The sons of God and the daughters of men

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Mike,

You prove richly what I am saying. Why not address what did Jude mean when he said angels sinned? What does it mean when it says angels "kept not their first estate"?

This meant the angles fell. I see nothing that connect that to a fall in Genesis 6. It was pre-Adamic. Their chains of darkness are the inability to ever be recovered. They are the demon spirits that we deal with.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

This meant the angles fell. I see nothing that connect that to a fall in Genesis 6. It was pre-Adamic. Their chains of darkness are the inability to ever be recovered. They are the demon spirits that we deal with.

Ever notice that with Preterism bound doesn't mean bound?

The text states that these are both "in hell" and in "chains of darkness". These are not roaming free today. Plain reading of the text. If you're going to "spiritualize" the text... at least spiritualize that which is obviously symbolic. Plain didactic teaching should be read literally. Else anything can mean anything that the supposed "teacher" desires it. It becomes a "make up your own religion" game. Here are the verses in the NT.

2 Peter 2:4
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Jude 1:6
And 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.

It should also be noted that the NT references verses that are found in the ancient Book of Enoch. Please note...the Book of Enoch emphatically describes the angelic sin as being cohabitation with human women among a group of fallen angels.

When spiritualizing all texts, especially those meant to be understood literally one can make the Bible say anything. For example, earlier today I was talking to a friend who believes that Jesus didn't die at the crucifixion and actually sired children by his wife Mary. He gave me a book titled "Bloodline of the Holy Grail". In the book when Mary is visited by the "angel of the LORD" and told that she was going to concieve, the author proposes that the "angel of the LORD" is an idiom speaking of the High Priest, not an actual angel. The problem is...the text isn't written in apocalyptic symbolism that would lend itself to an interpretation outside of it being a literal depiction of what happened.

Again... we can make it all up as we go saying, "The Bible doesn't mean such and such...it really means...." Or we can just BELIEVE THE BIBLE.

Preterism would have us believe that what was commonly believed among those of the first century who spoke the language in question was error until Preterism arrived. Josephus and others indicate clearly that the common opinion of antiquity was that these were the angels that sinned in Genesis 6. Preterism is a new kid on the block compared to this position.

[Michael The Disciple]

This meant the angles fell. I see nothing that connect that to a fall in Genesis 6. It was pre-Adamic. Their chains of darkness are the inability to ever be recovered. They are the demon spirits that we deal with.

The story about the angels is the ONLY reference I can find why angels would be bound. Please produce your scriptures from the Tanach that say these angels fell before Adam. I would like to see them. If you can I will believe and agree with you.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ever notice that with Preterism bound doesn't mean bound?

I never thought you would stoop to this, too.

lol

I first heard the view I proposed from people told me this view who were never preterist.

[mfblume]

Michael the D., there is no scripture anywhere that states when these angels fell. Not even Gen 6. It simply does not say.

[Scott Hutchinson]

My probelms with the angels view with the notion of angelic beings procreating,when Our Lord taught that in our resurrected state,we will be like the angel who neither give in marriage or marry.Bearing children is a part of marriage.

Of course does appearing as men like angels in the bible often do,make angels be men who have reprouctive seed,and I'm trying to be delicate ?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

My probelms with the angels view with the notion of angelic beings procreating,when Our Lord taught that in our resurrected state,we will be like the angel who neither give in marriage or marry.Bearing children is a part of marriage.

I believe we often read far too much into what Christ said. Christ said that in the resurrection we are like the angels in heaven who neither marry nor are given in marriage. All this states is that the “angels in heaven” (the holy angels) do not marry. It doesn’t say anything about what angels in general are capable of. Throughout the OT we see angels taking physical form and eating with Abraham, wrestling Jacob, and slaying the wicked among the Israelites. If a fallen angel took a physical form… could not the unholy angel violate the rules which govern the heavenly angels? If an angel in physical form can eat, wrestle, and do battle… is it not obviously capable of performing any number of actions it’s physical form will allow – including reproduction? Surely such an act on behalf of a fallen angel would be a grave sin in God’s sight. And this is exactly what Genesis 6 would appear to present to us.

Of course does appearing as men like angels in the bible often do, make angels be men who have reproductive seed, and I'm trying to be delicate ?

I would answer yes.

The phrase “sons of God” is clearly a reference to angels:

Job 1:6
{1:6} Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 38:5-8
{38:5} Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? {38:6} Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof; {38:7} When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? {38:8} Or [who] shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, [as if] it had issued out of the womb?

We do well to allow the Bible to interpret Bible instead of speculating on rationalizations because we are weak in faith.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I'm openminded and I certainly don't have it all figured out.There is alot I don't know.I guess some folks would say I'm weak in faith.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

I'm openminded and I certainly don't have it all figured out.There is alot I don't know.I guess some folks would say I'm weak in faith.

I don't think you're weak in faith. But for many, they deny supernatural answers for logical answers that feel more comfortable because they struggle with supernatural possibilities. Some deny the bodily resurrection, some redefine the days of Genesis to fit science so called... etc.

Others may have just embraced an interpretation so long they're not sure what to make of alternative views... especially if they seem supernatural in nature.

[mfblume]

Your last post is on the mark, Scott, except you did not mention the possibility of some who seek sensationalism. Not all who believe this issue of angels in Gen 6 are sensationalists, but many who adhere to it do so due to sensationalism.

It's more COOL to believe this was angels.

The flesh is very sensational-seeking. Like I said, though, not all who adhere to it are so.