Who are the sons, what is the devil doing there?

There is this scripture in Job 1:66Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.Does anyone have any ideas as to what is going on here?Who were the sons of God?Why did satan join them before God?p.s. This is the KJV of this scripture, the NIV has 'angels' instead of 'sons of God'.

The sons of God are angels so far I know.That satan came along only means that he's an angel.I heard this at a study at a biblecamp that there was a time where every angel (fallen or not) had to present themselves before God. satan is not more powerfull then God so he has to obey. :-)

I agree with Warrior.Sons of God = AngelsSatan = Fallen Angel Job 1:6 is one of the instances that shows God created Satan and all the other angels, and commands and uses them whether they are fallen or holy angels. Other Scriptures about these fallen angels are Gen 6:2, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 1:6.The assembling of the angels before God shows they are still accountable to Him, and that even though they are given the ability to try us, they still can only do what God gives them the ability to do.

The assembling of the angels before God shows they are still accountable to Him, and that even though they are given the ability to try us, they still can only do what God gives them the ability to do.a valuable reminder, thanks.Rev. 6:4 (KJVS) And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword. Rev. 6:8 (KJVS) And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. Rev. 7:2 (KJVS) And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Rev. 9:3 (KJVS) And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. There is mystery here, but that "God is on His throne" is the core message of the Revelation.

There is mystery here, but that "God is on His throne" is the core message of the Revelation.Who said anything about a mystery. 8-) In regards to the angles and the sons of God. The reason that it struck me so is because many consider the the KJV the standard for bible interpretation/translation. So if this version says 'sons of God' why would the NIV say angels if it is a less than accurate version? :-?So maybe to rephrase the question, which is the best rendering of this verse? I can see how the mormons can use the KJV of the scripture to come up with the crazy idea that Jesus and the Devil are brothers, and all the stuff about the Nephilim.If anyone wants any example of how far someone can go by taking parts of scripture and building a house out of it, that is it.

Who said anything about a mystery.The mystery is that God gives creatures the empowerment to do 'wicked' things. eg. the prodigal could not have gone to the 'far country' without his father's enabling. :-) and all the stuff about the Nephilim.I am not endorsing all that the Mormon's say as I am not sure what they do say, but many Bible students over the centuries have believed that the 'sons of God' from Gen 6 were rebellious angels. The OT uses the phrase 'sons of God' very infrequently...Gen. 6:2 (KJVS) That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Gen. 6:4 (KJVS) 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. Job 1:6 (KJVS) Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Job 2:1 (KJVS) Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. Job 38:7 (KJVS) When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? There can be little doubt about who the Job references relate to. In fact, the LXX (Septuagint) translators built their answer into their translation, translating the phrase 'sons of God' as 'angels' throughout the Job references. The NIV is similarly making up your mind for you (a fairly persistent habit of that translation). The translators are not translating here but interpreting. I would prefer to know what it says and do my 'own' interpreting! ;-) The KJV is more literal here; 'ben elohim' = 'sons of God'.It is a very old fashioned view and one which I dislike in many ways, but I am forced to interpret the 'sons of God' in Genesis or Nephilim (fallen ones) as rebellious angels. And consequently to interpret Gen 6 as a rebellious union between angels and human women. There you are... you always knew I was a dinosaur didn't you?My interpretation of the early Job verses would be that God does require a 'regular account' of those that he has empowered and that their empowerment is within carefully defined parameters.

It's interesting to note that satan had to give account also in the Job scriptures you referenced.

'ben elohim' = 'sons of God'In scripture thats only used for angels, the reference Ron gave was from Gen. and JobDo you have Albert Barnes notes on the bible? or any other commentary? that might be helpful. From what I've read 'ben elohim' is not used when it refers to human beings. When I had read what Ron had put down I had an explosion of understanding on satan having to give account or answer to God. That's what my comments were mainly of.

Can the 'sons of God' still produce offspring or has something changed?

Can the 'sons of God' still produce offspring or has something changed?ZekeOI think it is important to remind ourselves that we are engaged in a 'best fit' exercise here. I have often made this point on SI on these themes but here it is again. Imagine two intersecting circles.. One represents the 'story of mankind' and is pretty much the subject of the Bible, the other represents the 'story of angel-kind'; this latter is not the main subject of the Bible. In fact all we really know about the second circle is from the tiny intersection where the angels' story impacts ours. Consequently we are in danger of trying to extrapolate a whole 'Angel-Bible' from that intersection and that is dangerous. God does give individual discernment of things outside the first circle but these must never become 'standard doctrines' of the church or fundamental to our whole understanding of God's ways with men; the Bible is our sufficient revelation for that. We stand in danger of being 'wiser than what has been written' as an old Quaker document put it. Having said that let me try to open out at least part of your question.“And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.” (Gen. 6:3-4, ASV)I've gone for the ASV here because it picks up the reference to 'Nephilim' that some using just the KJV may not have connected with this thread. Your question is 'can' it happen again? These verse certainly could be interpreted in the sense that Gen 6 was not a unique event. The phrase which gives us room to say this is "and also after that". After what? After the Nephilim were in the earth. So was there a second infestation after Gen 6? The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. Gen. 6:4 (ASV)And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. Num. 13:33 (ASV) These are the only uses of the world 'Nephil' meaning 'a fallen one' in the scriptures. (Nephilim, is the plural form)Would this be a factor in God's determination that those who had been sexually active, as well as animals, were destroyed in the taking of Canaan. Is it possible that Goliath and his brothers were 'Nephilim'? Is this why God partly explained the Conquest of Canaan by saying 'the land is vomiting them out'? None of this specifically answers your question although there are those who have speculated that 'as in the days of Noah' (Matt. 24:37; Luke 17:26) might include this aspect of life in the 'days of Noah'. Would the passage from 1 Peter fit our hypothesis?“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” (1Pet. 3:18-20, KJVS) Were these human spirits, and if so why are they singled out from all other human spirits? Personally I don't think these are human spirits and the word for 'preached' is not evangelised but proclaimed. How are we to understand this verse from Gen 6...“These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” (Gen. 6:9-12, KJVS)Is this indicating that Noah was uniquely 'human' (and his progeny) at this time? And what are we reading of here...For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2Pet. 2:4 (ASV)And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Jude 6 (ASV) This seems to be the context for another unusual Bible revelation in which the word 'Tartaros' is used...“For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;” (2Pet. 2:4-5, KJVS) Is this the fate of all fallen angels? or just those from the 'days of Noah'?Was all this a particularly diabolical conspiracy to make incarnation impossible? If the whole race became demonised how would Christ have entered the race? It easy to forget that God had determined that 'man' would be his route for reclamation and restoration. Was this the reason behind Satan's implacable opposition to the human race?So as to your specific question... could they still produce offspring? If my last paragraph is on the right lines, there would now be no purpose in such a conspiracy. Could they? Only if they were 'allowed'... and that stage of the conflict seems to be over now that we have a man in the heavens...

Good stuff there Ron,What you have put here does not really answer the question as such, but place enough truth in place to filter out speculative theories, anyway thanks it was a very interesting read.While I was thinking about the sons of God, I seem to remember that Hinduism also claims a immaculate conception of one of their dieties. If you study their religion out it is almost amazing to see the parallels in the concept of the trinity and all. In speaking to some of them, they claim primacy for the concept over Chiristianity based on the apparent age of the religion. As this is a very old religion I found myself wondering if this concept about angels coming to the daughters of men could be explained by this Genesis verse? No matter, its not important.

Is it possible that Goliath and his brothers were 'Nephilim'? Is this why God partly explained the Conquest of Canaan by saying 'the land is vomiting them out'?I have little to add or comment to your excellent post. But that quote grabbed my attention! A while back when I was reading through the OT I was amazed about this race of giants. Actually its not that important at all. (as its getting OT)1Sa 17:4 And a champion named Goliath came out of the Philistines camp; he was from Gath. His height was six cubits and a span.This dude was about 3 metres tall!Still it seems that he is only one of his kind among the Philistines.Further back we find an account of Israel battling a people of giants. (And how they relied on the Lord to beat them)Deu 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the rest of the giants. Behold! His bedstead was a bedstead of iron. Is it not in Rabbath of the sons of Ammon? Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its width, according to the cubit of a man. The king of this people had a bedstead of iron which was more then 4 metres tall and about 1.8 metres wide! Goliath must be a (large? :-P) midget compared to the Enakites (As translated in my Dutch NBG, KJV says 'Sons of Anak')This race of giant people existed after the great flood. Perhaps its not so important, but this did grab my attention a while back. :-) Deu 9:1-3 has a very cool message, just like David being able to beat Goliath due to the Lord!We often face Enakites in our lives. :-P

Good post So as to your specific question... could they still produce offspring? If my last paragraph is on the right lines, there would now be no purpose in such a conspiracy. Could they? Only if they were 'allowed'... and that stage of the conflict seems to be over now that we have a man in the heavens... I never thought that through before. That was a good point I'll need to look into further.

Hi Ron,It seems that there has been a pattern to the influence of demons upon humanty down through the centuries. I have made a connection in James 1 & 3 to some of the wiles of the devil. I wondered if you might comment:Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: (1:12, 13)God is not the agent of temptation, Satan or his demons are. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (14, 15)We have discussed this in other threads, so I will not here.Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. (16, 17)This seems to relate to a coming passage in James 3:But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. So we see here that God does not tempt with evil nor does He father a malicious attitude. The 'wisdom' that is producting these things is not coming from God. So we return to 1:19, 20 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.It seems that God is revealing to us that there are some 'age old' diabolical influences in situations that produce wrath and that we ought to be swift to hear and slow to speak. In other words, we need to take some time and do some discernment of what is going on. but to do that properly we have a prerequisite:Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.It seems that the enemy can find in 'us' filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness and use these things as a springboard to propigate his lies. And between filthiness and an superabundance of malice- he was successful in subverting the minds of men in the old world until:The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.It seems that if afforded opportunity, this is the finality of the objective of Satan for the earth. That all flesh corrupt its way (filthiness) and be filled with violence (superfluity of naughtiness). Hence we read in the prophetic New Testament writings that "as it was in the days of Noah so shall it be when the Son of Man comes..." (para) etc. We know that the violent angels that are bound in the great river Euphrates will be loosed at some point. I see these as the violent angels that God bound after the flood. But could it be possible that any of the other more sinister perverse angels as you mention could be loosed also?God Bless,-Robert

As this is a very old religion I found myself wondering if this concept about angels coming to the daughters of men could be explained by this Genesis verse? No matter, its not important. These was the explanation of G H Pember. "Earth's Earliest Ages". He reckoned that these events were still in the collective memory of the race and were the source of mythologies from every culture.

I believe the name, "sons of God" speaks not to whether they are angels or men but to whom their father is. Those who are obedient to God are those who obey the commands of their Father in heaven. Are not all, whether angels or man called to make a choice? Are not all, whether angels or man judged according to the choice made. Are not all who are called the sons of God enabled by God to do His work? Here is another example similiar to the one found in Job. Who are the "companions?"Zech. 3:1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. 2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? 3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. 4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. 5 And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD stood by. 6 And the angel of the LORD protested unto Joshua, saying, 7 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by. 8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH. 9 For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. 10 In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree. The precept of faith finds its' root in the spiritual world, not that which is seen but unseen.In ChristJeff

All the questions on this thread are adressed in THE CALLED (part of the reason it's now published) ... Now available at;XULON PRESShttp://www.xulonpress.com/bookstore/titles/1597814644.htmAMAZONhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1597814644/103-6637566-9019013?v=glance&;n=283155&_encoding=UTF8&v=glanceEUROPEhttp://www.bol.it/inglesi/scheda?action=engscheda&;ean=978159781464FIRST 3 CHAPTERS POSTED ON SI;https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2289&forum=41&18i can't wait for theologians, bible scholars and secular scientist to start ripping it apart!Br. R

I believe the name, "sons of God" speaks not to whether they are angels or men but to whom their father is. Those who are obedient to God are those who obey the commands of their Father in heaven. Are not all, whether angels or man called to make a choice? Are not all, whether angels or man judged according to the choice made. Are not all who are called the sons of God enabled by God to do His work? There is truth here but it does not contradict what has been said so far. A 'son' is one who stands in im-mediate relationship to a father. ie there is no middle link of any kind between a son and a father. This is the source of the old saying that 'God has no grandchildren'.True regeneration does effect genuine sonship. The 'new born' has no one between himself and his father. The 'life' did not pass through another but came direct from the father. In this sense Adam was a 'son of God'; the life came directly from God, but Cain and Abel were not, they came through Adam and were, consequently, Adam's sons.This would fit with the designation 'sons of God' be given to angels who were never 'born' of other angels but who each received their 'life' direct from God.A word of warning to those who only use the KJV... the phrase 'son(s) of God' is much less frequent in the NT that you might think. John never uses i of humans beingst! John 1:12 (KJVS) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 1John 3:1 (KJVS) Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 1John 3:2 (KJVS) Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. Each of these references has 'children' in the orginal. Sorry, if that spoiled some of your best sermons! ;-) 'children' has character-likeness more in mind than origin. In the light of our discussion the correction of the KJV here is interesting.“Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.” (Luke 20:36, KJV)“nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” (Luke 20:36, NKJV) In each instance in the NKJV the word is more accurately translated as 'sons', but the context is very interesting.