Angels are Corporeal, not spirits

[LeviR]

Enoch was in the line of Seth.
Like Enoch, the sons of God walked in the way of the Lord as was pleasing to Him.
The men who had daughters who attracted the sons of God were walking out of the way of the Lord.

When the sons of God go whoring after those walking out of the way, all hell breaks loose, like a flood upon the earth.

I speak from experience.

 

[Free]

One rule of thumb in bible interpretation is the "first mention" rule, whenever a term or phrase appears the first time, the same definition, connotation and implication thereof apply to all the subsequent mentions in the rest of the bible. "Sons of God" in Gen 6:3 literally means "godly or heavenly beings". "Son" should not be understood as biological male offspring, but rather the embodiment of a concept, such as "sons of chaos", "sons of thunder", "sons of the republic". Jesus frequently addressed himself as the "son of man", the emphasis was on his humanity, that even though he is the unique son of God, he manifested himself in form of a man, a humble carpenter from Nazerath. So whether you think these sons of God are angels or not, they are most definitely not mortal men. The whole purpose of using the term "sons of God" is to distinguish them from mortal men.

Or, the whole purpose is to distinguish between a godly line of people and an ungodly one. It seems to foreshadow what happens during the conquest of Canaan. Jesus uses "sons of God" of humans:

Mat 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Luk 20:36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Luke says that Adam was "the son of God":

Luk 3:38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Couldn't there be a godly line there, such as that of Seth?

Jesus also uses "gods" of humans:

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—

That comes from Psalm 82:1. Those are humans who are God's representatives, his judges that judge the people.

(All ESV.)

Also, you said, '"Sons of God" in Gen 6:3 literally means "godly or heavenly beings"." So, even according to that statement alone you cannot claim "they are most definitely not mortal men." If it can mean a "godly being," then it can mean a "godly human." As I have given above, there is reasonable to believe that that is the case.

Further, you are giving angels the ability to create for themselves, out of nothing, not only the appropriate male anatomy, but also compatible DNA by which they could procreate. That is going way beyond any biblical text and is purely speculation. We should stick with Scripture.

 

[LeviR]

Or, the whole purpose is to distinguish between a godly line of people and an ungodly one. It seems to foreshadow what happens during the conquest of Canaan. Jesus uses "sons of God" of humans:

Mat 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Luk 20:36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Luke says that Adam was "the son of God":

Luk 3:38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Couldn't there be a godly line there, such as that of Seth?

Jesus also uses "gods" of humans:

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—

That comes from Psalm 82:1. Those are humans who are God's representatives, his judges that judge the people.

(All ESV.)

Also, you said, '"Sons of God" in Gen 6:3 literally means "godly or heavenly beings"." So, even according to that statement alone you cannot claim "they are most definitely not mortal men." If it can mean a "godly being," then it can mean a "godly human." As I have given above, there is reasonable to believe that that is the case.

Further, you are giving angels the ability to create for themselves, out of nothing, not only the appropriate male anatomy, but also compatible DNA by which they could procreate. That is going way beyond any biblical text and is purely speculation. We should stick with Scripture.

Luk 20:36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

The reason Jude refers to the sons of God as “angels” and Peter calls them “spirits” may be by the fact that sons of God in the resurrection are equal to angels, who are also called spirits. And angels are also called men.

Suppose that the sons of Seth were the sons of God because they were walking in the way of the Lord.
And when they decided to go after the daughters of the men who were walking out of the Way, God was not pleased. He decided to destroy them all.

These sons of God are said to be locked up in chains of darkness until judgment day. At which point they will be raised from their watery grave.

Now, suppose not all of the sons of God involved themselves in the whoredom of the others.
They might be raised equal to the spirit angels who never die. IOW, some will be saved.
And that may be why they are called angels and spirits.

Luk 20:36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Or, the whole purpose is to distinguish between a godly line of people and an ungodly one. It seems to foreshadow what happens during the conquest of Canaan. Jesus uses "sons of God" of humans:

Mat 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Luk 20:36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Luke says that Adam was "the son of God":

Luk 3:38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Couldn't there be a godly line there, such as that of Seth?

Jesus also uses "gods" of humans:

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—

That comes from Psalm 82:1. Those are humans who are God's representatives, his judges that judge the people.

(All ESV.)

Also, you said, '"Sons of God" in Gen 6:3 literally means "godly or heavenly beings"." So, even according to that statement alone you cannot claim "they are most definitely not mortal men." If it can mean a "godly being," then it can mean a "godly human." As I have given above, there is reasonable to believe that that is the case.

Further, you are giving angels the ability to create for themselves, out of nothing, not only the appropriate male anatomy, but also compatible DNA by which they could procreate. That is going way beyond any biblical text and is purely speculation. We should stick with Scripture.

If you stick with Scripture, you would've realized that normal human beings cannot procreate ten feet tall giants, abominations like the sons of Anak and Goliath of Philistine didn't natually occur. There could be no such "godly line of seth" because by the time of Noah, men were full of wickedness that had even grieved God, they were so wicked that they had to be cleansed with the Flood, how could they be the sons of God?

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. (Gen. 6:5-6)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Go back and read my post #81 as this is my understanding of scripture of how it is written. I'm not a bandwagon Christian.

Neither am I. Was Jesus not called son of God AND son of man? Those refer to his dual nature, every born again ture believer is endowed with the same dual nature. When they die, they cease to live as sons of man; when Jesus returns, they rise from the grave as sons of God. This doesn't exist in the OT. You use OT to interpret the NT, not the other way around.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Or, the whole purpose is to distinguish between a godly line of people and an ungodly one. It seems to foreshadow what happens during the conquest of Canaan. Jesus uses "sons of God" of humans:

Also, the idea of "godly line" and "ungodly line" is racist and unbiblical. There's a messianic line from Adam to Jesus, but there's no "godly line" that distinguishes one group of people from all the rest. Salvation can NOT be inherited from ancestors, each individual must make their own conscious decision on whether to accept or reject Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

 

[Free]

If you stick with Scripture, you would've realized that normal human beings cannot procreate ten feet tall giants, abominations like the sons of Anak and Goliath of Philistine didn't natually occur.

This is fallaciously begging the question. First, what do you mean by “normal humans”? Modern humans? Second, do normal human beings live to be hundreds of years old?

Third, the tallest recorded human was a man who was 8’ 11”, which is pretty close to 10’. Fourth, isn’t it possible that because people lived so long that they grew for a longer period of time?

Fifth:

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. (ESV)

The text allows for and makes sense of the Nephilim having already been around “when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man.” The Nephilim weren’t the offspring, they were one of the already existing people groups.

There could be no such "godly line of seth" because by the time of Noah, men were full of wickedness that had even grieved God, they were so wicked that they had to be cleansed with the Flood, how could they be the sons of God?

Really? And God didn’t save a single person? Who do you think Noah was? Besides, you’re begging the question again by assuming that sons of God doesn’t refer to humans and so therefore ‘There could be no such “godly line of Seth”.’

Perhaps you should look up Noah’s lineage which is in the preceding chapter, for a reason. It’s worth reading 5:3 and 5:22, 24. Then we get to 6:1, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land.”

Then, given what Jesus says about angels (Matt. 22:30; Luke 20:34-36), it seems highly unlikely that angels have the ability to procreate. So, you still have the issue of angels supposedly being able to create their own male plumbing complete with compatible DNA able to procreate with human women.

Your position is highly unlikely.

 

[Free]

Also, the idea of "godly line" and "ungodly line" is racist and unbiblical.

Lol! No. Why are you so keen to always being up progressive ideology? It has absolutely notiing to do with racism, given that both lines were from the same parents. It’s about those who followed God and those who didn’t. You really need to read the chapters prior to 6 to get the context right.

There's a messianic line from Adam to Jesus, but there's no "godly line" that distinguishes one group of people from all the rest. Salvation can NOT be inherited from ancestors,

And that isn’t the argument I am making. Read Genesis 4 and 5 prior to 6, paying attention to the lineages and what they reveal.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

This is fallaciously begging the question. First, what do you mean by “normal humans”?

I mean what the Scripture means - mortal men, as opposed to "heavenly hosts."

The text allows for and makes sense of the Nephilim having already been around “when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man.” The Nephilim weren’t the offspring, they were one of the already existing people groups.

No, you fail to understand basic grammar of English language. The contents following "WHEN" sets the timing and/or condition of a sentence, in this case, WHEN the sons of God came into the daughters of man is the timing and condition for the Nephilim to come into being. The sequence of events in Gen 6 is: mankind multiplied, women attracted "sons of men", and that grieved the Lord. How so? Because WHEN the sons of men took wives and sired children, referring to the event in 6:2, those giants popped out, and that's the wickedness which God disapproved. There's no other kind of wickedness mentioned in this specific context except the giants, which were proven to be demonic beings in latter books of the bible. The intermarriage took place FIRST before the giants showed up

Really? And God didn’t save a single person? Who do you think Noah was? Besides, you’re begging the question again by assuming that sons of God doesn’t refer to humans and so therefore ‘There could be no such “godly line of Seth”.’

Perhaps you should look up Noah’s lineage which is in the preceding chapter, for a reason. It’s worth reading 5:3 and 5:22, 24. Then we get to 6:1, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land.”

Then, given what Jesus says about angels (Matt. 22:30; Luke 20:34-36), it seems highly unlikely that angels have the ability to procreate. So, you still have the issue of angels supposedly being able to create their own male plumbing complete with compatible DNA able to procreate with human women.

Aren't you begging the question by assuming that sons of God are mortal men? And anything else is all justification for that preconceived conclusion? You're the one who should take a closer look at the text in Matt. 22:30 and Luke 20:34-36 - there'll be no procreation in RESURRECTION, that's the context which you totally ignored. Was anybody in Noah's days in resurrection? Also, throughout the entire bible, all angels appeared in form of men, in the Sodom episode the wicked men from the city demanded to lay with God's two angels - who appeared to Abraham as MEN, previously in Gen. 18:2, so how do you know they weren't able to procreate on earth in their human form?

And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.” (Gen. 19:5)

 

[hawkman]

Thousands of years ago when "sons of God" was read the original readers would have no problem understanding who the sons of God were . So here we are without much reference other than other examples of sons of God in the Bible for our clues . I would think our best reference will be the Old Testament otherwise we are many , many years away from the Genesis and Job texts . Language and references change over centuries let alone decades .
The only thing I can conclude is that sons of God in Genesis and Job refer to angels . Here are the Job verses .
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
And here are the verses in Genesis 6 .

Genesis 6:2 Context​

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There 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. 5And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Do you notice the sons of God are the fathers of mighty men , men of renown . How did fallen angels , angels that left their first estate as Jude said , procreate with daughters of men ? I don't need to know I just know they did according to what we are told .
The giants had a purpose and when the Israelites arrived to the promised land it was infested with giants , what a coincidence that is ! Satan knew where the promised land was and he wanted the Israelites to stay out .

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Lol! No. Why are you so keen to always being up progressive ideology? It has absolutely notiing to do with racism, given that both lines were from the same parents. It’s about those who followed God and those who didn’t. You really need to read the chapters prior to 6 to get the context right.

You're begging the question by assuming that "sons of God" are godly, "daughters of man" are ungodly, whereas the Scripture shows the opposite - sons of God were being judged by God in Ps. 82:1-6, and they were satanic, as they presented themselves before God with Satan. (Job 1:6)

And that isn’t the argument I am making. Read Genesis 4 and 5 prior to 6, paying attention to the lineages and what they reveal.

All that is revealed is Noah's genealogy. I know what you're gonna say: "men began to call on the name of the Lord." But that's exactly the argument I'm making - just because men called on the name of the Lord in Enosh's generation doesn't mean they continued to do so in Noah's generation because "calling on the name of the Lord" is not a hereditary trait.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

How did fallen angels , angels that left their first estate as Jude said , procreate with daughters of men ?

Fallen angels don't and can't procreate as angels, but they did and can procreate as MEN.

Then the Lord appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground ... (Gen. 18:1-2)

Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord. (Gen. 1:22)

Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. (Gen. 19:1)

 

[JLB]

Have a Merry Christmas and a blessed New Year

God bless you and your precious family with peace and joy.

Merry Christmas.

 

[JLB]

Doesn’t that mean that the giants were already there when the sons of God took the daughters of men?

This is how the scripture teaches us the giants were produced.


There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Genesis 6:4

 

[Free]

I mean what the Scripture means - mortal men, as opposed to "heavenly hosts."

No, you fail to understand basic grammar of English language. The contents following "WHEN" sets the timing and/or condition of a sentence, in this case, WHEN the sons of God came into the daughters of man is the timing and condition for the Nephilim to come into being.

No, the grammar doesn't suggest such.

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. (ESV)

The grammar suggests that the Nephilim were already on the earth "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man."

The sequence of events in Gen 6 is: mankind multiplied, women attracted "sons of men", and that grieved the Lord. How so? Because WHEN the sons of men took wives and sired children, referring to the event in 6:2, those giants popped out, and that's the wickedness which God disapproved.

Yes, the godly sons of men took ungodly women to be their wives, but the giants were already there. Not that "Nephilim" necessarily means giants.

There's no other kind of wickedness mentioned in this specific context except the giants, which were proven to be demonic beings in latter books of the bible.

"No other kind of wickedness mentioned in this specific context except the giants"? Do you mean except for, "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen 6:5)? Or what about:

Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. (ESV)

The intermarriage took place FIRST before the giants showed up

The text suggests otherwise.

Aren't you begging the question by assuming that sons of God are mortal men? And anything else is all justification for that preconceived conclusion?

It's a legitimate interpretation and given everything else, it is the most likely interpretation.

You're the one who should take a closer look at the text in Matt. 22:30 and Luke 20:34-36 - there'll be no procreation in RESURRECTION, that's the context which you totally ignored.

No, I didn't ignore anything; that is precisely my point. The verses say that there will be no marriage, which implies no procreation. Why? Because "they will be like the angels in heaven." That strongly implies that angels don't procreate, which means that they don't have the means to procreate with each other, never mind humans.

From there, the only way to support your position on the "sons of God" is that angels have the same creative ability as God--they can create ex nihilo; they can create all the necessary male plumbing, DNA, and everything else needed in order to procreate with human women. That is a massive stretch. Maybe you believe the Word of Faith heresy that we're all little gods, so therefore angels must be as well.

Was anybody in Noah's days in resurrection?

Not relevant.

Also, throughout the entire bible, all angels appeared in form of men, in the Sodom episode the wicked men from the city demanded to lay with God's two angels - who appeared to Abraham as MEN, previously in Gen. 18:2, so how do you know they weren't able to procreate on earth in their human form?

For the reason above. It is a non-sequitur to believe that angels, another class of being altogether, have the ability to successfully procreate with human women, just because they can appear in human form.

And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.” (Gen. 19:5)

What is this supposed to show, that since human men thought the angels were human men, that therefore the angels must have the ability to procreate? lol It simply shows that men thought the angels were actual men.

In the end, even if the sons-of-God-are-angels theory is a possibility, it is not the likely interpretation because of the possibility that the sons of God were godly men and that angels don't procreate. That makes the latter the most plausible interpretation.

 

[Free]

You're begging the question by assuming that "sons of God" are godly, "daughters of man" are ungodly, whereas the Scripture shows the opposite - sons of God were being judged by God in Ps. 82:1-6, and they were satanic, as they presented themselves before God with Satan. (Job 1:6)

You do realize that Ps. 82:1-6 came much later than Gen. 6, yes? What does Job 1:6 have to do with anything? You can't just go pulling things out of context and making connections without warrant for doing so.

All that is revealed is Noah's genealogy. I know what you're gonna say: "men began to call on the name of the Lord." But that's exactly the argument I'm making - just because men called on the name of the Lord in Enosh's generation doesn't mean they continued to do so in Noah's generation because "calling on the name of the Lord" is not a hereditary trait.

It has nothing to do with being a hereditary trait, so I don't know why you keep making that argument. Godly people have a better chance of raising godly people, and on down the line.

First, in Genesis 4, we see the line of Cain:

Gen 4:17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.
Gen 4:18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech.
Gen 4:19 And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Gen 4:20 Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.
Gen 4:21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.
Gen 4:22 Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
Gen 4:23 Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me.
Gen 4:24 If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech's is seventy-sevenfold.” (ESV)

Lamech was evil, in the way of Cain but much worse. And, yes, that contrasts with Seth's line:

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 5:22 Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:23 Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years.
Gen 5:24 Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.
Gen 5:25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he fathered Lamech.
Gen 5:26 Methuselah lived after he fathered Lamech 782 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:27 Thus all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died.
Gen 5:28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son
Gen 5:29 and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.” (ESV)

Gen 6:8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. (ESV)

Right from the start Cain's line was evil and Seth's line "began to call upon the name of the LORD."

 

[JLB]

No, the grammar doesn't suggest such.

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. (ESV)

The grammar suggests that the Nephilim were already on the earth "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man."

Read it again.

There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Genesis 6:4

The Nephilim were produced WHEN the sons of God came into the daughters of men.

Also we see the phrase …. and they bore children to them.


When the sons of God came into the daughters of men, the daughters of men born children to “them”.

Them refers to the sons of God who came into the daughters of men.

Specifically it was the giants who the daughters of men bore to the sons of God.

It would be grammatically perverse to disconnect the “giants” being on the earth, from the sons of God coming into the daughters of men and producing children.

When did the giants begin to appear on the earth, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men.

Two distinct and different species of beings being mentioned; sons of God, and daughters of men.




JLB

 

[LeviR]

This is how the scripture teaches us the giants were produced.


There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Genesis 6:4

No, the grammar doesn't suggest such.

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. (ESV)

The grammar suggests that the Nephilim were already on the earth "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man."


Yes, the godly sons of men took ungodly women to be their wives, but the giants were already there. Not that "Nephilim" necessarily means giants.


"No other kind of wickedness mentioned in this specific context except the giants"? Do you mean except for, "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen 6:5)? Or what about:

Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. (ESV)


The text suggests otherwise.


It's a legitimate interpretation and given everything else, it is the most likely interpretation.


No, I didn't ignore anything; that is precisely my point. The verses say that there will be no marriage, which implies no procreation. Why? Because "they will be like the angels in heaven." That strongly implies that angels don't procreate, which means that they don't have the means to procreate with each other, never mind humans.

From there, the only way to support your position on the "sons of God" is that angels have the same creative ability as God--they can create ex nihilo; they can create all the necessary male plumbing, DNA, and everything else needed in order to procreate with human women. That is a massive stretch. Maybe you believe the Word of Faith heresy that we're all little gods, so therefore angels must be as well.


Not relevant.


For the reason above. It is a non-sequitur to believe that angels, another class of being altogether, have the ability to successfully procreate with human women, just because they can appear in human form.


What is this supposed to show, that since human men thought the angels were human men, that therefore the angels must have the ability to procreate? lol It simply shows that men thought the angels were actual men.

In the end, even if the sons-of-God-are-angels theory is a possibility, it is not the likely interpretation because of the possibility that the sons of God were godly men and that angels don't procreate. That makes the latter the most plausible interpretation.

You do realize that Ps. 82:1-6 came much later than Gen. 6, yes? What does Job 1:6 have to do with anything? You can't just go pulling things out of context and making connections without warrant for doing so.


It has nothing to do with being a hereditary trait, so I don't know why you keep making that argument. Godly people have a better chance of raising godly people, and on down the line.

First, in Genesis 4, we see the line of Cain:

Gen 4:17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.
Gen 4:18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech.
Gen 4:19 And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Gen 4:20 Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.
Gen 4:21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.
Gen 4:22 Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
Gen 4:23 Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me.
Gen 4:24 If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech's is seventy-sevenfold.” (ESV)

Lamech was evil, in the way of Cain but much worse. And, yes, that contrasts with Seth's line:

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 5:22 Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:23 Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years.
Gen 5:24 Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.
Gen 5:25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he fathered Lamech.
Gen 5:26 Methuselah lived after he fathered Lamech 782 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:27 Thus all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died.
Gen 5:28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son
Gen 5:29 and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.” (ESV)

Gen 6:8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. (ESV)

Right from the start Cain's line was evil and Seth's line "began to call upon the name of the LORD."

We see the difference between Cain’s offspring and Seth’s.

Cain’s offspring lived in the land of Nod. Nod means wanderer. This suggests that those who lived in that land had wandered out of the Way of the Lord.
Those people, we are specifically told were craftsmen in tools and musical instruments and had livestock for food. Probably very attractive to the sons of Seth.

Whereas the offspring of Seth were those who associated themselves with the name of the Lord. Most likely led simple lives as farmers and shepherds. They walked in the Way of the Lord. As Enoch, the seventh from Adam and son of Seth had, whom God took.

I agree that the text indicates that the “giants” were there in the land of Nod both before and after the sons of Seth, or sons of God, decided to go after the daughters of the men in that land.

In so doing, they not only corrupted themselves but also their children.
They were yoking themselves together with those out of the way.
So God determined to wipe them all out.

 

[LeviR]

You do realize that Ps. 82:1-6 came much later than Gen. 6, yes? What does Job 1:6 have to do with anything? You can't just go pulling things out of context and making connections without warrant for doing so.


It has nothing to do with being a hereditary trait, so I don't know why you keep making that argument. Godly people have a better chance of raising godly people, and on down the line.

First, in Genesis 4, we see the line of Cain:

Gen 4:17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.
Gen 4:18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech.
Gen 4:19 And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Gen 4:20 Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.
Gen 4:21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.
Gen 4:22 Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
Gen 4:23 Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me.
Gen 4:24 If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech's is seventy-sevenfold.” (ESV)

Lamech was evil, in the way of Cain but much worse. And, yes, that contrasts with Seth's line:

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 5:22 Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:23 Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years.
Gen 5:24 Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.
Gen 5:25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he fathered Lamech.
Gen 5:26 Methuselah lived after he fathered Lamech 782 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:27 Thus all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died.
Gen 5:28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son
Gen 5:29 and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.” (ESV)

Gen 6:8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. (ESV)

Right from the start Cain's line was evil and Seth's line "began to call upon the name of the LORD."

And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; Jude 1:6

Cain’s offspring dwelt in the land of Nod which was east of Eden.
The sons of God dwelt just outside of the garden in Eden.

Rather than being the messengers(angels) for the people of Nod, the people of Nod became the attraction of the sons of God.
So the sons left their domain in Eden and went to Nod.

 

[Whatever]

since human men thought the angels were human men

Gen 19:1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground.

It says the angels came to Sodom in the evening. In a previous verse it says:
Gen 18:16 Then the men set out from there, and they looked down toward Sodom. And Abraham went with them to set them on their way.

I don't know how far it was from where Abraham was to Sodom, but I doubt that these angels walked all the way. I've always assumed that angels would just appear wherever they needed to be. I always assumed that the angels just walked far enough to be out of sight of Abraham and then vanished, and then later they reappeared a little way outside of Sodom and then walked in so that everybody, even Lot, would think they were just men. They were probably dressed in the same attire all other men were at the time - a long cloak.

Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”

The angels were expecting this. It was a test. If they had just materialized out of nothing in front of everybody, everybody would have know they were angels or some kind of supernatural being and probably been afraid of them.

This is the usual effect an angel has on people when they just appear to them:
Luke 1:11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. 13 But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid