One of the themes in the Bible is the problems with intermarriage or yoking up of believers with unbelievers. I believe this is the first example of it. The NT also teaches that angels do not intermarry - yet Genesis 6 specifies that the sons of God intermarried with the daughters of men. Chapter 4 clearly showed that Cain's line was overall ungodly and the godly remnant was found in Seth's line.

The Bible uses the term "son of God" in four senses:

1) Jesus, the only begotten Son of God.
2) Adam, the son of God (Luke 3) - created directly by God.
3) Angels, sons of God - created directly by God.
4) Believers - recreated or renewed spiritually by God.

I think that the overall context shows that sons of God can very much be referring to saved people in the line of Seth:

Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Chapter five goes on to describe his godly lineage - then six shows what happens when they compromise and intermarry.

[geologist]

Originally Posted by jerry

One of the themes in the Bible is the problems with intermarriage or yoking up of believers with unbelievers. I believe this is the first example of it.

And you would be dead wrong to believe that. Look at this verse:

Genesis 6:4 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.

A good a godly line of Sethites, breeding with human women (regardless of their tribe), do NOT produce "giants" no more than evil Canites, breeding with human women. There was something of great note different here!

The resulting spawn, these "men of renown" as the Scriptures calls them, were something not of human with human DNA mixing, even though they are called "men" in that passage. When angels appeared in the Bible they appeared as men:

Judges 13:6 Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name:

The phrase "...sons of God came in unto the daughters of men..." clearly sets the description daughters of men against something that was not a human man. Good people don't father physical giants just because they are more moral or godly.

Read the passage a little more clearly - the giants were there BEFORE the event in chapter six happened. The giants were not a result of the sons of God intermarrying with the daughters of men. If you base your understanding of that passage on something you overlooked, your conclusion is no doubt going to be off.

Genesis 6:4 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.

The first part of verse four says these giants were already in the earth - the second part describes who the children of the sons of God and daughters of men were.

[pbiwolski]

Originally Posted by jerry

Read the passage a little more clearly

The first part of verse four says these giants were already in the earth - the second part describes who the children of the sons of God and daughters of men were.

Wrong again. Perhaps take a bit of your own advice here.

Genesis 6:4 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.

Don't let the phrase "and also after that" throw you off. This refers to the seed that continued past the flood of which I'm sure you are familiar. The text allows in those days to cover from the conception through the delivery as well as the maturity of these "mighty men."


Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

There's no mention of sons of God in any "overall context." But there sure is a mention of "Seth's godly line" being called men.

[Luke]

sons of God in the Old Testament ALWAYS refers to Angels (or the Angel of the Lord).

sons of God in the New Testament ALWAYS refers to born again believers.

Besides, even if Genesis 6 were the exception, and it referred to sethites, why would this produce giants as offspring, if they were just men. Seems like someone doesn't want to believe the Bible as it stands.

Good Point!

[Paladin54]

"This refers to the seed that continued past the flood of which I'm sure you are familiar."

How did they survive the flood and were around until at least the days of Joshua?

[Luke]

Fallen angels again (however, this time God uses genocide of the Anakims instead of a worldwide flood, to rid the world of their filthy blood)