the sons of God as angels in your Masoretic based translation. Stick to the read of the Septuagint alone for clarity on the topic. Do not mix the two to make them one.
2. In the Old and New Testaments, men and women are regarded as the sons and daughters of God, not angels.
3. The Septuagint shows that Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 are angels of God and never uses the term "sons of God" in those verses. However, in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4, the Septuagint uses the term "sons of God," which means Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 cannot be used to define what a son of God is, which people attempt to do in the Masoretic text. Therefore, the sons of God in Genesis six are men.
4. The Septuagint shows in Deuteronomy 32:43 that angels and sons of God are not the same. The Septuagint even takes it a step further by showing that angels can't be sons of God because it says the sons of God "shed blood," and angels don't bleed or even have blood. Therefore, the sons of God are men.
5. Genesis 6:4 shows that the Nephilim were on the earth before, during, and after the sons of God and the daughters of man were married. The Nephilim are not exclusive to the relationship between the sons of God and the daughters of men.
6. Genesis 10 shows that Nimrod became a Nephilim, and he was the grandson of Ham (Noah's son), not the son of a fallen angel.
When people push aside rhetoric and myths and do a careful examination of the Bible, they will be able to see that the sons of God are not angels, the sons of God are men.
Final Caution: Do not mix the Septuagint reading with the Masoretic and come to the conclusion that the Septuagint interprets the sons of God as angels in your Masoretic based translation. Stick to the read of the Septuagint alone for clarity on the topic. Do not mix the two to make them one.
The Final Word
Claiming angels are "sons of God" dilutes the meaning of that title, which is only associated with Christ and believers in covenant relationship with God the Father. Sonship is not a minor topic; it is a serious issue because there is a lot behind the title (son and daughter of God). The title "son of God" is not a title that scholars, ministers, or people have the right or authority to grant to whomever or whatever they want, primarily when they do so based on opinion and speculation. Only God has the authority to designate who his sons and daughters will be.
As we studied the word, we saw that God never said an angel is his son. Even more, we never see a fallen angel being called a son of God. Nevertheless, people have no problem bestowing that honor on Satan and his angels. The word of God is our final authority and not ancient myths, modern books, or some doctoral dissertation. This teaching was based on God's word alone because the full context of scripture gives light and leads us to the truth. The word of God debunks the idea of angels being sons of God, but people ignore God's word because they would rather believe in myths.
"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:4 KJV
We pray this teaching strengthened the importance of the titles "son and daughter of God," along with encouraging readers to study the blessings, inheritance, and promises associated with those titles. Wicked angels should never be given the title, son of God. To God, be the glory!
As we studied the word, we saw that God never said an angel is his son. Even more, we never see a fallen angel being called a son of God. Nevertheless, people have no problem bestowing that honor on Satan and his angels. The word of God is our final authority and not ancient myths, modern books, or some doctoral dissertation. This teaching was based on God's word alone because the full context of scripture gives light and leads us to the truth. The word of God debunks the idea of angels being sons of God, but people ignore God's word because they would rather believe in myths.
"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:4 KJV
We pray this teaching strengthened the importance of the titles "son and daughter of God," along with encouraging readers to study the blessings, inheritance, and promises associated with those titles. Wicked angels should never be given the title, son of God. To God, be the glory!
End Note:
(1) Codex Vaticanus
(2) Enoch Chapter 7, R.H. Charles Edition
(1) Codex Vaticanus
(2) Enoch Chapter 7, R.H. Charles Edition