Nowhere in scripture are the angels called sons of God.
6 Now there was a day when the angels of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. (LXX Job 1:6)
Well, now you're just making my argument for me - that the translators of the Septuagint
decided to translate ben 'elohiym
makes the matter pretty clear - since in Genesis 6 it's the same ben 'elohiym
that we read about as in Gen. 6, both in terms of what the Hebrew says and what the context and archaic interpretation dictates.
Also the angels did not fall because of lust for women, which is stupid even to imagine, first because their nature does not allow for such desires and then seeing the Glory of God who in his right mind will turn his gaze to anything else, except the prideful thought of placing one in the place of God, which was the reason of their fall.
I'd agree that later conventional angeology would make the idea hard to accept, but it seems pretty clear from early Christian writings (which include indesputable fathers
, like St.Justin Martyr
who I cited), and pre-Christian Jewish sources like the apocryphal Enochian
books that this was a pretty standard view at one time.
Btw the above is not my opinion but some of the points (excluding the DNA) which St. John Chrysostoms argues in his commentary in Genesis to overturn the "mythologies" and "blasphemous words" as he calls them concerning the "sons of God" being angels.
With all due respect to St.John, he's wrong for characterizing this as a "blasphemous view" - unless we are to take the likes of St.Justin Martyr, St.Irenaus, etc. as being "blasphemers".
PS. Daniel the prophet though righteous and holy almost fainted from fear when he saw an angel and you think that those women would have had the strenght not only to behold but also to engage in intercourse with those creatures? They would have died of fear!
...and Abraham and Tobit sat with angels, ate with them, etc. and didn't seem the slightest bit terrified (in fact, it's not even clear that they knew right away who their angelic guests in fact were.) ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š IOW, it would seem pretty clear that these creatures can assume forms which are deceptively benign.
I wouldn't trust that comparison.
Well, then read the citations that this website GreekIsChristian linked to provides - I don't think you have to trust anybody in this.
Many of those listed are not Church Fathers and then St. Augustine for example does not support the view that they were angels as they have him listed:
Ah yes, but there were those amongst those cited who definately were Church Fathers. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š What is also pretty clear, is that the "sons of Seth" interpretation is relatively late, and doesn't become the predominant view amongst Christians until well into the fourth century. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š IOW, it's hardly surprising that St.Augustine and other later writers (like St.John Chrysostom) supported the views that they did. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Why
this change in perspective occured is a matter of speculation - I'd suggest it had to do with the various angeologies which had become popular by that time, which included a definition of their materiality (or lack thereof) which did not allow for the scenario that Genesis 6 seems to be indicating (and which early Christian and Judaic works clearly understood as being a case of angels falling from grace due to lust.)