The Sons Of God And Daughters Of Men

There have been different views on it, but I can't really say which is right. Even though I support only one view which seem to be true and logical.

You got to be careful with people telling you one view is right and others are wrong. They have shallow knowledge. It makes sense to feel one is right, but you don't tell people they are wrong because they don’t hold your view.

I'm in a group, and this guy is supporting SETHITE view. He said the view is right and others are wrong. Even though SETHITE view is the worst interpretation as far as I see it. I didn't take it up with him.

So, I will going through the three views.

SETHITE VIEW

The first his suggestion is that the sons of God were the worshippers of God and the daughters of men were ones that didn’t know God. So basically it would be an interfaith marriage. Actually what you have here is what’s called “the Sethite view.”  The Sethite view is that the sons of Seth were the godly line. The sons of Cain were the ungodly line (daughters of men).  There was this inter-marriage between the sons of Seth and the sons of Cain.  By the way, in other parts of Scripture does God get upset over intermarriage between believers and nonbelievers? Do you remember in the New Testament it says, “do not be unequally yoked with non-believers”?  Jewish people marrying--do you remember Solomon marrying other wives from other cultures and that led his heart astray to worship other gods? So the Sethite view plays off of that and says that basically the line of Seth was Abel’s replacement and so Seth becomes the godly line.

There’s some support for that as seems to fit naturally in the context. Dr Hildebrandt said his problem with the view is the term “sons of God” is never used to exclusively identify Abel’s descendants, which is true. And I have my own problem with it, Sethite view can't resolve how giving birth to Giants come into play.

KINGSHIP VIEW

There’s a second suggestion that’s pretty interesting and it’s this: that the sons of God were the kings and nobles. That the kings were called… and by the way in ancient Mesopotamia did the kings call themselves the “sons of the gods”? That title was used because the King was considered a son of the god. So what it would be then is that these kings, these people of acquired power, these “sons of God,” the kings, took women which would be basically developing their harem. In other words, they took women into their harem and they multiplied wives. Do harems present a big problem both in the ancient world and in the Bible? So this would be the kings establishing a harem taking women into this harem--multiple wives and that becomes a problem.

We have another thing in the chapter.... there is *hamas* everywhere. *hamas* means violence.

So anyway, these kings were involved in this and some people think then that these kings were involved in violence, oppressing the people that were below them and so this hamas was happening. That’s the second view. Is the kingship idea going to be developed in the Bible? Did the kings have multiple wives in a bad way later on with Solomon’s 700 wives, and 300 concubines. So there’s some grounds for that.  To me, this view doesn’t seem true.

*ANGEL VIEW*

The view that I hold currently is the “angel view” possibility. Largely it’s because in Job chapter 1 verse 6 it talks about the “sons of God” coming before God. God says to Satan “You’ve been out considering the world, have you considered my servant Job? Satan says Oh, yeah, Job is just good to you because you’re good to him. If you take away what he’s got he’ll curse you to your face.” So that was God in the heavenly council addressing them as “the sons of God.” The sons of God were angels that came before God. Something interesting over in Hebrews chapter 13:2 it also says regarding angels and human beings. Hebrews chapter 13 verse 2, it says, “Keep on loving each other as brothers. Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.”  So can angels take on human form? Apparently sometimes people don’t know it and it’s possible they were angels.

A woman pose this view to the man holding Sethite view, I expected him to bring logical argument to convince the woman, to make this view more perfect to me, he argued woefully. 
He said Angels don't marry. That could only attract a shallow reader.

It's true Matthew 23 says that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. Well, I will first use Dr. Hilderbrandt suggestion. He said," what I’m suggesting is that these are fallen angels. These are not angels in heaven, but these are fallen angels and that this is a possibility. " Since Jesus was referring to angels in heaven, and Genesis may be referring to falling angels.

This is my own explanation. I'm trying to go deeper into the above suggestion. Let ask ourselves some questions.
Does angel eat?
Does angel walk around?
Is angel a man?
Does angel drinks water?
You got to say no no no...
Yeah. Angels don't do all those stuffs.
Back in Genesis we see angels becoming a man.
We see angels eating, drinking and walking around.
Does that makes angel man?
So, angels can do what man does, when they become a man.
This view fit in to the Giants stuffs and violence.

So I support this view than any other. Some things we can't really know. Read through the three views, and hold whichever seem possible to you.