Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[mfblume]

I think context before chapter 6 tells us who the sons of God are. It's just normal writing manners with any literature. Antecedental issues must be considered. And Sethites started calling themselves by the name of God.

[thephnxman]

"... then began men to CALL UPON the name of the LORD..."

God had named Adam, then He brought the animals to Adam to be named. Adam also named
Eve. Adam's son, Seth, finally understood this and figured that it must be God's will for
everything to have a name and be named: so it stood to reason that God must also have
a NAME...and Seth and his generation began to INVOKE (ask for, invite, desire to know)
God's NAME.

For many generations, until Moses, God's NAME remained concealed, hidden: and men desired
to know it. Only to Moses was the NAME first revealed!

"...if my people, over whom my NAME is invoked..."

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What do you mean? Can you elaborate?

Nimrod was a king who declared that he was a "son" of the god, Shamash. That would make him fit the bill as a "son of God" in their world.

even to Moses, who wrote this down? Seems weird that he would consider Seth's "ha Adam," and Cain's "sons of God," even if they considered themselves that. One would think he would use "sons of the serpent" or something. This would mean that Moses is going along with the pagan definitions, and does not consider them all "ha Adam," it seems. Strangely, this makes more sense than Seth's being "sons of God," tho, i guess. Seems like a lot of contortions to avoid fallen angels manipulating the gene pool somehow, which we see evident right before us today.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I think context before chapter 6 tells us who the sons of God are. It's just normal writing manners with any literature. Antecedental issues must be considered. And Sethites started calling themselves by the name of God.

so there we have it--the three theories of the commentaries.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by shazeep

even to Moses, who wrote this down? Seems weird that he would consider Seth's "ha Adam," and Cain's "sons of God," even if they considered themselves that. One would think he would use "sons of the serpent" or something. This would mean that Moses is going along with the pagan definitions, and does not consider them all "ha Adam," it seems. Strangely, this makes more sense than Seth's being "sons of God," tho, i guess. Seems like a lot of contortions to avoid fallen angels manipulating the gene pool somehow, which we see evident right before us today.

By the time of Moses, most was oral tradition passed down from Noah. Perhaps Moses only used the terms previously used.

Imagine living prior to the flood. You're working outside of your home and men ride up on horses. The speaker of the group hails you, "You sir! The King, Jarrodd, the Son of God, desires to take your daughters to wife. Fetch them hither, else we will search for them ourselves!"

If all these kings and rulers defined themselves as the "son of God", it would simply become common vernacular. They were the "sons of God".

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

so there we have it--the three theories of the commentaries.

I just confirmed my thoughts with commentaries.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Aquila

By the time of Moses, most was oral tradition passed down from Noah. Perhaps Moses only used the terms previously used.

Imagine living prior to the flood. You're working outside of your home and men ride up on horses. The speaker of the group hails you, "You sir! The King, Jarrodd, the Son of God, desires to take your daughters to wife. Fetch them hither, else we will search for them ourselves!"

If all these kings and rulers defined themselves as the "son of God", it would simply become common vernacular. They were the "sons of God".

Makes sense to me!

[shazeep]

yup.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I just confirmed my thoughts with commentaries.

well, it seems that none of us could be proven wrong...except Darwin, in y'alls versions, imo; if the giants were literal. So, assuming they were figurative--which i see as quite possible, since we still use the term 'giants' that way today--what about the references to literal giants? "We were as grasshoppers to them." Goliath. Horses just do not come from bunnies, iow. Where do you guys imagine this dna coming from? Also, Jude would seem to be invalidated with either of your versions? Also, many Egyptian steles must be considered fanciful now, rather than factual; tho i have less problem with that personally.

[shazeep]

the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
And there was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number, and he also was descended from the giants.