Angels Do Not Have Sex

[Deborah13]

Food for thought.........God maybe hasn't shown this truth to you yet?( you admit that you learn from things that you have read a dozen times before.)

I am Just the opposite of you, I was taught and believed that it was the line of Seth for years and still have a hard time with the super natural. and I have studied it in depth after my revelation of " Angels of God."

I have not been active in this thread but to be honest the "angels of God" position is supported by scripture WAYYYYY better in this thread than the "feelings" of the opposition or the "putdowns" of the opposition or the "attacks" of the opposition. If I were neutral on the subject I would lean towards Angels somehow figured out human reproduction by reading this thread.

Now wait a minute I presented almost all scripture from the OT. In order for those scriptures not to show that these large people were just people, one must believe that someone on the ark was not 100% human.

 

[brother Paul]

Because all the societies on earth had all become pagan societies.

Even the bene ha'Elohim...? Then why distinguish them???

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.

Actually no one really thought of it any other way until Africanus in the early 3rd century...Augustine runs with the "sons of Seth" theory in the City of God and then it tales off (actually there are three views another is the city-magistrate view)...

So if sons of God = sons of Seth (made in the image of Adam), and
daughters of men (which really says "of Adam") = the daughters of Cain...

Why wouldn't God have said that?

But the sons of Seth cannot be the sons of Elohim because Seth was not directly created by God, unless Seth is Elohim (God forbid)? Now because "the daughters of men" is actually (and it is) "the daughters of Adam" (get a lexicon and look),then these must also include the Sethite women (who were also daughters of Adam), so then they cannot be simply the daughters of Cain...

When you actually exegete the passage in the Hebrew the Seth/Cain theory is confusion...

So let me ask you...where does one get the idea that the daughters of adam = the daughters of Cain? Not from the Bible that is for sure. It does not say that...

How does one even make the leap to interpret "daughters of men" into "daughters of Cain"? That is not n the Bible either! Some one added to the word and implied this was what it "meant" though not being what it "said"....

Can we take such liberties or does the word mean what the word says? if the word of God does not mean what it says then anyone can attach meanings all over the place...is this not the historical cause of most schism...God says one thing in His word and some person or group says it means something other?

Remember the theory is "sons of Seth" and "daughters of Cain"! Where in God's word does the word say this? Please someone show me>>>

 

[Deborah13]

Even the bene ha'Elohim...? Then why distinguish them???


Actually no one really thought of it any other way until Africanus in the early 3rd century...Augustine runs with the "sons of Seth" theory in the City of God and then it tales off (actually there are three views another is the city-magistrate view)...

So if sons of God = sons of Seth (made in the image of Adam), and
daughters of men (which really says "of Adam") = the daughters of Cain...

Why wouldn't God have said that?

But the sons of Seth cannot be the sons of Elohim because Seth was not directly created by God, unless Seth is Elohim (God forbid)? Now because "the daughters of men" is actually (and it is) "the daughters of Adam" (get a lexicon and look),then these must also include the Sethite women (who were also daughters of Adam), so then they cannot be simply the daughters of Cain...

When you actually exegete the passage in the Hebrew the Seth/Cain theory is confusion...

So let me ask you...where does one get the idea that the daughters of adam = the daughters of Cain? Not from the Bible that is for sure. It does not say that...

How does one even make the leap to interpret "daughters of men" into "daughters of Cain"? That is not n the Bible either! Some one added to the word and implied this was what it "meant" though not being what it "said"....

Can we take such liberties or does the word mean what the word says? if the word of God does not mean what it says then anyone can attach meanings all over the place...is this not the historical cause of most schism...God says one thing in His word and some person or group says it means something other?

Remember the theory is "sons of Seth" and "daughters of Cain"! Where in God's word does the word say this? Please someone show me>>>

I find Adam Clarke's writing to be quite rational.
"There were giants in the earth - נפלים nephilim, from נפל naphal, "he fell." Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by γιγαντες, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just distinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim, the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above; children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints; the former were termed γιγαντες, earth-born, and the latter, ἁγιοι, i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth."

 

[agua.]

Now wait a minute I presented almost all scripture from the OT. In order for those scriptures not to show that these large people were just people, one must believe that someone on the ark was not 100% human.

Angon a minute ! What if the "Sons of God" ( if they are Angels ) did the same thing after the flood ?

 

[JLB]

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.

What does Josephus have to do with anything?

These scriptures do not speak of any angels.

The only way Nephilim were created was by the relations between the sons of God and the daughters of men.

That was true before the flood and that was true after the flood.

Anything else is just conjecture.

How do you suppose the sons of God survived the flood if they were human?


JLB

 

[JLB]

Now wait a minute I presented almost all scripture from the OT. In order for those scriptures not to show that these large people were just people, one must believe that someone on the ark was not 100% human.

Why does someone have to believe someone on the Ark was not 100% human.

The sons of God were not human as they were unaffected by the flood.


JLB

 

[brother Paul]

I find Adam Clarke's writing to be quite rational.
"There were giants in the earth - נפלים nephilim, from נפל naphal, "he fell." Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by γιγαντες, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just distinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim, the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above; children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints; the former were termed γιγαντες, earth-born, and the latter, ἁγιοι, i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth."

Thats cool sis...I know of the three view and the support for each view, but see in Clarke how he eisegetes his opinion into the text? For example "נפלים nephilim, from נפל naphal, "he fell." You have it here as "Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion." That is not in the text...it is added by Clarke based on his opinion...could be fallen ones as those angels having fell from heaven having offspring "born on earth" just as easily...but lets just agree to disagree.

You say "These were the sons of God, who were born from above" but according to Jesus this requires the regeneration (a word which means the new birth, being made into new creatures IN CHRIST) and Jesus had not yet come so their sins could not have been "remissed" (taken away) though God could have forgiven the faithful. But the new birth only comes by receiving Christ (John 1:12; Acts 2:38; Ephesians 1:13, etc.,)...

 

[brother Paul]

The third view most Christians do not even consider is the City King-Magistrate Theory...so here is a synopsis for our mutual edification...this makers the sons of God (or sons of the gods) not born again believers but kings who are seen or viewed or called God or the god's sons or even god-manifest...

The idea that kings or tribal leaders were somehow believed to be divine or the offspring of or manifestations of the local god was not uncommon in ancient times. Meredith Kline in her article from The Westminster Theological Journal, May 1962, uses the Sumer-Babylonian epic tradition which either deals with these city-kings as either having been placed into these positions by the favor of their gods or else being offspring/manifestations of these gods. In her perspective, it makes perfect historical sense that these “sons of God” in Genesis six could have “established their own authority as supreme head of a fabricated religio-politico system; then they held their subjects in gross spiritual darkness and abject physical slavery.” Apparently there is a long history of this and similar anthropological developments though out history. Hittite kings were apparently deified after their deaths, while in Egypt the Pharaohs were believed to be divine from birth. The Krt text from Ras Sharma (Krt being the name of a god) tells us of his son, the king, who is called Krt bn il which can be interpreted to mean the “son of El”.

We see this concept everywhere we look from the early Celts and druids all the way to the Japanese “Kami” or preist-king. In Minoa, as well as in Inca and Aztec cultures, the kings or chiefs were considered the incarnation of the Sun god, or at least his direct descendants. In the Norse countries their kings were always the sons of Odin, or some other god. Many like in the Japanese legend were considered priest-kings and performed both functions. While the Roman Emperors were gods themselves, the Byzantine emperors considered themselves to be God’s representative on earth. Perhaps this is what led to the control exercised by Popes in the middle ages who also billed themselves as the representative of God on earth (see also Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, Oxford, 1967). Undoubtedly these notions are so anthropologically universal that they must have had a root somewhere in the historical past. Only though these examples are often used in this context to support the magistrate or city king notion, all these tales point to some sort of intimate union or interaction between their gods and these human beings producing what we might call god-men.

In the Bible we also see usage of the term “elohim”, or gods, as it is applied to men (Psalm 82:6; John 10:34,35). This word, though used for the Creator in Genesis, is not actually a name, nor is it a word that only describes the one and only God (YHVH). In ancient Semetic languages, even Canaanite dialects, the elohim is somewhat of a generic title. In the Babylonian as well as the Canaanite pantheons there are many El’s. Abraham called the Lord our God, El-Shaddai, or God Almighty, in order to indicate that He was the only real, as in most powerful, God. He referred to Him later as El-Elyon to refer to His being the Most High God, again taken to be a reference to a one true God, the Creator of the Universe and all that contains. Just some thoughts...

brother Paul

 

[Deborah13]

What does Josephus have to do with anything?

You haven't been keeping up read the Josephus post.

The only way Nephilim were created was by the relations between the sons of God and the daughters of men.
That was true before the flood and that was true after the flood.
Anything else is just conjecture.
How do you suppose the sons of God survived the flood if they were human?
JLB

Again you haven't been keeping up. I've already stated my position and answered that last question.
But you are certainly entitled in yours. :nod

 

[Deborah13]

Why does someone have to believe someone on the Ark was not 100% human.

The sons of God were not human as they were unaffected by the flood.


JLB

Go back and read all my posts and then you will understand my posts.
Read Genesis 10 and where the Amorites came from and Deut.

 

[Deborah13]

Angon a minute ! What if the "Sons of God" ( if they are Angels ) did the same thing after the flood ?

That's not my position.

 

[brother Paul]

Deb I agree with you on this one...I think JLB is a little frindegy on this...I have never heard his spin but it is interesting conjecture nonetheless...here is one more item we all can consider...

The notion raised by 2 Peter and Jude’s use of the unique word “Tartarus” for the place these “fallen ones” (who or what ever they were) were being held until judgment…in Greek Mythology Tartarus is the place where the “Titans” (from the word Gigantus) are being held…the Titans if you remember were half god half human mighty ones who ruled the earth for a short time…the Septuagint translators used this exact word (gigantus) for the Nephilim…however in the ancient classical Greek is not always used to denote size in stature but also incredible strength, exceptional power, or even irresistible influence.

Now I am not supporting Greek Mythology…just passing on the information…in fact most of the early church rejected 2 Peter and Jude as being “inspired” and they were both considered “spurious” until around the 4th century (so for 300 years no Christian teachers or bishops we know of believed they WERE written by Peter or Jude)

ALSO - (from GotQuestions.org) "There is no doubt that every reference to angels in Scripture refers to them in the masculine gender. The Greek word for “angel” in the New Testament,angelos, is in the masculine form. In fact, the feminine form of angelos does not exist. There are three genders in grammar—masculine (he, him, his), feminine (she, her, hers), and neuter (it, its). Angels are never referred to in any gender other than masculine. In the many appearances of angels in the Bible, never is an angel referred to as “she” or “it.” Furthermore, when angels did appear, they always appeared dressed as human males (Genesis 18:2,16;Ezekiel 9:2). No angel ever appeared in Scripture dressed as a female"

so according to the words used angelos are never gender neuter

Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/angels-male-female.html#ixzz31muw6Aj5

Again just passing on info…

 

[Deborah13]

Thats cool sis...I know of the three view and the support for each view, but see in Clarke how he eisegetes his opinion into the text? For example "נפלים nephilim, from נפל naphal, "he fell." You have it here as "Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion." That is not in the text...it is added by Clarke based on his opinion...could be fallen ones as those angels having fell from heaven having offspring "born on earth" just as easily...but lets just agree to disagree.

You say "These were the sons of God, who were born from above" but according to Jesus this requires the regeneration (a word which means the new birth, being made into new creatures IN CHRIST) and Jesus had not yet come so their sins could not have been "remissed" (taken away) though God could have forgiven the faithful. But the new birth only comes by receiving Christ (John 1:12; Acts 2:38; Ephesians 1:13, etc.,)...

This is OT Hebrew and Jewish language and thought that NT teachings about salvation.
Seeing the scripture in Genesis 6 is not absolutely clear about the 'sons of God' it seems to me that all opinions are just that opinions.
So everyone states their position of what they believe it is talking about and why. That's it.

 

[Deborah13]

Deb I agree with you on this one...I think JLB is a little frindegy on this...I have never heard his spin but it is interesting conjecture nonetheless...here is one more item we all can consider...

The notion raised by 2 Peter and Jude’s use of the unique word “Tartarus” for the place these “fallen ones” (who or what ever they were) were being held until judgment…in Greek Mythology Tartarus is the place where the “Titans” (from the word Gigantus) are being held…the Titans if you remember were half god half human mighty ones who ruled the earth for a short time…the Septuagint translators used this exact word (gigantus) for the Nephilim…however in the ancient classical Greek is not always used to denote size in stature but also incredible strength, exceptional power, or even irresistible influence.

Now I am not supporting Greek Mythology…just passing on the information…in fact most of the early church rejected 2 Peter and Jude as being “inspired” and they were both considered “spurious” until around the 4th century (so for 300 years no Christian teachers or bishops we know of believed they WERE written by Peter or Jude)

ALSO - (from GotQuestions.org) "There is no doubt that every reference to angels in Scripture refers to them in the masculine gender. The Greek word for “angel” in the New Testament,angelos, is in the masculine form. In fact, the feminine form of angelos does not exist. There are three genders in grammar—masculine (he, him, his), feminine (she, her, hers), and neuter (it, its). Angels are never referred to in any gender other than masculine. In the many appearances of angels in the Bible, never is an angel referred to as “she” or “it.” Furthermore, when angels did appear, they always appeared dressed as human males (Genesis 18:2,16;Ezekiel 9:2). No angel ever appeared in Scripture dressed as a female"

so according to the words used angelos are never gender neuter

Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/angels-male-female.html#ixzz31muw6Aj5

Again just passing on info…

I think the position that when the translation says 'sons of God' that maybe it should have been translated 'sons of gods'. In other words, influential men. Possibly pagans who believed as the Pharaohs did that they were actually gods and presented themselves that way. The Roman Emperors demanded that they be worshiped as gods.
Or even 'sons of God'.
Men that had turned away from the true God to glorifying themselves. Power corrupts.
I think Romans 2, speaks to this clearly. That when men knew God and were aware of His moral laws they turned away to their own ways becoming more and more corrupt and God gave them up to their reprobate minds.

 

[brother Paul]

I agree Deb and I am not dogmatic on this but a good exegesis is given by Chuck Missler at

take a listen (you to JLB) just for our mutual edification...

 

[JLB]

Go back and read all my posts and then you will understand my posts.
Read Genesis 10 and where the Amorites came from and Deut.

I'm not discussing "Amorites", but rather angels and their offspring which were called Nephilim.

The sons of God produced Nephilim.

Sons of men produced sons or daughters on men.


JLB

 

[Deborah13]

I agree Deb and I am not dogmatic on this but a good exegesis is given by Chuck Missler at

take a listen (you to JLB) just for our mutual edification...

I have listened to Chuck Missler on this several months ago and he states his case well. You could do a search in the forum search, keyword Nephilim, and there is a thread that all these views and Chuck Missler's teachings are presented.

There were some other people posting in that thread who do a better job then I do presenting the position of these 'sons of God' being powerful men.
My attempt this time was to present the scriptures in Genesis 10 that clearly states where, after the flood, the Amorites came from and that the were "mighty men" such as Nimrod, mighty hunter and mighty warriors.
All the tribes of Canaan came from the same bloodlines but not all were giants, even speaking of giants in the sense of large people such as Og.

 

[Deborah13]

I'm not discussing "Amorites", but rather angels and their offspring which were called Nephilim.

The sons of God produced Nephilim.

Sons of men produced sons or daughters on men.


JLB

"and even after the flood" is what these scriptures speak of.

 

[brother Paul]

JLB I apologize for calling your view somewhat frindgey I did a search and studied the reasons for your view and I can see it now (again I remain non-dogmatic as to a definite conclusion)....

 

[brother Paul]

I have listened to Chuck Missler on this several months ago and he states his case well. You could do a search in the forum search, keyword Nephilim, and there is a thread that all these views and Chuck Missler's teachings are presented.

There were some other people posting in that thread who do a better job then I do presenting the position of these 'sons of God' being powerful men.
My attempt this time was to present the scriptures in Genesis 10 that clearly states where, after the flood, the Amorites came from and that the were "mighty men" such as Nimrod, mighty hunter and mighty warriors.
All the tribes of Canaan came from the same bloodlines but not all were giants, even speaking of giants in the sense of large people such as Og.

I know Deb and this will always be an area of discussion in-house but gigantes is mistranslated to only refer to "giants" as in huge people so this brings in an interesting point.