Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That's the point. Fallen ones. Nephillim.

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;

I think they were. Like I said, one rendering of "men began to call on the name of the Lord" is actually calling themselves by the name of the Lord. Hence, sons of God.

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?

How? I cannot follow your reasoning.

Right, but they called THEMSELVES by the name of the Lord.

Gill wrote:

for so the words may be rendered: "then began men to call themselves", or "to be called by the name of the Lord" (p); the sons of God, as distinct from the sons of men; which distinction may be observed in Gen_6:2 and has been retained more or less ever since: some choose to translate the words, "then began men to call in the name of the Lord" (q); that is, to call upon God in the name of the Messiah, the Mediator between God and man; having now, since the birth of Seth, and especially of Enos, clearer notions of the promised seed, and of the use of him, and his name, in their addresses to God; see Joh_14:13.

Read above.

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.

It's too wild and fantastic, seriously. Again, look at the thoughts of 4:6 and reconsider Christ's words that we shall be like angels in specific reference to no marriage.

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--

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

See the marginal notes for Gen 4:26: Heb. Enosh, to call upon the name of the Lord. or, call themselves by the name of the Lord.

There are no marginal notes in my bible.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

They weren't angels. They were Seth's line. Godly people who drifted from God. That's why we read "when men multiplied across the earth." Cain's line and Seth's were divided for a long time. They converged. Backsliders married sinners.

I'd belIeve the grape juice thing before if believe angels p rocreated. lol

Mike, generally I would agree with you, but that doesn't make any sense to me. Why not call them also daughters of God since they too were made from God. Just because Seth was "righteous" doesn't make his sons "the sons of God", I'm sorry I can't agree with you on this one.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You didn't show me one place where anyone is called Sons of God before that verse.

The bible clearly says those who called on the name of the Lord were MEN...MEN

Gen 4:26 And there was also a son born to Seth, and he called his name Enos. Then men began to call upon the name of Jehovah.

See? MEN were calling on the name of the LORD..That would have been a great place to differentiate Sons of God from MEN...but it says MEN

And so the argument went that the daughters of MEN were daughters of Cain not of Seth who are called Sons of God instead

Gen 6:1 And it happened, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and when daughters were born to them,
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.

But that is not what the verse earlier says...it identifies those who called on the LORD as MEN...MEN

You can't get more simple than that

You are saying men cannot be sons of God?

We are!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Mike, generally I would agree with you, but that doesn't make any sense to me. Why not call them also daughters of God since they too were made from God. Just because Seth was "righteous" doesn't make his sons "the sons of God", I'm sorry I can't agree with you on this one.

Because it is a term speaking about people serving and following God. Seth's line called on God and called themselves by God's name. Cain's line would not do that.

But weighing out which is more absurd and which is more odd, by far angels procreating when Jesus said we shall not marry but be as the angels, is far more absurd.

It's a pretty weak argument to say that only angels in heaven who did not fall do not have the ability to procreate, as if fallen angels change themselves to gain that ability.

It's just coincidence that Gen 6:1 mentions this happened when men spread across the earth after two lines from Adam were separated generations before?

I mean, think about it. lol

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

My bible seems to be saying their offspring where the Nephillim

before I even heard of such an issue, I never saw the reading saying the children were nephilim.

Read it again:

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

It says there were giants before we read anything about sons of God and daughters of men. It distinguishes the giants as though they were already present, as though to give a time and placement of the .incident to follow.

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

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

And it calls them MEN

What translation are you referring to?

The marginal notes with the KJV.

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

I thought the same thing before I read his words. I'[m no scholar, but the plain reading meant that to me.

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?

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.

Christ said we shall be like the angels IN HEAVEN...these Sons of God were not 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.

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 cannot hardly resist the urge to laugh at the overall concept.

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--

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. Nothing connects Gen 6 to fallen angels. We read of families divided and then lineages in chapter 5. And then this in 6. the context speaks of human beings without even having mentioned anything about angels except for the serpent whom we later learn is satan. Cherubims are not angels, I believe.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Mike, generally I would agree with you, but that doesn't make any sense to me. Why not call them also daughters of God since they too were made from God. Just because Seth was "righteous" doesn't make his sons "the sons of God", I'm sorry I can't agree with you on this one.

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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are saying men cannot be sons of God?

We are!

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Because it is a term speaking about people serving and following God. Seth's line called on God and called themselves by God's name. Cain's line would not do that.

It does not say "Seth's line". It just notes people began to call on the LORD and does not designate these as Sons of God

But weighing out which is more absurd and which is more odd, by far angels procreating when Jesus said we shall not marry but be as the angels, is far more absurd.

DANGER!! DANGER!!! Never determine doctrine based on your own feelings of what is more absurd or odd. Atheists do that all the time with the entire word of God.

Also you are misusing that verse as I told you before. Jesus said we would be as the angels IN HEAVEN....Not those angels who LEFT Heaven.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven.

Not THESE Angels

Jud 1:6 And those angels not having kept their first place, but having deserted their dwelling-place, He has kept in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of a great Day;

It's a pretty weak argument to say that only angels in heaven who did not fall do not have the ability to procreate, as if fallen angels change themselves to gain that ability.

Actually nobody said only they had that ability. Clearly they all have that ability to become men and even eat food. Having an ability and USING IT are two different things

What that is is a Strawman argument.

It's just coincidence that Gen 6:1 mentions this happened when men spread across the earth after two lines from Adam were separated generations before?

I mean, think about it. lol

MEN...not "Sons of God"...MEN. One problem people have is understanding Chronology. See chapt 5...It gives a Geneology that includes men later mentioned in chapter 6

Gen 2 does the same thing. It elaborates on the 6th day and God making both Adam and Eve

Well Gen 6 is an Elaboration on what happened up until then. Adam was the first MAN. Eve the first WOMAN. They had children. Their first children were only males

Eventually they must have had daughters or else God created another human race.

So as more and more daughters were born, more and more the men can have them and procreate

That is the statement in Gen 6 that is elaborating on the expanse of the Human species

As Man Multiplied more and more females were born too...without which procreation is impossible

Here is the last statement in chap 4

Gen 4:26 To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.

Remember MAN divided this up into chapter. Chapters dont tell us about chronology

Then in chapter 5 we have GENEOLOGY

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.

Cut out the Geneology and you have

Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him."
Gen 4:26 To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.
Gen 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,


Gen 6 explains, in hindsight how man...humans from Adam were multiplying and producing the necessary gender component to really multiply

This event takes place in the middle of the Genealogy previously mentioned somewhere since Noah is soon mentioned as having already existed

In fact it is explicitly mentioned them having other "son and daughters"

Gen 5:4 The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters.

Gen 5:7 Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters.

Gen 5:10 Enosh lived after he fathered Kenan 815 years and had other sons and daughters.

Gen 5:13 Kenan lived after he fathered Mahalalel 840 years and had other sons and daughters.

Gen 5:16 Mahalalel lived after he fathered Jared 830 years and had other sons and daughters.

Gen 5:19 Jared lived after he fathered Enoch 800 years and had other sons and daughters.

Gen 5:22 Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters.

Gen 5:26 Methuselah lived after he fathered Lamech 782 years and had other sons and daughters.

Gen 5:30 Lamech lived after he fathered Noah 595 years and had other sons and daughters.

Then you have this
Gen 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,
Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.

That is a comment based on the previous Genealogy

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

before I even heard of such an issue, I never saw the reading saying the children were nephilim.

Gen 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,
Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
Here we have the event, Sons of God with Daughters. The implication is they had sex

Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore
children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days AND also afterwards when the Sons of God came into the Daughters and they born children to them.

Seems to imply the Nephilim were the result.

Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) when the sons of God were having sexual relations with the daughters of mankind, who gave birth to their children. They were the mighty heroes of old, the famous men.