Sons of God not tagged as Supernatural Beings???

I was trying to use the Angels, Demons, and Deities data in the Bible browser and search window to find all the occurrences of the sons of God and noticed that although they've been tagged with <Person The Sons of God>, they haven't been tagged with the "Supernatural Being" label yet.

Is this something Logos plans on updating in the future? Seems like a pretty obvious oversight.

And forgive me if this question has already been asked and answered but the search function kept giving me an error no matter what I typed in.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Liam Maguire

Is this something Logos plans on updating in the future

What passage(s), please?

MJ. Smith

they haven't been tagged with the "Supernatural Being" label yet.

Is it general scholarly consensus that they are supernatural beings or is Heiser in a minority?

The Flanary's

I'm going to guess it has something to do with differing views of this passage. While I want to avoid the specifics, many have claimed the passage in Genesis is referring to the descendants of Cain intermarrying with the descendants of Seth.
Like I said, not getting into it, just know it is a theory that is floated in some circles and may well explain them not being tagged

DMB

I'm going to guess it has something to do with differing views of this passage.

Personally, I agree with Kiyah, simply from a search perspective (letting the user sort it out).

But Deuteronomy offers the classic where the MT is 'sons of Israel' vs LXX 'sons of God'. Hmmm ... who was first?

Ben

I'm going to guess it has something to do with differing views of this passage.

Indeed. I'm not arguing either position here, but recognizing the history of interpretation.

After an almost total departure from identifying the sons of God as supernatural in favor of various human identifications, there has been a widespread return among critical scholars to a supernatural identification. There is a difference, however, between these beginning and ending points. Initially interpreters did not balk at a mythological interpretation of the Bible because it coincided with their own worldview. Today interpreters do not balk at a mythological interpretation of biblical passages because they believe Israel’s worldview was little different from its neighbors. In the intervening period interpreters neither had a mythological worldview themselves, nor did they believe that the Bible represented such a worldview. Lacking correlation to either world, they rejected the identification.

J. H. Walton, “Sons of God, Daughters of Man,” ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 795.

MJ. Smith

simply from a search perspective (letting the user sort it out).

Faithlife has a consistent history of downplaying ambiguity, or coding only one alternative although, if you question them on it, there is often an obscure way to find alternative views.

Myke Harbuck

I would say it’s related to the ambiguity of the passage. I myself have held all 4 major views on this passage at varying times. So depending on when I might have saw the tagging, tagging this phase as deity might have either confused me, or perhaps added to my ego. 😂

David Ames

Luk_3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. KJV

Luke tells us that Adam was the son of God. Do we consider Adam as a "Supernatural Being" ?

DMB

Faithlife has a consistent history of downplaying ambiguity, or coding only one alternative although, if you question them on it, there is often an obscure way to find alternative views.

So true. I've been exploring my CAD (akkadian dictionary) and that 'greyness' is very amenable to analysis. I'm wondering if one could paint a multi-varient semantic mapping.

Kiyah

I'm going to guess it has something to do with differing views of this passage.

There is more than one passage that uses the phrase "sons of God", not just the infamous Gen 6:1-4 passage (which definitely is disputed in terms of interpretation). I guess I'm wondering if all passages that contain the phrase are equally ambiguous and thus in dispute? Looking at the passages that come up in a <Person The Sons of God (Old Testament)> search, I would say no. For example, do people actually argue that the sons of God that the satan appears among in Job 1:6 and 2:1 are not supernatural beings? As a matter of fact, all the references in Job seem to refer to supernatural beings (e.g. Job 38:7).

I know that Psalm 82 is also debated. However, as someone else said, why not just tag the passages that scholars would agree at least plausibly could be supernatural beings and let the user decide. They seem to have done just that for the <Person The Sons of God (Old Testament)> tag. Not all of those results are passages that actually contain the words "sons of God" in Hebrew (e.g. Job 5:1, 15:15, which both say "holy ones" in Hebrew).

Just include the Supernatural Being tags for those of us that do hold to a supernatural view, so that we can easily find them all along with the rest of the supernatural beings and not have to do a separate search.

The Flanary's

There is more than one passage that uses the phrase "sons of God", not just the infamous Gen 6:1-4 passage (which definitely is disputed in terms of interpretation). I guess I'm wondering if all passages that contain the phrase are equally ambiguous and thus in dispute? Looking at the passages that come up in a <Person The Sons of God (Old Testament)> search, I would say no. For example, do people actually argue that the sons of God that the satan appears among in Job 1:6 and 2:1 are not supernatural beings? As a matter of fact, all the references in Job seem to refer to supernatural beings (e.g. Job 38:7).

I know that Psalm 82 is also debated. However, as someone else said, why not just tag the passages that scholars would agree at least plausibly could be supernatural beings and let the user decide. They seem to have done just that for the <Person The Sons of God (Old Testament)> tag. Not all of those results are passages that actually contain the words "sons of God" in Hebrew (e.g. Job 5:1, 15:15, which both say "holy ones" in Hebrew).

Just include the Supernatural Being tags for those of us that do hold to a supernatural view, so that we can easily find them all along with the rest of the supernatural beings and not have to do a separate search.

Agreed it shows up in many places, but usually when the issue is raised, it is the Genesis passage, so I was assuming somewhat.
I suspect FL would be answering a "Why" either way they go unless they tagged it both ways, accompanied by a "subjective" tag (or similar). I'm still pretty new to Logos (WS refugee) so if they have something like that I haven't came across it yet.

David Ames

For example, do people actually argue that the sons of God that the satan appears among in Job 1:6 and 2:1 are not supernatural beings? As a matter of fact, all the references in Job seem to refer to supernatural beings (e.g. Job 38:7).

Some teach that these "sons of God" are the Adams of other worlds that did not fall for satan's trap. And as the Adam of this world gave up his "ownership" of this world to satan satan just took what should have been our Adam's seat at that council.

Veli Voipio

For example, do people actually argue that the sons of God that the satan appears among in Job 1:6 and 2:1 are not supernatural beings? As a matter of fact, all the references in Job seem to refer to supernatural beings (e.g. Job 38:7).

Some teach that these "sons of God" are the Adams of other worlds that did not fall for satan's trap. And as the Adam of this world gave up his "ownership" of this world to satan satan just took what should have been our Adam's seat at that council.

We have not run out of alternatives. My speculative view (definitely a minority) is that Genesis is the story of the origins of the Adam's tribe, Adam and Eve being just ordinary persons among ordinary people. Thus I just think that "sons of god" is just a neighboring tribe, both in Genesis (stealing women) and Job (doing sorcery). Therefore I suggest that in the future the users could have their own tagging to add.

Phil Gons (Logos)

Here's a passage list that may be useful: Divine Sons of God.

David Ames

[[Stumbled across this on in our Friday night bible study]]

Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

So we can become supernatural beings???

Kiyah

Here's a passage list that may be useful: Divine Sons of God.

Thanks Phil. Just curious, is there any particular reason that you omitted Job 5:1 (holy ones), Job 25:3 (heavenly hosts), Psalm 89:5, 7 (assembly/council of the holy ones)? These have the <Person The Sons of God (Old Testament)> tag and seem to fit with the categories in your passage list.

Also, is there a divine council/supernatural beings interactive tool in the works for Logos 9 perhaps??? [;)]

Phil Gons (Logos)

Just curious, is there any particular reason that you omitted Job 5:1 (holy ones), Job 25:3 (heavenly hosts), Psalm 89:5, 7 (assembly/council of the holy ones)? These have the <Person The Sons of God (Old Testament)> tag and seem to fit with the categories in your passage list.

No. Just an oversight. Added them. Thanks.

Kiyah

Just curious, is there any particular reason that you omitted Job 5:1 (holy ones), Job 25:3 (heavenly hosts), Psalm 89:5, 7 (assembly/council of the holy ones)? These have the <Person The Sons of God (Old Testament)> tag and seem to fit with the categories in your passage list.

No. Just an oversight. Added them. Thanks.

FYI, I also added Dan 4:13, 17, 23 to my list (watcher/holy one), as well as 2 Chr 18:18 which is the parallel of 1 Kg 22:19.