Showing posts with label sons of God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sons of God. Show all posts

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Sons of God study part 1

This information in this post comes largely from a "Bible" study given by Alex Golovenko, the pastor of the church I happen to currently fellowship at. However, while Golovenko presents the view that you are about to read, he does not necessarily agree with them. He just played the role of presenting the information. The information comes from both a handout that he distributed to persons at the Bible study that took place some time ago (January 19, 2013 according to this church bulletin; I failed to record the date). For this post I will insert my own commentary throughout (in red ink/font) to let you know my view points on the matter. Due to the length of the notes, I have to break this post into a series of posts, of which this is the first.

Sons of God, according Alex Golovenko, occurs only 5 times in the oldest books of the Bible (Genesis and Job). While not specifically occurring in the book of Psalm (at least according to Golovenko), there is a similar phrase translated as "ye mighty ones" (Psalm 29:1) or "the sons of the mighty" (Psalm 89:6). (Golovenko is speaking specifically about the Hebrew word occurrence found in Genesis and Job; he does not take into account the English translations of sons of God else where in the Bible.)  Daniel also references the concept (Daniel 3:25). The Septuagint according to Golovenko, faithfully translates these other terms into "Sons of God" and so has the Peshita (Aramic/Syraic Bible).

According to Golovenko, not all translations use the term sons of God. Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), Alexandrius (5th century) and Codex Vaticanus (12th century) translate the phrases as "angels". Further, Golovenko points that sometimes, Elohim (the Hebrew plural name for God; see Wikipedia article or Maas, 1909).

Golovenko goes on to assert that it is in the Book of Watchers (1st Enoch) and the Book of Jubilees (3rd century B.C.) that propose the idea of "sons of god" being "angels". "Watchers", Golovenko said, (used in Daniel 4:13,17,23), refers to the angels pointed to guard Eden (I thought God appointed cherubs to do that! Oh Well!).

Golovenko continued to state that the early records of "church fathers" and historians of antiquity from the 1st to 3rd century including Flavius Josephus, Philo, Eusebius and many of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers" including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus (one of the early Christians that I respect based on a reading of a translation of his writings; see earlier blog post on this) and others continued in what Golovenko calls "this tradition" of fallen angels having children. Golovenko further states that, "Their pagan origins and Greek mythology permitted such a worldview" (for added emphasis I want to mention that this quote is verbatim and are not my words, but Golovenko'sIt is on this latter point that I would like to make some commentary and reserve the rest of the information presented for another post).

First of all, I must say that Golovenko is of the view or belief that angels cannot have intercourse with human beings. I however, note that such a view goes against the circumstantial evidence of females who have shared their personal stories of sleeping in the night and experiencing demons (or some unseen spiritual entity) attempting to have intercourse with them. I also note that I have never heard of men sharing those stories. I also note that apostle Paul gives a rare warning that females must cover their heads during spiritual gatherings "because of the angels" (1st Corinthians 11:10; see the KJV or NIV). It seems to me, if I interpret it correctly, going back to Genesis 6:1-2, that the angels by looking at women, their hair and all, can find them attractive. Further, Genesis 3:15 states categorically that the serpent (if we interpret the serpent as being Satan), will have an offspring or children that will fight against the offspring and children of the woman (NIV). 
I further add to the evidence the fact that many Satanic cults and pagan religions practice and celebrate sex and have many sexual  and fertility rites (Ross, 1995). Many ancient pagan deities have priestesses and orgies or group sex, as part of their ceremonies. It was within this pagan milieu that the Christian church was born. Based on all these data, it seems to me that it is not only possible that angels can have intercourse with women, but it is also prophesied that Satan will have children (sons of Satan) just like how God would have an incarnate son.

Hence, for me, Genesis 6:1-4, with references to the sons of God having intercourse with women is not a  myth. Rather, it shows that human beings are vulnerable to being raped by demonic entities. This also goes back to the issue of extra-terrestrial abduction and rapes that many females witnesses report in our modern times. I am sure, pastor Golovenko and any other Christian pastor cannot explain away such modern day occurrences by saying that females who experience extra-terrestrial abduction and rape were just imagining these things. It is further clear to me that our ancients, pagans and those closer to the time of Jesus and to Noah, know how vulnerable human beings are to such abductions and rapes by fallen angels. As such, we should not approach the Bible with the view that angels having sex with  women is a crazy or even pagan idea. It is a very real phenomenon, and one which the Bible, not giving specific details, shadows the reality. 

It is on this point that I end this posting and promise to continue the report of the Bible study, along with my commentary. Until then, God bless you.

References:


Maas, A. (1909). Elohim. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 27, 2013 from New Advent:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm

Ross, C. A. (1995). Satanic ritual abuse: Principles of treatment. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.






Saturday, January 12, 2013

Querying the meaning of the sons of God in Genesis 6

Since the pastor of the church that I fellowship at is scheduled to do a Bible study exploring the Biblical meaning of the "sons of God" or the "bene 'elohim" next week, I am doing my own research. Most pastors that I know shy away from calling the "sons of Gods" extraterrestrials, which I have not been afraid to do even previously on this blog (See previous post where I espouse this view)

After conversation with some church members, reflection and prayers, I have come up with the hard questions that I have emailed to the pastor. Below is the content of my email sent, which I hope the pastor will address:



In prelude to your Bible study on the sons of God in Genesis 6, that I hope to attend, I am sending you my questions in advance. 

I have several questions and hope that you can address them all in your presentation. As such, I am giving you the heads up for you to prayerfully and thoughtfully research and prepare your answers....The questions are as follows:
  1. I hear you say that the fallen angel view of Genesis 6 was concocted by the Catholic church. Early church fathers in the 1st century of Christianity, prior to the formation of the Catholic church, such as respected Ante-Nicene father of the early church, Iraeneus espoused a fallen angel view (Schaff p.481). Further, New Testament church leaders such as Peter and Jude cite the book of Enoch, which also espouses the fallen angel view of the sons of God (Jude verse 14-15). Secondly, even if you contend that Ellen G. White espoused the Seth-line view, isn't it possible that Mrs. White was merely espousing the view that she herself was taught and inherited from fallen/apostate  Christianity?
  2. Where in Genesis is Seth ever called a son of God? And if there is such a reference in a particular Bible translation, is that context independent of translation?
  3.  Doesn't the term "sons of God" refer to only the creatures whom God directly created and not those who came from sexual unions?
  4. Doesn't the Hebrew for the daughters of men (בנות אדם‎) actually translate as benot ha-adam? Doesn't the term Adam in this term strengthen the case that they were daughters of Adam?
  5. If one is to take the Seth-view, doesn't this view make God seem unjust, writing off the entire generation of Cain from access to his grace and mercy? Doesn't it also seem more just that God would send a flood to wipe off human beings with contaminated fallen angel DNA, than it would be if he wiped off mankind for heterosexual marriages to whomever they desired?
Reference:

Schaff, Philip. ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus: Christian Classics. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2002. Web. 4 June 2011. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.pdf>