Genesis 6 and the “Sons of God”: A Refutation of Ken Temple Using the Bible and the “Example of the Church”
Originally posted on the Quran and Bible Blog
بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم
Over at BloggingTheology, I was having a discussion[1] with the hypocrite missionary Ken Temple[2] on the meaning of the term “sons of God” in Genesis 6:
“When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”
I contended that these “sons of God” (bene Elohim) are fallen angels, as the context indicates, and since the only other time the Hebrew phrase is used (Job 1) also refers to angels, then they really must be angels.
However, Temple claimed otherwise. According to his interpretation, the “sons of God” were simply human beings. This interpretation is popular among many modern Christians, but it was not the mainstream view in early Christianity. When I stated that the “church fathers” (e.g., Justin Martyr) also believed that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels who copulated with humans, Temple was skeptical. And so, I provided direct quotes from the “fathers” to demonstrate the “example of the church”.[3] And like other Christians who use the fathers when they suit them but throw them under the bus when they don’t, Temple decided that he knew better and that the fathers were wrong. Here are the relevant quotes from some of the church fathers:
Justin Martyr, Second Apology, Chapter 5 –
CHAPTER V — HOW THE ANGELS TRANSGRESSED.
“But if this idea take possession of some one that if we acknowledge God as our helper, we should not, as we say, be oppressed and persecuted by the wicked; this, too, I will solve. God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law–for these things also He evidently made for man–committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment. and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness.”[4]
Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching –
“And for a very long while wickedness extended and spread, and reached and laid hold upon the whole race of mankind, until a very small seed of righteousness remained among them and illicit unions took place upon the earth, since angels were united with the daughters of the race of mankind; and they bore to them sons who for their exceeding greatness were called giants. And the angels brought as presents to their wives teachings of wickedness, [110] in that they brought them the virtues of roots and herbs, dyeing in colors and cosmetics, the discovery of rare substances, love-potions, aversions, amours, concupiscence, constraints of love, spells of bewitchment, and all sorcery and idolatry hateful to God; by the entry of which things into the world evil extended and spread, while righteousness was diminished and enfeebled.”[5]
Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 22:
“And we affirm indeed the existence of certain spiritual essences; nor is their name unfamiliar. The philosophers acknowledge there are demons; Socrates himself waiting on a demon’s will. Why not? since it is said an evil spirit attached itself specially to him even from his childhood–turning his mind no doubt from what was good. The poets are all acquainted with demons too; even the ignorant common people make frequent use of them in cursing. In fact, they call upon Satan, the demon-chief, in their execrations, as though from some instinctive soul-knowledge of him. Plato also admits the existence of angels. The dealers in magic, no less, come forward as witnesses to the existence of both kinds of spirits. We are instructed, moreover, by our sacred books how from certain angels, who fell of their own flee-will, there sprang a more wicked demon-brood, condemned of God along with the authors of their race, and that chief we have referred to. It will for the present be enough, however, that some account is given of their work. Their great business is the ruin of mankind. So, from the very first, spiritual wickedness sought our destruction.”[6]
Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica, Book 5:
“But in fact it is. manifest to all that he who practises the things that are dear to the wicked can never be a friend of the good. So then it was not to gods, nor yet to good daemons, but only to the wicked, that those of whom I have spoken paid worship.
And this argument is still further confirmed by Plutarch, in the passage where he says that the mythical narratives told as concerning gods are certain tales about daemons, and the deeds of Giants and Titans celebrated in song among the Greeks are also stories about daemons, intended to suggest a new phase of thought.
Of this kind then perhaps were the statements in the Sacred Scripture concerning the giants before the Mood, and those concerning their progenitors, of whom it is said, ‘And when the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, they took unto them wives of all that they chose,’ and of these were born ‘the giants the men of renown which were of old.’
For one might say that these daemons are those giants, and that their spirits have been deified by the subsequent generations of men, and that their battles, and their quarrels among themselves, and their wars are the subjects of these legends that are told as of gods. Plutarch indeed, in the discourse which he composed On Isis and the gods of the Egyptians, speaks as follows word for word.”[7]
So, it’s clearly a landslide.
Temple’s main argument that the “sons of God” were human beings and not angels is based on Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30, and Luke 20:34-36:
Mark – “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”
Matthew – “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”
Luke – “Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels.”
But this appeal does not refute the angel argument for four reasons:
- The passages refer to life in heaven, not on earth. The latter is clearly the context of Genesis 6 (“When human beings began to increase in number on the earth…”)
- Notice that in Luke’s version, there is the addition of the phrase “and they can no longer die”, followed by the phrase “for they are like the angels”. Therefore, according to Luke, it seems the reference to angels was to compare them to the people who would go to heaven and never die. It is not a reference to their inability to procreate in heaven.
- None of the passages talk about sexual intercourse. They only mention “marriage”. Moreover, they do not state that marriage is impossible in heaven, only that it will not be done.
- According to Genesis 2, Adam and Eve were literally married while they were in the Garden of Eden:
“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.”[8]
So, the appeal to the New Testament falls apart.
In addition, there is no doubt that angels were able to do many things that humans could do, such as eating. There are numerous examples of this from the Tanakh:
“He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree” (Genesis 18:8).
“But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate” (Genesis 19:3).
“Yet he gave a command to the skies above and opened the doors of the heavens; he rained down manna for the people to eat, he gave them the grain of heaven. Human beings ate the bread of angels; he sent them all the food they could eat” (Psalm 78:23-25).
Thus, angels can eat, even in heaven! So why can they not have other physical pleasures there?[9]
We can conclude based on the textual evidence from the Bible and the views of the early Church fathers that there is no good reason to discount the view that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were really angels. These angels copulated with human women, who gave birth to powerful men who became renowned as the “heroes of old”. For Christians like Temple, this interpretation is embarrassing, so they try very hard to deny it. This reflects poorly on their credibility and honesty and proves how far they will go to misquote their own Bible when it becomes inconvenient for them.
And Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best!
[1] https://bloggingtheology.com/2019/10/05/a-warning-to-jews-and-christians/comment-page-1/#comment-21633
The main impetus for this discussion was Temple’s mockery of the hadith about Satan urinating in the ears of a man who does not get up for the Fajr prayer. Temple claimed that this hadith is silly because claims that “Satan is like a human being and can urinate or fart”. Perhaps someone should point out to Temple that he is not an expert on Satan’s anatomy!
[2] https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/13/ken-temple-is-hypocrite/
[3] For other “examples of the church” and how some Christians throw it under the bus when it is inconvenient or embarrassing to agree with it, see the following:
[4] http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-secondapology.html
[5] http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/demonstrationapostolic.html
[6] http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian01.html
[7] http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_05_book5.htm
[8] Genesis 2:24-25.
[9] In any case, as demonstrated, the New Testament passages referred to there being no marriage in heaven, and do not refute angel argument for Genesis 6, since the angel-human copulation would have been on earth.
Categories: Bible, Biblical Hebrew, Christianity, Gospels, Islam, Judaism
@ QB
You know looking bad there is a bigger issue for Ken. According to his text Jesus(as) allegedly said either:
Mark – “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”
Matthew – “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”
Luke – “Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels.”
As you demonstrated Adam(as) and Eve were married in heaven:
“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.”
So therefore either:
1. Jesus(as) was wrong
2. Genesis was wrong
3. The scribes attributed a lie to Jesus(as)
4. This kie caused Ken to be wrong.
Which one do you guys think?🤔
I vote 3 and 4.
@ QB
Ohhhh sorry this was a bit of a trick question the answer was:
2,3, and 4.
While right on this subject Genesis is wrong on so, so many others. But thank you for playing.
I had fun playing, but I wanted the prize money. 🙄
@ QB
Yes very sorry but unfortunately not everyone can be a winner. You will just have to settle for the consulation prize of Ken’s woes and tears instead.
You know what? Screw the prize money! 😂
https://www.badtheologians.com/2019/05/does-jesus-repudiate-marriage-itself-in.html
thoughts?
@ Mr. Heathcliff
Gonna disagree from 2 points Islam and textual criticism:
1. From an Islamic point (and God knows best) the only prophet, we know of who kinda had what Christians think “holy people” act like towards sex was John(as):
The angels called to him while he stood praying in the quarters saying: “God gives you the good news of a son to be named John. He will come to confirm a Word of God and be a leader, celibate, a prophet and from the righteous.” (3:39)
As Ibn Kathir notes this doesn’t necessarily mean he didn’t have a wife because Zechariah’s(as) prayer was to have a righteous offspring.
Also, God clearly reprimands Christians for the monastery lifestyle and says they invented this (as marriage is part of the natural process of being a human)
Then I sent My Messengers following in their footsteps. I sent Jesus the son of Mary, and gave him the Gospel. I placed in those who followed him, tenderness and mercy. But the monastery lifestyle is something they invented on their own accord. I did not prescribe that for them but they chose it wanting to seek God’s approval and even then, were unable to observe their innovation properly. I gave those of them who believed their rewards afterwards, but a large number of them are corrupt, immoral transgressors. (57:27)
So Jesus(as) clearly didn’t teach this it was just another one of their innovations.
2. Textual criticism of these texts.
All were rated black or gray (i.e. forged) by the Jesus Seminar. Here is from the book:
Mark:
“On the resurrection. The debate over the resurrection is a close-knit composition.The words attributed to Jesus cannot be isolated from their narrative context. The concluding proof in Mark 12:26-27 was probably added by Mark; it could not have been a saying that originally circulated by word of mouth. The style is that of a rabbinic debate (discussion of a problem posed by scripture), which was not characteristic of Jesus. It belongs to the later Palestinian community, when Christians were in direct conflict with Pharisees and other groups. The Sadducees are made the opponents because they traditionally opposed the concept of resurrection. Most of the Fellows were inclined to think that this exchange betrays the situation of the Christian community after theological debate had been well developed, long after Jesus’ death. Nonetheless, the absence of any specific Christian elements in the dialogue suggested to some that the dialogue may preserve ideas similar to those Jesus held.”
While they note Mark is probably the source I’ll quote from their commentary on the parallels:
Matt:
“On the resurrection. The debate about the resurrection seems uncharacteristic of Jesus’ style of teaching. The rabbis of the period debated issues raised by scripture, as shown by the Dead Sea Scrolls and the traditions preserved in the Mishnah, a compendium of rabbinic opinion assembled around 200 c. e. But Jesus does not appear to have been schooled in this form of discussion. In addition, the words ascribed to Jesus are a discursive reply to a complicated question (“Whose wife will she be?’), rather than a short, pithy, memorable, enigmatic response. For these reasons, many Fellows concluded that the words could not have originated with Jesus. Other Fellows noted the absence of any specifically Christian elements. Further, they observed the witty way in which Jesus is represented as dealing with
the issue, both belittling it (heaven’s messengers have no sex) and in encompassing it a larger point (the God of the patriarchs must be the God of the living, not the dead). The compromise color was gray.
As you can see weak evidence on their side.
Luke:
On the resurrection. The question posed to Jesus about the resurrection is loaded because there was an ongoing debate between the Pharisees and the Sadducees over this issue. Jesus apparently takes the side of the Pharisees in assuming that there is a resurrection, but he avoids the trap set for him by the question. He does so by arguing that the angels have no sex and therefore marriage of angels is a pointless issue. He also utilizes a scriptural text to affine the resurrection. The style of argument tS that of the rabbis of a later time, yet the witty reply recalls Jesus’ way of responding to hostile queries. The Fellows were divided in their judgments about whether Jesus could have engaged in an exchange of this type. Gray was the compromise rating.
Again weak evidence as “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is “witty” but a forgery.
Great points, brother!
I think this issue is related to the fact that almost each christian has its own interpretation to their text as Ahmed Deedat once said. This problem can be seen vividly with protestant christians in particular.
For the subject at hand, I think it needs to be discussed based on its core. Again I think Christianity & Judaism both have a confused perspective about angels, demons, and human beings. Christians even confuse things with God Himself.
However, Islam has a nuanced and a detailed picture about these creatures. For example, we know that Jinn have been created from Fire( Ar. Nār ), and it’s very easy to picture how fire “eats” things. Jinn are not necessarily demons, by the way. The word satan is a label which can be used for both human being and Jinn. Also, satans in many hadiths are not about (The)satan/Iblīs, which is a point jews and christians don’t understand seemingly.
Moreover, Jinn & human beings are both addressed by God’s commandments which involve punishing and rewarding. Angels, on the other hand, are created with the desire to serve God and worship Him only (Q66:6, Q 41:38, and Q 21:20). Therefore, Qur’an says that the angels who visited our father Abraham did not eat. The bible, in contrast, presents them eating from the food Abraham put it for them(Genesis 18:8)
Also, I just wanna say that I’ve read some ridiculous comments about satan being powerful, and I’m not sure how that idea got formed? Ignorance in Islam (Q 4:76)? The basis of this idea is stupid to begin with.
But apart from all of this, I’m just wondering why a christian, who believes stupidly that The Almighty God used to urinate and defecate on this earth, would have an issue with satan, who is a created being, for the fact he urinates and farts? I don’t get it! Bear in mind that hadiths didn’t mention how those creatures do these things, but for sure they’re doing it according to how God created them. But the real problem is how God The Almighty did these things on earth?
Christians like Kennywise are simply dishonest and self-righteous clowns who never have a substantive point to make. They go by their opinions, not by facts.
Good point about the difference between angels in the Quran and the Bible. So we can throw Kennwise’s mockery of the Hadith back to him: what kind of nutty, backward religion believes that angels eat food? 😂
@ QB
Huh that is kinda funny that in our text they don’t eat (at least our) food. Yet Ken was insulting us.
That’s Kennywise to you.
The lever of hypocrisy by the Muslims is amazing.
Talking of backward religion
Is it true that if a person does not say “Bismillah” before having intercourse with their spouse, then Satan shares with him in that?
Answer (by Shaikh Muhammad S. al-Munajjid):
With regard to the Satan having a share when one does not say “Bismillah” Allah says, “and become a partner in their wealth and their children and promise them. But Satan does not promise them except delusion.” (17:64). Al-Qurtubi said, “Give yourself a share in that…”
5. The fifth view was narrated from Mujahid who said, “If a man has intercourse and does not mention the name of Allah, the Jinn wraps himself around his penis and has intercourse along with him. This is what is referred to in the verse, “untouched before them by man or Jinn”. (55:56) (Tafseer al Qurtubi)
Conclusion
The correct view of the meaning of this verse is that it should be interpreted in the ways mentioned above, for there is no contradiction between these meanings. Each of the scholars mentioned one aspect of its meanings, and there is no contradiction between them.
The basic principle in such a case is that the verse should be interpreted according to all its meanings. Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Most of the differences narrated from the Salaf (pious predecessors) in authentic reports have to do with variations, not contradictions.
Allah knows bes
Monday 03/03/2003
http://WWW.ISLAMWEB.NET
I think the only thing amazing here is your lack of reading comprehension first this was not even related to the discussion. The argument presented by Ken Temple was that Angels don’t eat and therefore Islam is wrong. And this was proven not to be true as stated by early Christian scholars and Biblical text.
Next, because your links don’t work I’ll post it:
https://www.islamweb.net/ehajj/printarticle.php?id=36372&lang=E
Munajjid is giving commentary of scholar OPINIONS (i.e. something we can choose to agree or disagree with) of the passage:
17:64. “Make whoever you can slip with your whisper and march both your cavalry and infantry. Participate with them in both their money and CHILDREN. And make to them all kinds of promises.” But whatever Satan promises is nothing but deception…
17:65. “As for My servants, you have no authority over them…” And your Lord is enough to look after your affairs.
He then states:
The following are what some scholars said about the interpretation of the word children:
1. Regarding “children”, it was said that this means the children of Zina (fornication, adultery). This was the view of Mujahid, al-Dhahhak and Abdullah Ibn Abbas.
2. It was also narrated that he said, “It refers to the children whom they killed and against whom they committed other crimes.”
3. It was also narrated that he said, “This refers to when they call them by names such as Abdul-Harith, Abdul-Uzza (i.e., names meaning “slave of…” referring to their false gods).”
4. It was also said that this refers to their initiating their children into disbelief and this was the view of Qatadah.
5. The fifth view was narrated from Mujahid who said, “If a man has intercourse and does not mention the name of Allah, the Jinn wraps himself around his penis and has intercourse along with him. This is what is referred to in the verse, “untouched before them by man or Jinn”. (55:56) (Tafseer al Qurtubi)
Ibn Katheer said, “Share with them wealth and children (by tempting them to earn money by illegal ways, usury, or by committing illegal sexual intercourse.”
“Children,” al-Awfi said, narrating from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid and al-Dhahhak, “means the children of Zina (fornication, adultery). Ali ibn Abi Talhah said, narrating from Ibn Abbas, “This refers to their children whom they used to kill from folly, without knowledge. Qatadah said, narrating from al-Hasan al-Basri, “By Allah, he had a share with them in their children by making them non-Muslims, so that they followed a religion other than the religion of Allah and gave a share of their wealth to the Satan.”
Ibn Jareer said, “The most correct view is that every child who is born of a woman concerning whom a sin is committed by giving him a name which Allah dislikes, or by initiating him into a religion other than that with which Allah is pleased, or by committing adultery with his mother, or by killing him, or by burying him or her alive, or other actions which involve sin and disobedience towards Allah, all come under the heading of the Satan having a share in that with the one to whom the child is born, because in the verse ‘share with them wealth and children’ Allah did not specify one meaning to the exclusion of any other. Every case where Allah is disobeyed and the Satan is obeyed is a form of his sharing in that.
So you have ONE scholar who was of the opinion of what you quoted and since he quoted nothing to prove that opinion we are not bound to it.
To add to Stew’s points, what exactly is the problem with the 5th view? Are you people all experts in the anatomy and physiology of supernatural beings whom, as both Islam and Christianity believe (as shown in the Genesis 6 article), can eat, drink and have sexual intercourse?
@ QB
Also a good point lol. My thing was he said it like this is something in the Quran or Sunnah as opposed to things mentioned in the Biblical text. If one wanted to we could dismiss Mujahid’s(rh) opinion right here now and it wouldn’t mean anything.
Yeah, they seem to think that any opinion is binding.
@ QB
Well, I guess we can’t be too rough with them remember they take their priests as their lords.
t’s related to the article since his first reference is a comment by QnB “LOL – what a nutty and backwards religion thinks that angels are like human beings and can impregnate human beings, etc.”
Based on his logic Mujahid was nutty and backward to believe that Jinn can wrap around a penis and have a threesome lol. To make it worse, al Qurtubi, Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn Katheer are also nutty and backwords since they don’t have an issue with the concept.
Interestingly you copy paste a few things that I posted already however you did not copy the conclusion. I wonder why? I guess that he is using strong words. “The correct view of the meaning of this verse is that it SHOULD be interpreted in the ways mentioned above, for there is no contradiction between these meanings. Each of the scholars mentioned one aspect of its meanings, and there is no contradiction between them.”
The basic principle in such a case is that the verse SHOULD be interpreted according to all its meanings. Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Most of the differences narrated from the salaf (pious predecessors) in authentic reports have to do with variations, not contradictions.
You claim you can reject the opinion of Mujahid. Feel free to reject it.
But if you do, make sure to tell me why you think Mujahid is misguided? And tell me why your opinion is better than Mujahid? If you’re not going to do it don’t waste my time with something you won’t do. 🙂
This is why you read (pay attention as this will be a keyword that will keep popping up) the WHOLE situation instead of budding in. QB was being cheeky and quoting Ken who first said that to us:
Ken Temple
October 11, 2019 • 5:59 pm
The prophet said, ‘Satan urinated in his ears.’” Vol. 2, Bk. 21, No. 245
LOL – what a nutty and backwards religion that thinks Satan is like a human being and can urinate or fart (other Hadith), etc.
https://bloggingtheology.com/2019/10/05/a-warning-to-jews-and-christians/comment-page-1/#comment-22417
Even if you didn’t know this you can READ this in QB’s comments above:
“So we can throw Kennwise’s mockery of the Hadith back to him: what kind of nutty, backward religion believes that angels eat food? 😂”
Continuing with your wonderful reading comprehension:
1. Ibn Kathir did not have this opinion let’s READ again, slowly (emphasis mine):
Ibn Katheer said, “Share with them wealth and children (by TEMPTING them to earn money by illegal ways, usury, or by committing illegal sexual intercourse.”
He is not saying what Mujahid said, he is saying the Devil incites people to fornicate and that’s how he participates in people’s children. (BTW he’s Ibn Taymiyya’s student who also didn’t say this he said its all relatively variations of the same thing)
Next, it’s not “wasting your time” it’s you (like Temple) have poor reading comprehension so allow me to again extract for you what I said (parenthesis are my add on):
“…since he (Mujahid) quoted nothing to prove that opinion we are not bound to it.”
That’s why it can be rejected as basic common sense would dictate how does he know? We as Muslims do not have to believe in ANYTHING that does not come from the Quran or Prophet Muhammad(saw). We have no issues in saying Prophet Muhammad’s(saw) DISCIPLES were wrong on occasions, let alone one of their students.
Now I’m neutral about Mujahid’s opinion I’m just saying this ENTIRE thing was a response to Temple who made a wrong claim and you are going off on a tangent in la-la land. We could care less about if supernatural creature eat our food, have sex etc this was all to disprove Ken who started the conversation. And as nobody is countering the article this appears to have been accomplished.
He’s being cheeky about angels having sexual relationship while his own scholar has no problem with Jinn or Satan wrap themselves around a penis to have a threesome lol.
Ibn Katheer “…or by committing illegal sexual intercourse.”
Here another website that makes it clear for you.
I say: with regard to the Shaytaan sharing in intercourse when a person fails to say Bismillaah, we have mentioned above the hadeeth narrated by Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) and the comment of Mujaahid (may Allaah have mercy on him).
Based on this I understood Ibn Katheer and you misunderstood.
…
Another part of the article:
Indeed, many of the mufassireen said that also included in the Shaytaan’s share of wealth and children is neglecting to say Bismillaah when eating, drinking or having intercourse; if one does not say Bismillaah when doing those things, the Shaytaan has a share in them, as was mentioned in the hadeeth.
Tayseer al-Kareem al-Rahmaan, p. 414
From the same website. The conclusion on How it SHOULD be interpreted.
The correct view on the meaning of this AAYAH is that it SHOULD be interpreted in the ways mentioned above, for there is no contradiction between these meanings. Each of the SALAF mentioned one aspect of its meanings, and there is no contradiction between them. The basic principle in such a case is that the aayah SHOULD be interpreted according to ALL its meaningS.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/21946/how-the-shaytaan-has-a-share-in-peoples-children
I quote several scholars non of them are neutral. What we can actually reject is your opinion.
I knew you won’t reject it. That why I asked the question. You “can” reject it is actually a smoke screen. You will pretend you can reject it however you won’t do it.
It makes sense why we see Muslims come on this blog and call you a kafir. 🙂
Two different websites and several scholars, They all accept the interpretation of the verses. They claim authentic reports.
I’m done now. The only thing you can do is to twist the words of your scholars. Some of your earliest and greatest scholars.
Don’t forget to say Bismillaah tonight. 🙂
Peace
Lol, this character is still trying to butt in and doesn’t understand that the only ones who were being “cheeky” were the Christians who masquerade as experts on Satan’s anatomy and physiology. I merely put these Christians in their place by showing what the Bible says about angels copulating with humans. And not a single Christian has refuted that, so I assume you all acknowledge the hypocrisy and stupidity some of your brethren engage in when they try to criticize the hadiths?
Nutty and backward indeed.
Well, there we have it folks! The bulge has spoken. Case closed.
Lol, this guy is a carbon copy of agnostic/the doorknob. Henceforth, she shall be known as doorknob Jr., Aka bulge. Is everyone in agreement?
@ QB
“Is everyone in agreement?”
Aye. ✋
I don’t have a problem with it. But I thought you do base on your comment “LOL – what a nutty and backwards religion thinks that angels are like human beings and can impregnate human beings, etc.”
If I misunderstood feel free to clarify. If I did not misunderstood to be consistent I can mention a few Muslims scholars who should be considered as nutty and backwards lol.
There is nothing in the context that points to angels, as there is in Job, therefore there is no evidence to substantiate the assertion that angels are involved. Without anything to the contrary it must be assumed that the text is talking about humans only.
This view fits in with the rest of the OT as there are plenty of human “sons of God” in the old testament.
You’re an idiot Iggy. Haven’t you gotten tired of getting refuted over and over again? I know how it works with you. You get roasted in debates, run away to lick your wounds, then come back on a different topic and get roasted again.
The term Bene Elohim is ONLY used for angels in the Bible. Plus, it doesn’t make sense to say 1) humans increased in number, and 2) the sons of God saw the daughters of humans and had children with them who were giants and “heroes”.
If the sons of God were humans, why does the text emphasize that they were attracted to the daughter of HUMANS? If they were humans, who else would they be attracted to? It is obvious that the emphasis was to differentiate the human women from the angels that became attracted to them. This was an unnatural attraction.
The term sons of God can be used for both humans and angels. Exactly what words would be used in the hebrew would depend on the context as long as the concept comes across. There is nothing to tie the writer down.
The text in Genesis 6 just expresses the fact that the two communities, which had previously been separate to each other, began to form social contacts. This was a development of the sinfulness of the human race.
No need to look for nonsensical fairy tale pagan explanations to which unfortunately muslims have a strong proclivity.
Mindless statements do not prove your point. As I said, the phrase “bene Elohim” is never used for human beings. In Job, is clearly refers to angels.
As for the “context”, this also supports the view that they were angels.
Your pathetic interpretation is based on desperation. It doesn’t make sense to say that the sons of God were human being, and after being separated from other humans for a long time, they saw and became attracted to…human women. Plus, there is NOTHING in the text that implies separation between “two communities”. You literally just made that up.
No need to look for nonsensical modernist explanations to which unfortunately christians with bad grammar skills have a strong proclivity.
Speaking of fairy tales, how is your god’s roommate Jeff? Remember they were roommates when your god created the world on October 23, 4004 BC? 😉
Iggy please explain how Shamu Shamoun chews on cud.
“As I said, the phrase “bene Elohim” is never used for human beings. In Job, is clearly refers to angels.”
Faiz making up his rules as he goes along, as usual, following his mentor.
Makes no sense for God to say that he will not strive with men if what they are doing with the angels is something that he has made natural and normal to both their natures.
😂😆 Iggy is back after again after hiding to lick his wounds.
It is clear that the bene Elohim in Job are angels. This, when it is used in Genesis 6, it should also refer to angels. The phrase is not used anywhere else.
I know it’s embarrassing for you Iggy but you have to face the facts. The angel-human copulation was unnatural which is why your god punished humanity for crossing that line.
In your Bible, angels could assume human form and eat human food. Why can’t they then copulate with humans? I mean let’s face it Iggy. Yes, it’s of course silly of your Bible to suggest this but then again your Bible suggests alot of silly myths (e.g., that the earth was created in 4004 BCE). How’s Jeff? 😁
Can you prove, with evidence and not just assertion, that the hare is not a ruminent and that Islam does not command Muslims to kill, enslave and kidnap non-Muslims for war booty and paradise.
Can you prove, with evidence and not just assertion, that you are not a rapist?
Iggy: once a moron, always a moron.
“It is clear that the bene Elohim in Job are angels.”
So what? That is not sufficient to rule out the use of the term to describe humans in Genesis.
“This, when it is used in Genesis 6, it should also refer to angels. The phrase is not used anywhere else.”
It is used with a slight variation in Hosea. This alone proves that humans can be in view in Genesis.
Another proof is that humans speak of God as their Father in the OT. So the phrase “sons of God” would just be a collective or plural form of this simple fact. The fact that the phrase does not occur so often in the OT is not due to any supposed limited usage to angels but to the development of redemptive history after the flood.
The fact that angels can eat at times, as with Abraham, does not prove either that they have sexual desires.
And Jesus rules this out.
Hosea uses the phrase “bene el-hayy”, sons of the ever-living. Not the same thing dummy.
Your anachronistic claim of the “development of redemptive history” also does nothing to refute the evidence. Jude quoted from the book of Enoch, which also refers to the angel-human copulation. You just don’t like that because it is embarrassing in the modern age.
Jesus didn’t rule it out stupid. I already explained this in the article. He only (allegedly) referred to marriage. That does not mean that sex was impossible in heaven.
The fact that angels could eat, and that there is “manna” in heaven proves that the Bible does not discount angels behaving like humans. Get over it.
“Hosea uses the phrase “bene el-hayy”, sons of the ever-living. Not the same thing dummy.”
In essence its the same. It doesn’t have to be exactly the same expression.
Sons of the living God and sons of God are essentially the same. It is the same concept being expressed:
that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
Lol, so you’re making up your own rules now?
I guess muslims must be polytheists after all because Allah has 99 different names, so according to Faiz’s reasoning that must be 99 different gods.
🤣😆😂 Getting desperate so you have to change the subject? We have two different terms: bene Elohim And bene El-Hayy. Each is used in a different context and a different meaning. One refers to angels, the other to humans. It’s not that difficult to understand, unless your name is Iggy.
Both these terms refer to the same God which means that he is referred to as the Father of humans and of angels in the OT. Thus the generic term “sons of God” can refer to either.
“Sons of God” would be an inaccurate translation of “bene el-Hayy” moron, and you know it. el-Hayy means “ever living”. It does not literally mean “God”. Yes, God is “ever-living” but the word itself is an attribute of God and does not mean “God” in the way “Elohim” means “God”.
Both terms refer to the same God. The same Being. Humans are his sons also, not just angels.
It is a plain fact in the OT.
I know they refer to God, stupid. But they are two different terms. One is used exclusively for angels, the other for humans.
It is a plain fact in the OT.
Why should a difference in the term used for God make a difference in the sons of this God?
Your “argument” is incoherent.
Blame it on your Bible stupid. Bene Elohim means sons of God. Bene el-Hayy means sons of the ever-living. Two different terms. Get over it.
Why should a different term be used based solely on the subjects of the sonship?
Why must this be the case instead of using a different but similar name for God?
You give no reasons for this. It is solely based on your bias.
Again, blame it on your Bible. And speaking of bias, we know you are embarrassed by the angel-human copulation which is why you are trying so hard to deny your Bible’s clear mention of it.
Do you worship 99 gods Faiz?
Iggys is bipolar and has two identities!
Again, the word “Elohim” literally means “God”, just like “Allah” means “God”. “El-Hayy” means “ever-living”, which is an attribute of Elohim, but does not linguistically mean “Elohim”. If you’re still not getting it, consider this:
Al-Rahman means “the Compassionate”. It is one of the names of Allah (swt). But in Arabic, “Al-Rahman” does not linguistically mean “Allah”. It means “the Compassionate”. Therefore, if I were to translate “Allah, al-Rahman” as “God, the God” that would make no sense. Right? The correct translation would be “God, the Compassionate”. In the same way, translating “Bene el-Hayy” as “sons of God” is inaccurate. The correct translation would be “sons of the ever-living”. The word “God” is not in the Hebrew term. Do you get it now Iggy?
I never said the two terms refer to different gods dummy. Your pathetic straw-man only further demonstrates your desperation.
Put a cork in it! None of you have any idea of what you are talking about. There are more Hebrew errors here than in a Mohammad Hijab debate. “Bnei el-hayy” litterally means “sons of the living God” El is the short form for God or deity.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aq-D-bdxgNA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vxgEUgmVK9Y
Lol, still doesn’t change the fact that different phrases are used in Genesis/Job and Hosea.
Do you mean there’s more Hebrew errors here as Arabic errors in a David Wood debate? 😉
“that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.”
It is highly unlikely that the prophecy refers to a reality that was never true of human beings in the OT. i.e there must have been a community in the history of humanity that was truly a society of the sons of God. This was clearly the community that was referred to in Genesis. There must have been a precedent for the prophetic restoration to re-create.
This also argues for a human sons of God interpretation.
LOL, there goes Iggy’s bias again! You just keep making assumptions without providing any evidence. Earth to Iggy: we don’t care what your opinion is. I have already shown overwhelming evidence from both the Bible and church tradition that the “sons of God” must have been angels. There is nothing in the Bible to discount this interpretation. I know it’s embarrassing but get over it.
I didn’t see any evidence.
That’s because you are a biased clown who has closed his eyes to any evidence that disproves your a priori views.
Both humans and angels are said to be sons of God in Job and Hosea therefore Genesis can refer to humans.
In Job a conversation in heaven is necessary to show that angels are sons of God. In Genesis this context is not given therefore it is clear that humans are referred to.
“Both humans and angels are said to be sons of God in Job and Hosea therefore Genesis can refer to humans.”
Mindless repeating your previously refuted nonsense does not make it correct, Iggy. Job and Hosea use two different terms. Sorry. I know it’s embarrassing.
“In Job a conversation in heaven is necessary to show that angels are sons of God. In Genesis this context is not given therefore it is clear that humans are referred to.”
Why is it necessary? The Hebrew version could simply have used the word for “angels” instead of using “sons of God”. Instead, it uses a phrase that is found NO WHERE else in the Bible EXCEPT Genesis 6. Sorry Iggy.
There would have to be some additional context given in Genesis, as there is in Job, to indicate that angels are in view there and this is not given therefore humans are in view. The history is of humans in Genesis and it cannot be assumed otherwise unless there is some additional information to indicate it as there is in Job.
There is such context. It makes no sense to say the “Sons of God” saw the “daughters of men” and became attracted to them. This statement would be unnecessary if they were just men. There would be nothing unusual about men being attracted to women.
Also, the children they had with the “daughters of men” became “heroes” and “men of renown”. These were Nephilim. Clearly, they were not normal human beings. This suggests their unusual genetic line.
“El is the short form for God or deity.”
Its a special word for God that is used only for angels according to Faiz, lol.
Lol, no dummy. That’s not what I said. Your strawman only further demonstrates how clueless you are moron. 😂🤣
I said the phrase “bene Elohim” refers to angels only, whereas “bene el-Hayy” refers to humans. Got it now dummy?
The simple reason that the writer in Hosea refers to the sons of God as sons of the living God is that he is compelled to change the expression so that glory is given to God. Instead of just saying that they will be called the sons of God he changes the expression slightly so that it becomes not just descriptive but ascriptive in relation to God. The prophecy is fulfilled and this is a cause of praise to God who is thus called the living God.
It has nothing to with your mumbo jumbo idea that one particular phrase can only be used when denoting angels.
Blah, blah, blah. Iggy seems to know alot about what some ancient author had in mind. Pardon me Iggy if I laugh…😂
I agree it’s mumbo jumbo, but blame your Bible. It’s your Bible that uses this phrase for angels. Sorry Iggy. Now go back to your cave to cry and lick your wounds.
” This statement would be unnecessary if they were just men. There would be nothing unusual about men being attracted to women.”
It is unusual because it represents a new development in redemptive history. You are missing the context.
You are forcefully adding this so-called “context” out of thin air moron, and you know it.
Faiz said: “I agree it’s mumbo jumbo, but blame your Bible. It’s your Bible that uses this phrase for angels. Sorry Iggy. Now go back to your cave to cry and lick your wounds.”
If you want to take glory away from God just to make a laughable attempt to score a cheap point that’s your foolishness for which you will pay.
I don’t hang out in caves like your hero did.
Lol, according to Justin Martyr, your god was born in a cave. 😆