Stephen T-B

What - dear scholars - should one make of this:
"Ch 6:vs 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of
the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Vs 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were
fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Vs 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.
Vs 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" ?

Sons of God - daughters of men? And "they bare children"?
Thank you for your kind attention

John Kesler

It is a myth about interbreeding between angels and humans. See here for more information.

Stephen T-B

The passages referred to in that link seem to suggest that the angels which interbred with human women were wrong'uns that defiled mankind, and were punished by god for forgetting their proper station.
Yet in Genesis the children that resulted from these unions "became mighty men which were of old, men of renown".
Seems to be a bit of a contradiction here.

And what does this mean:
"And the Lord said My spirit shall not always strive with man,
for that he also is flesh"?
Does it imply that Man is flesh, like God?:

John Kesler

Saying that "men of renown" resulted from the union doesn't mean that the union wasn't an illicit one. As the book of Enoch makes more explicit, the unions produced a race of giants, a human-angel hybrid.

I don't that the passage means that God is made of flesh as man is. I would first note that Brenton's LXX translates the passage this way: "And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years." But even if we assume that "also" (the JPS Tanakh uses "too") is correct, it's possible that the other fleshly entity referenced is the Nephilim, which, as I mention above, were an angel-human hybrid. 1 Enoch 15-16 states that the fleshly portion of the Nephilim perished, while their spirits (the angel part of their "DNA"), lived on as evil spirits (demons), in need of bodies to inhabit.

Clouseau

'When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God [men] saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man for ever, he indeed is carnal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." Arrogant men were on the earth in those days — and also afterwards — when the sons of God [men] went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were tyrants, the notorious men of old.' Ge 6:1-4

Jayco

Isn't there -- and someone who has a better background of Greek creation myths please help me -- , within the Five Ages of Men myth, an age (is it the Golden?) that writes that men multiply without introducing women? Inviting asexuality, I suppose.

Perhaps a parallel between two patriarchal societies; two societies that cast women in a very negative light.

I don't know, I'm reading the OP passage as a chronological literation (man, man multiplies, then women).

xaxxat

So, all angels were male?

Jayco

I'm interested in how people read from that passage (or perhaps one infers the following from another source?) that angels fornicated with men. Is the "sons of God" part supposed to imply angels?

John Kesler

That the "sons of God" are angels can be ascertained by the following:

1) In the other places in the Bible in which the Hebrew for "sons of God" appears--Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7--the reference is clearly to heavenly beings, and the Septuagint uses the word "angels" in all three places.

2) As I mention in the thread linked to in my first post, the books of Enoch and Jubilees, providing a fuller exposition of the Genesis 6:1-4 pericope, make the identification of the "sons of God" as angels explicit.

3) The text itself distinguishes between "sons of God" and human beings.

It is obvious that "men" in verse one is used for all of humanity, so contextually, "men" in verse 2 must be read the same way, which makes clear that a distinction is being made between human women (daughters of humans) and "sons of God."

judge

Who knows?

This thread had some related ideas worth considering.

There might be an idea IIUC that angels are code for priests and that the priests had been taking wives from other cultures.

This sensitive issue might have had to have been dealt with in "code".

It is an interesting idea anyway.