Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The angels took on flesh and then took women.

What do you have to substantiate this thought? It sounds a bit bizarre to me.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

What do you have to substantiate this thought? It sounds a bit bizarre to me.

6And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude verses 6-7

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

6And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude verses 6-7

This makes more sense to me.

(2Pe 2:4.)
kept not their first estate — Vulgate translates, “their own principality,” which the fact of angels being elsewhere called “principalities,” favors: “their own” implies that, instead of being content with the dignity once for all assigned to them under the Son of God, they aspired higher. Alford thinks the narrative in Gen 6:2 is alluded to, not the fall of the devil and his angels, as he thinks “giving themselves over to fornication” (Jud 1:7) proves; compare Greek, “in like manner to these,” namely, to the angels (Jud 1:6). It seems to me more natural to take “sons of God” (Gen 6:2) of the Sethites, than of angels, who, as “spirits,” do not seem capable of carnal connection.

The parallel, 2Pe 2:4, plainly refers to the fall of the apostate angels. And “in like manner to these,” Jud 1:7, refers to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, “the cities about them” sinning “in like manner” as “they” did [Estius and Calvin]. Even if Greek “these,” Jud 1:7, refer to the angels, the sense of “in like manner as these” will be, not that the angels carnally fornicated with the daughters of men, but that their ambition, whereby their affections went away from God and they fell, is in God’s view a sin of like kind spiritually as Sodom’s going away from God’s order of nature after strange flesh; the sin of the apostate angels after their kind is analogous to that of the human Sodomites after their kind. Compare the somewhat similar spiritual connection of whoremongers and covetousness. - JFB

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by shag

I do not believe angels has sex with humans. Is it possible? I don't believe it is. Giants were there previous to sons of God reproducing w the daughters of men, seems to me.

Show me

Does sons of God "mixing" w the daughters of men not simply mean that God's people were mixing with people that were not followers of God?

Would they really be God's people if they mixed with those who were not? Also the entire context is about wickedness spreading. How can righteous sons of God contributed to that?

Is it possible AT ALL, for angels to reproduce w humans?

I don't know, perhaps if they took on a physical form

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--
Jud 1:7 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.

[Lafon]

Romans 5:12 advises us that "Wherefore, as by ONE MAN sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death (was) passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

If it were true, as many have "assumed," that Moses' statement of Genesis 6:1-4 were intended to imply/infer that by his use of the phrase "THE SONS OF GOD" he was asserting, or even hinting that angels "took on flesh" (as MTD concludes), after which they had relations (sexual implied) with the daughters of men, then my first response would be "Why are we not witness to the "living" off-spring of such (alleged sexual encounters) present in the world today?"

Seeing that Genesis 6:4 explicitly states that as a (natural) consequence of the "sons of God" which "came in unto the daughters of men" (again, sexual encounters implied) "they bare children (as a result of such relations), and the writer of Romans explicitly states that the manner through which mankind "inherits" the judgment of death, i.e., it is "passed upon all men" as a consequence of the willful sin of Adam (inferred), then should it not also be inferred that the children which the noted daughters of men of olden times gave birth to, being angels (as alleged) who do not have the same sentence of death abiding upon them, then they, as the progenitor, i.e., father, could not begat children who would later die? Does not "seed" reproduce itself "after its own kind"?

It should also be easily recognized that the "assumed" angels could NOT be referring to fallen angels, for common logic should cause us to conclude that Moses, writing under the inspiration of the Spirit, would never have used the phrase "sons of God" to refer to fallen angels.

Has anyone seen any 6,000 year old giants walking anywhere? Such would certainly have to be the case, that is, if the phrase "sons of God" were referring to angels. Is there any, other than me, who recognizes the absolute absurdity in even suggesting that this phrase is referring to anyone other than the "sons of men," just as the women mentioned are called "daughters of men"?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Lafon

Romans 5:12 advises us that "Wherefore, as by ONE MAN sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death (was) passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

If it were true, as many have "assumed," that Moses' statement of Genesis 6:1-4 were intended to imply/infer that by his use of the phrase "THE SONS OF GOD" he was asserting, or even hinting that angels "took on flesh" (as MTD concludes), after which they had relations (sexual implied) with the daughters of men, then my first response would be "Why are we not witness to the "living" off-spring of such (alleged sexual encounters) present in the world today?"

My response
Who says we aren't witnesses to it?

Maybe they died off?

We have tall men today but none of them compares to Giants like Goliath

Goliath was nearly 9 feet tall! Where do we see 9 ft tall men that can move around easily on a battle field? Most men that are taller than 7 feet are very thin and the taller you get the more brittle they are.

If they are alive today maybe they look just like average humans

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Lafon

Romans 5:12 advises us that "Wherefore, as by ONE MAN sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death (was) passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

If it were true, as many have "assumed," that Moses' statement of Genesis 6:1-4 were intended to imply/infer that by his use of the phrase "THE SONS OF GOD" he was asserting, or even hinting that angels "took on flesh" (as MTD concludes), after which they had relations (sexual implied) with the daughters of men, then my first response would be "Why are we not witness to the "living" off-spring of such (alleged sexual encounters) present in the world today?"

Seeing that Genesis 6:4 explicitly states that as a (natural) consequence of the "sons of God" which "came in unto the daughters of men" (again, sexual encounters implied) "they bare children (as a result of such relations), and the writer of Romans explicitly states that the manner through which mankind "inherits" the judgment of death, i.e., it is "passed upon all men" as a consequence of the willful sin of Adam (inferred), then should it not also be inferred that the children which the noted daughters of men of olden times gave birth to, being angels (as alleged) who do not have the same sentence of death abiding upon them, then they, as the progenitor, i.e., father, could not begat children who would later die? Does not "seed" reproduce itself "after its own kind"?

It should also be easily recognized that the "assumed" angels could NOT be referring to fallen angels, for common logic should cause us to conclude that Moses, writing under the inspiration of the Spirit, would never have used the phrase "sons of God" to refer to fallen angels.

Has anyone seen any 6,000 year old giants walking anywhere? Such would certainly have to be the case, that is, if the phrase "sons of God" were referring to angels. Is there any, other than me, who recognizes the absolute absurdity in even suggesting that this phrase is referring to anyone other than the "sons of men," just as the women mentioned are called "daughters of men"?

Good point in bold!

[Michael The Disciple]

Where do you suppose all the stories about giants in the Earth came from? All the historical "gods" men worshipped?

If the angels did not fall to women who are those who left their first estate? If we say it was satans followers and we see that they are bound in chains of darkness does the devil work alone? Who are the demons?

BTW the giants were killed in the flood.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Where do you suppose all the stories about giants in the Earth came from? All the historical "gods" men worshipped?

If the angels did not fall to women who are those who left their first estate? If we say it was satans followers and we see that they are bound in chains of darkness does the devil work alone? Who are the demons?

BTW the giants were killed in the flood.

giants — The term in Hebrew implies not so much the idea of great stature as of reckless ferocity, impious and daring characters, who spread devastation and carnage far and wide. - JFB

H5303
נפל נפיל
nephı̂yl nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.

[Sean]

Absolutely not..Adam was a son of God and those were his backslid offspring. It was simply stating that they all left God and became a bunch of fornicators.


BTW...All humans were giants(we stop growing around 20, they stopped around 100 years old). Including Noah and his family. Where do you think the giants came from in Caanan?