Did Fallen Angels Have Sex with Earthly Women?

[stovebolts]

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?

Not sure that verse fits directly within the context of our conversation, but I get the jist :D

I would think that one of the main differences between us Prince is that I look at the scriptures first and foremost as a story where applicable. From that perspective, the manner in which a word is used assist's in defining itself by creating the context from where it's sued. For instance, in other Ancient Near Eastern texts, El is in the singular and is used in the place of a name as the Supreme deity over the Pantheon. For example, Dagon's son Murdock was given the title El after defeating Tiamate. This in turn made him the Elohim, which is plural because within the ancients polytheistic culture it denotes the head deity over the pantheon and before we go any further, yes it is a title, but it is also a name. We have a hard time grasping that concept, but Dagon and El and Elohim would be one in the same with slightly different nuances. It is within this setting that Abram was called out of Ur and it was from this perspective that much of the OT was written since monotheism was a "new" idea for that era to put it simplistically.

But more to your point on using concordances. Sure, I have a few online sources and I even have an application. But the best understanding of the Hebrew words come from simply reading Jewish sources. As I've stated in previous posts, I enjoy studying Rashi and The Ramban and both are extremely fluid in the ancient Hebrew and both discuss the nuances within different words for a fuller understanding. I can't recall exactly, but the Jews have a source on their own language which holds authority and both Ramban and Rashi lean on this source frequently. For instance, just last week I found out that in the Hebrew, the word son in Exodus 33:11 isn't really ben, but rather bin and is the only place in scripture where bin is used as son. Without a deep understanding of the language, the significance of this is hidden. BTW, Strongs defines it as ben.

So, from my perspective, Strongs would be analogous to diet soda, or how do they call that stuff nowdays, "Lite" :D . Again, it certainly is a valuable resource and is very useful, but it's certainly isn't the end all be all of understanding the Hebrew language...

I might also note that in today's "Gotta have it now" appetite, Strongs seems to deliver. But just like eating fast food will make you fat and out of shape, to become fit takes time and patience... something I'm still working on, and will be for some time. I don't have all the answers, but I'm learning to ask the right questions.

Grace and peace.

 

[Prince]

Not sure that verse fits directly within the context of our conversation, but I get the jist :D

I would think that one of the main differences between us Prince is that I look at the scriptures first and foremost as a story where applicable. From that perspective, the manner in which a word is used assist's in defining itself by creating the context from where it's sued. For instance, in other Ancient Near Eastern texts, El is in the singular and is used in the place of a name as the Supreme deity over the Pantheon. For example, Dagon's son Murdock was given the title El after defeating Tiamate. This in turn made him the Elohim, which is plural because within the ancients polytheistic culture it denotes the head deity over the pantheon and before we go any further, yes it is a title, but it is also a name. We have a hard time grasping that concept, but Dagon and El and Elohim would be one in the same with slightly different nuances. It is within this setting that Abram was called out of Ur and it was from this perspective that much of the OT was written since monotheism was a "new" idea for that era to put it simplistically.

But more to your point on using concordances. Sure, I have a few online sources and I even have an application. But the best understanding of the Hebrew words come from simply reading Jewish sources. As I've stated in previous posts, I enjoy studying Rashi and The Ramban and both are extremely fluid in the ancient Hebrew and both discuss the nuances within different words for a fuller understanding. I can't recall exactly, but the Jews have a source on their own language which holds authority and both Ramban and Rashi lean on this source frequently. For instance, just last week I found out that in the Hebrew, the word son in Exodus 33:11 isn't really ben, but rather bin and is the only place in scripture where bin is used as son. Without a deep understanding of the language, the significance of this is hidden. BTW, Strongs defines it as ben.

So, from my perspective, Strongs would be analogous to diet soda, or how do they call that stuff nowdays, "Lite" :D . Again, it certainly is a valuable resource and is very useful, but it's certainly isn't the end all be all of understanding the Hebrew language...

I might also note that in today's "Gotta have it now" appetite, Strongs seems to deliver. But just like eating fast food will make you fat and out of shape, to become fit takes time and patience... something I'm still working on, and will be for some time. I don't have all the answers, but I'm learning to ask the right questions.

Grace and peace.

Not sure that verse fits directly within the context of our conversation, but I get the jist

The smallest drip of water can make one wet.

I would think that one of the main differences between us Prince is that I look at the scriptures first and foremost as a story where applicable.

As do I , the biggest problem we have, is that you are yet to realize many of the people you call Jews just arent real Jews...

Revelation 2:9

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9

9Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

These Jews have fooled you friend....

 

[stovebolts]

The smallest drip of water can make one wet.



As do I , the biggest problem we have, is that you are yet to realize many of the people you call Jews just are real Jews...

Revelation 2:9

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9

9Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

These Jews have fooled you friend....

Hey there Prince... You see, there is a strain within Kabbalisitc teachings that teach almost verbatim a doctrine on the serpent seed.. Yes, even down to Satan having sex with Eve in the garden. Much of what I've read from many of your posts are supported quite well within the Kaballah, so you see, you are more in alignment with Kabbalistic teachings than I by leaps and bounds.

There is nothing new under the sun, and let us never forget that we were grafted in.

So you see, when you disagree with my posts in reference to the OT, it is not entirely me that you disagree, but rather you disagree with The Ramban, and the Ramban does not support The Satan having sex with Eve, nor does he support fallen angels having sex with earthly woman, as the Kabballah teaches in various sections.

Grace and Peace Brother.

 

[Prince]

Hey there Prince... You see, there is a strain within Kabbalisitc teachings that teach almost verbatim a doctrine on the serpent seed.. Yes, even down to Satan having sex with Eve in the garden. Much of what I've read from many of your posts are supported quite well within the Kaballah, so you see, you are more in alignment with Kabbalistic teachings than I by leaps and bounds.

There is nothing new under the sun, and let us never forget that we were grafted in.

So you see, when you disagree with my posts in reference to the OT, it is not entirely me that you disagree, but rather you disagree with The Ramban, and the Ramban does not support The Satan having sex with Eve, nor does he support fallen angels having sex with earthly woman, as the Kabballah teaches in various sections.

Grace and Peace Brother.

What does the bible support ?

<< Genesis 6 >>
King James Version

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

When men (haa-adam) Adams family began to multiply daughters were born.

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

The sons of God (angelic beings) took to wife these Adamic females.


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.

Notice there were giant in those days and after those days because the fallen angels returned and had sex with woman again (thats why we have Goliath)

Its says these sons of God came in unto the females,

Original Word: בּוֹא
Transliteration: bo
Phonetic Spelling: (bo)
Short Definition: come


Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to come in, come, go in, go

I dont want get to graphic here but when a male goes in a female and comes or "cums" this is the process of intercourse and ejaculation.

From this intercourse we have "geber"

14. THE SYNONYMOUS WORDS
USED FOR "MAN".


There are four principal Hebrew words rendered "man", and these must be carefully discriminated. Every occurrence is noted in the margin of The Companion Bible. They represent him from four different points of view :--

1. 'Adam, denotes his origin, as being made from the "dust of the Adamah" ground (Lat. homo).
2. 'Ish, has regard to sex, a male (Lat. vir).
3. 'Enosh, has regard to his infirmities, as physically mortal, and as to character, incurable.
4. 'Geber, has respect to his strength, a mighty man.

1. 'Adam, without the article, denotes man or mankind in general (Gen. 1:26; 2:5; 5:1, followed by plural pronoun). With the article, it denotes the man, Adam, though rendered "man" in Gen. 1:27; 2:7 (twice), 8, 15, 16, 19 (marg.), 22 (twice); 3:12, 22, 24; 5:1; 6:1 (rendered "men"), 2, 3, 4. After this, the Hebrew 'Adam = man or men, is used of the descendants of Adam. Hence, Christ is called "the son of Adam", not a son of Enosh.
   With the particle ha ('eth) in addition to the article it is very emphatic, and means self, very, this same, this very. See Gen. 2:7 (first occurrence), 8, 15. Rendered in the Septuagint (anthropos) 411 times; (aner) eighteen times (fifteen times in Proverbs); (brotos), mortal (all in Job); once (gegenes), earth-born, Jer. 32:20.
   
   
   
2. 'Ish. First occurrence in feminine, Gen. 2:23, 'ishah = woman. Therefore, 'ish = male, or husband; a man, in contrast with a woman. A great man in contrast with ordinary men (Ps. 49:2, where "low" are called the children of Adam, and the "high" = children of 'ish. So Ps. 62:9 and Isa. 2:9; 5:15; 31:8). When God is spoken of as man, it is 'ish (Ex. 15:3. So Josh. 5:13. Dan. 9:21; 10:5; 12:6, 7. Zech. 1:8, &c.). Also, in such expressions as "man of God", "man of understanding", &c. In the early chapters of Genesis we have it in chapters 3:33, 34 and 4:1. Translated in Septuagint 1,083 times by (aner), Latin vir, and only 450 by (anthropos), Latin homo. It is rendered "husband" sixty-nine times, "person" twelve times, and once or twice each in thirty-nine different ways.
   
   
   
3. 'Enosh. First occurrence Gen. 6:4, men of name. Always in a bad sense (Isa. 5:22; 45:14. Judg. 18:25). Morally = depraved, and physically = frail, weak. It is from 'anash, to be sick, wretched, weak, and denotes inability, for strength, physically; and for good, morally (cp. 2Sam. 12:15. Job 34:6. Jer. 15:18; 17:9; 30:12, 15. Mic. 1:9). Note the contrasts, Isa. 2:11 and 17, "The lofty looks of man ('Adam) shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men ('Enosh) shall be bowed down" (Cp. Isa. 13:12. Job 25:6. Ps. 8:4; 90:3; 144:3. Job 4:17; 10:5; 7:17. Dan. 4:16). Other instructive passages are Isa. 8:1; 66:24. Ezek. 24:17 (afflicted, or mourners. Cp. Jer. 17:16, "day of man"). In 1Sam. 4:9 it is probably plural of 'Ish (so probably Gen. 18 and 19, where the indefinite plural must be interpreted by the context, because 'Adam would have denoted human, and 'Ish, males). It is rendered "man" 518 times, "certain" eleven times, and once or twice each in twenty-four other and different ways.
   
   
   
4. Geber. First occurrence in Gen. 6:4 (*1), mighty men, and denotes man in respect of his physical strength, as 'Enosh does in respect of the depravity of his nature. It is rendered "man" sixty-seven times, "mighty" twice, "man-child" once, "every one" once. In the Septuagint rendered fourteen times (anthropos) and the rest by (aner). For illustrative passages see Ex. 10:11; 12:37. 1Sam. 16:18. 2Sam. 23:1. Num. 24:3, 15. 1Chron. 26:12; 28:1. 2Chron. 13:3. Ezra 4:21; 5:4, 10; 6:8.
   
   
   
5. Methim (plural) = adults as distinguished from children, and males as distinguished from females. Occurs Gen. 34:30. Deut. 2:34; 3:6; 4:27; 26:5; 28:62; 33:6. 1Chron. 16:19. Job 11:3, 11; 19:19; 22:15; 24:12; 31:31. Ps. 17:14; 26:4; 105:12. Isa. 3:25; 5:13; 41:14. Jer. 44:28.

(*1) In Gen. 6:4, we have three out of the above four words : "daughters of men" ( = daughters of [the man] 'Adam; "mighty men" = (geber); "men of renown" = Heb. men ('Enosh) of name, i.e. renowned for their moral depravity.

 

[Prince]

Stovebolts

So you see, when you disagree with my posts in reference to the OT, it is not entirely me that you disagree, but rather you disagree with The Ramban, and the Ramban does not support The Satan having sex with Eve, nor does he support fallen angels having sex with earthly woman, as the Kabballah teaches in various sections.

I disagree with some things and agree with other things here are a few quotes for you to consider. I am not trying to promote any Serpent seed doctrine so if this upsets anyone I hope the moderators will simply erase it.. thx

From the Jewish Talmud, Jewish Encyclopedias, and Other Early Jewish Writings.
​

​

Yebamoth 103b: Rabbi Johanan stated: "When the serpent copulated with Eve, he infused her with lust." ​

Haye Sarah 126a: Another Rabbi states: "Thus I have learnt, that when the serpent had intercourse with Eve he injected defilement into her." ​

Haye Sarah 126b Another stated: "You rightly said that when the serpent had carnal intercourse with Eve he injected into her defilement." ​

Yevamot 103b: "According to the midrash, the snake seduced her to commit adultery with him. Thus a thrice repeated saying of Rabbi Yohanan has it that 'at the time that the snake had intercourse with Eve, he introduced filth into her..." ​

Ahare Moth 76b: One Rabbinic source stated: "Eve bore Cain from the filth of the serpent, and therefore from him were descended all the wicked generations, and from his side is the abode of spirits and demons." ​

Bereshith 36b: "For two beings had intercourse with Eve, and she conceived both and bore two children. Each followed one of the male parents, to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters." ​

Shabbath 146a: "For when the serpent came upon Eve he injected lust into her." ​

Yevamot 103b: "...at the time that the snake had intercourse with Eve, he introduced filth into her. ​

Zohar I, 28b: "For they are the children of the ancient serpent which seduced Eve..." ​

Jewish Encycl.1905.Vol.XI p.69: "Satan was the seducer and paramour of Eve." ​

Legends of the Bible, by Louis Ginsberg, p.54: "Satan, in the guise of the serpent, approached her and the fruit of their union was Cain, the ancestor of all impious generations that were rebellious toward God, and rose up against Him. Cain's descent from Satan, who is the angel Sammael, was revealed in his seraphic appearance. At his birth, the exclamation was wrung from Eve, 'I have gotten a man, through an angel of the Lord."​

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: "Adam knew about his wife Eve that she had conceived by Sammael the angel of the Lord, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain." ​

Targum of Jonathan: "And Adam was aware that Eve his wife had conceived from Sammael the angel, and she became pregnant and bare Cain, and he was like those on high, not like those below; and she said, 'I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord." ​

Jewish Encyc.1904-Vol.9.p.70: "The chief functions of Satan are, as already noted, those of temptation, accusation, and punishment. He was an active agent in the fall of man (Pirke R. El. Xii.) and was the father of Cain." ​

Jewish Encyc.1904-Vol.5,p.275: "Eve became pregnant, and bore Cain and Abel on the very day of (her creation and) expulsion from Eden (Gen. R. xii) Cain's real father was not Adam, but one of the demons..." ​

Pirqei de Rabbi Eliezer: "The serpent came into her and she became pregnant with Cain, as it says, "And the man knew his wife Eve. "What did he know" That she was already pregnant. (by Satan.)​

Jerusalem Targum: "And Adam knew his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord. And she added to bear from her husband Adamhis twin, even Abel." ​

The Encycl. Britannica Vol.VIII - 1910. p.122 (Jewish Interpretations of Scripture): "The birth of Cain is ascribed to a union of Satan with Eve." ​

​

Correct there is nothing new under the sun....

 

[warfrog]

Greetings,

"Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she concieved and bore Cain, and said "I have acquired a man from the Lord." Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel."

I dont see any connection of satan and eve, from His word its clear Adam knew Eve and she concieved and bore Cain.

Where does this stuff come from?

Grace to you, peace from God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Prince]

Greetings,

"Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she concieved and bore Cain, and said "I have acquired a man from the Lord." Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel."

I dont see any connection of satan and eve, from His word its clear Adam knew Eve and she concieved and bore Cain.

Where does this stuff come from?

Grace to you, peace from God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hello, Im not sure we can have this conversation on this forum.....But your question can be simply answered with biblical documentation.....

 

[warfrog]

Hello, Im not sure we can have this conversation on this forum.....But your question can be simply answered with biblical documentation.....

My question was just answered by God.
There is no question, Cain was by the seed of Adam, he knew Eve and she concieved and bore Cain.

The question i asked was rhetorical because what you posted is not according to Him, what I posted is, therfore the rhetorical question was, where do they come up with this stuff? it certianly isnt from God.

Grace to you, peace from God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Vic C.]

<< Genesis 6 >>
King James Version

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

When men (haa-adam) Adams family began to multiply daughters were born.

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

The sons of God (angelic beings) took to wife these Adamic females.

Pure conjecture. I would dig a little further and investigate what Sons of God really means.

You say you aren't trying to support Serpent seed doctrine, but the contents of your post is just as bad. :bigfrown

Where does this stuff come from?

Warfrog, it comes from Man trying to usurp historical and traditional theology and it's doctrine.

Sad, isn't it?

 

[Vic C.]

We are 16 pages into this thread and I feel it's run it's course. Leaving it open is just an invitation to promote more objectionable doctrines.