What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Angels Do Not Have Sex

Edward said:
Oh, sorry sister. I went off on a tangent a bit there. My reply would take us back to genesis 6 first, it says ...there were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that..., We don't seem to know definitively how they came about again, however, I am aware of the conjecture which theorizes that Noah inadvertently took Nephilim genes aboard the ark with him. Noah's passengers aboard the ark, were his wife, 3 sons, and their wives with them. Scripture only really states that Noah was pure, it does not say that his sons or their wives were. With me so far? Ok, now we go to Genesis 9, wherein an incident of Noah being drunk with wine in the tent. Ham (Canaans father and the father of the Canaanites) went into the tent and came out and told his brothers. For some unknown reason, this angered Noah when he awoke. but instead of cursing Ham (the alleged offender) He cursed Canaan, his grandson. Now does that make sense? Not really.

So the conjecture is that Noah seen Canaan, and that Canaan had 6 fingers and toes and Noah knew what this meant (Nephilim genes. Remember Goliath? 6 fingers and toes, giant...Nephilim.) So that is why (conjecturally) that Noah cursed canaan and not Ham. Because he knew that Nephilim genes had made it onto the ark, and that it would start again. Could Hams wife have been pregnant when she entered the ark? Or at least carrying Nephilim genes within her? Or maybe it was Ham?

At any rate, this could have been how the ...and also after that...could occur without the participation of Angels for round two of the Nephilim. I believe that it is a reasonable conjecture that could explain it.
Click to expand...

I don't like conjectures especially when it comes to God's Word.
There are people who are very tall and when tall people marry they usually have tall children.
Polydactylism is an abnormality and was seen more in areas where the people are not as genetically diverse and if art from the ancient times right up through the middle ages depicts this abnormality it seems to me it was more common in the past than it is now.
Did you know there is Christian art in churches depicting St Paul and others with six fingers?
It was not always viewed as something ominous.

So yes, we know that genetics have to do with all sorts of things. Dwarfism is genetic. Did Dwarfism come from the genetics of really tiny angels?
There is one phrase, "Sons of God" and one mention of Enoch. The angels kept in darkness could be the angels that originally fell with Satan.

So to me there is more scripture against the idea of angels being those spoken of in Genesis 6 than there is for it.
 


Popcorn.gif

.
 
Edward said:
Agreed sister. Also, speaking of the Canaanites, when the Lord commanded (Joshua?) to go in and kill them all including man, women and children sparing no one...this is one of those things that many have a problem with, that God is supposed to be such a merciful God and yet ordered the genocide of an entire race of people (it does sound harsh!)...on the surface it is hard to understand at first (was for me too!), but! if looked at with the perspective of fallen Angels/Hybrids contaminating the gene pool (so that Christ could not be born!), and God was countering Satan's move here...it begins to make sense. That would be a good reason to do genocide on an entire race.

Which lends even more credence to the Angel theory in my mind
Click to expand...
(Edited, ToS 2.4, insinuation to belittle or discredit, Obadiah) your reading into the text what is not there. (Edited, ToS 2.4, insinuation to belittle or discredit, Obadiah) (Edited, ToS 2.8, Do not announce who is on your ignore list., Obadiah) The practical reason, from our point of view, for the extinction of man, woman, child and animal is found in the STDs discovered in the Archaeological Digs. The real reason we will learn from the mouth of God as He teaches us in Eternity. But that is off subject, so, enough.
(Edited, ToS 2.4, insinuation to belittle or discredit, Obadiah)

Once in the Pentateuch, once in The Revelation of Jesus and one other my old mind has forgotten the address of Jesus/God warns us not to add to and not to subtract from the Word of God. (Edited, ToS 2.4, insinuation to belittle or discredit, Obadiah) no, it isn't but your salvation, my salvation and every member's salvation in the world's salvation does depend on what we do with our faith. What you and several others are doing here is a matter that is extra curricular of all Christianity (Edited, ToS 2.4, insinuation to belittle or discredit, Obadiah) .

There is a thing better than 98% of the Church membership has an issue with understanding. They do not understand because they have gone forward, for what ever reason, they have been dunked in the water and declared saved. (Edited, ToS 2.4, insinuation to belittle or discredit, Obadiah) A saved person is indwelt with the Holy Spirit and there lies the issue.

My first experience with God was a still small voice I heard. I was not indwelt for another 23 years but when the Spirit came to live, nothing has ever been the same. I can read my Bible and find a never before seen truth from a passage I have read a dozen times before and, in fact, God has taught me four or five other lessons from the same passage.

This is not the only manner the Spirit guides my life but He is definitely is the guiding force in my life. That doesn't mean God cannot teach you one lesson from the text and another to me but you see, the two will not disagree nor will one discount the other. No, every time that has happened the two lessons fit like hand in glove.

Food for thought.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a logic here that only comes out when one exegetes the Hebrew words themselves…let me explain…

Nowhere in Genesis, or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter, are the sons of Seth referred to as the sons of God. Likewise, nowhere in the Bible are the “daughters of men” specifically a reference to the daughters of Cain. These could well have been any women including the daughters of the Sethites. In almost every other place where this specific phrase bene ha'Elohim (sons of God) is used in the Old Testament, it is clearly speaking of angels (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Psalm 89:6, 103:20; Daniel 3:25).

Yet another problem appears to be in the words themselves that are used. The first phrase is bene ha’Elohim and the second is literally daughters of Adam. From this it would appear, if this interpretation is correct, then Seth himself would be Elohim, and Cain would be Adam. But weren’t the daughters of Seth also the daughters of Adam? Of course they were. And was not Seth made in the image of Adam (Genesis 5:3) and not God? If Seth’s daughters (the daughters of God) were not included why were they destroyed as well? Why were they not more properly included as the daughters of Elohim (if the Sethite theory is correct)? If being daughters of Elohim they were not affected by this marriage corruption plot, then why would they also have to die in the flood? If the daughters of Seth were also among “daughters of men” then this makes sense, but if this refers to the daughters of Cain only it does not, otherwise the phrase excludes them and they should have been spared.
 
Josephus said, “Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers, and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed to them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness; whereby they made God to be their enemy, for many angels of God accompanied with women and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians called giantes. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and, being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better; but, seeing that they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land. (see pg. 32, Book 1, chapters 3, 72-74, The Antiquities of the Jews, translated by William Whitson, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987)
 
brother Paul said:
There is a logic here that only comes out when one exegetes the Hebrew words themselves…let me explain…

Nowhere in Genesis, or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter, are the sons of Seth referred to as the sons of God. Likewise, nowhere in the Bible are the “daughters of men” specifically a reference to the daughters of Cain. These could well have been any women including the daughters of the Sethites. In almost every other place where this specific phrase bene ha'Elohim (sons of God) is used in the Old Testament, it is clearly speaking of angels (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Psalm 89:6, 103:20; Daniel 3:25).

Yet another problem appears to be in the words themselves that are used. The first phrase is bene ha’Elohim and the second is literally daughters of Adam. From this it would appear, if this interpretation is correct, then Seth himself would be Elohim, and Cain would be Adam. But weren’t the daughters of Seth also the daughters of Adam? Of course they were. And was not Seth made in the image of Adam (Genesis 5:3) and not God? If Seth’s daughters (the daughters of God) were not included why were they destroyed as well? Why were they not more properly included as the daughters of Elohim (if the Sethite theory is correct)? If being daughters of Elohim they were not affected by this marriage corruption plot, then why would they also have to die in the flood? If the daughters of Seth were also among “daughters of men” then this makes sense, but if this refers to the daughters of Cain only it does not, otherwise the phrase excludes them and they should have been spared.
Click to expand...

Because all the societies on earth had all become pagan societies.
 
(Post deleted, Response was to a heavily edited post to the point that the response no longer applies, Obadiah)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
brother Paul said:
Josephus said, “Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers, and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed to them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness; whereby they made God to be their enemy, for many angels of God accompanied with women and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians called giantes. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and, being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better; but, seeing that they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land. (see pg. 32, Book 1, chapters 3, 72-74, The Antiquities of the Jews, translated by William Whitson, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987)
Click to expand...

Josephus certainly had a right to his interpretation of that scripture in Genesis. He was a Jew so that gives us insight into what this Jewish man believed and probably other Jews as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top