The “sons of God” in Gen 6:1-4: Angels or Humans?

[Samie]

If you can read this, then I have at last succeeded in starting a new thread!!!

I'll repost here what I have posted in another thread regarding this issue.

 

[Samie]

3 hours ago, Samie said:

11 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

We're straying off topic here, but sorry, there was never any such thing as breeding with angels.  Those who make such a claim usually base it on a passage in Genesis chapter 6 pertaining to a people group that was entirely wiped out in the Flood, so even if it had occurred, how would they have remained?  The fact is, angels "neither marry, nor are given in marriage" according to Jesus' own words.  We don't have male and female angels.  We don't have baby angels.  If we did, then where are all the doctrines about baby devils, and demon whores, etc.?  Angels are not created in the same fashion in which we are with the ability to procreate.  Mrs. White makes clear that the passage in Genesis which has been translated in the KJV as the "sons of God" refers to the righteous lineage of Seth, whereas the "daughters of men" refers to the worldly/wicked descendants of the murderer Cain. 

Let me start by saying that in the Bible, there are at least three kinds of intelligent beings: men, angels, and Deities (God the Father, our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit). Compared to humans, angels excel in strength and power (Ps 103:20). Of course, both humans and angels were created by God.  I pointed this out so that if the phrase “sons of God” as used in the OT is proven to be referring to humans, then they cannot refer to angels, or vice versa.

In the context of Genesis 6, the intermarriage between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” seemed to have contributed greatly to the corruption of the earth prompting God to end the evils of that time.

KJV Genesis 6:4-6   

4 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. 

5 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.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 

Based on the foregoing verses, the timing of the intermarriage between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” was around the time when God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, proving that indeed the intermarriage did not provide a let up of corruption but instead contributed to its getting even worse.

Let us now consider the scenario painted by the popular belief that the “sons of God” as referring to the male descendants of Seth and perceived to be righteous, effectively excluding the male descendants of Cain whose descendants, it is assumed, were corrupt. Here’s Angel Manuel Rodriguez of the BRI:

Quote

 

 “2. Immediate context. In Genesis 4 and 5 the human race is divided into two main groups: the descendants of Cain (Gen. 4: 17-24) and those of Seth (verses 25, 26).

      In Genesis 6:1,2 this division is clearly recognized by referring to those who followed the Lord as "sons of God" and to the rest of humanity as "men." There is nothing in the immediate context to suggest that the "sons of God" are kings, angels, or heavenly beings. ”https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/bible-ot-texts/genesis-61-4"

 

But can it be shown from Scriptures that the subject “sons of God” in Gen 6:1-4 indeed compose the righteous branch of Adam’s descendants, that is, Seth’s family line?  Let us try to dig a-wee-bit deeper into Scriptures.

Antedeluvians have long life spans. Starting from Adam, we have Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah. Adam was still alive until his great, great, great, great, great, great grandson Lamech was 56 years old. Seth was 744 years old when Lamech was born. Lamech was 168 years old when Seth died 14 years before Noah was born. Enos died when Noah was 84 years old. Cainan died when Noah was 179 years old. Mahalaleel died when Noah was 234 years old.  Jared died when Noah was 366 years old. Enoch did not die. Methuselah died on the year of the Flood, outliving his son Lamech by 5 years.  Lamech died 5 years before the Flood.

From Adam to Lamech, the average life span was 907.5 years.  This tells us that at the time just before  the flood, people born 300 years before Noah, those born at most 70 years after Methuselah, were still alive! These include those who were supposed to have intermarried with the “daughters of men”, the “sons of God” who, proponents of “sons of God” = male descendants of Seth say, are righteous and who followed the Lord.

But were they righteous in God’s sight? Here’s how Scriptures described the inhabitants:

Genesis 6:7-12   

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 

9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. {perfect: or, upright} 

10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 

11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.  12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

We can easily deduce from the foregoing verses that all the earth was corrupt and that should include both Cain’s and Seth’s descendants, with one exception:

NAS Genesis 7:1 Then the LORD said to Noah, "Enter the ark, you and all your household; for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time.

The evidence of Scripture seems not to agree with the idea that the “sons of God” = Seth’s descendants and that they are righteous and are followers of the Lord.

IMO, the position that the “sons of God” who intermarried with "daughters of men" are the male descendants of Seth is biblically untenable.

So, to who does the phrase “sons of God” in Gen 6:1-4 refer to?  My next post will address this issue.

[Samie]

2 hours ago, Samie said:

So, to who does the phrase “sons of God” in Gen 6:1-4 refer to? 

I believe it refers to angels, specifically evil angels. How so?

First, we will let the Bible be its own interpreter, in finding out from the sacred pages of the OT as to who does the phrase “sons of God” refer to.  The phrase “sons of God” in the OT occurs 5 times in the KJV (Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) This phrase is from the Hebrew ~yhiêl{a/h' ynEåB.. (transliterated Bünê hä´élöhîm, or let's just say ben elohim, for simplicity).

Job 1:6 & 2:1 tell us of a certain day when these “ben elohim” are to present themselves before the LORD. During that particular date with God, Satan was among them. It can be inferred that Satan is of the same level as these “sons of God” who presented themselves before the LORD.

^KJV Job 2:1 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.

In verse 8,  "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"                                                    

Notice God's description of Job: none like him in the earth, perfect and upright man.  If the phrase "ben elohim" refers to Seth's descendants which is claimed as the righteous line of Adam's descendants, then Job must be with those "ben elohim" who presented themselves before the LORD, since there is none in earth like him.  But he was not with them.

When God confronted Job, He asked him:

Job 38:4-6   

⁴ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

⁵ Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?

⁶ Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof?

 

And then He told Job what transpired when the foundation of the earth was laid:

 

^KJV Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The “sons of God” were already existent when the foundations of the earth were but being laid by the Creator PRIOR to the creation of man.  Hence, the “sons of God” can not be humans and we are left with no other option but to conclude that they are angels.

But why do I believe that the angels in Gen 6:1-4 are evil?  It is because of the simple reason based on the words of Christ that angels in heaven do not marry.

Matthew 22:30   ³⁰ For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

 

Mark 12:25   ²⁵ For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

 

For me, it is highly possible, that the angels of Gen 6:1-4, being on earth instead of in heaven, are those who sided and were cast down to earth with Satan. Hence, evil angels. What more, their intermarrying with humans simply showed that indeed they are evil, because angels are not supposed to marry, as what I understand from the words of our Lord.

 

The observation that angels do not marry because they have no sexual capability has no support of Scriptures.  Most eunuchs don’t marry, but that doesn’t mean they are not capable of procreating. Potiphar, Joseph’s master in Egypt, was a eunuch, but he had a wife. See Gen 39: 7, 19, 20.

 

In my first post relative to this issue, Scriptures were presented that negate the prevalent belief that Seth's descendants comprise the righteous branch of Adam's descendants.  In those verses, God Himself pronounced that it was only Noah who God found righteous in His sight.  Hence, the claim that "sons of God" refer to Seth's descendants can't hold water.

 

In this post, Scriptures were presented where God Himself told Job that prior to creating Adam, there were already "ben elohim" who were shouting for joy.  Hence, "ben elohim" or "sons of God" in the OT cannot possibly refer to humans.

 

Therefore, the phrase "sons of God" in the OT can only refer to angels and those who intermarried with the "daughters of men" are evil angels.

[Samie]

7 minutes ago, Samie said:

Therefore, the phrase "sons of God" in the OT can only refer to angels and those who intermarried with the "daughters of men" are evil angels.

Are the "daughters of men" in Gen 6:2-4 the women descendants of Cain, considered the unrighteous branch of Adam's descendants?

To start with, let us read Gen 1:26, 27.

^KJV Genesis 1:26-27   ²⁶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  ²⁷ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I’d like to point out that the word man in Gen 1:26, 27 is from the Hebrew ~d'a' (ADAM). This word occurs 585 times in a total of 555 verses in the OT.  In the KJV, this Hebrew word was transliterated into “ADAM” 22 times in 20 verses of the OT.

The following verse records what transpired when Cain (Hebrew !yIq; Qayin) was born:

^KJV Genesis 4:1 And ADAM knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Note that the word man in this verse is from the Hebrew vyai  ('iysh), and of course, ADAM is from ~d'a'.  Here is another verse that used both these words:

^KJV Genesis 2:23 And ADAM said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

In the above verse ADAM is from ~d'a', and Man is from vya ('iysh).. Of course, Woman is from hV'ai  ('ishshah).

Let’s now go to the verses in our study:

^KJV Genesis 6:1-4 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.  ³ 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.  ⁴ 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.

The words men in the verses above are from the same Hebrew word ~d'a' used in Gen 1:26, 27.

It appears to me, that the daughters of men – from the same Hebrew word ADAM in Gen 1:26, 27- should naturally be the daughters that descended from the subject ADAM of Gen 1:26, 27, if one were to properly apply the principles of exegesis. That should, as a matter of course, include those that descended from Cain who likewise descended from ADAM.  This I think is the better choice rather than make the daughters of men as applying to only those that descended from Cain to the exclusion of the daughters that descended from Seth. What more, I haven’t yet found any verse in Scriptures that links, directly or otherwise, the phrase “daughters of men” with only those that descended from Cain.

On the other hand, the phrase “daughters of men” can be linked to the female descendants of Seth, as gleaned from the following verse:

^KJV Genesis 11:5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

Exegesis dictates that in the phrase “children of men” in Gen 11:5 the word “men” should likewise refer to what was referred to by the same word “men” in the phrase “daughters of men” in Gen 6:1-4. Same Hebrew word, same book, same author. IOW, if the word “men” in Gen 11:5 refers to the descendants of Cain, then the word “men” in Gen 6:1-4 should also refer to the descendants of Cain.

Gen 11:5 is about the story of the tower of Babel, after the Flood. We all know that only the children of Noah, a descendant of Seth, remained alive. All descendants of Cain perished in the flood. Hence, the “children of men” in Gen 11:5 denoting both “sons and daughters of men” can only refer to the descendants of Seth.  It then follows that the “daughters of men” are those that descended from Seth, instead of from Cain.

Therefore, IMHO, the phrase “daughters of men” in Gen 6:1-4 should refer to the female descendants of ADAM, and, naturally, should include both those that descended from Cain as well as from Seth.

[Green Cochoa]

Samie,

I know not whether taking time to respond here will be profitable.  You may be fully entrenched in your opinion and unwilling to look at any other possible manner of interpretation.  I will say this: I will not spend long debating on this.

FIRSTLY

Most of what you included in evidence above is true and correct.  We differ simply in interpretations.  Similarly, biologists look at the same evidence and come up with opposite conclusions regarding the origin of life.  So as pertains to the evidence, I largely agree with you.  As regards your conclusions, we differ.  I will make an attempt at explaining how the evidence can be interpreted in another way, supported by some additional evidences.

EVIDENCES REGARDING "SONS OF GOD"

Adam was called "the son of God."  He was said to be made in God's image and likeness.

Seth was made in Adam's likeness, not God's, according to Genesis 5:3. 

John 1:12 tells us "as many as received Him to them gave He power to become the sons of God."
 

The distinction of being a "son of God" is granted to those who are in the image of His character.  The Bible would not call fallen angels "sons of God" and yet call the righteous by the same term.  So, even if angels could copulate with humans and procreate, it could not have been the fallen ones who are called "sons of God."  Jesus Himself refers to the Jewish leaders as being children of the devil, the father of lies, in contrast to their thinking that they were children of God.  And again, if angels could copulate with mankind, it would be nonsense to reason that heavenly angels had corrupted men to the point of bringing upon themselves God's wrath.

Where we may agree regarding some of your evidences above is that some of those "daughters of men" may have descended from Seth.  Essentially, the term speaks of the worldly-minded, which largely were of the line of Cain in those days but I would make no attempt to limit it strictly to such as if I were there to know.  Any godless woman would have been a "daughter of men." 

OTHER BIBLICAL EXAMPLES

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. (Job 1:6, KJV)

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 2:1, KJV)

Clearly, Satan was not classed as a "son of God," for he gets express mention of being "also" among them.  That distinction would have been unnecessary had he been one of them.  Furthermore...

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7, KJV)

...this text does not refer to demons.

THE CLEAREST BIBLE DEFINITION

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Romans 8:14, KJV)

ANYONE CAN BE

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: (John 1:12, KJV)

That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; (Philippians 2:15, KJV)

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. (1 John 3:1, KJV)

 

REGARDING "GIANTS"

This term is not related to race, nor stature.  It is not related particularly to Cain, nor to Seth, nor does it refer to angels particularly.  The Bible itself provides a definition for its usage of the word, using parallel speech (parallelism).

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. (Genesis 6:4, KJV)

The three highlighted terms in the above are used in parallel.  One way of thinking of them would be almost as "celebrities" in the sense of "stars."  Gesenius alludes they are fallen, rebels, apostates.  (See http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5303&t=KJV.)  Consider also the parallels elsewhere:

And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown: (Numbers 16:2, KJV)

Obviously, those "men of renown" were "famous" and were apostate rebels, later consumed by fire from the Lord.

The "giants" (rebels) of Noah's day all perished in the Flood on account of their crimes.

MY CONCLUSIONS

The "sons of God" are the righteous.

The "giants," the "men of renown," are the worldly rebels who have made a name for themselves. 

The "daughters of men" are the unvirtuous women of the world.

1 hour ago, Samie said:

All descendants of Cain perished in the flood.

How do you know?  We can only be certain of the fact that Noah and his sons had descended from Seth.  We cannot know for sure whom the sons married.

[Samie]

The issue is in the use of the term "sons of God" as used in the Old Testament.

Only two OT books use the term: Genesis & Job, by the same author, Moses. My opinion is, Moses used the same term with the same reference in mind.  My best guess is based on the words of God Himself when He told Job the "sons of God" shouted for joy when God laid the foundation of the earth.  Hence, the "sons of God" referred to by God Himself existed before Adam was created.  If Moses' use of the phrase "the sons of God" in Job could not possibly refer to humans, I find it hard to believe that Moses had humans in mind when he used the same phrase in Gen 6.

I have no issue in your use of the phrase in the New Testament.

[phkrause]

I know this is a little bit more than Genesis 6:1-4, but I thought I'd post the whole thing

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Here is Albert Barnes Bible Commentary

Verses 1-8

- The Growth of Sin

3. דון dı̂yn “be down, strive, subdue, judge.” בשׁגם bāshagām “inasmuch, as also.” The rendering “in their error” requires the pointing בשׁגם beshāgām and the plural form of the following pronoun. It is also unknown to the Septuagint.

4. נפילים nepı̂lı̂ym “assailants, fellers, men of violence, tyrants.”

Having traced the line of descent from Adam through Sheth, the seed of God, to Noah, the author proceeds to describe the general spread and growth of moral evil in the race of man, and the determination of the Lord to wipe it away from the face of the earth.

Genesis 6:1-4

There are two stages of evil set forth in Genesis 6:1-4 - the one contained in the present four verses, and the other in the following. The former refers to the apostasy of the descendants of Sheth, and the cause and consequences of it. When man began to multiply, the separate families of Cain and Sheth would come into contact. The daughters of the stirring Cainites, distinguished by the graces of nature, the embellishments of art, and the charms of music and song, even though destitute of the loftier qualities of likemindedness with God, would attract attention and prompt to unholy alliances. The phrase “sons of God,” means an order of intelligent beings who “retain the purity of moral character” originally communicated, or subsequently restored, by their Creator. They are called the sons of God, because they have his spirit or disposition. The sons of God mentioned in Job 38:7, are an order of rational beings existing before the creation of man, and joining in the symphony of the universe, when the earth and all things were called into being. Then all were holy, for all are styled the sons of God. Such, however, are not meant in the present passage. For they were not created as a race, have no distinction of sex, and therefore no sexual desire; they “neither marry nor are given in marriage” Matthew 22:30. It is contrary to the law of nature for different species even on earth to cohabit in a carnal way; much more for those in the body, and those who have not a body of flesh. Moreover, we are here in the region of humanity, and not in the sphere of superhuman spirits; and the historian has not given the slightest intimation of the existence of spiritual beings different from man.

The sons of God, therefore, are those who are on the Lord‘s side, who approach him with duly significant offerings, who call upon him by his proper name, and who walk with God in their daily conversation. The figurative use of the word “son” to denote a variety of relations incidental, and moral as well as natural, was not unfamiliar to the early speaker. Thus, Noah is called “the son of five hundred years” Genesis 5:32. Abraham calls Eliezer בן־בותי ben -bēytı̂y “son of my house” Genesis 15:3. The dying Rachel names her son Ben-oni, “son of my sorrow,” while his father called him Benjamin, “son of thy right hand” Genesis 35:18. An obvious parallel to the moral application is presented in the phrases “the seed of the woman” and “the seed of the serpent.” The word “generations” תולדות tôledot Genesis 5:1) exhibits a similar freedom and elasticity of meaning, being applied to the whole doings of a rational being, and even to the physical changes of the material world Genesis 2:4. The occasion for the present designation is furnished in the remark of Eve on the birth of Sheth. God hath given me another seed instead of Habel. Her son Sheth she therefore regarded as the son of God. Accordingly, about the birth of his son Enosh, was begun the custom calling upon the name of the Lord, no doubt in the family circle of Adam, with whom Sheth continued to dwell. And Enok, the seventh from Adam in the same line, exhibited the first striking example of a true believer walking with God in all the intercourse of life. These descendants of Sheth, among whom were also Lamek who spoke of the Lord, and Noah who walked with God, are therefore by a natural transition called the sons of God, the godlike in a moral sense, being born of the Spirit, and walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit Psalm 82:6; Hosea 2:1.

Some take “the daughters of man” to be the daughters of the Cainites only. But it is sufficient to understand by this phrase, the daughters of man in general, without any distinction of a moral or spiritual kind, and therefore including both Cainite and Shethite females. “And they took them wives of all whom they chose.” The evil here described is that of promiscuous intermarriage, without regard to spiritual character. The godly took them wives of all; that is, of the ungodly as well as the godly families, without any discrimination. “Whom they chose,” not for the godliness of their lives, but for the goodliness of their looks. Ungodly mothers will not train up children in the way they should go; and husbands who have taken the wrong step of marrying ungodly wives cannot prove to be very exemplary or authoritative fathers. Up to this time they may have been consistent as the sons of God in their outward conduct. But a laxity of choice proves a corresponding laxity of principle. The first inlet of sin prepares the way for the flood-gates of iniquity. It is easy to see that now the degeneracy of the whole race will go on at a rapid pace.

Genesis 6:3

My Spirit - , in contradistinction to the spirit of disobedience which, by the fall, obtained entrance into the soul of man. “Shall not strive with man forever.” To strive דון dı̂yn is to keep down, rule, judge, or strive with a man by moral force. From this passage we learn that the Lord by his Spirit strives with man up to a certain point. In this little negative sentence streams out the bright light of God‘s free and tender mercy to the apostate race of man. He sends his Spirit to irradiate the darkened mind, to expostulate with the conscience, to prompt and strengthen holy resolve, and to bring back the heart, the confidence, the affection to God. He effects the blessed result of repentance toward God in some, who are thus proved to be born of God. But it is a solemn thought that with others he will not strive perpetually. There is a certain point beyond which he will not go, for sufficient reasons known fully to himself, partly to us. Two of these we are to notice for our instruction: First, he will not touch the free agency of his rational creatures. He can put no force on the volitions of men. An involuntary or compulsory faith, hope, love, obedience, is a contradiction in terms; and anything that could bear the name can have no moral validity whatsoever. Secondly, after giving ample warning, instruction, and invitation, he will, as a just judgment on the unbelieving and the impenitent, withdraw his Spirit and let them alone. The antediluvian world was fast approaching to this point of final perversity and abandonment.

Inasmuch as he is also flesh - , in contradistinction to spirit, the breath of life which the Almighty breathed Into his nostrils. These two parts of man‘s complex being were originally in true and happy adjustment, the corporeal being the fit organ and complement of the spiritual as it is in him. But now by the fall the flesh has gained the upper hand, and the spirit is in the bondage of corruption. The fact that he is flesh also as well as spirit, has therefore come out into sad prominence. The doctrine of the carnal mind in the Epistle to the Romans Genesis 6:4

Two classes of men, with strong hand and strong will, are here described. “The giants,” the well-known men of great stature, physical force, and violent will, who were enabled by these qualities to claim and secure the supremacy over their fellow-men. “Had been in the land in those days.” In the days when those intermarriages were beginning to take place, the warriors were asserting the claim of might. Violence and rapine were becoming rampant in the land. “And after that.” The progeny of the mixed marriages were the second and subsequent class of leading men. “The sons of God” are here contradistinguished from the “nephilim, or giants,” who appear therefore to have belonged to the Cainites. The offspring of these unhallowed unions were the heroes, the gallants, the mighty men, the men of renown. They were probably more refined in manners and exalted in thought than their predecessors of pure Cainite descent. “Men of name,” whose names are often in men‘s mouths, because they either deserved or required to be named frequently on account of their influential or representative character. Being distinguished from the common herd by prominent qualities or memorable exploits, they were also frequently marked out by a special name or surname, derived from such trait of character or deed of notoriety. “Of old” (מעולם mē'ôlām ). This has been sometimes explained “of the world,” in the sense of αἰών aiōn but the meaning is too late for the present passage. The phrase uniformly means “of old,” covering a more or less extensive length of time. This note of time implies a writer probably after the deluge, who could speak of antediluvian affairs, as happening of old.

It is remarkable that we have no hint of any kind of government in the antediluvian world. It is open to us to suppose that the patriarchal polity would make its appearance, as it is an order based upon natural relations. But it is possible that God himself, being still present and manifest, was recognized as the governor. To him offerings were brought, and he deals with Cain on his first and second transgression. In that case the lawless violence of the strong and willful is to be regarded as rebellion, not only against the patriarchal rule, but the divine supremacy. A notice of civil law and government would not of course affect the authority of the book. But the absence of such notice is in favor of its divine origin. It is obvious that higher things than these have the attention of the sacred writer.

Genesis 6:5-8

In these verse we are to conceive the 120 years of respite to be at an end. The iniquity of the race is now full, and the determination of the Lord is therefore announced, with a statement of the grounds on which it rests, and a glance at the individual to be excepted from the general destruction.

Genesis 6:5

And God saw. - The course of the primeval world was a great experiment going on before the eye of God, and of all intelligent observers, and manifesting the thorough depravity and full-grown degeneracy of the fallen race, when left to the bent of its perverted inclinations. “Every imagination” (יצר yētser ). Here the object of thought is distinguished from the thought itself. This is a distinction not generally or constantly recognized by the mental philosopher, though of essential importance in the theory of the mind. The thought itself is a real phase or attitude of mind; the form, idea, species, object of thought may have matter, real content, or it may not. “Only evil every day.” This is an unlimited condemnation of the state and process of the carnal man. The reason is obvious. Homage to God, to truth, to right, to love, does not reign in his heart; and the imaginations or purposes that are not regulated by this, however excellent and praiseworthy in other respects, are destitute of the first the essential principle of moral good. This is now made palpable to the eye of observation by the almost universal predominance of the ungodly spirit. This accordingly forms the ground of the divine procedure.

Genesis 6:6

And it repented the Lord - that he had made man. The Scripture is frank and unreserved; some people would say, imprudent or regardless of misconstruction, in its statements of truth. Repentance ascribed to the Lord seems to imply wavering or change of purpose in the Eternal Self-existent One. But the sublime dictate of the inspired word is, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken and shall he not make it good?” Numbers 23:19. In sooth, every act here recorded - the observation, the resolve, the exception - seems equally with the repentance to jar with the unchangeableness of God. To go to the root of the matter, every act of the divine will, of creative power, or of interference with the order of nature, seems at variance with inflexibility of purpose. But, in the first place, man has a finite mind and a limited sphere of observation, and therefore is not able to conceive or express thoughts or acts exactly as they are in God, but only as they are in himself. Secondly, God is a spirit, and therefore has the attributes of personality, freedom, and holiness; and the passage before us is designed to set forth these in all the reality of their action, and thereby to distinguish the freedom of the eternal mind from the fatalism of inert matter. Hence, thirdly, these statements represent real processes of the Divine Spirit, analogous at least to those of the human. And, lastly, to verify this representation, it is not necessary that we should be able to comprehend or construe to ourselves in all its practical detail that sublime harmony which subsists between the liberty and the immutability of God. That change of state which is essential to will, liberty, and activity, may be, for aught we know, and from what we know must be, in profound unison with the eternity of the divine purpose.

Genesis 6:7

I will wipe away man from the face of the soil. - The resolve is made to sweep away the existing race of man. Heretofore, individuals had departed this life. Adam himself had long since paid the debt of nature. These solemn testimonies to the universal doom had not made any salutary or lasting impression on the survivors. But now a general and violent destruction is to overtake the whole race - a standing monument of the divine wrath against sin, to all future generations of the only family saved.

From man to cattle, creeper and fowl of the sky. - These classes of animated nature being mingled up with man are involved in the same ruin with him. This is of a piece with the curse laid upon the serpent, which was the unconscious organ of the tempter. It is an instance of a law which runs through the whole course of nature, as we observe that it is the method of the divine government to allow for the time the suffering inflicted on an inferior animal, or even on a fellow-creature, by selfish passion. It has an appearance to some minds of harshness and unfairness. But we must remember that these animated creatures are not moral, and, therefore, the violent termination of their organic life is not a punishment; that the pain incidental to this, being apart from guilt, is in itself a beneficial provision for the conservation of life; and that it was not intended that the life of animals should be perpetual. The return of the land to a state of desolation by the destruction of animal and vegetable life, however, has its lesson for man, for whom ultimately all of this beauty and fertility were designed, and from whom it is now withdrawn, along with all the glories it foreshadows, as part of the punishment of his guilt. The tenant has become unworthy of the tabernacle, and accordingly he is dispossessed, and it is taken down and removed.

Genesis 6:8

And Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. - Noah and his family are the only exceptions to this sweeping destruction. Hitherto we have met with distant and indirect intimations of the divine favor, and significant deeds of regard and acceptance. Now for the first time grace itself finds a tongue to express its name. Grace has its fountain in the divine breast. The stream has been flowing forth to Adam, Eve, Habel, Henok, and others, we hope, unknown to fame. By the time it reaches Noah it has found a name, by which it is recognized among people to this day. It is opposed to works as a source of blessing. Whither grace comes there merit cannot be. Hence, we learn even from the case of Noah that original sin asserts its presence in the whole race of Adam. This completes the circle of saving doctrine in regard to God that comes down from the antediluvian times. He intimates that the seed of the woman, an individual pre-eminently so called, will bruise the serpent‘s head. He clothes our first parents with coats of skin - an earnest and an emblem of the better, the moral clothing of the soul. He regards Habel and his offering. He accepts him that in faith does well. He translates Enok, who walked with him. His Spirit, we learn, has been striving with antediluvian man. Here are the Spirit of God and the seed of the woman. Here are clothing, regarding, accepting, translating. Here, then, is salvation provided and applied, begun, continued, and completed. And last, though not least, grace comes out to view, the eternal fountain of the whole. On the part of man, also, we have repenting, believing, confessing, offering, calling on the name of the Lord, and walking with God.

The two parts of the document which is now closed are as distinct from each other as it is from the following one. They combine, in fact, to form the needful preliminary to the fourth document. The genealogy brings us to the leading agent in the succeeding narrative; the description of the corruption of the human race furnishes the occasion for his agency. The third is therefore the prologue, as the fifth is the epilogue, to the fourth document, in which the main action lies.

[Samie]

As quoted by phkrause from Barnes:

23 hours ago, phkrause said:

There are two stages of evil set forth in Genesis 6:1-4 - the one contained in the present four verses, and the other in the following. The former refers to the apostasy of the descendants of Sheth, and the cause and consequences of it. When man began to multiply, the separate families of Cain and Sheth would come into contact. The daughters of the stirring Cainites, distinguished by the graces of nature, the embellishments of art, and the charms of music and song, even though destitute of the loftier qualities of likemindedness with God, would attract attention and prompt to unholy alliances. The phrase “sons of God,” means an order of intelligent beings who “retain the purity of moral character” originally communicated, or subsequently restored, by their Creator. They are called the sons of God, because they have his spirit or disposition. The sons of God mentioned in Job 38:7, are an order of rational beings existing before the creation of man, and joining in the symphony of the universe, when the earth and all things were called into being. Then all were holy, for all are styled the sons of God. Such, however, are not meant in the present passage. For they were not created as a race, have no distinction of sex, and therefore no sexual desire; they “neither marry nor are given in marriage” Matthew 22:30. It is contrary to the law of nature for different species even on earth to cohabit in a carnal way; much more for those in the body, and those who have not a body of flesh. Moreover, we are here in the region of humanity, and not in the sphere of superhuman spirits; and the historian has not given the slightest intimation of the existence of spiritual beings different from man.

I can't see the biblical basis given for the statement I bolded in red.

Matt 22:30 EXPLICITLY characterizes the angels IN HEAVEN, not the ones on earth who sided with Satan's rebellion.  The claim that angels "were not created as a race, have no distinction of sex, and therefore no sexual desire" and most likely trying to portray that angels are NOT able to procreate and reproduce, is unfounded in Scriptures.

What does it mean to be created as a race?  Are animals a race they are able to procreate? Plants have no distinction of sex nor have sexual desire but are able to reproduce both sexually and asexually.  If these lower life forms have the capability to procreate and reproduce, how can we come to the conclusion that the angels are NOT able to either procreate or reproduce?  Is there any basis both in the written word and in nature of such angelic inability? 

To not marry or not given in marriage does not preclude one from having the ability to procreate or reproduce.

I don't think Moses who wrote Job and Genesis will use the same phrase "ben elohim" to refer to different groups.  If in his use of "ben elohim" in Job he was clearly referring to angels, why would his use of the same phrase in Genesis be taken as referring to humans? If he was able to use " bath Adam" (daughters of men) for the human females, why would he not use "ben Adam" (sons of men) if he was indeed referring to humans, as he in fact did in Gen 11:5?

 

[Gustave]

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 1:01 AM, Samie said:

If you can read this, then I have at last succeeded in starting a new thread!!!

I'll repost here what I have posted in another thread regarding this issue.

 

The traditional Adventist understanding is that the angels, archangels ( such as Lucifer and Michael who is understood to be pre-incarnate Christ ) & God the Father were and still are "flesh & blood hominids" complete with flesh, bone and "functional" organs. This would suggest that angels ( of any rank up to archangels ) would have bred human females who than produced 'giants' - AKA the Nephilim.

 

[Gustave]

An alleged account of a US Military unit in the Kandahar region of Afghanistan that was attacked by the creature is contained at the link below.

 

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=nephillim&&view=detail&mid=536315739C03A1513F3E536315739C03A1513F3E&FORM=VRDGAR

[8thdaypriest]

I no more believe the "great men" (or "giants") were the offspring of angel spirit beings through human women, than I believe pygmies are the offspring of fairies with humans.  The DNA of Adam and Eve allowed for a wide variation of size, color, and structural features, in their descendants. 

I believe the words "took wives of all they chose" could refer to the practice of taking more than one wife, which practice results in a breakdown of the nuclear family, jealousies, competition for attention or inheritance, and neglected, undisciplined children.  Polygamy (an abuse of women) results in the breakdown of society.   King Solomon's many wives and concubines, brought their pagan god's into the very heart of Jerusalem.

Noah's three sons each brought only one wife onto the ark.   

[Samie]

On 30/01/2017 at 4:28 AM, Samie said:

I don't think Moses who wrote Job and Genesis will use the same phrase "ben elohim" to refer to different groups.  If in his use of "ben elohim" in Job he was clearly referring to angels, why would his use of the same phrase in Genesis be taken as referring to humans? If he was able to use " bath Adam" (daughters of men) for the human females, why would he not use "ben Adam" (sons of men) if he was indeed referring to humans, as he in fact did in Gen 11:5?

Any one who wants to offer an explanation?

[Green Cochoa]

40 minutes ago, Samie said:

Any one who wants to offer an explanation?

They aren't "different groups."  They are one and the same.  "Sons of God" always refers to those who receive God and are obedient to His laws.  This group is inclusive of heavenly as well as human beings.  "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God . . ." (John 1:12).  Essentially, "sons of God" is synonymous with "saints."

[phkrause]

Here is a commentary of verse four by Rabbi Rashi:

The Nephilim: [They were called נְפִילִים because they fell (נָפְלוּ) and caused the world to fall (הִפִּילוּ) (Gen. Rabbah 26:7), and in the Hebrew language it means giants (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 22 and Targum Jonathan).		הנפלים: על שם שנפלו והפילו את העולם, ובלשון עברית לשון ענקים הוא:
in those days: in the days of the generation of Enosh and the children of Cain.		בימים ההם: בימי דור אנוש ובני קין:
and also afterward: Although they had seen the destruction of the generation of Enosh, when the ocean rose up and inundated a third of the world, the generation of the Flood did not humble themselves to learn from them. — [from Mechilta Yithro, Massechta Bachodesh 6; Sifrei Ekev 743]		וגם אחרי כן: אף על פי שראו באבדן של דור אנוש שעלה אוקיינוס והציף שליש העולם, לא נכנע דור המבול ללמוד מהם:
when…would come: They [the mothers] would bear giants like them [the fathers]. — [from Gen. Rabbah 26:7]		אשר יבאו: היו יולדות ענקים כמותם:
mighty men: to rebel against the Omnipresent. — [Yelammednu, Batei Midrashoth, p. 148]		הגבורים: למרוד במקום:
the men of renown: Heb. אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם Those who were called by name: Irad, Mechujael, Methushael, who were so named because of their destruction, for they were wiped out (מְחוּיָאֵל from נִמּוֹחוּ) and uprooted; (מְתוּשָׁאֵל from הֻתָּשׁוּ). Another explanation: men of desolation (שִׁמָּמוֹן), who made the world desolate. — [from Gen. Rabbah 26:7] Here is the way the Tanakh translates Genesis 6:1-4 (Obviously the english on the left and the Hebrew to the right.) It seems to me that the sons of the nobles, would be the sons of Seth and the daughters of man would be the daughters of Cain!!!!!

1And it came to pass when man commenced to multiply upon the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them.		אוַיְהִי כִּי הֵחֵל הָאָדָם לָרֹב עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה וּבָנוֹת יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם:
2That the sons of the nobles saw the daughters of man when they were beautifying themselves, and they took for themselves wives from whomever they chose.		בוַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ:
3And the Lord said, "Let My spirit not quarrel forever concerning man, because he is also flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."		גוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה לֹא יָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם בְּשַׁגָּם הוּא בָשָׂר וְהָיוּ יָמָיו מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה:
4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of the nobles would come to the daughters of man, and they would bear for them; they are the mighty men, who were of old, the men of renown.		דהַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְגַם אַחֲרֵי כֵן אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם:

[Kevin H]

There are good arguments for both sides of the issue and I'm open to either possibility. However when it comes down to us today, the issue is intermarriage whether it was between believers and unbelievers or believers and falling angels. If they were the falling angels they have over the centuries become too selfish to engage in these marriages in our day, so our focus in on the marriage between believers and unbelievers.

[Samie]

14 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

They aren't "different groups."  They are one and the same.  "Sons of God" always refers to those who receive God and are obedient to His laws.  This group is inclusive of heavenly as well as human beings.  "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God . . ." (John 1:12).  Essentially, "sons of God" is synonymous with "saints."

Can the "sons of God" who shouted for joy when earth's foundation was being laid, possibly refer to human beings? 

I don't think so.  Adam was not yet created that point in time.

If the "sons of God" can refer to both angels and human beings, can you cite any biblical basis why "sons of God" cannot refer to angels in Gen 6:2 - 4?

[Samie]

14 hours ago, phkrause said:

It seems to me that the sons of the nobles, would be the sons of Seth and the daughters of man would be the daughters of Cain!!!!!

I am interested to know your basis in Scriptures. Can you tell me, please?

[Green Cochoa]

4 hours ago, Samie said:

Can the "sons of God" who shouted for joy when earth's foundation was being laid, possibly refer to human beings? 

I don't think so.  Adam was not yet created that point in time.

On this we agree.

 

4 hours ago, Samie said:

If the "sons of God" can refer to both angels and human beings, can you cite any biblical basis why "sons of God" cannot refer to angels in Gen 6:2 - 4?

Certainly.  Jesus told the people plainly that angels do not marry nor are given in marriage when He said we will be like them in heaven.

Quote

Matthew

22:23    The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,  
 22:24    Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.  
 22:25    Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:  
 22:26    Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.  
 22:27    And last of all the woman died also.  
 22:28    Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.  
 22:29    Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.  
 22:30    For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 

For some additional relevant context, remember that Jesus spoke of the condition of things before the Flood as well:

Quote

For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, (Matthew 24:38, KJV)

Who was "they" in Jesus' reference here?  Keep reading.  Whomever "they" were, they were all taken away by the Flood.  Neither angels nor demons perished in the Flood, so Jesus clearly referred to people.

Mrs. White also interprets Jesus' plain words as I do, for she says:

Quote

     There are men today who express their belief that there will be marriages and births in the new earth, but those who believe the Scriptures cannot accept such doctrines. The doctrine that children will be born in the new earth is not a part of the "sure word of prophecy." The words of Christ are too plain to be misunderstood. They should forever settle the question of marriages and births in the new earth. Neither those who shall be raised from the dead, nor those who shall be translated without seeing death, will marry or be given in marriage. They will be as the angels of God, members of the royal family.  {FLB 366.2}  
     I would say to those who hold views contrary to this plain declaration of Christ: Upon such matters silence is eloquence. It is presumption to indulge in suppositions and theories regarding matters that God has not made known to us in His Word. We need not enter into speculation regarding our future state. . . .  {FLB 366.3} 

 

[8thdaypriest]

20 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

They aren't "different groups."  They are one and the same.  "Sons of God" always refers to those who receive God and are obedient to His laws.  This group is inclusive of heavenly as well as human beings.  "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God . . ." (John 1:12).  Essentially, "sons of God" is synonymous with "saints."

And by this definition, the "sons of God" would not defy God to breed with human women.  Even IF spirit beings did this (and I don't believe it) they would NOT have been "sons of God".  They would have been "sons of" their father the Devil. 

[Samie]

1 hour ago, Green Cochoa said:

 22:30    For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 

I have already addressed Matt 22:30 before in the quote below:

On 28/01/2017 at 5:15 PM, Samie said:

But why do I believe that the angels in Gen 6:1-4 are evil?  It is because of the simple reason based on the words of Christ that angels in heaven do not marry.

Matthew 22:30   ³⁰ For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

 

Mark 12:25   ²⁵ For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

 

For me, it is highly possible, that the angels of Gen 6:1-4, being on earth instead of in heaven, are those who sided and were cast down to earth with Satan. Hence, evil angels. What more, their intermarrying with humans simply showed that indeed they are evil, because angels are not supposed to marry, as what I understand from the words of our Lord.

 

The observation that angels do not marry because they have no sexual capability has no support of Scriptures.  Most eunuchs don’t marry, but that doesn’t mean they are not capable of procreating. Potiphar, Joseph’s master in Egypt, was a eunuch, but he had a wife. See Gen 39: 7, 19, 20.

 

1 hour ago, Green Cochoa said:

1 hour ago, Green Cochoa said:

For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, (Matthew 24:38, KJV)

Who was "they" in Jesus' reference here?  Keep reading.  Whomever "they" were, they were all taken away by the Flood.  Neither angels nor demons perished in the Flood, so Jesus clearly referred to people.

To be taken away by the Flood, does not necessarily mean perishing in the Flood.  But they will in the lake of fire (Matt 25:41).

[Green Cochoa]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

And by this definition, the "sons of God" would not defy God to breed with human women.  Even IF spirit beings did this (and I don't believe it) they would NOT have been "sons of God".  They would have been "sons of" their father the Devil. 

This answers well the misconception that Samie posits regarding the demons being the "sons of God."  It is clear from the Bible that they were not so titled.  And, we agree, neither demons nor angels could physically reproduce with humans.  They don't even do so with angels!

 

5 hours ago, Samie said:

To be taken away by the Flood, does not necessarily mean perishing in the Flood.  But they will in the lake of fire (Matt 25:41).

Then what would it mean?  If the demons were here before the Flood, and they were here during and after it, to where did the Flood take them?  Obviously, no matter how you look at it, the demons were not "taken" by the Flood any more than Noah and his family were.

[Samie]

 

10 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

And by this definition, the "sons of God" would not defy God to breed with human women.  Even IF spirit beings did this (and I don't believe it) they would NOT have been "sons of God".  They would have been "sons of" their father the Devil. 

Scriptures say all have sinned, therefore, all defied God.  Are you saying all are "sons" of the Devil?

[Samie]

10 hours ago, Samie said:

To be taken away by the Flood, does not necessarily mean perishing in the Flood.  But they will in the lake of fire (Matt 25:41).

4 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Then what would it mean?  If the demons were here before the Flood, and they were here during and after it, to where did the Flood take them?  Obviously, no matter how you look at it, the demons were not "taken" by the Flood any more than Noah and his family were.

 

I suggest we dig into Scriptures a wee-bit deeper.  Here's another occurrence of the Greek ai;rw airo translated "taken away" in Matt 24:39:

KJV Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

You see instead of used in relation to perishing, it is used in the opposite sense.  Here's another:

Matthew 11:29   Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Matthew 16:24   Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

To be "taken away" by the Flood could also mean to be "raised up" by the Flood or "elevated up" by the Flood.

[Kevin H]

11 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

And by this definition, the "sons of God" would not defy God to breed with human women.  Even IF spirit beings did this (and I don't believe it) they would NOT have been "sons of God".  They would have been "sons of" their father the Devil. 

But we have to remember that truth, even in the Bible is progressive. The original understanding was that YAHWEH was the most high God, the king of the gods and the sons of god were the other gods who were below him. Later it was developed that he was not only the king of the gods but their creator and their life depended on their faithfulness to him. Then by Isaiah we get to pure monotheism where Yahweh is no longer just the King of the gods but that he is the ONLY God, and from this the sons of the gods became the false gods of the other nations, finally after contact with the Persians, the understanding was that the sons of the gods did not exist that they were angels some faithful to God and others in rebellion.

[Green Cochoa]

2 hours ago, Samie said:

 

Scriptures say all have sinned, therefore, all defied God.  Are you saying all are "sons" of the Devil?

Isn't that why we are "adopted" by God?  But once adopted, we are His sons.  (See Romans 9.)

 

2 hours ago, Samie said:

I suggest we dig into Scriptures a wee-bit deeper.  Here's another occurrence of the Greek ai;rw airo translated "taken away" in Matt 24:39:

KJV Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

You see instead of used in relation to perishing, it is used in the opposite sense.  Here's another:

Matthew 11:29   Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Matthew 16:24   Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

To be "taken away" by the Flood could also mean to be "raised up" by the Flood or "elevated up" by the Flood.

Samie,

With all due respect, you know not with whom you are arguing.  I am no stranger to this word "take."  Without even looking it up, I can tell you from memory that it was indeed used when Satan "took" Jesus up to the temple mount.  It was used when a man "took" a wife.  It was used when translated as "receive" in John 14:1-3 where Jesus promises to "take" His children home.  The word "paralambano" in the Greek is neutral, and can be used either negatively or positively.  You, on the other hand, have not studied the Greek in Matthew 24 thoroughly, for if you had, you would have discovered that the word "paralambano" is not the Greek word used where it says the flood "took them all away."  That is actually a different word.  Nevertheless, since you were speaking of multiple instances of "paralambano," let's look at that one a bit deeper.

"Paralambano" is used in contradistinction to "aphiemi," translated as "left" in the Matthew 24 passage.  We are either "taken" or "left."  I want to be "left."  The word "aphiemi" is translated as "forgive" about a third of the time it is used in the New Testament.  The "left" are the forgiven ones.  The "taken" are those taken in by the deceits of the devil.  Therefore, in Matthew 24, the usage of "paralambano" is clearly a negative usage.