Angels reproducing with humans possible? - Page 74

shazeep · #**731** 04-21-2015, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I think it simply means man was so sinful and God would not tolerate any more. So he gave 120 years for the flood to come first. They crossed the line.

funny that that occurs right directly in the middle of sons of God going in to daughters of men tho...

mfblume · #**732** 04-21-2015, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

funny that that occurs right directly in the middle of sons of God going in to daughters of men tho...

Yep. Backsliding of even Seth's line til none were righteous but Noah.

mfblume · #**733** 04-21-2015, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, aren't supposed to, granted. thus, "left their first estate," perhaps, or even possibly never consummated as we understand it, but gene manipulated, which i am finding more and more probable. It is only recently, in the last 75 years or so, that we have begun manipulating genes again. "As in the days of Noah."

Sorry, but the Twilight Zone theme song gets louder to me as we continue. lol

shazeep · #**734** 04-22-2015, 07:30 AM

well, it's just a theory; but one i find compelling, as we have steles depicting half-men and giants from around the same period. And it might be said that we live in the twilight zone, lol--that is all a matter of what one is used to, i think. There's a Scripture somewhere--i forget the passage--that says people will be "speechless" ("rendered mute" is the phrase that comes to mind) when confronted with reality. At least i think the context is the same...

shazeep · #**735** 04-22-2015, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Yep. Backsliding of even Seth's line til none were righteous but Noah.

hmm. you posit Seth's line as shining examples of perfected humanity, when Adam had just given the kingdom away. I don't see that Seth had any sliding back to do! But i also see where you are coming from; one generation removed from Adam, the "purest" genes; but i'm finding the passage pretty clear, in its delineation of who the "men" are. Granted, this leaves fallen angels being called "sons of God," which is weird, but God meant "I created evil" in some context, so...

Sean · #**736** 04-22-2015, 08:16 AM

Shazeep, you still must think about the giants in the land centuries after the flood.

Just think about it.

Did they escape the flood?

Did they come from Noahs' descendants?

Make the call coach, make the call!

shazeep · #**737** 04-22-2015, 08:21 AM

well, the text says "in those days, and afterward," which could denote "before the flood, and after." The Flood obviously did not remove evil, or satan's dominion, but appears to have been more to mitigate its influence over men, who had gotten so comfortable with it. Apparently even one of Noah's sons...Shem? was a bad guy.

Sean · #**738** 04-22-2015, 08:32 AM

Make the call coach!

mfblume · #**739** 04-22-2015, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

hmm. you posit Seth's line as shining examples of perfected humanity, when Adam had just given the kingdom away. I don't see that Seth had any sliding back to do! But i also see where you are coming from; one generation removed from Adam, the "purest" genes; but i'm finding the passage pretty clear, in its delineation of who the "men" are. Granted, this leaves fallen angels being called "sons of God," which is weird, but God meant "I created evil" in some context, so...

Seth's line was not perfect, which is exactly my point in saying they're the sons of God in Genesis 6 who went to ungodly alliances. Cain's line separated due to his banishment, Eve got another son in place of Abel. Abel was the godly one who offered a more excellent sacrifice. The devil knocked him out of commission, so God set up Seth instead. What a wondrous picture of being alive only due to the death and act of sacrifice of another who was a shepherd!

Then when Seth had a boy named Enos, "mortal man" by definition, men began to call on the name of the Lord, or called themselves by the name of the Lord. We mentioned that.

Imagine Seth knowing he was alive due to Abel's death. He would continue the godly line when Abel's was cut off before it had a chance. Then he calls his son "mortal man". No wonder they called on God.

Abel stands for Christ. He dies due to sacrifice. And Seth rises in his place. Al gospel message in there.

So, yes, Seth's line stands for God's people. And they learned to call on God while Cain's line learned to ranch, entertain, build. Quite a difference. But when you don't have God you have to use your ingenuity to replace Him by something, for the heart cries out for Him.

But even Seth's line became corrupt as mankind spread over the world and Cain's line converged with Seth's. Hence Genesis 6:1. None were righteous but Noah.

The angel concept is too huge a deal, if it's true, for us to have vague notes about it with gaping holes of information.

So, it's talking about mankind alone. Again, my thoughts.

Lafon · #**740** 04-22-2015, 10:24 AM

In every living thing that God created and placed upon the earth He caused a "seed" to be placed, so that when that "seed" was implanted into its proper place it would reproduce after its own kind.

Angels were not created with such a "seed," so its beyond the realm of possibility that an angel could have a sexual relation with a human female and realize the birth of a giant as a consequence.

This is about the most "far-fetched" thread I've ever read on AFF!