Did Fallen Angels Have Sex with Earthly Women?

[handy]

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.

Oh, assuredly.

I can also accept that evil spirits themselves could take on a more active role and intervene themselves into the mix...and Genesis 6 could be an example of them doing just that.

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.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. It always sort of amuses me, when, once a scientific explanation can be found for a miracle of scripture, then suddenly those who are opposed to the divine nature of God then say, "Well, that's what happened then, see no "god" necessary, it was just a natural event that superstitious people didn't understand and claimed a "god" was behind it." There is a show on the History Channel about the plagues of Egypt that does just this. As if God cannot order nature to do His bidding.

If a miracle is told, the natural mind rejects it as "unscientific and therefore didn't happen" unless a scientific explanation is forthcoming, then the miracle is rejected anyway as a "oddly coincidental yet perfectly natural event". This is why those who call upon God to provide "proofs" before they believe are doomed.

 

[Sissy]

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

This is actually a good point.

Sons of God (bene elohim) is a direct creation of God.

Angels were a direct creation of God.
Adam was also a direct creation of God, created in the image of God.
But Adam's offspring is not said to be in the image of God.
His offspring is in the image of Adam himself.

Genesis 5
(3) And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
​

In the old testament "sons of God" is only referring to angelic beings (direct creation of God).

It is not until the new testament that men are called sons of God.

One is Adam because he is a direct creation of God.

Luke 3
(38) Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
​

But other men are only called sons of God because of a direct creation of God (the new birth).

2 Corinthians 5
(17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Galatians 6
(15) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
​

 

[farouk]

Oh, assuredly.

I can also accept that evil spirits themselves could take on a more active role and intervene themselves into the mix...and Genesis 6 could be an example of them doing just that.

...

handy:

It also strikes me that in Genesis there were those of the strength and longevity of Metheuselah and others. And then in Moses' day the natural cycle was about 120 years. Later it went down to about 70.

(Two cents'.)

 

[Sissy]

I can also accept that evil spirits themselves could take on a more active role and intervene themselves into the mix...and Genesis 6 could be an example of them doing just that.

This is also another good in which is another reason I believe that sons of God in Genesis 6 is referring to angels.

We have scripture that alludes to a certain amount of angels being bound because of some dastardly deed they did during the time of Noah.

2 Peter 2
(4) For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
(5) And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
​

The only mention of anything angels (sons of God) did during the time of Noah was in Genesis 6.

 

[farouk]

What thing? Did I miss a comment?

Angels have no gender. ..

I agree with this basic statement.

There is a sense in which the pronoun 'he' is used as a default setting in Scripture to refer to angels sometimes. And in the Gospels, the angel in the tomb is referred to as a 'young man'. However, he was not human in the full sense.

 

[handy]

What biblical evidence is there that angels have no gender?

Texts please...

 

[handy]

This is also another good in which is another reason I believe that sons of God in Genesis 6 is referring to angels.

We have scripture that alludes to a certain amount of angels being bound because of some dastardly deed they did during the time of Noah.

2 Peter 2
(4) For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
(5) And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
​

The only mention of anything angels (sons of God) did during the time of Noah was in Genesis 6.

This makes very good sense to me, Sissy! We know that 2 Peter 2:4 cannot be speaking of all fallen angels, for then there would be no demons in the world today...and I don't believe that. I think this passage in 2 Peter 2 certainly gives weight to the idea of angels and women producing a race.

 

[farouk]

What biblical evidence is there that angels have no gender?

Texts please...

handy:

Well, there is Matthew 22.30:

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

 

[handy]

handy:

Well, there is Matthew 22.30:

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

This simply tells us that the angels of God in heaven do not marry or are given in marriage...doesn't say that they are incapable of reproducing sexually...just that they don't.

Look at the whole of the verse, it is speaking of men and women who die and go on...men and women are perfectly capable of reproducing sexually, we just don't once we are resurrected. I don't believe that we will be resurrected genderless, there is no scriptural support for that is there?

However, this really doesn't get at the issue of gender with angels anyway...

The idea that angels have no gender is one of those things that we hear all the time, but don't really see any scripture about. On the contrary, angels are very often referred to as being male and at least in the one text, female. Why are we assuming that angels have no gender?

 

[farouk]

This simply tells us that the angels of God in heaven do not marry or are given in marriage...doesn't say that they are incapable of reproducing sexually...just that they don't.

..

handy:

So you think that angels could...do it? Just that they don't?

 

[Deavonreye]

Wow. . . . . just. . . . . . . . . wow. ing

 

[farouk]

I saw this on the History channel or maybe youtube?
Skeletons of giants have been found and it is clear that the Bible mentions giants. But I don't see fallen angels. I think Nephillim (fall) is referring to them becoming evil. I don't really know much about this. I take what I see on tv as a grain of salt and honestly haven't heard any preachers mention it either.

Interesting...

Fembot:

Hey, I hadn't realized it was on the History Channel.

There's a lot of interesting stuff on there, but most of it wouldn't be presented from remotely a Christian point of view.

 

[Alabaster]

What biblical evidence is there that angels have no gender?

Texts please...

Why would they have gender when they do not marry or procreate (which Jesus talked about)?

I think people are off their rockers thinking that the angelic order is like humanity.

 

[handy]

Wow. . . . . just. . . . . . . . . wow. ing

Why? Why all the assumptions about beings that most of us should admit that we know practically nothing about?

Or, are you claiming to know all about angels? If you are, please give us your source information, I'd love to see it.

Basically, I know very little about angels, and all that I know is from the Bible. I know that the Bible refers to angels as either he or she, not it. I know that angels can be mistaken for humans, as the Bible tells us that some have entertained angels without knowing who they are entertaining. I know that we all have specific angels who watch over us. I know that angels act as servants to God. I know that some angels have fallen and are now demons. I know that demons will be forever condemned, but that some already are locked away, and the reason why they are locked away has to do with the events listed in Genesis 6.

Other than that, I really don't know much about them. I know that many believe that they are pure spirit, but just what exactly does that mean? The bible refers to angels as walking, as talking, as standing, and doing other physical things. Why the constant references to physical attributes of angels, if they have no physical attributes?

I guess what I am challenging here is assumptions. Where are we getting our assumptions about angels from? What the Bible teaches? The Bible refers to angels as the "ben elohyim" and states that they married the daughters of men. Why change the clearly understood meaning of "ben elohyim" in Job to something else in Genesis? Why not simply accept that some of the fallen angels married human women, and their offspring were the accursed Nephilim? Why is this not logical, but yet, assuming that angels have no physical being is?

So you think that angels could...do it? Just that they don't?

The angels that serve God wouldn't, because this is something that apparently God despises, as it was part of the reason stated that He flooded the earth. This is clear from Genesis 6, if one simply reads the passage as stated and does not try to twist the plain meaning.

Let's just look at the passage:

1Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
3Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.



OK, note in verse 1 that men began to multiply on the earth and daughters were born to them. Not "ben elohyim" but men. Human male creatures. The Hebrew word here is 'adam. Yep, that's why Adam was called Adam, it's Hebrew for man. The word for daughters is "bath", which means simply enough "daughter". Men had daughters. This is very straightforward.



Then in verse two, the "ben elohyim" are referred to as finding that the daughters of men were beautiful and so took wives for themselves. Now, "ben elohyim" shows up 5 times in the Old Testament, three times of which it is crystal clear it is referring to angels. The other two times is right here in this passage. The context makes it clear that there is a difference between them and 'adam (men). Why, when we know that "ben elohyim" refers specifically to angels in Job are we to suddenly come up with this idea that they are the sons of Seth in Genesis 6? If someone can show me why this is...I am listening.


Verse 3 makes it clear that God is upset, very upset..."My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he also is flesh, his days shall be 120 years". This is where God is making it clear that He is so angry that He is going to destroy the earth because of what is happening.


Then we see in verse 4 the first biblical reference to the Nephilim, which in the ordinary course of reading the text are the offspring of the "ben elohyim" and women.



Sissy has already given plenty of textual support for the idea that these "ben elohyim" are angels....is there anyone who can give just as good textual support for the idea that the "ben elohyim" are the decedents of Seth?


As well as textual support for the idea that angels have no physical being?

 

[handy]

Why would they have gender when they do not marry or procreate (which Jesus talked about)?

I think people are off their rockers thinking that the angelic order is like humanity.

Well, Alabaster, show us some good textual support for your opinion here...Sissy has done a great job pulling together some solid biblical exegesis as to why she believes that angels took human wives. Show us the Biblical case for why you believe they have not.

 

[farouk]

handy,

Well, with regard to your question, there is the 'ministering spirits' reference in Hebrews 1, I suppose.

I guess that when we come to the spirit world, what we have revealed is in the Bible but what we don't have clearly stated we can't be firm about.

 

[handy]

I do see that angels are ministering spirits, yes...why does that mean that they cannot have physical attributes?

Also, keep in mind that if the "ben elohyim" of Genesis 6 are angels, they are fallen angels who are rebelling against God.

 

[farouk]

I do see that angels are ministering spirits, yes...why does that mean that they cannot have physical attributes?

Also, keep in mind that if the "ben elohyim" of Genesis 6 are angels, they are fallen angels who are rebelling against God.

handy:

Well, interesting, yes.

I guess...I'm not sure how to state this exactly; when building inferences from Scripture, it's either a case of it being deemed 'not proven' or 'not unproven'.

Exegetically, and thinking of other interpretational situations, I guess I'm ultimately more comfortable with continuing to regard something as 'not proven' unless there is clear evidence from Scripture to the contrary.

 

[Deavonreye]

Why? Why all the assumptions about beings that most of us should admit that we know practically nothing about?

Or, are you claiming to know all about angels? If you are, please give us your source information, I'd love to see it.

Basically, I know very little about angels, and all that I know is from the Bible. I know that the Bible refers to angels as either he or she, not it. I know that angels can be mistaken for humans, as the Bible tells us that some have entertained angels without knowing who they are entertaining. I know that we all have specific angels who watch over us. I know that angels act as servants to God. I know that some angels have fallen and are now demons. I know that demons will be forever condemned, but that some already are locked away, and the reason why they are locked away has to do with the events listed in Genesis 6.

Other than that, I really don't know much about them. I know that many believe that they are pure spirit, but just what exactly does that mean? The bible refers to angels as walking, as talking, as standing, and doing other physical things. Why the constant references to physical attributes of angels, if they have no physical attributes?

I guess what I am challenging here is assumptions. Where are we getting our assumptions about angels from? What the Bible teaches? The Bible refers to angels as the "ben elohyim" and states that they married the daughters of men. Why change the clearly understood meaning of "ben elohyim" in Job to something else in Genesis? Why not simply accept that some of the fallen angels married human women, and their offspring were the accursed Nephilim? Why is this not logical, but yet, assuming that angels have no physical being is?

The angels that serve God wouldn't, because this is something that apparently God despises, as it was part of the reason stated that He flooded the earth. This is clear from Genesis 6, if one simply reads the passage as stated and does not try to twist the plain meaning.

Let's just look at the passage:

1Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
3Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.



OK, note in verse 1 that men began to multiply on the earth and daughters were born to them. Not "ben elohyim" but men. Human male creatures. The Hebrew word here is 'adam. Yep, that's why Adam was called Adam, it's Hebrew for man. The word for daughters is "bath", which means simply enough "daughter". Men had daughters. This is very straightforward.



Then in verse two, the "ben elohyim" are referred to as finding that the daughters of men were beautiful and so took wives for themselves. Now, "ben elohyim" shows up 5 times in the Old Testament, three times of which it is crystal clear it is referring to angels. The other two times is right here in this passage. The context makes it clear that there is a difference between them and 'adam (men). Why, when we know that "ben elohyim" refers specifically to angels in Job are we to suddenly come up with this idea that they are the sons of Seth in Genesis 6? If someone can show me why this is...I am listening.


Verse 3 makes it clear that God is upset, very upset..."My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he also is flesh, his days shall be 120 years". This is where God is making it clear that He is so angry that He is going to destroy the earth because of what is happening.


Then we see in verse 4 the first biblical reference to the Nephilim, which in the ordinary course of reading the text are the offspring of the "ben elohyim" and women.



Sissy has already given plenty of textual support for the idea that these "ben elohyim" are angels....is there anyone who can give just as good textual support for the idea that the "ben elohyim" are the decedents of Seth?


As well as textual support for the idea that angels have no physical being?

Or maybe, the original translation [of which there isn't any original translations of the bible] never had that part about them, . . . . similar to the verses in the New Testament about picking up snakes and drinking poison, which are said to not be in earlier manuscripts? Instead of over-anthropomorphising angels, maybe that section never was supposed to be in there.

I've never seen an angel, nor do I know anyone who has. I would love to. I just personally think that you could be angering them by even suggesting that they would ever actually find any human person as alluring and wanting to have sex with them.

 

[Free]

Or maybe, the original translation [of which there isn't any original translations of the bible] never had that part about them, . . . . similar to the verses in the New Testament about picking up snakes and drinking poison, which are said to not be in earlier manuscripts? Instead of over-anthropomorphising angels, maybe that section never was supposed to be in there.

I've never seen an angel, nor do I know anyone who has. I would love to. I just personally think that you could be angering them by even suggesting that they would ever actually find any human person as alluring and wanting to have sex with them.

Personally, I don't think it is about angels at all. The Bible doesn't give us much about angels. What we do know is that they are spirit beings and that they "neither marry nor are given in marriage." (Matt 22:30) This suggest that as spirit beings, angels cannot procreate.

What I find odd then is that some Christians want to argue that angels can take on human form and give themselves the ability to procreate. God didn't give them the ability but they can give themselves the ability. It really seems inconsistent to me. Just because the Bible refers to angels as "he" or people see them as men, does not in any way mean that they can procreate.

I don't know why people want to presume and speculate rather than relying on what we do know.