Did Fallen Angels Have Sex with Earthly Women?

[Deavonreye]

Sissy, the ONLY reason why males have . . . "the appendage" . . . is for sexual reproduction. Are you going to sum up your argument that angels have this organ. . . as well as sperm production? Yes or no?

 

[farouk]

This is a genuine and interesting doctrinally related discussion.

(I'm sure we can keep anatomical references safely vague, though...No need to be too exact...)

 

[Sissy]

Personally, I have never seen an angel naked.


I'm just trying to point out that the belief that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is referring to angels is not as biblically baseless as some might think.

Many of the very early church fathers (including well known men such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Tertiullian) believed it to be angels.

And the Septuagint (translation from Hebrew to Greek before the time of Christ) renders "sons of God" in Genesis 6 as aggelos (angels).


I have no qualms with those who hold the other view that "sons of God" is referring to the descendants of Seth.
I think that view also has some biblical support.
No matter which view one holds, it does not change the message of the story ---- that God was so grieved about the wickedness of the world that it had to be destroyed.

I just believe the angel view has more support and fits better with other scripture.

So in order for everyone to be well informed of both viewpoints, I thought I would give all the reasons why some believe it is speaking of angels since we already have a few in this thread who hold the other viewpoint.

 

[Deavonreye]

That doesn't answer the anatomy question.

 

[farouk]

That doesn't answer the anatomy question.

D: Maybe we don't want to talk so precisely about this anatomical aspect.

 

[Sissy]

That doesn't answer the anatomy question.

You can't answer it either, unless you have seen one naked.
Have you?
I haven't.

D: Maybe we don't want to talk so precisely about this anatomical aspect.

True.

If we rely on our earthly knowledge of biology and science for our answers, then several things in the bible would be questionable.

 

[farouk]

You can't answer it either, unless you have seen one naked.
Have you?
I haven't.

True.

If we rely on our earthly knowledge of biology and science for our answers, then several things in the bible would be questionable.

Sissy:

Oh so you're not a creationist, then.

Well, I see.

 

[Sissy]

A couple of other reasons why some believe "sons of God" = angels.


In Hebrew "sons of God" is bene elohim.

The only other place this is found (besides Genesis 6:2 & 4 under discussion) is in the book of Job.

Job 1
(6) Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2
(1) Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

Job 38
(7) When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
​

If the Hebrew meaning of bene elohim is consistent then in all cases, it is speaking of "non-earthly" beings.




The other word of consideration is the Hebrew word nephil (rendered "giants" in Genesis 6:4).
They were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men.

This word only appears one other place in Numbers 13 when the Israelite spies were sent by Moses to check out the land of Canaan.
They came back frightened because they saw nephil there.

Numbers 13
(33) And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
​

If the Hebrew meaning of nephil is consistent, then these guys were abnormally huge.

Which begs the question ..... if sons of God refers to the line of Seth, why would that result in abnormal offspring?

 

[Sissy]

Sissy:

Oh so you're not a creationist, then.

Well, I see.

Oh stop.
There is nothing in my posts that suggests I am not a creationist.

 

[Deavonreye]

I'm sorry, but this has to be the silliest thing I have heard . . . JUST to make one biblical story somehow "true". We're talking about angels. . . . which god should know their actions. . . which god would have [then] created them with the possibility to create abominations. . . . . . . AND remember, . . . they weren't called "the sons of Satan", in other words FALLEN angels, but "sons of god". Hmmmmm. . . HOW could this BE?

This is why I refuse to idolize a book that "makes itself divine".

 

[farouk]

I'm sorry, but this has to be the silliest thing I have heard . . . JUST to make one biblical story somehow "true". We're talking about angels. . . . which god should know their actions. . . which god would have [then] created them with the possibility to create abominations. . . . . . . AND remember, . . . they weren't called "the sons of Satan", in other words FALLEN angels, but "sons of god". Hmmmmm. . . HOW could this BE?

This is why I refuse to idolize a book that "makes itself divine".

D: If you're going to talk about the Bible in this way, can't you go some place else? (It's supposed to be a Christian site.)

 

[farouk]

Oh stop.
There is nothing in my posts that suggests I am not a creationist.

Sissy,

Sorry, I must have misunderstood.

Apologies.

 

[handy]

This is an issue that is pretty low on my particular list of what is important...I think it's a fairly unanswerable question...and I kind of like that the Bible gives us many unanswerable things. To me, if everything in the Bible was a:b:c: specific, then trying to claim it is a supernatural book would be a lot harder. Having a divinely inspired book that is 100% explainable is a lot like having a god that is 100% explainable...someone is obviously making something up if they can explain it 100%.

Anyhoo, back to the subject...I've always more or less thought of the "ben elohyim" to be sons of Seth and the "daughters of men" to be women descended of Cain who had left faith in God...which was what I was taught years ago, and never really was curious enough about this topic to look all that further into it. I have sort of flipped-flopped though, because it really does seem that if one wants to apply common sense exegesis to the subject, the idea of "ben elohyim" being angels is more correct.

It's interesting that I came across this thread today, because just the other day the kids were studying Job for catechism and I saw that phrase "sons of God" (ben elohyim) obviously referring to the angels:
Job1:6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. (NIV)

According to the Blue Letter Bible (on-line version of Strongs) the term "ben elohyim" only occurs in the Old Testament 5 times, twice in Genesis 6 and 3 times in Job: 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7. Each time in Job, the text is clearly referring to angels. So, again applying common exegesis practice, why dispute that it is referring to angels in Genesis 6?

It would certainly make sense, because otherwise why would Seth's sons marrying Cains daughters create a race of giants? Another thing that always intrigued me was that the Nephilim show up again in the land of Canaan after the flood. Since there were no more "daughters of Cain" running around then, this seems to give far more weight to the "ben elohyim" being fallen angels.

As far as the anatomy of angels are concerned, I've never believed in the idea that spirits have no physical form. Angels and even God are referred in physical terms all the time. Just because they tend to be invisible to us, doesn't mean that they have no physical nature. Certainly in all the texts in which angels appear to humans, the angels look either male or female and are able to walk and talk. Why is it more fantastic to believe that an angel has an ...ahem, working "organ"...than working feet or working vocal chords?

 

[Deavonreye]

farouk, my point exactly. We're talking about angels having sex with human females. A person needs to really think and consider what they are saying/believing. What may you be falsely believing in order to have the bible claim what you believe it to be saying?

handy, this natural world, and how lifeforms function, are a result of them BEING here. Life must propogate through specific means. For angels to have the same function, then you must conclude that they are just as flawed as we are, requiring certain functions for survival, and that they use the same functions in the heavenly realm. . . . .else, there is no REASON for them to possess such anatomy.

 

[handy]

I'm sorry, but this has to be the silliest thing I have heard . . . JUST to make one biblical story somehow "true". We're talking about angels. . . . which god should know their actions. . . which god would have [then] created them with the possibility to create abominations. . . . . . . AND remember, . . . they weren't called "the sons of Satan", in other words FALLEN angels, but "sons of god". Hmmmmm. . . HOW could this BE?

This is why I refuse to idolize a book that "makes itself divine".

It makes much more sense to me that if the Bible were filled only with clearly thought out, humanly logical and scientifically provable facts that it would be less divine. As I mentioned earlier, if someone can explain their god 100%, they are making that god up. Same with one's "holy book". Let's face it, take any book of science out there, any one. Do the tests in it. Can you explain why things work the way they work 100% of the time? Of course not. Not even Einstein would claim to be able to explain all things.

They would be "sons of God" because they were created by God. Satan has never created anything.

 

[farouk]

farouk, my point exactly. We're talking about angels having sex with human females. A person needs to really think and consider what they are saying/believing. What may you be falsely believing in order to have the bible claim what you believe it to be saying?

D: Like I said, can't you go some place else?

 

[Deavonreye]

farouk. . . . can, but no.

 

[Sissy]

Sissy,

Sorry, I must have misunderstood.

Apologies.

Apology graciously accepted.

I was only pointing out that our limited earthly knowledge of biology and science is the reason some find parts of the bible questionable (such as the virgin birth, worldwide flood, etc.).
They just don't understand how that could be possible because they rely on their limited earthly knowledge. And if scripture does not comply with their limited earthly knowledge, then they reject it.

 

[farouk]

This is an issue that is pretty low on my particular list of what is important...I think it's a fairly unanswerable question...and I kind of like that the Bible gives us many unanswerable things. To me, if everything in the Bible was a:b:c: specific, then trying to claim it is a supernatural book would be a lot harder. Having a divinely inspired book that is 100% explainable is a lot like having a god that is 100% explainable...someone is obviously making something up if they can explain it 100%.

Anyhoo, back to the subject...I've always more or less thought of the "ben elohyim" to be sons of Seth and the "daughters of men" to be women descended of Cain who had left faith in God...which was what I was taught years ago, and never really was curious enough about this topic to look all that further into it. I have sort of flipped-flopped though, because it really does seem that if one wants to apply common sense exegesis to the subject, the idea of "ben elohyim" being angels is more correct.

It's interesting that I came across this thread today, because just the other day the kids were studying Job for catechism and I saw that phrase "sons of God" (ben elohyim) obviously referring to the angels:
Job1:6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. (NIV)

According to the Blue Letter Bible (on-line version of Strongs) the term "ben elohyim" only occurs in the Old Testament 5 times, twice in Genesis 6 and 3 times in Job: 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7. Each time in Job, the text is clearly referring to angels. So, again applying common exegesis practice, why dispute that it is referring to angels in Genesis 6?

It would certainly make sense, because otherwise why would Seth's sons marrying Cains daughters create a race of giants? Another thing that always intrigued me was that the Nephilim show up again in the land of Canaan after the flood. Since there were no more "daughters of Cain" running around then, this seems to give far more weight to the "ben elohyim" being fallen angels.

As far as the anatomy of angels are concerned, I've never believed in the idea that spirits have no physical form. Angels and even God are referred in physical terms all the time. Just because they tend to be invisible to us, doesn't mean that they have no physical nature. Certainly in all the texts in which angels appear to humans, the angels look either male or female and are able to walk and talk. Why is it more fantastic to believe that an angel has an ...ahem, working "organ"...than working feet or working vocal chords?

handy:

Interesting points which you raise.

When it comes to spiritual conflict, it's not just a matter of flesh and blood (Ephesians 6).

There are undoubtedly good and bad spirits, good and bad angels. Good angels are described in Hebrews 1 as 'ministering spirits, sent to minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation'.

When it comes to active enemies of the Gospel, for example, or active enemies of spiritual Israel, then I can accept that evil spirits may be behind some of the activities of real, flesh and blood people.

In that sense, I suppose it would be a more moot point whether or not the people referred to have the working o's which you mentioned.

 

[farouk]

Apology graciously accepted.

I was only pointing out that our limited earthly knowledge of biology and science is the reason some find parts of the bible questionable (such as the virgin birth, worldwide flood, etc.).
They just don't understand how that could be possible because they rely on their limited earthly knowledge. And if scripture does not comply with their limited earthly knowledge, then they reject it.

sissy:

Oh I see.

Now I understand what you meant.