Did Fallen Angels Have Sex with Earthly Women?

[handy]

Very intriguing, Sissy. Perhaps through more study, we can see if it firms up.

 

[mondar]

I could offer an opinion on this text that has not been mentioned in this thread as far as I can see. I don't think the sons of God were either angels or demons. I also don't think they were from the line of Seth or Cain, neither of those things are the issue. The "Sons of God" were simply power, violent men. They were like Lamech, in the line of Cain, who bragged to his 2 wives that he killed a man for hurting him. The term Sons of God does not refer to a son of YHWH, but a son of the gods, like Hercules in greek mythology. The text says they were mighty men, men of renown. The polygamy of these men is mentioned in verse 2 in that they took wives of all that they chose. These powerful military men were like ancient kings and their harems.

The reference to the Nephilum or Giants is insignificant. In verse 4 it does not say that the daughters of men bore these giants, it merely says that there were giants "in the earth in those days." The giants merely mark the days and are not a real issue in the text.

So then, my conclusion, is that these powerful violent men took plural wives, became mighty men, and God saw their violence and this was part of the reason that God judged mankind in the flood.

 

[Sissy]

Thanks for the input, Mondar.
It's important to view every angle possible.

The reference to the Nephilum or Giants is insignificant.

I'll offer this as a possible angle.


Nephil (or nephilim, which is just the plural form of the word) is the Hebrew word.
When the Hebrew was translated into Greek, the Greek word used was gigentes (which means titans).
Titans were the offspring of "gods" and human women.

 

[farouk]

Very intriguing, Sissy. Perhaps through more study, we can see if it firms up.

h:

I think that in accordance with broader ideas of interpreting Scripture, the ongoing study of a Biblical theme, taking possibly wider aspects into consideration, is more likely to lead to a balanced view of a subject.

 

[handy]

h:

I think that in accordance with broader ideas of interpreting Scripture, the ongoing study of a Biblical theme, taking possibly wider aspects into consideration, is more likely to lead to a balanced view of a subject.

I agree, probably the only way to get truly at the bottom of it would be to do an in-depth study on angels and demons, scour every reference there is about them and just apply common exegesis.


Mondar, I do think that the text indicates the Nephilim were the offspring of the "ben elohyim" and women. There is somewhat of a parenthetical statement in verse 4. Without it the text reads in the NASB: The Nephilim were on the earth in those days when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and they bore children to them.

 

[westtexas]

As I have stated earlier in this thread, I have no qualms with folks who hold that view.

Genesis 6
(1) And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
​

And the very next verse uses a description that elsewhere in the OT is ONLY used of angels.
Why?

I have no qualms with those who hold the angelic view either. We probably won't know on this side of eternity and when we get to the other side, we'll probably laugh at how wrong both views were. It makes for good biblical discussion though.
Let me get your take on these verses. The next verse after the one you quote is "venei-the sons" "haelohim-of God"-Gen 6:2 It does not say angels. Elsewhere in scripture "haelohim" is also used to denote humans, judges, mighty men.

Ex.21:6-vehiggishov adonau el haelohim-his master shall bring him unto the judges

Ex.22:8-venikrav baal habbayit el haelohim-the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges

"Malak" is not used in this instance (Gen. 6) for angels. Why? I believe that in this instance these "sons of haelohim" refer to humans, the same as the above verses.
Thoughts? God bless, Westtexas

 

[westtexas]

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.

This answer is not from scripture but if you want to consider Jewish literature, here's something to think about.
Gen. 4:17-22 has the lineage of Cain. 4:22 says "and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah"
In the book of Jasher the story of God telling Noah to take a wife is told. Jasher 5:14&15 says Noah chose Naamah the sister of Tubal-cain. Typically, except in important exceptions (Ruth, Rahab, Etc) women are not listed in lineages in scripture. Is Naamah in Genesis for a reason? Just something to think about.

Westtexas

 

[handy]

I really need to drop out of this thread until next week (going to California this weekend for some serious girl-time with my best friend! :D)

Tex, I will study through your thoughts here and hopefully, when I get back next week, I won't be so hopelessly left behind that I can respond.

 

[westtexas]

(going to California this weekend for some serious girl-time with my best friend! :D)

I hope your going to Southern Cal and can get away from some of that nasty Idaho winter.
Merry CHRISTmas and God bless, Westtexas
P.S. HOW ABOUT THEM FROGS!!!!!!! They did good this year (so far)

 

[farouk]

I really need to drop out of this thread until next week (going to California this weekend for some serious girl-time with my best friend! :D)

Tex, I will study through your thoughts here and hopefully, when I get back next week, I won't be so hopelessly left behind that I can respond.

handy:

Have a great time and I hope the proximity of the Mexican sun in SoCal (?) will melt any ice that you take with you on your boots.

 

[farouk]

I hope your going to Southern Cal and can get away from some of that nasty Idaho winter.
Merry CHRISTmas and God bless, Westtexas
P.S. HOW ABOUT THEM FROGS!!!!!!! They did good this year (so far)

westtexas:

PS: I think there is a verse which suggest that frogs in Scripture can sometimes indicate evil spirits, but I don't remember the reference.

 

[stovebolts]

Have a good time in Cali!

I just wanted to post a bit more from a Jewish commentary I have from "Ramban" simply for food for thought. Just so everyone knows, I'm not advocating for the Jewish faith, I'm simply presenting their view of this section of scripture. The way I see it, it's their story and their language.

Starting with 2. Bnei Ha'elohim.
The sons of princes and rulers. This is the language of Rashi, and so it is in Bereshith Rabbah 26:8. If so, Scripture relates that the judges whose duty it was to administer justice among them committed open violence without anyone interfering.

"KI" (When) They were fair. [The meaning of the word ki here] is the same as in the verses: 'Ki' (when) thou seest the ass of him that hateth thee (Ex 23:5). 'ki' (when) a bird's nest chance to be before thee (Deut 22:6). When the daughters of men were fair, they would take them forcibly as wives for themselves.. Thus Scripture tells of the violence and mentions further, whomsoever they chose, in order to include those who were married to others. Scripture, however, did not mention the prohibition concerning them clearly, adn the punishment decreed upon them was only because of the violence (vs. 13) because this is a reasoned concept and does not require the Torah to prohibit it.

3. 'beshagam' (For that also) HE IS FLESH. It is as if beshagam were written beshegam with a segol under the shin. And Rashi explained: "This quality is also in him, that he is only flesh, and yet he is not humble before me. What would he do if he were made of fire or some hard substance." This explanation has neither rhym nor reason.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained that G-d said, "My Spirit will not abide in man foreever because of the violence and also because man is flesh, and when he reaches a certain age he disintegrates." Ibn Ezra thus understand the verse as if it said, "gam beshehu basar (also because he is flesh). But what need is there for stating this contention when it is know that they were but flesh (psalms 78:39) and death had been decreed on them, as it says, For dust though art, and unto dust shall thou return (Gen 3:19)

The correct interpretation appears to me to be taht G-d said: My spirit shall not abide in man forever because man also is flesh as all flesh that creepeth upon the earth in the forms of fowl and cattle and beast, and it is not fitting that the spirit of G-d be within him." The purport is to state that G-d made man upright (Ecc 7:29) to be like the ministering angels by virtue of the soul He gave them. But he was drawn after the flesh and corporeal desires; he is like the beasts that perish (Psalm 49:13) and therefore the spirit of G-d will no longer be sheathed in him for he is the corporeal and not the godly. However, He will prolong for them [this withdrawel of spirit] if they repent. The sense of this verse is similar to [the verse in Psalm 49] : So He remembered that they were but flesh, a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again.

4. THE NEPHILIM.
Rashi comments: "[They were called nephilim because] they fell (nephlu) and caused the downfall (hipilu) of the world." This is found in Bereshith Rabbah (26:16) The masters of language (Found in R'dak) say that they [the Nephilim] were so called because the heart of man fell from fear of them. The same applies to the word ha'eimin (Gen 14:5) {Eimah means terror. The Eimim thus induced terror into the hearts of those who saw them}

 

[Fembot]

I know of no scripture that claims angels are genderless.

In fact, scripture always refers to them as "men", never "women".

That's right, thank you

 

[Alabaster]

Scripture never refers to angels as men (except in the occasions where they took on human form for God's purpose). The texts only ascribe masculinity to them by referring to them in the masculine third person pronoun, 'he'.

It does not mean that angels have any gender at all--just as God is also genderless.

 

[Fembot]

Scripture never refers to angels as men (except in the occasions where they took on human form for God's purpose). The texts only ascribe masculinity to them by referring to them in the masculine third person pronoun, 'he'.

It does not mean that angels have any gender at all--just as God is also genderless.

"except in the occasions where they took on human form for God's purpose"

exactly.

 

[Vic C.]

I just wanted to post a bit more from a Jewish commentary I have from "Ramban" simply for food for thought. Just so everyone knows, I'm not advocating for the Jewish faith, I'm simply presenting their view of this section of scripture. The way I see it, it's their story and their language.

Jeff, I feel that much of the OT that isn't Messianic should be dealt with that way too :yes

 

[Sinthesis]

Numbers 25 provides the parallels one needs in order to understand the historic reality of the nephilim. Well, that and a rational mind.;)

 

[stovebolts]

Jeff, I feel that much of the OT that isn't Messianic should be dealt with that way too :yes

Yeah, and I'll tell ya, they sure know how to argue over some of the craziest stuff that we don't give a hoot about. But what I mostly enjoy is the tone is which they handle their disagreements

 

[stovebolts]

Numbers 25 provides the parallels one needs in order to understand the historic reality of the nephilim. Well, that and a rational mind.;)

I'm all ears.

 

[watchman F]

Did Fallen Angels Have Sex with Earthly Women

Absolutely not, this is an absurd belief!!!!!!!