Ephesians 3:9 (KJV)
⁹ And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Nonetheless, there are those who choose to change the meaning of the Hebrew “ishsha” (H802) in Genesis 6:2 from the KJV rendering “wives” to that of “women,” in order to make the text appear less contradictory to their hybrid Nephilim theory.

Meanwhile, with respect to the Sons of God in Job 1:6 and 2:1, please note the Scriptural examples below as to who the “Sons of God” actually were who appeared before the LORD.

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

Job 2:1 (KJV)
¹ Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Exodus 23:17 (KJV)
¹⁷ All thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD.

Exodus 34:23 (KJV)
²³ All your men children shall appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.

Exodus 34:24 (KJV)
²⁴ Thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.

Deuteronomy 16:16 (KJV)
¹⁶ All thy males shall appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose.

Deuteronomy 31:11 (KJV)
¹¹ All Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose.

1 Samuel 1:22 (KJV)
²² That he may appear before the LORD, and there abide for ever.

Many Bible students and scholars incorrectly assume that Job 1:6 and 2:1 must refer to created angels solely because Satan appears among those presenting themselves before the LORD. One such scholarly claim is stated as follows:

Since this verse mentions “the sons of God” as assembled before the Lord during human history, obviously enough these have to be angels, not human beings.

However, there is little scholarly consensus as to when the Book of Job was written or when Job himself lived. Suggestions range from the era of Moses, to Solomon, to much later periods — all without definitive proof.

Therefore, any argument dependent upon the dating of Job remains speculative and cannot be used to redefine clear Scriptural terminology.

Genesis 46:13 (KJV)
¹³ And the sons of Issachar; Tola, and Phuvah, and Job, and Shimron.

The Book of Job is highly poetic and filled with figurative language. This must be considered when interpreting passages such as Job 38:7.

Psalms 148:3 (KJV)
³ Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.

Scripture elsewhere uses similar figurative language:

Judges 5:19–20 (KJV)
²⁰ They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.

The term “Sons of God” implies a covenant relationship with God, which Scripture applies to mortal men — not to created angels, who are ministering spirits.

Hebrews 1:7 (KJV)
⁷ Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

Romans 8:14 (KJV)
¹⁴ They are the sons of God.

Any claim that angels are the Sons of God is an inference, not a Scriptural statement.

There are absolutely NO Scriptures in either the Masoretic Text or the Textus Receptus that directly define created angels as the Sons of God.

However, as many have correctly noted, there are several Scriptures that directly and unequivocally declare God’s people as the Sons of God. For example:

Hosea 1:10 (KJV)
¹⁰ Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, 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.

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

Therefore, reader, please kindly tell me which has the greater theological credibility — a personally held IMO or Scriptural FACT?

Thus, briefly returning to the Job argument — there are those who suggest as proof that Job 38:7 is the exact same “Sons of God” phrase as Gen. 6:2 & 4; Job 1:6 and 2:1 — bene ha'elohim, and therefore it must equally be a reference to created angels. It is NOT.

In Job 38:7 the Hebrew definite article “Ha” is missing from the bene ha'elohim phrase. Therefore, the argument of absolute phrasal consistency fails.

To this end, the “Sons of God” is NOT simply a phrase with only one singular and specific meaning (i.e., angels) as many theologians insist, but is rather comprised of two independent Hebrew words with distinct meanings.

Hence, bēn (H1121) and Elohim (H430).

Meanwhile, the exact same Hebrew word “bēn” (H1121), translated as “sons” in Job 38:7, is translated elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible with the following alternate meanings:

It is translated in the KJV as: Young (15x); First (13x); Breed (1x); Nephews (1x); Men (6x); Mighty (1x); Appointed (3x); Common (1x); and Old (1x).

“Young”: Lev. 1:14; 12:8; 14:22, 30; 15:14, 29; Num. 6:10; 28:11, 19, 27; 29:2, 8, 13, 17; Jer. 31:12

“First”: Lev. 9:3; 23:19; Num. 7:87–88; 28:3, 9; 29:17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 36

“Breed”: Deut. 32:14

“Nephews”: Judges 12:14

“Men”: 1 Chr. 26:30, 32; 2 Chr. 26:17; 28:6; Ps. 62:9; Ezek. 27:11

“Mighty”: Ps. 29:1

“Appointed”: Ps. 79:11; 102:20; Prov. 31:8

“Common”: Jer. 26:23

“Old”: Micah 6:6

Furthermore, according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, bēn (H1121) carries meanings including lineage, condition, quality, appointment, people-group, and even the plural pronoun “them of.”

Thus, since Job 38:7 exists entirely within figurative and poetic context, and the definite article HA is missing, there is no grammatical requirement that bēn must be translated as “sons.”

Therefore, alternative renderings of Job 38:7 are equally grammatically acceptable within the Hebrew language.

Meanwhile, as stated many times before, there are absolutely NO clear Scriptures whatsoever in the Hebrew Bible that ever directly define or call the “Sons of God” created angels.

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

Thus, the singing morning stars would be created entities (literal or figurative), and the substituting plural personal/demonstrative pronouns THEM / THOSE / THESE would refer directly to their antecedent — the singing morning stars.

Therefore, the consequence of such a grammatically acceptable translation of Job 38:7 is that there would remain no mention whatsoever of the traditional rendering of the “Sons of God” in this passage. The “sons” simply disappear and become “…them of / those of / these of God…”.

It must also be noted that Jesus Himself revealed that “traditional” methodology and approach may not always be the best (Matt. 15:3).

For those who insist upon the notion that the “Sons of God” are created angels and wish to cry foul over the above Job 38:7 translation, please be reminded that you yourselves alter the traditional translation of the Hebrew word ishshah in Genesis 6:2 from “wives” to “women.”

This deliberate change avoids the considerable theological difficulty of asserting that fallen angels complied with God’s ordained institution of marriage and married the daughters of men whom they allegedly impregnated.

In response to such an argument, I am reminded of a grocery store I once visited. Above a literal hand grenade hung a sign that read: “For customer complaints, please pull pin.”

Meanwhile, if we insist that the poetic language of Job 38 is literal (i.e., sons of God = angels), then we must also accept that all surrounding creation imagery in Job 38 is literal as well.

That would require literal stars singing and literal sons shouting. One cannot selectively literalize without further Scriptural evidence.

“A foundation fastened, a cornerstone laid, morning stars singing, seas needing doors, clouds as garments, darkness as swaddling bands, dayspring knowing its place, gates of death opening, treasures of snow and hail, ice from a womb…”

Can anyone who was not present be absolutely assured that Job 38:7 is not figurative, prophetic (cf. Eph. 1:4; Luke 7:50), or simply in the mind of God at creation — but instead strictly literal?

Would the interpretation of angels in Job 38:7 then be based on Scriptural FACT or merely personal theological inference?

Furthermore, those who insist that the “Sons of God” in Job 38:7 are angels must also concede that these would be righteous angels. This then eliminates the theory of fallen angels impregnating women, producing hybrid Nephilim (cf. Luke 20:35–36).

The Hebrew word ben (H1121), translated as “sons” in Job 38:7, does not include “angel” among its meanings. Therefore, the only way to sustain the angelic view is to present additional Scriptures explicitly calling angels God’s sons. There are NONE.

Thus, which has greater theological credibility — Scriptural INFERENCE or Scriptural FACT?

In summary, unless one can produce a clear Scripture defining angels as God’s sons, the claim that Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 refer to angels remains a personally INFERRED opinion with little credibility when weighed against explicit passages calling God’s people the Sons of God.

Those who promote hybrid Nephilim theories frequently cite Jude 1:5–7. However, careful contextual analysis reveals four distinct warning examples, not causal parallels.

Each example highlights rebellion and divine judgment, not identical sins.

Jude 1:7 (KJV)
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, with them, giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The phrase “cities about them in like manner” grammatically refers to Sodom and Gomorrha, not to angels. Thus, it was surrounding cities that likewise committed fornication.

Therefore, Jude 1:6–7 share only one direct commonality: divine judgment — not identical sin.

Illustration:
Johnny threw the ball and broke Jane’s window.
Tommy and his friends did likewise and broke Jane’s window.
Different actions — same consequence.

Likewise, the only comparable element in Jude 1:6–7 is judgment. All other causal details are contextually unequal.

Moreover, with respect to the Textus Receptus Bible books of 1^st and 2^nd Peter, if those who support the notion that 1 Peter 3:19–20 and 2 Peter 2:4 actually refer to the Sons of God cannot present clear and direct Scriptural evidence (without inference) from the Hebrew Bible (MT) or the Textus Receptus (TR) that explicitly calls created angels the Sons of God, then it is virtually impossible to establish a valid and creditable link between the fallen angels of 1st and 2nd Peter and the Sons of God respective of Genesis 6:2 and 6:4. Thus, their theory of hybrid angel/human Nephilim fails.

Meanwhile, respective of the NT and those who suggest that Luke 20:36 reveals created angels are equal to the Sons of God, I submit the following argument.

To this end, they define the Sons of God as those who are equal to the angels and likewise equal to the redeemed mentioned in Luke 20:35–36.

Luke 20:35–36 (KJV)
³⁵ But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
³⁶ Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

These individuals are equal with the angels and therefore must meet the same qualifications in order to be called the Children/Sons of God.

1. They must be worthy to obtain that world.
2. They neither marry nor are given in marriage.

There are no Scriptures in the entire Bible that directly define a created angel as God's Son. These qualifications must be met for any being to be called the Son of God.

Matthew 22:30 (KJV)
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 (KJV)
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.

Therefore, it is impossible to suggest that the Sons of God in Genesis 6:2 were righteous angels marrying women. Angels that are equal to the redeemed cannot marry or be given in marriage.

There is no Biblical declaration calling fallen angels the Sons of God.

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

Sons of God are consistently identified in Scripture as God's people—not created angels.

Genesis 6:2 (KJV)
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.

Genesis 6 refers to the spiritual people of God intermingling with fleshly, ungodly people. This pattern of interfaith compromise always results in decay.

2 Corinthians 6:14 (KJV)
¹⁴ Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.

In summary, Scripture never directly or unambiguously calls created angels the Sons of God.

Please cite any Scripture that directly states created angels are the Sons of God.

I humbly invite all sincere questions and respectful comments.