westtexas
Member
I take it that you believe "the sons of God" were angels. You've got my thoughts. Can you tell me why you believe as you do?
Westtexas
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!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Did Fallen Angels Have Sex with Earthly Women?
- Thread starter Lewis
- Start date
Westtexas
There is not a real clear answer on this issue, however for the above reasons and because Jude describes angels that are being held in Hades for judgment who left there original place,lets let Jude tell it. And the angels which kept not their first estate but left their own habitation(came to earth)God has reserved to everlasting chains unto the judgment of the great day,EVEN AS(very important connection) Sodom and Gomorrha gave themselves over to fornication(sexual sin),going after STRANGE FLESH(having unnatural sex). The context is that the angels left their place and engaged in fornication that was contrary to their natural nature.
Example, it was possible for men to engage in sex with each other in Sodom even though it was contrary to the way they were created, so the context implies that it was possible for those male angels to have sex with human women even though it was contrary to the way they were created.
taromina2003
Member
farouk
Member
Alabaster:
Yes, what is he talking about?
(Unless he is mocking the Genesis account...)
tim-from-pa
Member
Yes I remember reading that too, you are correct about Noah's wife's lineage.
That's very insightful. Yes, I have to say that you have provided an excellent genealogical link there. If I ever find that my belief in the angel theory is wrong, I think I am going to go the route you just mentioned because that makes sense as well. And indeed, Since I, as you do, believe all men descended from Noah, the genealogy you mentioned is already there angels or no angels. So there's two possible explanations. Thanks for sharing that.
It is strange though that one cannot find a direct line from Noah to any of the people called giants,it is almost as if they were another race,also it is evident that God used other peoples to completely wipe out the giants.
westtexas
Member
Goliath, Saph, and Ishbi-benob were Philistines. Og of Bashan was an Amorite. All were descendants of Ham. 1 Chron. 1:12 and 14
Westtexas
Goliath and his brothers could have been a cross between a Philistine woman and one of the remaining original giants,at the time of Goliath the race of giants had been destroyed(mostly). Og lived in Amorite country,however the giants were a race unto themselves,Numbers 13:28 and there we saw the sons of Anak. I have looked and looked and have found no record of Anak coming from Noah. Also,Goliath at nine and one half feet tall would have been possibly two feet shorter then the king of the giants(Og). Apparently the original home of the giants was BASHAN, however I find no record of where Bashan came from. Hey, if you find any clear lineage from Noah to the giants let me know.
S
savedbygrace57
Guest
I believe its pure none sense to believe that Angels had sex with women on the earth, there is not a shred of evidence for that or even that spiritual beings can even copulate with the physical. However it was the Sons of God from the Line of Seth, that Line when men began to call upon the name of the Lord gen 4:
25And 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.
26And 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 calling upon the Name of the Lord indicted that these were people of Faith.
However these men instead of staying separated from the world, that being Cains fallen descendants and the women of His posterity, God's people began to intermingle with the heathens..
This produced giants. The word giant is the Hebrew word
nĕphiyl and it is from the root word
naphal which means:
to fall, lie, be cast down, fail
a) (Qal)
1) to fall
2) to fall (of violent death)
3) to fall prostrate, prostrate oneself before
4) to fall upon, attack, desert, fall away to , go away to, fall into the hand of
to cause to fall, fell, throw down, knock out, lay prostrate
2) to overthrow
3) to make the lot fall, assign by lot, apportion by lot
4) to let drop, cause to fail (fig.)
5) to cause to fall
So it was the Fall of the People of God, the Sons of God, like a apostasy a falling away or a overthrowing.
as the overthrowing of the Faith 2 tim 2:18
Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
The earth became full of apostate[fallen] men and women from these ungodly alliances because of the flesh.
This population of people set the scene for the destruction of the world by the flood..
25And 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.
26And 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 calling upon the Name of the Lord indicted that these were people of Faith.
However these men instead of staying separated from the world, that being Cains fallen descendants and the women of His posterity, God's people began to intermingle with the heathens..
This produced giants. The word giant is the Hebrew word
nĕphiyl and it is from the root word
naphal which means:
to fall, lie, be cast down, fail
a) (Qal)
1) to fall
2) to fall (of violent death)
3) to fall prostrate, prostrate oneself before
4) to fall upon, attack, desert, fall away to , go away to, fall into the hand of
to cause to fall, fell, throw down, knock out, lay prostrate
2) to overthrow
3) to make the lot fall, assign by lot, apportion by lot
4) to let drop, cause to fail (fig.)
5) to cause to fall
So it was the Fall of the People of God, the Sons of God, like a apostasy a falling away or a overthrowing.
as the overthrowing of the Faith 2 tim 2:18
Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
The earth became full of apostate[fallen] men and women from these ungodly alliances because of the flesh.
This population of people set the scene for the destruction of the world by the flood..
Last edited by a moderator:
westtexas
Member
As Tim stated earlier in this thread you will find biblical support for both sides of this debate. I love the study of genealogy and have studied OT genealogy quite extensively for many years. The lineages ARE there. If you don't care to hear about them, that's fine with me. It's obvious from some of the statements in the above post you just want to argue. "I find no record of where Bashan came from" is one example. Bashan is a location east of Mt. Hermon and the Sea of Galilee. It's not a person. Og of Bashan. It's all going to boil down to whether someone wants to take the genealogical side of the debate or the angelic side. There's biblical support for both sides and which side of this debate anybody takes, matters not to me. Simply trying to share some genealogy. I won't waste any more of your time.
God bless, Westtexas
Last edited by a moderator:
farouk
Member
westtexas
Member
I didn't look back to see which side of this debate you believe in but you'll find supporters of both sides early in Christianity's history. Chrysostom took the side of the "sons of Seth", both Eusebius and Josephus took the side of angels. There is much to read from both sides and both will be supported scripturally. 50/50?
Westtexas
I don't know what book folks are reading because there is not a single shred of biblical evidence that the sons of God were the decendants of Seth and the daughters of men decendants of Cain, that idea is a clear rejection of what is written and a clear distortion in order to find a different idea than angels taking human women. I admit that the angels taking human women and having offspring is a little hard to fit in, however to reject honesty and integrity and make up something that is ridiculous is certainly not the answer. First, the bible does not say that the decendents of Seth were called "sons of God", so there is nothing to build the story on. Second the decendents of Seth and Cain were all in the SAME FAMILY, Seth and Cain were full brothers, all of their decendants would have been sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. Third, the ones doing the mischief in this story are the sons of God not the daughters of men, also, the children were of unusual ability, that would not be possible if they were all just children of Adam and Eve.
W
Watchman_2
Guest
I apologize for taking so long to reply to you. Due to circumstances not within my control [suspension], I was unable to reply. As I was perusing the older topics, I landed upon your post.
I will take your points a bit out of order. First, I dispute your assessment of Strong's. Strong's is actually a very good tool in that it does provide a dictionary of the words in the manuscripts [despite your denial]. And, it provides all of the ways each word was rendered, right or wrong, in the English Bible. Strong's leaves it up to the user to make the correct scriptural interpretation from the information contained therein. Other lexicons/concordances have a tendency to add or delete therefrom Strong's depending on the religious slant of the authors thereof.
If you look at the rendering 'God' in Strong's, it also identifies it as one meaning of 'gods' [plural]. The KJC shows that it is rendered 'gods' 216 times -- first in Gen. 3:5.
Strong's clearly indicates that elohim is the plural of H433, which is eloah. The word eloah is derived from H410, which is el. The word el is the shortened form of H352, which is ahyil.
Since the OT manuscripts are in Hebrew, what's your point?
Last edited by a moderator:
Prince
Member
I agree and seeing how the Strongs in used in accompaniment with the KJ, you can actually see the same approach of letting the reader decide in the works of the KJ authorship.
stovebolts
Member
With all due respect, my point is simply this. Strongs is a wonderful, and powerful tool, but it is falls short.
As far as "God" / Elohim, it is much more than strongs conveys simply because strongs is biased toward the biblical text. Don't take this as an insult for Strongs. Strongs certainly has it's place and as I said earlier, it is a very good tool and should be held in high regard.
Case in point. Do you know why Elohim is plural and why it is closely associated with El? Did you also know that neither El nor Elohim are Hebraic in origin, but rather, it is found in some of the oldest manuscripts on earth that pre-date biblical records from the Ancient Near East.
Prince
Member
Indeed
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Man is not perfect and without perfection comes a falling short. But I do not know of a better concordance, do you have a favorite?
W
Watchman_2
Guest
True -- and, that is Strong's strength. One can determine most, if not all, the errors/mistranslation made therein the KJV, which traditional denominational interpretation did not catch, willfully overlooked, and/or assumed the wrong meaning.
In essence, one does not have to be a graduate of an accredited seminary or be an ordained preacher in order to demonstrate proficiency in the Word of God and/or have superior interpretations to that of organized denominations. I would surmise that those in the preaching profession, who have dedicated the time and money to attend seminaries, shudder at the notion of layperson Bible interpretation. Generally, that is the group that I find most against Strong's. However, absent the tools for the layperson to use to determine Truth, all are at the mercy of church heirarchy for the understanding of the Word of God. The Roman Catholic Church attempted that level of control. I don't think that any Protestant would want to go back to that system.
IMO, Strong's best supports layperson understanding of Truth.
W
Watchman_2
Guest
Have you ever listened to a Philippine newscast? The national language is Tagolog. However, the language is interladen with words of spanish and english derivation. When I listen, I don't know any natural Tagolog; however, I pick up on the Spanish and English words now part of their language.
Now, no one alive today can state with certainty what language was used by Adam and Eve. It could have been something completely different than what was understood as ancient Hebrew at the time of Moses.
The point that I am making is very basic. Assuming you are correct about the derivation of elohim, at the time of Moses, elohim was incorporated into their Hebrew language. When God dictated the Word to Moses, it would have been in the language that Moses understood -- despite the derivation of each word.
n2thelight
Member
Yes the fallen angels did have sex with the daughter's of men,and they are coming back,Paul warned of this
I Corinthians 11:10 "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."
It is for this reason that the woman ought to have the power, which is the authority of that God gives to each of us, when we are in Christ. This again is written to the end generation, and our power and authority come from the Word of God. That knowledge and wisdom that is in the Word of God is where our power comes from, and we must have that wisdom in our mind or we will not stand in the day of the deception.
This goes way back to Genesis 6, and it pertains to what the angels did when they came to earth. It was for this reason that the flood of Noah came to be, for Satan could not destroy the Seed, so he tried to destroy the coming of Christ through Eve's daughters.
Genesis 6:1 "And it came to pass, when the men began to multiply one the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,"
So the subject that we are trying to learn is why does a woman today ever have to protect herself from angels? Got the subject here? Daughters are born to men.
Genesis 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
"Sons of God" are the "Nephilim" or "fallen angels". They are the angels that have committed themselves to Satan in his fall in the first earth age. These fallen angels saw that the daughters of flesh men were very beautiful, and they wanted to take them for their wives. Remember that flesh man was created from the dust of the earth, and the woman was created just like the man, also from the dust of the earth as a companion for each other. These fallen angels sought to have the things of flesh man, and their experiences of marriage, without being born of woman.
I Corinthians 11:10 "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."
It is for this reason that the woman ought to have the power, which is the authority of that God gives to each of us, when we are in Christ. This again is written to the end generation, and our power and authority come from the Word of God. That knowledge and wisdom that is in the Word of God is where our power comes from, and we must have that wisdom in our mind or we will not stand in the day of the deception.
This goes way back to Genesis 6, and it pertains to what the angels did when they came to earth. It was for this reason that the flood of Noah came to be, for Satan could not destroy the Seed, so he tried to destroy the coming of Christ through Eve's daughters.
Genesis 6:1 "And it came to pass, when the men began to multiply one the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,"
So the subject that we are trying to learn is why does a woman today ever have to protect herself from angels? Got the subject here? Daughters are born to men.
Genesis 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
"Sons of God" are the "Nephilim" or "fallen angels". They are the angels that have committed themselves to Satan in his fall in the first earth age. These fallen angels saw that the daughters of flesh men were very beautiful, and they wanted to take them for their wives. Remember that flesh man was created from the dust of the earth, and the woman was created just like the man, also from the dust of the earth as a companion for each other. These fallen angels sought to have the things of flesh man, and their experiences of marriage, without being born of woman.