What? Another question!!! Grrrr!
A language barrier? Hmmm... Maybe.
Maybe it's also because we need to adjust to each others "style" of communication as this is really the first time we got into a discussion.

Really, I like when people asking questions and I do it many time also, but I like that the point(s) or directions where you are going with the question to be share clearly. But when the same question is asked over and over, without sharing your point, then I view that(could be an erronous-non-intential view ) as a tactive to bring someone to where you want to lead them to prove your point. Perhaps I should of been more patient with this instead of being honest with you.

So, kland, please forgive me for accusing you of trickery as I will take your word that there was no such things.

I value your interest to look into this even thought you disagree. Your dissagreement is just typical because I know this view is outside the SDA view box. I wasn't expecting nor wanted to go very far with this, but it is quite an interesting study. However, I'm a bit busy this week and I'll get back to you on this by Friday evening or Sabbath.

I might also suggest that it is a view outside most non-SDA circles. Hence, I would assume one would expect many questions.

Another thing you may consider is "Sons of God". You mentioned a few places. While commentaries may not determine what truth is, they are helpful in looking at other verses. Although the exact phrase "Sons of God" may only be used in a few places depending on which version you use, the idea is used in more places. Maybe Sons of the Lord, God's sons, sons of Israel, children of God, etc. A question to ask, and I mean this by sharing the exact direction where I'm going as plain as day , are any of those places used in a negative way? You have to exclude Genesis 6, as that is what's under discussion. Also, why exclude the New Testament? If you can find half, or even several supporting a negative view of Sons of God, then I would have to consider your view. If not, what would exclude my view and that of the majority of commentators?

Others do have this view. I was surprised when I first heard it. I searched and researched it and I, at least, haven't found any support.

I wouldn’t know if your statement here is true. Can you support this with facts? All I know my Bible commentary seems to hold that there are two current interpretation of “Sons of God”: angels or "Christian Men”. However I see that the later interpretation doesn’t harmonize as well with the context as the former.


I use the Hebrew words in the search, so it is not dependant on bible version nor english translation. Really, there’s very few instances and all refers to Angels in the OT. Sons of Israel wouldn’t apply to this situation as these are sons of man.

I did stumble on another good text which I did miss previously and it is found in Ps 82 and it is talking about the fallen angels again.

Notice v.7 that is bolded, they shall fall like men, so these beings are not men, but angels. Also v.1 it describes them as a congregation of "the mighty".

Did you find any Kland? If you did, then bring them forth for I didn’t.

In the New Testament we have the manifestation of Jesus Christ which brought the understanding of the doctrine of adoption. By adoption we become “sons and daughters of God. However, at the creation only Adam was considered a Son of God as he was created by God himself. Eve was formed from Adam and the offsprings were born of man. The angels were created by God, so that’s why they carry the title of “Sons of God”.

Let’s say that there are some other text showing that Sons of God can also mean “Christian men”, but you are still facing that it can also as well mean angels. So you still have two possibilities here and the only way to determine which one fits the picture best is to consider the context of what Genesis 6 is saying.

I have Bible software from a non-SDA source. It has several commentaries. I believe blue letter bible would be similar.



For 1121 I get 3654 verses.
For 430 I get 2249 verses.

For 1121 and 430 I get 287 verses.

Since we are defining what Sons of God are, can you say Israel doesn't apply since they aren't what you think Sons of God is? (Just to be clear and straightforward, I don't think so)

Am I understanding you to say children of the most high are angels? If men are considered sons of God, could angels also be included as sons of God? Are men and angels (good ones) sons of God? Any reason why they both wouldn't be included?


I did not find any place where Sons of God is used in a negative way. Therefore it would be odd to use it in Genesis 6 in a negative way. Meaning, these Sons of God used there would be used in a good way. Either good angels, or good men.

But I thought that's what we were talking about. I don't see how we can conclude that by using the verse under discussion. Do you think the doctrine of adoption was not throughout the old testament?

I have considered the context and it is quite clear and apparent to me that God's sons, which is the purpose of the Bible to teach us to be God's sons, mixed with the heathen, which was instructed for people not to do in the rest of the Bible.

Many places there is instruction about not marrying the heathen for they would teach God's people wrong. Is there some reason you think Genesis 6 is not talking about what God's people repeated through the rest of the Bible and why it should not be done?

The context does not fit, that good angels, which do not marry, married men, and their chromosomes matched and produced offspring. Then, because of the choice good angels made, God's "spirit shall not always strive with man". And the flood came.




Is 43:6 I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not keep them back!' Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth-

Is 45:11 Thus says the LORD, The Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: "Ask Me of things to come concerning My sons; And concerning the work of My hands, you command Me.

Jer 10:20 My tent is plundered, And all my cords are broken; My children have gone from me, And they are no more. There is no one to pitch my tent anymore, Or set up my curtains.

Prov 7:1 My son, keep my words, And treasure my commands within you.
(And more in Proverbs. Was this meaning Solomon's son, or us? If us, are we Solomon's son or God's son?)

Eze 16:20,21 Moreover you took your sons and your daughters, whom you bore to Me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your acts of harlotry a small matter, That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?

Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.

(God called Israel His son. What does Israel mean - He will rule as God, a symbolical name of Jacob. This tells me that it's a symbol for God)

Mt 2:15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son."

Kland, Very nice arguments! However, I really don't want to get into it. So, let's agree to disagree.

Let's trust in the Lord to teach us all things. It was nice discussing with you.

Another line of reasoning you may use is to use your same arguments but insert "Martians" in place of angels to see if that could be argued against. If not, then maybe angels can't be. I don't know the name for it, but would be arguing from the opposite view to validate the current view.

Here's a link you may find of interest:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/who-were-the-nephilim

I am in the process of reading through this thread and came across this post.

On what basis did these "some people" come to such a conclusion?

It can only be on the basis of sheer prejudice.

I'd agree with Rosangela based upon a number of off the cuff conclusions made in past history.