Genesis 6

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Hebrews 1:5 KJV
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

In other words, "Where does the Bible ever call an angel God's Son?" The implied answer being "Nowhere."

Conclusion: Angels are nowhere in the Bible called Sons (of God). Therefore the sons of God in Scripture are not angels.

Genesis 6:1-2 KJV
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.

By the way, the issue wasn't fornication or cross species interbreeding. The issue was MARRIAGE.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Angels don't procreate. Matthew 22:30. Marriage in the Bible is not a ceremony, but a joining of man and woman. Jesus refutes the whole Fallen angel creating cannibalistic giants of 1st Enoch.

There is more going on in the discourse of Christ in Matthew 22:30.

The context is the Sadducean disavowal of the Resurrection:

Matthew 22:22-30 (ESV),

23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.”

29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Note what the Lord says as the culmination of His response:

In the resurrection...

Just what occurs "in the resurrection"? The clearest teaching on what happens in the resurrection for the faithful Christian believer is found in 1 Corinthians 15:42-45:

1 Corinthians 15:42-55 (ESV),

[quote[42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”[/quote]

In summation, in the resurrection, the faithful Christian believer shall be raised into a completely different form, one that is spiritual. This resurrection form is immortal, able to live eternally (See 2 Corinthians 5:1). In Adam, we became living beings, but in the Last Adam, we, like Christ, become living spirits.

And in such a way, we become "like the angels", vis a vis Matthew 22:30:

Hebrews 1:13-14 (ESV),

13 And to which of the angels has he ever said,

“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?

Angels are, first and foremost, spirits, which is what we will become, too. This being the case, there is no biological need for procreation, because in the resurrection, all who have partaken of it, become immortal eternal beings. We will no longer be "in Adam", and so, the command to be fruitful and multiple, will be abrogated.

Further, note the qualification the Lord placed on the angels in His doctrine:

He states the resurrected believer is like "the angels in heaven.

In heaven, that is, in the purely spiritual domain, there is no physical, embodied state. But look what happens with angels in the Scriptures when they become embodied on earth:

They become and are called and acknowledge themselves as human men.

One clear example:

Judges 13:2-11 (ESV),

2 There was a certain man of Zorah, of the tribe of the Danites, whose name was Manoah. And his wife was barren and had no children. 3 And the angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her, “Behold, you are barren and have not borne children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. 4 Therefore be careful and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, 5 for behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines.” 6 Then the woman came and told her husband, “A man of God came to me, and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. I did not ask him where he was from, and he did not tell me his name, 7 but he said to me, ‘Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. So then drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.’”

8 Then Manoah prayed to the Lord and said, “O Lord, please let the man of God whom you sent come again to us and teach us what we are to do with the child who will be born.” 9 And God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the angel of God came again to the woman as she sat in the field. But Manoah her husband was not with her. 10 So the woman ran quickly and told her husband, “Behold, the man who came to me the other day has appeared to me.” 11 And Manoah arose and went after his wife and came to the man and said to him, “Are you the man who spoke to this woman?” And he said, “I am.”

Note the key points:

- This story is about the Angel of the LORD.
- The text calls the Angel of the LORD a "man of God" two times (vs.6, 8).
- Manoah's wife states "Behold, the man who came to me... (v. 10).
- After the Angel of the LORD appears the second time, this time waiting for Manoah, Manoah asks him "Are you the man..." and the Angel affirms to Manoah "I am."

The Hebrew text is unambiguous. The Hebrew term for man in all these verses is אִישׁ - ish, and means a "man", that is, a human male.

See: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/376.htm

There are several other examples in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Covenant, whether of the Angel of the LORD, or of some other angel, in which, ON EARTH, the angel appears as a human male, and is so called by the authors of the text, and in the dialogue of the people who interact with the angel.

What does this mean?

On earth, angels have in many ways, at many times, appeared as human males, capable of walking, talking, standing, eating, breathing, exerting force and energy, and etc. The Scriptures do not give the upper limits of just what an angel is capable of once manifested in a bodily, human male form.

At best then, the statement made by Christ in Matthew 22:30 is ambiguous, or at least, not a prooftext either for or against anything written in 1 Enoch.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Hebrews 1:5 KJV
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

In other words, "Where does the Bible ever call an angel God's Son?" The implied answer being "Nowhere."

Conclusion: Angels are nowhere in the Bible called Sons (of God). Therefore the sons of God in Scripture are not angels.

Exactly so. Thank you for proving my point. The Sons of God ARE NOT angels. They are an entirely different class of spirit beings (See my response to Amanah here, and the taxonomy therein).

Genesis 6:1-2 KJV
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.

By the way, the issue wasn't fornication or cross species interbreeding. The issue was MARRIAGE.

That is the clear, that is, explicit point of the text. But the implicit point of the text is what accompanies marriage. The main point of God instituting marriage in Genesis, is so that the man and woman would no longer be two, but one flesh. The purpose of the oneness of flesh between Adam and Eve was to generate offspring (Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:18-25).

Further, note the text in Jude:

Jude 1:7 (ESV),

7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

The ESV phrasing "unnatural desire", or "strange flesh" in the KJV, comes from the Greek σαρκὸς ἑτέρας - sarkos heteras, from the Greek word for flesh, and "another", that is, of "a different kind".

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/jude/1-7.htm
See: https://biblehub.com/greek/2087.htm

The men of Sodom sought to "know" the men, that is, the two angels who originally accompanied the Angel of the LORD when God came down to speak with Abraham and Sarah about conceiving Isaac (See Genesis 18).

This is a clear sexual reference. The men of Sodom desired sexual relations with a "different kind" of flesh. That is, they somehow knew these "men" were embodied angels (or at least, more than just normal humans like they were) and, apparently, wanted whatever benefits or boons they believed their miscegenated relations with them would grant them.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Exactly so. Thank you for proving my point. The Sons of God ARE NOT angels. They are an entirely different class of spirit beings (See my response to Amanah here, and the taxonomy therein).



That is the clear, that is, explicit point of the text. But the implicit point of the text is what accompanies marriage. The main point of God instituting marriage in Genesis, is so that the man and woman would no longer be two, but one flesh. The purpose of the oneness of flesh between Adam and Eve was to generate offspring (Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:18-25).

Further, note the text in Jude:

Jude 1:7 (ESV),



The ESV phrasing "unnatural desire", or "strange flesh" in the KJV, comes from the Greek σαρκὸς ἑτέρας - sarkos heteras, from the Greek word for flesh, and "another", that is, of "a different kind".

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/jude/1-7.htm
See: https://biblehub.com/greek/2087.htm

The men of Sodom sought to "know" the men, that is, the two angels who originally accompanied the Angel of the LORD when God came down to speak with Abraham and Sarah about conceiving Isaac (See Genesis 18).

This is a clear sexual reference. The men of Sodom desired sexual relations with a "different kind" of flesh. That is, they somehow knew these "men" were embodied angels (or at least, more than just normal humans like they were) and, apparently, wanted whatever benefits or boons they believed their miscegenated relations with them would grant them.

Where does the Bible distinguish angels from another, non-human, class of beings called "sons of God"?

Re: the men of Sodom - there is no reason whatsoever to believe they knew the visitors were angelic beings. Sodomy is not miscegenation. Miscegenation is prohibited sexual relations between two distinct ethnic groups resulting in mixed-ethnic offspring. Gay "relations" are a separate issue because they are not reproduction which requires two complementary GENDERS.

The idea of heavenly beings lusting after human women and cohabiting with them is a common trope in pagan mythologies. And in Jewish mythologies. I think you are interpreting the Bible through the lens of mythology, rather than the other way around. Myths and legends are not the clear light by which we are to understand dark and obscure Biblical narratives. That approach is irrational for a Christian.

In Scripture, "sons of God" refer to humans - in fact, a specific class of humans, those in Covenant with Jehovah God. There is NO PASSAGE in which sons of God are CLEARLY non human. It is eisegesis to read "non human" into the Genesis account. Eisegesis imported from pagan mythology. Nobody would read Gen 6 and conclude the sons of God are divine or semidivine nonhuman entities UNLESS they had a preconceived idea that THAT is what is going on.

So where does the idea originate from? Clearly not the Bible. Ergo...? The idea is pagan mythology.

Notes: I am sure someone will bring up Job. But before they do, let's consider the fact that Job is Wisdom literature and NOT historical narrative, that nowhere does the Book of Job identify who or what the sons of God are, and therefore the Book of Job cannot be used as a proof one way or the other.

Also, I am sure someone will mention a certain Psalm. Which I would love to discuss if/when it comes up.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Exactly so. Thank you for proving my point. The Sons of God ARE NOT angels. They are an entirely different class of spirit beings (See my response to Amanah here, and the taxonomy therein).



That is the clear, that is, explicit point of the text. But the implicit point of the text is what accompanies marriage. The main point of God instituting marriage in Genesis, is so that the man and woman would no longer be two, but one flesh. The purpose of the oneness of flesh between Adam and Eve was to generate offspring (Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:18-25).

Further, note the text in Jude:

Jude 1:7 (ESV),



The ESV phrasing "unnatural desire", or "strange flesh" in the KJV, comes from the Greek σαρκὸς ἑτέρας - sarkos heteras, from the Greek word for flesh, and "another", that is, of "a different kind".

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/jude/1-7.htm
See: https://biblehub.com/greek/2087.htm

The men of Sodom sought to "know" the men, that is, the two angels who originally accompanied the Angel of the LORD when God came down to speak with Abraham and Sarah about conceiving Isaac (See Genesis 18).

This is a clear sexual reference. The men of Sodom desired sexual relations with a "different kind" of flesh. That is, they somehow knew these "men" were embodied angels (or at least, more than just normal humans like they were) and, apparently, wanted whatever benefits or boons they believed their miscegenated relations with them would grant them.

The individuals in S&G wanting to SA the angels doesn’t prove Genesis 6:2 is speaking of angelic beings procreating with mortal females and giving birth to enormous offspring. It’s Jewish mythology to say different flesh was angels having sexual relations with humans.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The individuals in S&G wanting to SA the angels doesn’t prove Genesis 6:2 is speaking of angelic beings procreating with mortal females and giving birth to enormous offspring. It’s Jewish mythology to say different flesh was angels having sexual relations with humans.

The argument is used mostly by people trying to acquit the Sodomites of sodomy. They argue "strange flesh" means "flesh of a different kind" which (they say) is the opposite of HOMOsexuality, so therefore they wanted relations with non-humans.

But the Scripture shows they wanted "the men", they thought they were men not demigods. Also the NT points out it was the surrounding cities as well, showing the going after strange flesh was a recurring local custom not a one off event sparked by an angelic visitation to one house in one town on one night.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Where does the Bible distinguish angels from another, non-human, class of beings called "sons of God"?

Re: the men of Sodom - there is no reason whatsoever to believe they knew the visitors were angelic beings. Sodomy is not miscegenation. Miscegenation is prohibited sexual relations between two distinct ethnic groups resulting in mixed-ethnic offspring. Gay "relations" are a separate issue because they are not reproduction which requires two complementary GENDERS.

The idea of heavenly beings lusting after human women and cohabiting with them is a common trope in pagan mythologies. And in Jewish mythologies. I think you are interpreting the Bible through the lens of mythology, rather than the other way around. Myths and legends are not the clear light by which we are to understand dark and obscure Biblical narratives. That approach is irrational for a Christian.

In Scripture, "sons of God" refer to humans - in fact, a specific class of humans, those in Covenant with Jehovah God. There is NO PASSAGE in which sons of God are CLEARLY non human. It is eisegesis to read "non human" into the Genesis account. Eisegesis imported from pagan mythology. Nobody would read Gen 6 and conclude the sons of God are divine or semidivine nonhuman entities UNLESS they had a preconceived idea that THAT is what is going on.

So where does the idea originate from? Clearly not the Bible. Ergo...? The idea is pagan mythology.

Notes: I am sure someone will bring up Job. But before they do, let's consider the fact that Job is Wisdom literature and NOT historical narrative, that nowhere does the Book of Job identify who or what the sons of God are, and therefore the Book of Job cannot be used as a proof one way or the other.

Also, I am sure someone will mention a certain Psalm. Which I would love to discuss if/when it comes up.

Interesting. I have accepted, not every reference to "son's of God," refer to supernatural entities (angels) but are you saying "son's of God," are always referring to humans?
I am curious...

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Bowas

Interesting. I have accepted, not every reference to "son's of God," refer to supernatural entities (angels) but are you saying "son's of God," are always referring to humans?
I am curious...

I believe this is an important discussion point with job and psalms 82 being questionable.

[coksiw]

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

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


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

[Daniel 3:25 KJV] 25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God [Bar Ela; Aramaic].


There are other places where the idea is used to describe a relationship, like the relationship between God and David described as a father-son relationship, or that of God and Adam, but in the O.T. that expression is used exclusively for angelic beings.

Then, it comes the Christ, where God actually uses those term on him on Psalms 2, for example. So, when the O.T. reader reads that, it is like "Wow, who is this man who God calls Son like that?"

[Luke 1:32, 35 KJV] 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: ... 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.


I know it may sound shocking to many, but there is no doubt in my opinion what it is.

Regarding the case of Gen 6 being mere men, when was a group of men prohibited from marrying other daughters of men? The text gives no doubt of what's going on, and the sense that it was a problem, and that the "daughter of men" phrase is presented as a contrast to "sons of God", and the point of contrast is obviously of "kind" when the phrase "of men" and "of God" is used, not in a "spiritual" sense.

From the literary standpoint, I see no room to think otherwise. From the theological standpoint, some have a hard time reconciling it with other phrases like Jesus speaking about marriage and angels. I think the explanation that it was rebelious angels leaving their place and role and trying to mingle with men and doing pseudo-miracles is more plausible and in line with the text than the alternative that fights against the text, and presents new theological challenges that are harder to reconcile.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

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

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


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

[Daniel 3:25 KJV] 25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God [Bar Ela; Aramaic].


There are other places where the idea is used to describe a relationship, like the relationship between God and David described as a father-son relationship, or that of God and Adam, but in the O.T. that expression is used exclusively for angelic beings.

This is incorrect:

Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:


Isaiah 43:1 But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.
43:2 When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.
43:3 For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.
43:4 Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.
43:5 Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west;
43:6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth;

Isaiah 45:11 Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.

Jeremiah 31:9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

2 Samuel 7:11 And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

There are other similar passages in the Old Testament where God specifically identifies HUMANS as His sons. The concept of the "sons of God" in the Old Testament is that of God's covenanted people. As i said before, there is NO PASSAGE where "sons of God" is used definitively and identifiably with angels or any other superhuman beings.

Genesis is historical narrative, but it is the "First Book of the LAW". In another thread ---> https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...hlight=Genesis <--- I explained the purpose of Genesis, that of providing the historical background and basis for the Covenant at Sinai and the commandments, statutes, judgements, and ordinances of God. Quoting from that discussion: "Genesis provides a back story that culminates in the Exodus. Not merely a bare historical narrative, but it establishes the Covenantal (and thus the "legal") basis for the Sinaitic Covenant. In other words, the Sinaitic Covenant is shown to be a fulfillment of the Covenantal obligations between Abraham and God, established in Genesis. So that Genesis is to the rest of the Law what the Magna Charta, English Common Law, and colonial Declaration of Independence are to the Constitution and federal and state law. Genesis provides the legal foundation upon which the Sinaitic Covenant rests."

With that in mind, we can understand the use of the phraseology of "the sons of God" in Genesis. In Exodus, and throughout the Old Testament, God declares that His people are His sons. So then in Genesis the "sons of God" should be understood to mean the people of God at that time. Throughout Genesis we see a contrast being the righteous and the heathen and unrighteous - between Cain and Abel, between the sons of Seth and the sons of Cain, between Noah and practically everyone else in his day, between Abram/Abraham and the others, between Isaac and Ishmael, between Jacob/Israel and Esau, between the Israelites and the Egyptians, Edomites, and Canaanites, etc.

Reading Genesis alone one would NEVER get the idea that the "sons of God" are superhuman entities, angels, or demigods. Reading Genesis in conjunction with the rest of the Law ("torah", or "instruction") we would get the message that God's people are considered as His sons/children, whereas the rest were considered merely "men". For example:

Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

So, again, the concept of the sons of God is throughout the Bible, both old and new testaments, the concept of the covenanted people of God:

Hosea 1:10 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.

Then, it comes the Christ, where God actually uses those term on him on Psalms 2, for example. So, when the O.T. reader reads that, it is like "Wow, who is this man who God calls Son like that?"

[Luke 1:32, 35 KJV] 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: ... 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Christ being the Son of God has two layers of meaning. Actually three.

1. As the heir of David, He is called the Son of God - see above re: 2 Samuel 7:14.

2. As the archetype of Israel, He is God's Son:
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. - see the application to Christ at Matthew 2:15.

3. As the only-begotten of God - Luke 1:32-35. We could even posit a 4th layer, where Christ is the Second Adam, and where Adam is the "son of God" per Luke 3:38. Adam was created by a direct act of God, just as Christ's human existence came about by the direct act of God.

Regarding Psalm 2:

Psalm 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

This is generally understood as having an initial reference to David as the anointed of Jehovah to reign as king in Zion. As applied to Christ, the concept of Sonship expressed here is not limited to miraculous generation, for it is "this day" that the king is begotten, that is, when he is ordained to be king by Jehovah. Both concepts - the miraculous generation of Messiah, and the divine decree of royal installation by Jehovah - that are in view in this Psalm.

In any event, Christ is Son of God not because He is a superhuman divine being, but because He is a HUMAN BEING created by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin, as well as being the heir of David and the archetypal Israel. Which again points to the fact that the concept of son/sons of God is not some special divine demigod category of beings, but of HUMANS in a special relationship with God.

Regarding the case of Gen 6 being mere men, when was a group of men prohibited from marrying other daughters of men?

Besides the fact that the intermarriages were "prohibited" is an assumption, and not directly stated in the text - or any Scriptural text, for that matter, the real issue is that God's people were never supposed to just intermarry willy-nilly outside of the covenantal relationship with God. One of the major issues in Israel's history, one which is warned against repeatedly in the Law, and which was expressly prohibited in the Law, and which was a recurring SIN throughout the Old Testament history of Israel, denounced by prophet after prophet, was the issue of intermarrying with the heathen. So there should be no surprise that the same issue is addressed in the opening chapters of Genesis. Especially considering that later in Genesis we see Isaac being prohibited from marrying a local heathen girl, and Jacob likewise, and Esau being a grief to his mother because he did just that. It's a recurring theme in Genesis, and illustrated the fact that God's people are not just one group of people among the others, but are a special group, His personal family, His personal household, called to be distinct ("peculiar") and separate from the heathen who refuse to serve the true God.

The text gives no doubt of what's going on, and the sense that it was a problem, and that the "daughter of men" phrase is presented as a contrast to "sons of God", and the point of contrast is obviously of "kind" when the phrase "of men" and "of God" is used, not in a "spiritual" sense.

Yes, the two "kinds" are the two peoples - God's, and the heathen. If you take "kind" to mean physical taxonomy (what is often today called "species"), then you have a problem, because the two kinds intermarry and reproduce quite abundantly, whereas God established a law of nature that kind produces like kind - thus, dogs do not interbreed with lizards or fish or birds, etc. So, even using the distinction of "kind", one would have to conclude these are two "kinds" of HUMANS, and not two totally distinct classes of life forms (like dog vs eagle).

From the literary standpoint, I see no room to think otherwise.

Hopefully, you now have plenty of literary reasons to think otherwise. :)