Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It is not the Hebrew understanding of the phrase. As the margin said, they called themselves by the name of the Lord.



The marginal notes with the KJV.

My KJV does not have marginal notes. None of my KJV have ever had marginal notes.

I found a list here and they don't include that one for some reason AND the bigger issue is it seems they are often included because those KJV scholars were not sure how to render it. That does not mean it can be rendered either way based on personal preference. It could simply mean those men were not as well verses in Hebrew as modern scholars are

Ok I found a copy online and there is no marginal notes for that verse

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti...agePosition=82

Only the 1611 has marginal notes. Other versions having marginal notes are added by the publishers not the KJV team

When Jesus said it cannot be possible with angels, and Cain's and Seth's line had been separated, and the text distinguishes men spreading over the earth, and nothing in the text said anything about angels as an antecedent to the term for angels, I think it is indeed too odd.

Again that is NOT what Jesus said...He did not say it's impossible for angels. You are reading your own interpretation into the text. Jesus said we will be LIKE the angels IN Heaven...

I cannot seriously read those words by Christ and imagine angels that fall can do different. Angels that fell or not, all CAME FROM heaven. And seriously it seems really bizarre to me to believe differently.

Once again that is a Strawman argument. Nobody said some angels can and some cant. What I AM saying is some angels DID and some angels did NOT.

There seems to be a huge HUGE communication issue here.

Jesus is specifically referencing angels IN heaven...currently IN heaven

Let me post it again

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

See? In heaven. The angels Jesus is speaking of are the ones IN Heaven.

That concept came from the Book of Enoch that is so nutty I cannot begin to describe it. These giants built Noah's ark? Caves in mountains where these giants hid?

I didn't say anything about building an ark or caves. We are discussing the bible. Let's keep the logical fallacies to a minimum

What has that got to do with anything, though? There is no direct statement in Gen 6 to connect the picture with Jude's words.

I was connecting it to YOUR words where you seemed to connect "fallen" with falling from righteousness...ie sinning and pointed out the angels in Jude sinned....they FELL. Or using your own argument, the angels are Fallen. So if that is true, that Nephilim means that then we can apply your argument, your definition of Nephilim, to these angels who sinned/Fell/are fallen

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

the assumption is they were daughters of Cain. Im assuming then it was a sin to marry them? I don't understand where the "fall" was to marry them.

It was always wrong for godly people to marry sinful people. But the fall wasn't the marrying. They fell before marrying which is why they married sinners.

[mfblume]

To say that Christ's words included "in heaven" so as if to distinguish unfallen angels from fallen ones is seriously a weak point. If angels had the ability to change themselves to be able to procreate, then whether they'r unfallen and not doing so, or fallen, Jesus would not have said there is no marriage.

The changing ability is simply absurd. If they had that ability then God was apparently robbing them of something they wanted.

No, the idea seems to be that the ability of angels is simply non-existent, whether to change themselves or not.

There's just too much assumption that must be made.

And, you know what? Who cares to begin with? lol

Genealogies.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

My bible seems to be saying their offspring where the Nephillim
BTW if they were no longer righteous and "fallen" speaks of sinning...how about the angels whom the bible calls "Sons of God"?
2Pe 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;
It does not say "Sons of God"..that is a peculiar term that just is not in the Hebrew text there. "Call on the name" is an idiom for prayer
And it calls them MEN
What translation are you referring to?
I recommend appealing to Hebrew linguists and not a commentary. No Translation I can find supports that notion. It sounds as if he is propping up his doctrinal view later expressed in the Sons of God being mere men, the decedents of Seth
Here is the NET bible translational notes
55 tn Heb "call in the name." The expression refers to worshiping the Lord through prayer and sacrifice (see Gen_12:8; Gen_13:4; Gen_21:33; Gen_26:25). See G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:116.
What is too wild and fantastic? Do you base your beliefs on what is too wild and fantastic to you?
Christ said we shall be like the angels IN HEAVEN...these Sons of God were not in heaven.
Jud 1:6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day--

We need to follow the thread and context of the scriptures in Gen. 4:26; Gen. 5:1-32; Gen. 11

This is the sequence:
Men (Seth and his generation) began to ask (invoke) the Lord God for his NAME.
Chapter 5 lists the names of men He deemed righteous , and their offspring:
God was making manifest the lineage of the Lord Jesus;
The Lord God makes a difference from those that are not His (the "daughters" of men); and those that are His, (the sons of God);
God is showing us that satan's plan is to corrupt God's seed (lineage);
Gen. 11:1-9 contrasts the descendants of men from those in Gen. 4:26!
Seth is seeking God's face; those men in Gen. 11 are seeking their own glory.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No Im saying that YOU made a distinction between Men (From Cain) and Seth (Sons of God) yet Seth and his decedents were also called Men.

Im also saying the term Sons of God is a term in the OT for Angels. It's not used conclusively for men until the NT

Sons of God is distinguished from men...Humans
Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were good. And they took wives for themselves from all whom they chose.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days. And also after that, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore to them, they were mighty men who existed of old, men of renown.

Sons of God are angels in the rest of the OT
Job 1:6 And a day came when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah. And Satan also came among them.
Job 1:7 And Jehovah said to Satan, From where do you come? Then Satan answered Jehovah and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Job 2:1 And it happened that a day came when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah. And Satan also came among them to present himself before Jehovah.

Job 38:7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Sons of God in the NT seems to be relatively NEW thing just as "Son of God" was fairly new and well known in Apocalyptic groups like the Essenes

"son of god" is an ancient eastern way to refer to divine beings

Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Behold! I see four men loose, walking in the middle of the fire, and there is no harm among them. And the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods.
Dan 3:28 Nebuchadnezzar spoke and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent His Angel and has delivered His servants who trusted in Him, and have changed the king's words and have given their bodies that they might not serve nor worship any god except their own God.

The term "Sons of God" referring to Humans is a NT designation

It's important to note that the term "sons of God" in the HEBREW texts isn't the same as what we find in the GREEK texts of the NT. So, we're talking apples and oranges.

[Aquila]

I don't remember anyone addressing one of my earlier posts:

Let's allow the Bible to interpret the Bible. Who are the "sons of God" in these passages?

Job 1:6
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
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.

Most would agree that these are angels.

Clearly, if the HEBREW phrase "bene ha-'elohim" is a term used to speak of angelic beings elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, and is never used in reference to human beings in said Scriptures, then we have to conclude that the same term "bene ha-'elohim" as found in Genesis 6 is indeed the same "bene ha-'elohim" mentioned elsewhere.

Wouldn't it be better to allow the Bible to challenge our faith and hold ourselves to believe the most literal and Scriptural meaning or description of an event than to try to "rationalize" it down to something we can wrap our brains around??? Is not the Bible a divinely inspired book that speaks of the supernatural and challenges us to accept what is beyond our rational human understanding?

Josephus, a champion historian for most Preterists, testifies that the interpretation in his day was that the "bene ha-'elohim" were fallen angels. If Josephus explains this... shouldn't we give it some serious consideration that others in this time would have believed the same thing as it would be the leading interpretation? And would this not answer the question regarding the event both Peter and Jude write about without explanation to their readers?

It should be noted that the phrase "bene ha-'elohim" is also used throughout extra-biblical literature in ancient Palestine to denote local pagan deities and spirits.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't remember anyone addressing one of my earlier posts:

Let's allow the Bible to interpret the Bible. Who are the "sons of God" in these passages?

Job 1:6
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
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.

Most would agree that these are angels.
Clearly, if the HEBREW phrase "bene ha-'elohim" is a term used to speak of angelic beings elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, and is never used in reference to human beings in said Scriptures, then we have to conclude that the same term "bene ha-'elohim" as found in Genesis 6 is indeed the same "bene ha-'elohim" mentioned elsewhere.
Wouldn't it be better to allow the Bible to challenge our faith and hold ourselves to believe the most literal and Scriptural meaning or description of an event than to try to "rationalize" it down to something we can wrap our brains around??? Is not the Bible a divinely inspired book that speaks of the supernatural and challenges us to accept what is beyond our rational human understanding?
Josephus, a champion historian for most Preterists, testifies that the interpretation in his day was that the "bene ha-'elohim" were fallen angels. If Josephus explains this... shouldn't we give it some serious consideration that others in this time would have believed the same thing as it would be the leading interpretation? And would this not answer the question regarding the event both Peter and Jude write about without explanation to their readers?

It should be noted that the phrase "bene ha-'elohim" is also used throughout extra-biblical literature in ancient Palestine to denote local pagan deities and spirits.

Listen, closely Beloved:
The Lord God spoke to Moses, saying, "...there shall no man see me and live...". Why? Because there was still something in Moses that kept him from attaining
the presence of God, and it also kept Moses from entering the Promise Land: he was only able to see it from a mount.

The Prophet Isaiah came to a place where he saw God's seraphims crying, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Hosts..."; and he thought he was about to die.
Why? Because he had entered into God's Holiness. It was Holiness that had cast out the angels from eternity, for their iniquity.

Understand this first: angels that "...had not kept their first estate...", are not allowed in God's presence. God is holy, and holiness surrounds God.
However, the angels that remained faithful are always in God's holiness, and therefore, in God's presence.

Job 1:6; 2:1__The "sons of God" did not go into the presence of God: they PRESENTED themselves to God; much like we do, when we pray! Then the scriptures assert,
"...and Satan came also among them...".

The "sons of God" that presented themselves to Him could not be the angels that had been cast out of eternity: they were men seeking God's face.

If the Lord gives you to understand that, the rest will be easy.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Listen, closely Beloved:
The Lord God spoke to Moses, saying, "...there shall no man see me and live...". Why? Because there was still something in Moses that kept him from attaining
the presence of God, and it also kept Moses from entering the Promise Land: he was only able to see it from a mount.

The Prophet Isaiah came to a place where he saw God's seraphims crying, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Hosts..."; and he thought he was about to die.
Why? Because he had entered into God's Holiness. It was Holiness that had cast out the angels from eternity, for their iniquity.

Understand this first: angels that "...had not kept their first estate...", are not allowed in God's presence. God is holy, and holiness surrounds God.
However, the angels that remained faithful are always in God's holiness, and therefore, in God's presence.

Job 1:6; 2:1__The "sons of God" did not go into the presence of God: they PRESENTED themselves to God; much like we do, when we pray! Then the scriptures assert,
"...and Satan came also among them...".

The "sons of God" that presented themselves to Him could not be the angels that had been cast out of eternity: they were men seeking God's face.

If the Lord gives you to understand that, the rest will be easy.

Your entire premise is based on an assumption that God cannot have or require audience with fallen angels. Satan was among these and Satan and God have a rather pointed discussion about Job. Remember, even Satan answers to the LORD. A Jewish understanding of Ha Satan and his role before the throne of Heaven might be helpful.

Yet you ignore the references of Josephus and extrabiblical literature, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, that define the "bene ha-'elohim" as fallen angels, pagan deities, or "demons" (I Corinthians 10:20).

[Aquila]

If the angels that left their first estate are the angels cast out of Heaven with Satan... their all bound in chains of darkness until judgment day... no need to cast them out of people or engage in spiritual warfare.

[Aquila]

What amazes me is that the Bible describes a God that creates the world in 6 days by His spoken Word. The Bible describes God creating woman from a rib. A global flood, miraculous plagues upon Egypt, the splitting of the Red Sea, miracle after miracle, the sun standing still, people being risen from the dead. Demon spirits being cast out. Miracle after miracle, supernatural event after supernatural event. Yet just following the natural reading of the language of Genesis 6, respecting ancient commentary on the text, and people get all full of doubt.

Ditch the spirit of doubt. Angels, even fallen angels, are capable of far more than we realize.