Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You are welcome to your opinion.

I wasn't trying to insult you. I apologize if I came across that way.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

OK let us put aside the Book of Enoch as unreliable.

Let us go straight to the Bible. the word of God.

Look at what it says about the time of creation, before there were any humans at all.

Job 38
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

at this point there are no humans, but the angels are called sons of God.
The words sons of God in the Old Testament are a clear reference to angels.

SOMETIMES angels are called sons of God, yes. I agree. But also, sons of God are people. And because Jesus said angels do not marry, then angels do not marry. Angels are asexual as far as procreative abilities are concerned. And to say that angels can CHANGE from what God created them in regards to their abilities to procreate with another "species" like human beings, is simply absurd to me.

Seth served God and his people called on the name of the Lord. Cain's lineage was God-rejecting. Gen 6:1 says men began to multiply on the face of the earth. That means Seth's line finally met Cain's line. Seth's lineage who called on the name of God were the SONS OF GOD, while Cain's line were not. Backsliding happened to such a degree that the WHOLE world became very wicked, including the vast majority of Seth's line except Noah. That makes far more exegetical sense and reasoning in my understanding.

[Father's Love]

Originally Posted by mfblume

SOMETIMES angels are called sons of God, yes. I agree. But also, sons of God are people. And because Jesus said angels do not marry, then angels do not marry. Angels are asexual as far as procreative abilities are concerned. And to say that angels can CHANGE from what God created them in regards to their abilities to procreate with another "species" like human beings, is simply absurd to me.

Seth served God and his people called on the name of the Lord. Cain's lineage was God-rejecting. Gen 6:1 says men began to multiply on the face of the earth. That means Seth's line finally met Cain's line. Seth's lineage who called on the name of God were the SONS OF GOD, while Cain's line were not. Backsliding happened to such a degree that the WHOLE world became very wicked, including the vast majority of Seth's line except Noah. That makes far more exegetical sense and reasoning in my understanding.

the Bible says "but are as the Angels of God in heaven" the "in heaven" part is what separates this issue.

That has nothing to do with the Angels of God that fell and were on the Earth. Those in heaven do not marry, those in earth...... Well I have believe they did based upon scripture.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

If you go back through this topic, you'll see the reasoning for why Sons of God refers to angels who sinned and left their former estate

I agree angels can be known as sons of God. But I cannot accept the concept that angels can marry after the fall when Jesus said they simply are not given in marriage. Again, it's too absurd and requiring of wild speculation.

BTW grammatically it appears you have two sequence of events

Man began to multiply and produce female offspring first
Gen 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,

THEN the Sons of God took the daughters
Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.

If you are correct then Seth and His male offspring waited until this time to have wives.

Not necessarily so. MEN were distinguished from SONS OF GOD later in Gen 6. My understanding views this to say the MEN were the unbelievers from Cain's lineage. The sons of God were Seth's lineage. It is simply saying, therefore, that time came when both formerly divided groups converged on one another due to sheer population growth, and the line of Seth saw women of Cain and chose to marry THEM AS WELL as those among Seth's line previous to this.

It's like Christians marrying sinners.

But clearly, before this time, they were already marrying women.

Yes. But not women from the line of Cain.

THEY were marrying women AND having children. Seth was a Man. The word for Man there is Adam. Adam was the first man. There is no biblical teaching of distinguishing between men and the Sons of God. as a special race of men.

When we speak in spiritual terms, sons of God and men CAN BE DISTINGUISHING believers from unbelievers.

Before I read opinions of others, I held this view. However, I later came to read works such as those of Adam Clarke who readily agreed with me. So, I quote Clarke to merely show the reasoning is solid in the minds of others, and not to prove my view as correct.

Genesis 6:1

When men began to multiply - It was not at this time that men began to multiply, but the inspired penman speaks now of a fact which had taken place long before. As there is a distinction made here between men and those called the sons of God, it is generally supposed that the immediate posterity of Cain and that of Seth are intended. The first were mere men, such as fallen nature may produce, degenerate sons of a degenerate father, governed by the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eye, and the pride of life. The others were sons of God, not angels, as some have dreamed, but such as were, according to our Lord’s doctrine, born again, born from above, Joh_3:3, Joh_3:5,Joh_3:6, etc., and made children of God by the influence of the Holy Spirit, Gal_5:6. The former were apostates from the true religion, the latter were those among whom it was preserved and cultivated. Dr. Wall supposes the first verses of this chapter should be paraphrased thus: “When men began to multiply on the earth, the chief men took wives of all the handsome poor women they chose. There were tyrants in the earth in those days; and also after the antediluvian days powerful men had unlawful connections with the inferior women, and the children which sprang from this illicit commerce were the renowned heroes of antiquity, of whom the heathens made their gods.”

Albert Barnes really expounded on this issue with my sort of reasoning.

- The Growth of Sin
3. דון dı̂yn “be down, strive, subdue, judge.” בשׁגם bāshagām “inasmuch, as also.” The rendering “in their error” requires the pointing בשׁגם beshāgām, and the plural form of the following pronoun. It is also unknown to the Septuagint.

4. נפילים nepı̂lı̂ym “assailants, fellers, men of violence, tyrants.”

Having traced the line of descent from Adam through Sheth, the seed of God, to Noah, the author proceeds to describe the general spread and growth of moral evil in the race of man, and the determination of the Lord to wipe it away from the face of the earth.
Gen_6:1-4

There are two stages of evil set forth in Gen_6:1-4 - the one contained in the present four verses, and the other in the following. The former refers to the apostasy of the descendants of Sheth, and the cause and consequences of it. When man began to multiply, the separate families of Cain and Sheth would come into contact. The daughters of the stirring Cainites, distinguished by the graces of nature, the embellishments of art, and the charms of music and song, even though destitute of the loftier qualities of likemindedness with God, would attract attention and prompt to unholy alliances. The phrase “sons of God,” means an order of intelligent beings who “retain the purity of moral character” originally communicated, or subsequently restored, by their Creator. They are called the sons of God, because they have his spirit or disposition. The sons of God mentioned in Job_38:7, are an order of rational beings existing before the creation of man, and joining in the symphony of the universe, when the earth and all things were called into being. Then all were holy, for all are styled the sons of God. Such, however, are not meant in the present passage. For they were not created as a race, have no distinction of sex, and therefore no sexual desire; they “neither marry nor are given in marriage” Mat_22:30. It is contrary to the law of nature for different species even on earth to cohabit in a carnal way; much more for those in the body, and those who have not a body of flesh. Moreover, we are here in the region of humanity, and not in the sphere of superhuman spirits; and the historian has not given the slightest intimation of the existence of spiritual beings different from man.

The sons of God, therefore, are those who are on the Lord’s side, who approach him with duly significant offerings, who call upon him by his proper name, and who walk with God in their daily conversation. The figurative use of the word “son” to denote a variety of relations incidental, and moral as well as natural, was not unfamiliar to the early speaker. Thus, Noah is called “the son of five hundred years” Gen_5:32. Abraham calls Eliezer בן־בותי ben-bēytı̂y, “son of my house” Gen_15:3. The dying Rachel names her son Ben-oni, “son of my sorrow,” while his father called him Benjamin, “son of thy right hand” Gen_35:18. An obvious parallel to the moral application is presented in the phrases “the seed of the woman” and “the seed of the serpent.” ]The word “generations” תולדות tôledot, Gen_5:1) exhibits a similar freedom and elasticity of meaning, being applied to the whole doings of a rational being, and even to the physical changes of the material world Gen_2:4. The occasion for the present designation is furnished in the remark of Eve on the birth of Sheth. God hath given me another seed instead of Habel. Her son Sheth she therefore regarded as the son of God. Accordingly, about the birth of his son Enosh, was begun the custom calling upon the name of the Lord, no doubt in the family circle of Adam, with whom Sheth continued to dwell. And Enok, the seventh from Adam in the same line, exhibited the first striking example of a true believer walking with God in all the intercourse of life. These descendants of Sheth, among whom were also Lamek who spoke of the Lord, and Noah who walked with God, are therefore by a natural transition called the sons of God, the godlike in a moral sense, being born of the Spirit, and walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit Psa_82:6; Hos_2:1.

continued...

[mfblume]

Why not draw that distinction in Chapter 4 where Seth has a child named Enosh "and then began men to call on the name of the LORD"?

All the way up to chapter 6 they are called "man" not "Sons of God"

Not true. As mentioned by Barnes, Eve said she got a SON INSTEAD OF ABEL FROM THE LORD. Hence, a SON FROM/OF God.

Gen 4:25 KJV And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Literal Hebrew reads as follows:

Gen 5:32 YLT And Noah is a son of five hundred years, and Noah begetteth Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Refer to the emboldened and underscored words in my quotation of Barnes.

Your view just does not make sense

Scholars seem to disagree, and voice their reasoning as I see it as well.

"son of god" or "son of a god" or "sons of God" were frequent terms in Semitic culture to refer to divine beings. See where Nebuchadnezzar refers to the angel that delivered the 3 hebrew children as "one like a son of the gods"

True, but not in every case. That is simply not a conclusive thought.

Gene 4 ends with men calling on the name of the Lord once Seth's son Enos was born. THE MARGIN READS "Then began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord". In other words, SONS OF GOD. So, from the time of Enos, people who followed God called themselves sons of God while others were simply children of men. The majority of Jewish scholars interpret it this way.

Here is some information to read up on


SONS OF GOD (OT) [Heb. benê (hā)ʾĕlōhîm, benê ʾēlîm]. Divine beings. Just as “sons of man” means human beings in Hebrew, so “sons of God” means divine beings, i.e., gods. In Canaanite religion and myth, the term “sons of God” or “sons of the gods” referred to the gods in general. They were the deities of the pantheon who convened to render decisions regarding the governance of the world. Ugaritic mythological texts, e.g., call this divine council “the assembly of the sons of God” (or “of ʾEl,” the chief god). The survival of this idea in Canaanite tradition is illustrated by a reference to “all the sons of the gods” in a Phoenician incantation of the 7th cent. B.C. found at Arslan Tash in northern Syria.

The same usage occurs, at least vestigially, in certain passages in the Hebrew Bible. Dt. 32:8 says that “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bound of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God” (so RSV, NEB; the MT erroneously has “sons of Israel” [benê yiśrāʾēl], but the versions [e.g., LXX, Symm, Old Latin] and a scroll from Qumrân support the reading “sons of God” [benê ʾēlîm]). In other words, the Most High assigned one of the peoples of the world to each of the divine beings in the council. As v 9 indicates, Yahweh’s portion was Israel. The original notion seems to have been that Yahweh, God of Israel, stood alongside the other national gods in a council presided over by the Most High. But those who included this old poem in Deuteronomy understood Yahweh and the Most High to be identical, as they are elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Ps. 83:18 [MT 19]), and the sons of God to be subordinate, angelic beings. Thus Yahweh distributed the other nations to His angels, keeping Israel for Himself (cf. Sir. 17:17).

The sons of God appear in other poetic passages, all of which have an archaic character. Job 38:7, e.g., identifies them with “the morning stars” and recalls that they shouted their acclamation at Yahweh’s creation of the earth. Ps. 29:1 calls upon the “sons of God” (Heb. benê ʾēlîm; RSV “heavenly beings”) to praise Yahweh. Ps. 82:1 describes Yahweh as rising “in the midst of the gods”—i.e., “in the divine council” (lit “council of ʾEl”)—to pass judgment on the other gods. Verses 6f say, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men.” Ps. 89:6 (MT 7) is an assertion of Yahweh’s incomparability: “Who among the heavenly beings [benê ʾēlîm] is like the Lord …” (cf. Ex. 15:11).

Again, the original intent of these passages may have been to present Yahweh as one deity (albeit the greatest and the only just deity) alongside others in the divine council. But the passages were preserved because they can be understood in the light of the general biblical idea of a council of subordinate divine beings (“messengers” or “angels”) ruled by Yahweh (on Ps. 82 see esp G. E. Wright, OT Against its Environment [SBT, 1/2; 1950], pp. 30–41).

The prologue to Job reflects this more usual biblical notion of subordinate divine beings. Job 1:6 and 2:1 refer to “a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord.” In this case the sons of God are angelic beings who carry out Yahweh’s will on earth and report to Him in His heavenly council. The relatively independent figure of “the adversary” (haśśāṭān, RSV “Satan”) in this context anticipates later developments in the Judeo-Christian tradition according to which SATAN or Lucifer and his fellow angels were viewed as having sufficient autonomy to rebel against God.


McCarter, P. K., Jr. (1979–1988). Sons of God (OT). In G. W. Bromiley (Ed.), . Vol. 4: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (G. W. Bromiley, Ed.) (584). Wm. B. Eerdmans.

I agree that is the case in some references, like that you mentioned by Neubchadnezzar. But the context of Seth and Cain, with Seth's line calling themselves people of God, added to the point in Gen 6:1 of men multiplying over the earth to see Seth converge upon Cain, with the absolute absence of any explanation in Genesis about a RACE OF FALLEN ANGELS changed to be able to procreate with human beings to set the explanation for their abrupt mention without reference in Genesis 6, cannot be reasoned to say it was fallen angels.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Father's Love

the Bible says "but are as the Angels of God in heaven" the "in heaven" part is what separates this issue.

That has nothing to do with the Angels of God that fell and were on the Earth. Those in heaven do not marry, those in earth...... Well I have believe they did based upon scripture.

I already noted that your idea demands that God created angels to not marry, but when they fell they changed their own qualities to be able to marry, and that demands far too much wild speculation to be acceptable, in my opinion. Again, angels and men can be said to be DIFFERENT SPECIES. It is too unreasonable and pure assumption to say angels can change to be able to procreate with human beings. Too fantastical, in the literal sense of pure FANTASY.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

SOMETIMES angels are called sons of God, yes. I agree. But also, sons of God are people. And because Jesus said angels do not marry, then angels do not marry. Angels are asexual as far as procreative abilities are concerned. And to say that angels can CHANGE from what God created them in regards to their abilities to procreate with another "species" like human beings, is simply absurd to me.

Seth served God and his people called on the name of the Lord. Cain's lineage was God-rejecting. Gen 6:1 says men began to multiply on the face of the earth. That means Seth's line finally met Cain's line. Seth's lineage who called on the name of God were the SONS OF GOD, while Cain's line were not. Backsliding happened to such a degree that the WHOLE world became very wicked, including the vast majority of Seth's line except Noah. That makes far more exegetical sense and reasoning in my understanding.

Very well laid out for the debate. Even though referencing your first post, they are all well done. I agree!!!

[Carl]

Excellent Brother Blume! Thanks for sharing your research.

[mfblume]

You are most welcome! Well, that's how I see it anyway, and I respect the views and conclusions of others.

[Michael The Disciple]

SOMETIMES angels are called sons of God, yes. I agree. But also, sons of God are people. And because Jesus said angels do not marry, then angels do not marry. Angels are asexual as far as procreative abilities are concerned. And to say that angels can CHANGE from what God created them in regards to their abilities to procreate with another "species" like human beings, is simply absurd to me.

But not to Jude who was well aware of what transpired.

Jude 1:6

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.

What else could this mean? The people living THEN believed this happened.