Angels are Corporeal, not spirits

[hawkman]

What I’m suggesting is that the sons of God were men in the line of Seth who were drown by the flood.
They are called “angels who sinned” and “spirits in prison” who are “chained in darkness “ of tartaroo.

Your suggestion has no basis in scripture . Unless you have scripture that has men being called "angels who sinned " .

 

[LeviR]

Your suggestion has no basis in scripture . Unless you have scripture that has men being called "angels who sinned " .

Jesus said that in the resurrection men will be as the angels of God in heaven who never die. Which means they never sin.

 

[hawkman]

Jesus said that in the resurrection men will be as the angels of God in heaven who never die. Which means they never sin.

Sinned was what I asked for .

Your suggestion has no basis in scripture . Unless you have scripture that has men being called "angels who sinned " .

 

[LeviR]

Sinned was what I asked for .

If the angels of God never die it means they never sin. Which also means they are immortal.
If they were subject to sin or could sin they would not be immortal.
Only mortals are subject to sin.

 

[hawkman]

If the angels of God never die it means they never sin. Which also means they are immortal.
If they were subject to sin or could sin they would not be immortal.
Only mortals are subject to sin.

You have no answer to post #141 , no more replies needed .

 

[LeviR]

You have no answer to post #141 , no more replies needed .

The word “angel” means messenger, and the context determines whether it refers to God’s messengers in heaven or to men.
John the Baptist was called an angel in the O.T. But messenger in the new.
A translation of Jude could just as well be “messengers who sinned”
And if those were the sons of God being men, it would imply that they were messengers who went astray.

 

[hawkman]

A translation of Jude could just as well be “messengers who sinned”

Are you saying there is a chance angels in Jude 1:6 might be humans instead ? Yes or no ?

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.”

 

[LeviR]

Are you saying there is a chance angels in Jude 1:6 might be humans instead ? Yes or no ?

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.”

Are you saying there is a chance angels in Jude 1:6 might be humans instead ? Yes or no ?

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.”

After Cain killed Abel he was sent out from the presence of the Lord to the land of Nod east of Eden.
One would assume that Adam and Eve’s other children would remain where they were. Which seems to be in Eden just outside the garden there.

The idea then is that the sons of Seth left their first place of habitation in Eden and went out from the presence of the Lord to the land of Nod.

 

[hawkman]

The idea then is that the sons of Seth left their first place of habitation in Eden and went out from the presence of the Lord to the land of Nod.

This is the Theology Forum do you have scripture to support your "idea" ?

8. As this forum is for serious theological discussion, relevant verses from the Bible and/or other supporting documentation must be given to support one's assertions, especially when asked for by others.

​

 

[LeviR]

This is the Theology Forum do you have scripture to support your "idea" ?

​

Gen 4:16
And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Gen 4:25
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.

Adam and Eve were never sent out from the presence of the Lord.

Gen 4:26
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. ( the margin note says “then men began to call themselves by the name of the Lord” ie “sons of God”.)

 

[Free]

Yes they were giants.

Maybe, maybe not. From Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, nphiyl / nephill, means:

fallers, apostates fallen from true religion; and falling on men with violence and rapine, and causing them to fall; such were also strong and robust in body, and leaders of others.

"Giants" comes from the Greek, not the Hebrew.

How they came to be is clearly laid out for us by the Holy Spirit through Moses.

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

Grammatically, the verse allows for the Nephilim already existing prior to "the sons of God [coming] to the daughters of men." But there is also another clue: "and also afterward."

 

[Free]

Your writing "down the line" is against the biblical narrative.

It fits the biblical narrative just fine. If you would just look previous to chapter 6 for additional context, you would see:

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.”

Notice the excessive violence of Lamech, in Cain's lineage.

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. (ESV)

We see that at the time of the birth of Seth's son, "people began to call upon the name of the LORD."

Then, we should take note of this:

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.
Gen 5:2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.
Gen 5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. (ESV)

Look at what isn't said--no mention of Cain or Abel. Right from Adam who was "made . . . in the likeness of God," to Adam's son Seth, who was "in his own likeness, after his image." It seems that both leaving out Cain and the similar wording of Seth to Adam and the creation of Adam are fairly significant.

Then:

Gen 5:21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah.
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. (ESV)

Repetition is usually significant and something to pay attention to.

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)

Again, not insignificant that Lamech mentions "the LORD." And, we also see that Noah is the great-grandson of Enoch.

So, there seems to be a fairly consistent belief in God in all of Seth's line, but none in Cain's, which instead speaks of excessive violence.

No, you've defended it already.

Please stop with the false claims of racism and that others are trying to defend racism. It's unbiblical.

You're arguing Seth's righteousness and Cain's wickedness went on "down the line" to Noah's days, that's not in the text of Gen. 6

As I have shown, it's in the preceding chapters which clearly form the backdrop and necessary context to chapter 6. You're taking chapter 6 in isolation, which is not how to come to a proper understanding of anything in Scripture.

Notice where chapter 6 starts, after giving lineages of Cain and Seth in the preceding two chapters, which I have provided:

Gen 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, (ESV)

Now we get into all humans multiplying, which would mean Cain's line and Seth's line. So, when we get to verse 2--"the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose."--we have as the context, the lineages of Cain and Seth as well as them multiplying.

and it goes against the biblical narrative stated in Ez. 18:20 and Jn. 9:3.

Which have no relevance to what I am saying. I have already explained: "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."

Do you disagree that godly people have a better chance of raising godly people, and on down the line?

Your argument "sons of God were Seth's godly line", which implies "daughters of men" were Cain's ungodly line, is totally invalid.

It is very valid, which is why at least some scholars also believe that is the case. It is possible that the sons of God were angels, but, given that they would have to have the creative power that only God has, it's more likely the stuff of fairy tales.

 

[hawkman]

Gen 4:16
And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Gen 4:25
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.

Adam and Eve were never sent out from the presence of the Lord.

Gen 4:26
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. ( the margin note says “then men began to call themselves by the name of the Lord” ie “sons of God”.)

I would like a yes or no answer for post #147 . Then we can talk .

 

[LeviR]

I would like a yes or no answer for post #147 . Then we can talk .

My answer is “yes” because the word angel refers to both God’s angels in heaven and to mortal man.

 

[JLB]

Maybe, maybe not. From Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, nphiyl / nephill, means:

fallers, apostates fallen from true religion; and falling on men with violence and rapine, and causing them to fall; such were also strong and robust in body, and leaders of others.

"Giants" comes from the Greek, not the Hebrew.

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

My Bible says giants.

 

[JLB]

Grammatically, the verse allows for the Nephilim already existing prior to "the sons of God [coming] to the daughters of men." But there is also another clue: "and also afterward."

Yes. The Nephilim continued to be produced by the sons of God after the flood.

They way the scriptures teach us the Nephilim giants were produced was that the sons of God came into the daughters of men.


Obviously the sons of God were unaffected by the flood being angels.


God eventually cast those angels down to hell and chained them there until the day of judgement.

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5


For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 1 Peter 3:18-20


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; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6-7

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

We see that at the time of the birth of Seth's son, "people began to call upon the name of the LORD."

You see the time of Enosh, I see the days of Noah who lived more than a thousand years later where the whole earth was corrupt, filled with violence, nobody was calling upon the name of the Lord. As long as Ez. 18:20 remains a truthful statement, Enosh's generation is irrelevant.

Look at what isn't said--no mention of Cain or Abel. Right from Adam who was "made . . . in the likeness of God," to Adam's son Seth, who was "in his own likeness, after his image." It seems that both leaving out Cain and the similar wording of Seth to Adam and the creation of Adam are fairly significant.

Also irrelevant. The debate is set in the days of Noah, not Seth.

Again, not insignificant that Lamech mentions "the LORD." And, we also see that Noah is the great-grandson of Enoch.

So, there seems to be a fairly consistent belief in God in all of Seth's line, but none in Cain's, which instead speaks of excessive violence.

That's Noah's genealogy, what does that have anything to do with the "sons of God"? Or the "daughters of men"? Among Cain's descendants were builders (Gen. 4:17), ranchers (4:20), musicians (4:21) and craftsmen (4:22), does any of these have to do with "exceesive violence"?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Please stop with the false claims of racism and that others are trying to defend racism. It's unbiblical.

What's unbiblical is falsely identifying the sons of God as godly men, whereas what's stated in Gen. 6 is the all men except Noah and his family were extremely wicked.

As I have shown, it's in the preceding chapters which clearly form the backdrop and necessary context to chapter 6. You're taking chapter 6 in isolation, which is not how to come to a proper understanding of anything in Scripture.

Notice where chapter 6 starts, after giving lineages of Cain and Seth in the preceding two chapters, which I have provided:

Gen 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, (ESV)

Now we get into all humans multiplying, which would mean Cain's line and Seth's line. So, when we get to verse 2--"the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose."--we have as the context, the lineages of Cain and Seth as well as them multiplying.

No I'm not, you're greatly mistaken. Chapter six begins with "NOW it came to pass", that's referring to no other period but Noah's generation when Noah was 500 years old (5:32), same as "those days" and "then", in case you missed it this timing was repeated in 6:9-11. Ch. 4 and 5 at that point were ancient history, from the birth of Enosh to that "now" was 1426 years, if you don't believe me, do your own math.

Which have no relevance to what I am saying. I have already explained: "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."

Do you disagree that godly people have a better chance of raising godly people, and on down the line?

As long as you stick to your argument of "down the line", you're treating "godliness" as a hereditary trait, which is totally unbiblical. I do agree that godly people have a better chance of raising godly people, but I also know that godly people are not full of wickedness and extremely violent, God doesn't drown his own sons in a global flood.

It is very valid, which is why at least some scholars also believe that is the case. It is possible that the sons of God were angels, but, given that they would have to have the creative power that only God has, it's more likely the stuff of fairy tales.

This is "appeal to authority" fallacy, also a strawman fallacy. Procreation is NOT creation, and angels have no creative power, they are servants of God, says not I but the bible.

Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that! For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”(Rev. 22:8-9)

 

[JLB]

Jesus said that in the resurrection men will be as the angels of God in heaven who never die. Which means they never sin.

Since the resurrection of the dead in Christ hasn’t occurred and we are discussing Genesis 6, you claim has no bearing in our discussion.

 

[LeviR]

Since the resurrection of the dead in Christ hasn’t occurred and we are discussing Genesis 6, you claim has no bearing in our discussion.

We are discussing whether or not the sons of God in Gen 6 were God’s angels in heaven or mortal man.
Jesus says God’s angels in heaven never die. Which means they never sin.
If they have the capacity to sin, it would not be said they never die, because to sin is to die. That is its wages.

So, what Jesus said adds support for my claim that the sons of God were mortal men who drown in the flood.