Things New and Old: Inquiries on the "sons of God" in Gen 6

Dear Brother Chan,
Below are two emails, one from Sister J, and another from Brother W on the same topic when the passage was first studied early this year [Jan 2009].
Following their respective enquiries, are my replies. Take time to read and understand. Whether you agree or not is not important, that you understand what is said is. If you have more questions that they have not asked, I welcome them. So, please feel free to ask, and we will search the Scriptures together.

One day, I will gather all my thoughts on this passage and write up a proper article.

May our Lord bless our study together.
sing
=====

(This mail from Sister J)

Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 7:47 PM
Dear Pastor,

Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness ~Psalm29:2~

Praise him for the mercy in giving us such privilege to study his words week by week, every Wednesday night. May our hearts be always prepared to receive such a privilege.

I have some questions & comments regarding Genesis 6. Hope that you can guide me through and correct me where I am wrong. I don't necessarily agree with any view for the time being until I get my questions answered from the bible stand point. I think you will agree with me on that.

1. Comment: I don't think that in verse 2, where "sons of God" is mentioned, it is necessary to mean "all godly men". Because if you say "all godly men" will make the other "traditional" view very inconsistent, then it will also make the view you explained inconsistent (I don’t mean it disrespectfully). Since if "sons of God" equals "all godly men", it must also equal "all angels". But we know not all the angels had fallen, therefore, the argument that it means "all" is not possible, thus using it to nullify the point that "all godly men" may not be very strong either.

(I am not sure this is a logical argument, but I think picking on this "all" here is not a very strong point. Since "all' is not possible, it may mean certain "sons of God".

2. Comment: Furthermore, if we argue that it means "all", then Noah is also be one of those men (who is ungodly also) who had married ungodly daughters as well (since all here also means all women are ungodly). But Noah is perfect, and there is no indication of his wife being ungodly also (from the way the whole family follow him into the ark, it shows that they are not that ungodly either, at least they have faith). Therefore, if I were to hold on to the "traditional" view, I will explain that the "sons of God" here means some of God's elect. Since Noah is the only exemption (it may well means most of the elects). Even the some believers can be a carnal Christian (but they may be still a Christian - though a very bad one).

3. Question: by the way, in New Testament, is "sons of God" equal to godly men? Or God's elect?

4. Comment: If angel is the one who caused all the trouble, why “it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth”? It does not seem to be very consistent. If when the men are the one had sinned, then this sentence is more making sense.

5. Question: If angel is the one causing the wickedness, how many generations must it takes to make all man wicked? How can Noah family be exempted? How about his daughter in law?

6. Comment: I think that if angels mean “sons of God”, they actually have physical union with the daughter of men (and not just overpower them through the spirit). My argument points are 2: (i) in verse 2: “…and they took them as wives…” I think the angel marry them, as you don’t call them wife unless you enter into a marriage with them. (ii) verse 4: “…the sons of God came in unto the daughters…” This should mean physical union, right?

7. Comment: I think for the angel to marry the daughter of men is possible as angels can appear physically (in various encounters by men in old & new Testament)

In Christ,
J
=============

Dear Sister J

I will leave some thoughts, marked ##, within your post.

Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness ~Psalm29:2~

Praise him for the mercy in giving us such privilege to study his words week by week, every Wednesday night. May our hearts be always prepared to receive such a privilege.
## I am thankful that the Lord enables us to search the Scriptures together week by week. And it would be even better if the Lord stirs up the minds of the members to inquire and give their thoughts. These will only promote more in-depth study of the Scriptures.

I have some questions & comments regarding Genesis 6. Hope that you can guide me through and correct me where I am wrong. I don't necessarily agree with any view for time being, until I got my questions answered from the bible stand point. I think you will agree with me on that.
## It is best to work out what the Scriptures teach first, and slowly ascertain which view best fit what we understand the Scriptures to teach. And as the Lord gives us more light, we would have to reassess our understanding. We need grace and courage to unlearn some old things and learn the Scriptures anew.

1. Comment: I don't think that in verse 2, where "sons of God" is mentioned, it is necessary mean as "all godly men". Because if you say "all godly men" will make the other "traditional" view very inconsistent, then it will also make the view you explained inconsistent (I don’t mean it in a disrespective way). Since if "sons of God" equals "all godly men", it must also equal "all angels". But we know not all the angels had fallen, therefore, the argument that it means "all" is not possible, thus using it to nullify the point that "all godly men" may not be very strong either.

(I am not sure this is a logical argument, but I think picking on this "all" here is not a very strong point. Since "all' is not possible, so it may means certain "sons of God".

## I am not sure what exactly was said, and how it was understood.
"The text reads thus: "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." The pronouns 'they' and 'them' are co-extensive with the noun 'sons of God.'

Therefore, the 'sons of God' mentioned here are each and every one of them 'godly men' if they are indeed men. If they are angels, then each and every one of the 'sons of God' must be angels. ALL the 'sons of God' under consideration here did take to themselves wives of ALL they chose of the 'daughters of men.'

Of course, this would be quite different from saying that all the 'godly men' on earth or all the fallen angels were involved in the union with the daughters of men. You conclude rightly, that if ALL the fallen angels were involved, then ALL fallen angels would have been "cast down to hell, and delivered into chains of darkness, and reserved unto judgment" (2Pet 2:4, Jude 6). And that is contrary to fact, since there are still evil spirits (fallen angels) around.

Please note Gen 6:1 "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 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."

The mixed marriage view would limit verse 1 to the activity of ungodly men producing daughters, but verse 2 to godly men inter-marrying women of the ungodly line. I think a lot of preconceived ideas are read into the text.

Why were only men of the ungodly line producing? And why were only daughters born to them? Why were no sons born to them? Who would the ungodly men marry then? Do they marry the so-called 'daughters of God' (daughters of the godly line)? And why were only the daughters of the ungodly line 'fair' - as though only the daughters of the ungodly are lovely and attractive (that’s the way many think the word 'fair' means!) And that the sons of God (godly men) were attracted to them.

It seems to me that the verses are saying these: WHILE the human race were happily multiplying themselves through marriage and given in marriage (as described in verse 1) in compliance with God's command to be fruitful and multiply, the 'sons of God' (OBVIOUSLY a different and distinct group from the 'men' already mentioned in verse 1. I believe there is a SHARP distinction between the men in verse 1, and the 'sons of God' in verse 2) INTRUDED into and EXPLOITED this reproduction process with a VERY SINISTER purpose to undermine the redemptive purpose of God. 'Sons of God' are ALIENS that invaded the divinely ordained reproductive process of men. Jude 6 describes them perfectly, so also 2Pet 2:4.

The Hebrew word translated fair in Gen 6:2 is bwj towb." It is not hpy yapheh (as in Gen 12:11 and many other places describing women's physical beauty). The latter describes the physical beauty of women. The former describes what is good, useful, and fitting for a purpose.

But the daughters of men were fair - them being female was "good, useful and fitting" to the 'sons of God' to achieve their purpose. So, all the daughters of men were fair. Just read again, "when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them... they were fair." And they were fair to the 'sons of God.' This is descriptive of ALL the daughters that were born to men! It is the femaleness of the daughters of men that constitute what is 'fair' ('good, useful, and fitting to achieve an end') to the 'sons of God.'

Verse 1 is obviously a general statement that the human race, embracing BOTH the Cainite and Sethite lines, sons and daughters were born to both lines. They were doing the right thing - marrying and INTER-marrying, and being fruitful and multiplying as God has commanded them. Intermarriage WAS NEVER an issue at this point in human history - there isn't the slightest evidence. It is a much later issue read into the text!

The expulsion from the Garden of Eden was preceded by a thunderous command forbidding to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of God and evil. Yet, so many can believe that the mixed marriage, without the slightest divine command to forbid it, brought about universal destruction. Isn't it most logical and reasonable to expect at least a divine command forbidding mixed marriage if mixed marriage was indeed SUCH AN EVIL that had such devastating and destructive consequences, and called forth the judgment recorded? Is God so unjust and arbitrary? But He judges righteously!

I have gone off the point!

2. Comment: Furthermore, if we argue that it means "all", then Noah is also be one of those men (who is ungodly also) who had married ungodly daughter as well (since all here also means all woman are ungodly). But Noah is perfect, there is no indication of his wife being ungodly also (from the way the whole family follow him into the ark, it shows that they are not that ungodly either, at least they have faith). Therefore, if I were to hold on to the "traditional" view, I will explain that the "sons of God" here means some of the God's elect. Since Noah is the only exemption (it may well means most of the elects). Even the some believers can be a carnal Christian (but they may be still a Christian - though a very bad one).

## In the so-called 'godly' line of Seth, there is very little godliness mentioned. Something is said of Enoch, a little said of Lamech. We read that Noah found grace with God. Without God's grace, Noah was no different from the degenerated and evil generation.

Supposing the 'sons of God' refers to just some of God's elect children (regenerated men) living at the time, then there would be many other elect children of God who did not marry ungodly women, but who married godly. The only problem with this view is: then what happened to all of them? Where were they, except Noah? None of them responded to Noah's long years of preaching if they were around and heard Noah's preaching.

3. Question: by the way, in New Testament, is "sons of God" equal to godly men? Or God's elect?
## The term 'sons of God' is used 5 times in the OT, in Gen 6:2 and 4, and in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7. In the singular 'son of God' it is used in Dan 3. Does the term refer to regenerated men or spiritual beings? Both Genesis and Job passages where the same term is used deal with the ancient world when angelic beings were described as 'sons of God.' Dan 3 specifically referred to an angelic being as 'son of God.' Why? They came directly from the hand of God the Creator; in the same sense, Adam was called the son of God in the genealogical account, Luke 3:38. Adam came directly from God; even so the angels.

The term is used 6 times in the NT, Joh 1:12, Ro 8:14, 19, Php 2:15, 1Jo 3:1,2. In their context, it is quite obvious that the term refers to regenerated men. The term 'sons of God' in the NT refers to children of God, i.e. regenerated elect of God, without reference to their godliness, even though that is not excluded.

Unfortunately, most Bible students would just import the same meaning into those ancient times, even though the sense does not fit the context at all. It is like reading about the subject of mixed marriage into the pre-flood world. Was that even an issue then? Similarly, the issue of marriage between next of kin, was never an issue until much later. So also mixed marriage. There was not a slightest hint that God was against mixed marriage until much later after the flood – when Israel was established as a nation.

## This is a good question. When an interpretation is consistent, it is able to supply good answers to the objection raised against it. Even though the angels who were the transgressors and trespassers (cross the angelic world into the human world) and were punished justly (Jude 6, and 2 Pet 2:4) the effect on man (the singular 'man' indicating the human race as a whole) was devastating.

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of MAN was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of HIS heart was only evil continually." This is a description of the WHOLE human race, not just the ungodly line of Cain! This was true of the line of Seth too!

I believe that man, being deceived and deluded, willingly and knowingly took part in the whole process... with the resultant universal wickedness. Mt 24:38 "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark."

- "They were marrying and giving in marriage" speaks of their ACTIVE participation in the whole affair.

5. Question: If angel is the one causing the wickedness, how many generations must it takes to make all man wicked? How can Noah family be exempted? How about his daughter in law?
## It takes less than one generation to pervert and pollute fallen man into great wickedness and evil. This is especially true when the Spirit of God ceased to strive with man to restrain him. "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." When the Spirit of the LORD stop His activity of restraining the fallen human race, he can become monsters of wickedness and evil very quickly!

The offspring of that union is described as “the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” (Gen 6:4) Mighty men and men of renown in WHAT? Read the answer in the next verse… the effect of these mighty men and men of renown upon that whole generation.

Noah was delivered from the devastating effect ONLY because he found grace in the eyes of the LORD, Gen 6:8. If not for the grace of the LORD, Noah would be gone too.

Consider the words, "for that he also [STILL] is flesh". I think these words of the LORD are very significant. These words imply that DESPITE what man tried to accomplish with the 'sons of God' he is flesh STILL. He did not become what he had hoped to accomplish. These words remind me of the declaration of Jesus Christ in John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Despite man's effort of messing around with the 'sons of God' [ i.e. spirit beings], man is flesh still.

6. Comment: I think that if angels mean for “sons of God”, they actually have physical union with the daughter of men (and not just overpower them through the spirit). My argument points are 2: (i) in verse 2: “…and they took them as wives…” I think the angel marry them, as you don’t call a them wife unless you enter into a marriage with them. (ii) verse 4: “…the sons of God came in unto the daughters…” this should means physical union, right?
## You are right. The 'sons of God' are angelic beings that took on real human form. I read in connection with Lot that real angels took on the form of real men, and were seen and treated as real men, and were lusted after by real sodomites. They did eat and fellowship as real men with real men. I won't be the least surprised that the daughters of men (just 'men' not ungodly men) would fall in love them at first night! Abraham did entertain real angels in the form of real men.

These 'sons of God' took on humanity... thus they did not keep their spirit estate but left their habitation. They departed from their angelic realm, and transgressed the human realm by involving in the reproduction process. For this trespassing, those 'sons of God' that were involved were "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." (Jude 6, 2Pet 2:4.)

I believe the 'sons of God' HIJACKED and IMITATED the redemptive purpose of God in that the Eternal Word (spirit Being) would take upon Himself humanity. The effect of their attempt was destruction, but that of the Eternal Word is redemption.

7. Comment: I think for the angel to marry the daughter of men is possible as angels can appear physically (in various encounter by men in old & new Testament)

## You observe correctly!
I hope I am not confusing you further.

Feel free to ask any further questions. Feel free to give your thoughts too. I am learning too.

sing

=============

(This mail from Brother W)

Dear Pastor,

I do actually would like to give say some of my thoughts on the passage you've given this evening.

Meanwhile this is a brief of what I thought. You've probably thought through this passage from many angles. I think your earlier exposition on this passage is more sound and consistent, although I said that you've come to this understanding way back in 1989.

Well, the night is late and I'll need to retire shortly.

Good night and may the Lord bless you.

Yours in Christ.

=========

Dear Brother Woon,

Please go ahead. We will keep it exactly the way you requested.
We will be like the Berean spirit to search the Scriptures.

your servant in Christ,
sing

=============
Dear Pastor,

Previous chapters in Gen prior to this mentions the line of Cain and Adam. a brief account of their offspring were mentioned and their deeds.

The effect of the corruption in manners and life of that generation in Noah's days are brought by intermarriage. Not all males of the godly line married the ungodly line but this intermarriage happens over the years. As you have always stated, man are prone to backsliding, so it is quite obvious the effect of an union between the members of Seth's family line with Cain's family line will have an net corrupting effect in deterioration of godly values. To press that all males will marry the females of the other lineage is effect of such interpretation is unfair, for the word every wasn't used in v1-4 as it is used in v5.

This interpretation of angels coming into marriage union with female man has been held by certain quarters of believers. I think some brethren from Gospel Hall holds to this view. well, in Gen, this is the only occurrence of 'sons of God'. Genesis used the word angels to describe angelic beings so if angels are meant here, why the usual usage of angels not applied here?

Angelic beings are much stronger than human beings. It would be much easier and effective to destroy mankind than to pollute mankind. Secondly, the application of the analogy of incarnation of Christ to the procreation of angelic-humans are inadequate. Christ is God taking the form of man. The interpretation you proposed is procreation of a type of human from this union between angels and humans. At best such humans are like the ass that has no further offspring. We were told in the Bible that cross fertilisation of species will not produce offspring.

As for the reading in 2 Peter 2:4-5, what about the following verses, 6 & 7. Surely you just can't make a connection in verses 4 & 5 and not apply the similar rules of interpretation for v 6 & 7. A better explanation is these 4 verses refer to 4 different events, quite seperated from each other in time, but connected in its evil deeds. The devil and the fallen angels kept not their first habitation when they raise in rebellion against God.

Lastly, the reason God destroy the old world is because mankind is very corrupted. Why is it so? You said that the devil and his hordes of fallen angels had done it. I believe the interpretation of intermarriage and compromise of values brought the corruption of mankind.

This much are my thoughts at the present.

Yours in Christ, W

============

Brother W,

Thanks for expressing your thoughts. It gives us both the sacred opportunity of searching the Scriptures afresh together. I will leave some comments marked ## within your post

<<Previous chapters in Gen prior to this mentions the line of Cain and Adam. a brief account of their offsprings were mentioned and their deeds.>>

## You observe correctly - 4:16-25 describes the so-called ungodly line of Cain (and nothing further is said of that line) and 4:25-5:32 traces the so-called godly line of Seth right up to Noah.

A noteworthy thing said of the so-called 'godly line' of Seth is that 'Enoch walked with God... and God took him.'

What about the others in this 'godly line'? Lamech named his son Noah gave an indication of godliness. I think Seth's line is called the 'godly line' NOT because the people of that line are particularly godly in any way, BUT because it is that line from which Jesus came to us. There is very little indication of the 'godliness' of the line, even though the godliness of one or two was noted. Similarly, Cain's line is designated 'ungodly line' not because the descendants of that line are particularly ungodly and wicked.

Then we come to 6:1 "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,"

I understand this as a general statement summarizing the activities of the whole human race was multiplying itself - that is, embracing BOTH the Cainite and the Sethite lines already described in the earlier chapters. Don’t forget that Adam has MANY other sons!!! This was in fulfilment of the divine blessing: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it...."

The mixed-marriage view would arbitrarily, and necessarily, limit Gen 6:1 to the multiplying activity to the ungodly Cainite line. The idea is, that the ungodly parents in the ungodly Cainite line produced the ungodly daughters. And the 'sons of God', the male offspring of the godly line took the daughters of the ungodly line as their wives.

<<The effect of the corruption in manners and life of that generation in Noah's days are brought by intermarriage. Not all males of the godly line married the ungodly line but this intermarriage happens over the years. As you have always stated, man are prone to backsliding, so it is quite obvious the effect of an union between the members of Seth's family line with Cain's family line will have an net corrupting effect in deterioration of godly values. To press that all males will marry the females of the other lineage is effect of such interpretation is unfair, for the word every wasn't used in v1-4 as it is used in v5.>>

Q. Was there mixed marriage between the Cainite and the Sethite line before Gen 6:1?

It seems the mixed-marriage view presupposed that prior to this, there was none, or at most, very minimal mixed marriage between Cainite and the Sethite lines, i.e. two lines were essentially kept separated and distinct.

- This begs a question: who would the sons of the ungodly line end up marrying, and who did the 'sons of God' of the godly line marry? The implications seem obvious: the sons of the ungodly line would marry the 'daughters of' ungodly line, and the 'sons of God' with the 'daughters of God.'

If the ungodly sons of men were marrying the ungodly daughters of men, wouldn't the corrupting effects in manners and life of the union of these sons and daughters of the ungodly line be FAR worse than those of the union between 'the sons of God' and the 'daughters of men'? Why did it need to take the union of the godly 'sons of God' and the ungodly 'daughters of men' to produce such evil and horrendous consequences?

In addition, wouldn't the union of the 'sons of God' - if they were INDEED of the godly line, and WERE godly themselves - with the ungodly daughters of men have the sanctifying influence upon the moral character of the ungodly daughters of men, and their offspring? See 1Cor 7:14, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." Or is this principle true only after flood?

The mixed marriage view begs another question: what was it that caused the separated godly 'sons of God' to begin to compromise, after keeping themselves separated for so long? What broke down the wall of separation, if there was any, in the generation of Noah that has been keeping for so many generations?

Another issue is how those 'sons of God' who were supposedly to be godly men of the godly line freely chose to marry ungodly women of the ungodly line is a separate question that must be dealt with. Here is a classic example of the contradiction in terms, if there is one: godly sons of God who freely chose to marry ungodly daughters of men. One thing is sure, when godly men began marrying ungodly women, the godly women would be doing the same.

Your comment on the word 'every' is interesting. The subject matter of Gen 6:1-7 is the 'sons of God' marrying the 'daughters of men.' Other kinds of marriages - e.g. sons of men marrying daughters of men, or the daughters of the godly line (we won't call them daughters of God!) marrying the sons of men - are not under consideration. So, in context, every 'son of God' under consideration did take the daughters of men as their wives.

The text read thus: "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." The pronouns 'they' and 'them' are co-extensive with the noun 'sons of God.' All the sons of God under consideration did take to themselves wives of ALL they chose of the 'daughters of men.'

This is confirmed by what is said of the offspring of this union between the sons of God and the daughters of men - "and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

<<This interpretation of angels coming into marriage union with female man has been held by certain quarters of believers. I think some brethren from Gospel Hall holds to this view. well, in Gen, this is the only occurence of 'sons of God'. Genesis used the word angels to describe angelic beings so if angels are meant here, why the usual usage of angels not applied here? >>

## There are basically only two views - the mixed marriage view, and that of the angelic beings 'who kept not their first estate, but left their habitation.'

Why is the usual usage of angels not applied here? I don't know? The same question can be asked of the passages in Job. In the whole of the OT, the term is used 5 times. The 3 times they were used in Job, it is quite conclusive that it is not used to describe men, but spiritual (i.e. non-physical) beings. Incidentally, the pre-flood world of Noah and the content of the book of Job has one thing in common - they both speak of the ancient world. Perhaps, in the ancient world, that was the way angels are referred to.

I think people often fail to note the distinction between sons of GOD and daughters of MEN - the distinction is NOT so much between godly men and ungodly women; the distinction is between the angelic beings that originated from God (of God's creation) and human beings (of men procreation activities)

<< Angelic beings are much stronger than human beings. It would be much easier and effective to destroy mankind than to pollute mankind. Secondly, the application of the analogy of incarnation of Christ to the procreation of angelic-humans are inadequate. Christ is God taking the form of man. The interpretation you proposed is procreation of a type of human from this union between angels and humans. At best such humans are like the ass that has no further offspring. We were told in the Bible that cross fertilisation of species will not produce offspring.>>

## It is true that angelic being are much stronger and powerful than human beings - "thou madest him a little lower that the angels." What appears to be much easier and effective may not be possible because it is not permitted by God. Remember the case with Job? "And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life." Satan was given a free hand, with a specified limit. There are lots of things those angelic beings could do without God's restraint.

In addition, of course, Satan was not interested in just destroying the human race. He had wanted the human race to worship him as 'god' - he wanted to be worshipped!

Concerning the analogy of the incarnation of the eternal Word, it was intended to answer the objection that it is impossible for a spiritual (non-physical) being to come upon a woman and cause conception. The Spirit of God did come upon Mary and resulted in the conception of Jesus. Anything beyond that would be inadequate, as you rightly observed.

In Gen 6, what is more likely is angelic beings taking on the form of men... and marrying the daughters of men and multiplying 'themselves' through them. The angels in the form of real men visiting Abraham in the plains of Mamre, and Lot in Sodom should remove any doubt as to the possibility of angelic beings taking on the form of real men and interacting with real human beings. But what actually transpired, it is hard to say. And I would not speculate.

Your comment, "procreation of a type of human from this union between angels and humans" is most interesting because it is a fitting description of the offsprings of such union we read in Gen 6:4-5. Read them again. They were real human endowed with the superhuman qualities of the power and strength of angelic beings that fathered them, along with the perverse nature of the fallen angels. Real mixed marriage WOULD NEVER produce such offspring. NOT even un-mixed marriage between the ungodly could produce such.

Your comment "at best such humans are like ass that has no further offspring" is an apt observation. I don't know whether those super-human offspring of the perverse unions can reproduce themselves or not. Either way, it does not pose a problem to the issue at hand.

The text does indicate that the 'sons of God' took themselves MULTIPLE wives to further their goal, "... that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." The clause "they took them wives of all which they chose" does strongly imply polygamy.

Having said all these, it must be admitted that, there are elements of mystery that we won't be able to understand.

I find it very hard to believe that mixed marriage could have such a devastating effect that necessitated universal destruction by God. Others do not have such difficulties. Moreover, before Gen 6, there isn't the slightest hint that mixed marriage was forbidden by God. It is a much later issue read into this text. It is classic anachronistic.

## I suggest the 4 verses are describing about TWO events, one event in the old world, and one event in the new world - I think that's pretty obvious. Verse 4-5 speak of one event, and verse 6-7 another. In the former destruction, God delivered Noah, in the latter, God delivered Lot. In the former God did not spare the angels/the 'sons of God' and their offsprings; in the latter God did not spare the wicked of Sodom.

Concerning your last statement, The devil and the fallen angels kept not their first habitation when they raise in rebellion against God", please consider the questions I have raised in a separate post.

Assuming that your assertion is true, you MUST necessarily conclude from 2Pet 2:4 that ALL - ALL - ALL fallen angels have been "cast them down to hell, and delivered into chains of darkness, and reserved unto judgment." But is that true? Are ALL fallen angels "cast them down to hell, and delivered into chains of darkness, and reserved unto judgment"? If that were true, there would be no more evil spirits in the world we live in!

<<Lastly, the reason God destroy the old world is because mankind is very corrupted. Why is it so? You said that the devil and his hordes of fallen angels had done it. I believe the interpretation of intermarriage and compromise of values brought the corruption of mankind.>>

## You stated the two main views aptly. I wonder why the marriage of the ungodly for so many generations – before and after - did not corrupt mankind?

These are my thoughts at present.

What I have said is all my present understanding, is always subject to further light from the Scriptures. Show me the Scriptures. Thanks.

I must get ready to go to the NS camp in BM.

searching the Scriptures together with you,

sing

===