Genesis 6 Debate: Fallen Angels or Sons of Seth? The Awakening Report

Genesis 6 speaks of the sons of God and the Nephilim progeny they produced. The question is whether the sons of God were fallen angels or were the godly line of Seth. I will argue that they are fallen angels and my debate opponent, Peter will argue that they are humans - the sons of Seth. You don't want to miss this debate!

CONNECT WITH ME:

Contribute to Douglas Hamp Ministries and help support this show through Patreon!

Get Corrupting the Image 2 : Hybrids, Hades, and the Mt Hermon Connection

WHO AM I?

Dr. Douglas Hamp graduated from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem with an M.A. in the Hebrew Bible and Its World where he specialized in ancient languages including Biblical Hebrew and Greek his PhD in Biblical Studies from Louisiana Baptist University. He served at Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa for six years, where he lectured and developed curriculum at the School of Ministry, Spanish School of Ministry and Calvary Chapel Bible College Graduate School. He is the author of numerous books, articles, & DVDs. His linguistic insights have made him a sought after speaker at conferences, national and international TV, radio, and internet programs in English and in Spanish. He is senior pastor of the Way Congregation in Denver, CO.

Video Title: The Way Wednesdays Virtual Midrash | Miketz At the End Of Kislev 30 Gen 41– 44 17 | Dr Douglas Hamp
Created by: Dr Douglas Hamp

#virtualmidrash #thewaywednesdays

[sadroid]

I'm still on the fence about this but Doug Hamp keeps citing all of these extra-Biblical Jewish sources. Just a reminder: Titus 1:13-14 "This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to JEWISH FABLES, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth."

[josephkuzara]

In the context of Genesis 6, the Sons of God are human believers, just as believers under the New Covenant are elect Sons of God now.

Many Angels are also Sons of God by Election.

This election is predestined from eternity by God to ensure perfection and not see spiritually death in Hell.

Thus the elect angelic Sons of God cannot fall into sin nor are they the Sons of Genesis 6 as angels being immortal are not married nor are giving in marriage.

The Human Sons of God avoid the wrath of God because they are not judged with the wicked and never are the cause of Gods Wrath on the earth even when they stumble into sin. We are instead out of love, scourged and chastised but not destroyed and sent to Hell because God promised.

[PGL_Podcast]

Okay, I have to say; anyone seeing this debate that sides with the Sons of Seth theory, are literally covering their eyes and plugging their ears, and are praying that this Seth thing is true. A child can clearly understand what is being spoken of in Genesis 6 is clear.

[jw]

Dr. Hamp was the indisputable winner. But my utmost admiration for Peter, also. I wouldn't want to go toe to toe with a Ph.D. debating a subject matter he is very knowledgeable about. No way in gehena I'd do that!

[seanblake]

Feel bad for the Line of Seth guy. He was clearly outgunned and underprepared. "I'm going to go with what makes sense." is not a strong argument for any position.

[egwpisteuw]

Doug correctly cited Jude 6-7 several times. This passage is drawing a very clear analogy. The sin of the angels was the same as that of Sodom and Gomorrah: they "indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh." The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was that humans tried to have sex with angels. Therefore, clearly, the sin of the angels was that they had sex with humans.

The ancient extra-biblical sources Doug quoted simply tell us that Jude was no different than other ancient readers of the OT, all believed that Gen 6 was referring to angels having sex with humans. Jude even quotes from 1st Enoch which directly states this.

The Sons of Seth view is a strange departure from the consensus of the ancients, and directly refuted by Jude 6-7, and should thus be rejected, with prejudice.

[charliecalvert]

Doug needs to do something about his smugness. He uses thecgreek words as he likes

[jofo]

If the sons of God are Not Angels, but are men, then why were ALL except Noah's Family destroyed in the flood?
Also, with the Augustine view that "angels cannot fall" after the flood, would mean Angels (Good ones) would not still have free will which I disagree with.

[xSYLENTJAYx]

The only verse that really matter in this debate that wasn't even brought up and I haven't heard anyone explain away is Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

[TheImmortuary]

As soon as it got to Peter and he said he will only use the King James version, I stopped watching.

[seanblake]

Doug, I have a question: Per this discussion, it sounds like you believe that demons are the fallen angels themselves. Your view obviously differs from the Book of Enoch which posits that demons are the disembodied spirits of the nephilim. Am I correctly understanding your position? If so, how do you support it?

[jennyminton]

So basically Peter just can't wrap his head around it therefore it just can't be so. That is his only argument.

[Dexter.]

Most people misuse Numbers 13 and take it out of context. Christians need to use Numbers 14 to understand Numbers 13. They use it to promote the word Giant, because it makes their view of the rebellious angels procreating with woman to produce a hybrid giant found in Genesis 6. For myself Burnt Offerings make it clear of who the "sons of God" are. The Genealogy Lines in both Genesis 5 and Luke 2.
Both of the debaters never mentioned Burnt Offerings or the Genealogy Lines. When it comes to the word Giant, I believe it refers more to AGE primarily although height could apply.

Just to touch on Numbers 13: 31-33 “ But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger than we.” 32 And they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature. 33 There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

What these spies did is found Number 13 verse 32. These spies gave Israel a “bad” report. The word “bad” can also be translated as “evil” in other translations. The point is the word “bad”. The word bad means poor in quality, not correct, incorrect, faulty, mischievous, poor, ect. Basically the spies LIED about the report they gave, meaning that they lied about Anak’s decencendants being giants and that they ( the spies) looked like grasshoppers. It is a false report!!!! There is no giants or nephilim like some are lead to believe. The spies gave a bad/false report they never saw any giants/nephilim.

What did God do with the spies that gave this bad report or false report, it is found in Numbers 14:36 and 37. Numbers 14:36, 37 “ Now the men whom Moses sent to spy out the land, who returned and made all the congregation complain against him by bringing a bad report of the land, 37 those very men who brought the evil report about the land, died by the plague before the LORD.”
The “bad” or “evil” report meaning false, the LORD struck them down with a plague. The spies Lied about the report. There were NO GIANTS. Satan's seed of Lying was in these spies.
Most people do not realize or take notice to Numbers 14. Just read Numbers 14 to understand Numbers 13.

[jameshess]

I hope that this gets on to the Awakening Report soon. I'd feel kinda bad if I shared this to my feed and page on fb before Douglas could to the Awakening Report group page... So, I will check the Awakening Report on fb and be ready to share!

[magictransistorradio]

I am not certain what the truth is, but I lean towards the Sons of God being fallen angels. Because first, this was the common belief for a thousand plus years, and second, I don't see how the line of righteous having children with unrighteous bares giants.

[jamesjacob]

With due respect to brother Peter, I think he hasn't done his home work well about the( sons of God ) in genesis 6 whether were angels or humans? I personally believe without any shadow of a doubt that they were angels and not humans, and there many verse in the bible that support this opinion which brother Doug has covered it extensively.

[CruelSun]

The "moderator" seems to have misunderstood his role.

[TheDonovanMcCormick]

If nephilim were just people they wouldn’t be called nephilim. Why would they have the special title of earthborn if they were just regular folks? In that case the Bible would call everyone nephilim. Doug is definitely correct here. Nephilim were like strange unnatural creations, body suits for the watchers, which is why they were all destroyed. The Seth line is probably the worst argument I’ve ever heard. Peter and Jude believed the book of Enoch so does this man think that Peter and Jude were doing something “dangerous” by citing the extra biblical tradition of Enoch? Is he claiming that Christ’s resurrected body wasn’t a perfect human body with reproductive organs in tact? The Bible says God makes his angels like wind; they aren’t spirits. They’re physical beings who can interact with our dimension if they so choose just like Jesus after His resurrection. Throughout the entire Bible it is made abundantly clear that bodies are of extreme importance. That’s one of the reasons for Christ’s sacrifice, to restore our bodies to their proper place. Adam and Eve could mate before they sinned otherwise God never would have said be fruitful and multiply if perfect humans couldn’t reproduce.

[jackgark]

if God alredy had in his mind from the beginning the plan of Salvation, that the Lord Jesus was going to come to die for our sins....what was the need then of killing everyone on the earth, except Noah, who was perfect in all his generations???

[verge]

It is ludicrous to assert that the author of Genesis wrote ''sons of God'', with some vague notion in his mind that one day that very selfsame term would be used for ALL humans who had been spiritually grafted in to God's family of those redeemed / renewed. Rather, it was the other way around: the LATER writers of the Gospels used the term to denote those humans who had been spiritually re-born, it being so apt for that NEW condition. Prior to that, the term was only applicable to angels (all of whom are male) or male entities made by God by fiat.... ie: Adam.