Did Fallen Angels Have Sex with Earthly Women?

[Watchman_2]

Hi Watchman, I would like to comment on something you stated above. I'll quote it again below.

I'd like to take a look at that assumption if we could. Lets see if we can find a pattern in scripture and go from there ok? We'll start just a few verses back from verse 26.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Who is bringing forth the creatures? Of course, it's the waters. By what authority? Why the authority of God of course.

Now look at the next verse. Genesis 1:21 And God created great sea creatures, and every living thing that moves,


And how did God create the sea creatures etc? Well, we need not look any further than the verse prior to it which states he commanded the waters to bring them forth.

Let's continue.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kinds, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kinds: and it was so.

Do we see a pattern? God commands the Earth to bring forth living creatures, just as the Sea had brought forth the birds and sea creatures. Simply put, it is out of the Earth that the living creatures are brought forth. Yet to be clear, it is by God's sovereign command as noted in verse 25. And God made... And how did he make? By commanding the earth to bring them forth.

This brings us to humanity...

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.

Our image?.... It should become clear by way of context that the our denotes the Earth, which is a combination of water and dust.

Why do I say this? Because systematically, God commands the waters to bring forth the fish and the fowl (vs. 20) and then commands the earth to bring forth cattle and creeping things (vs 24) and ironically, it is within this order that humanity is granted dominion (vs 26).

Humanity is made of dust (earth) and divine breath (Spirit).

[SIZE=-1]Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.[/SIZE]

In Gen. 1:20, 21, & 24, the English translation of only the manuscript words reads as -

Gen 1:20 God said waters abundantly creature . .

Gen 1:21 God created great whales every living creature . . .

Gen 1:24 God said earth bring living creature . . .
​

The rest of the wording in the KJV was added by the translators [either rightfully or in error].

If you look at Gen. 1:26 in the manuscripts and take the KJV English equivalent on only the manuscript words, you have -

Gen 1:26 God said make man image likeness dominion fish sea fowl air cattle all earth every thing creepeth earth
​

The rest of the wording, as seen in the KJV, is filled in by the translators. So, it seems to me that your best argument against my post would have been that the words 'us' and 'our' are not in the manuscripts and were improperly inserted into the text by the translators.

***********

Let's assume for the moment that the additional wording that was inserted by the translators was correct [an assumption that I do not agree with all of the time] in Gen. 1:20-21, 24-25.

If I understand your post correctly, you are claiming that God was speaking to the water in 1:20 and was speaking to the earth [or land] in 1:24. And, since the man, later to be called "Adam", was formed from the dust of the ground [2:7], God was speaking to the dust of the ground in 1:26. Hence, the inserted words 'us' and 'our' in 1:26 refers to God and the 'dust of the ground' according to your thinking.

You have presented an interesting position; however, I find it wanting for many reasons. Please consider the following:

1. Where are the 'us' and 'our' with respect to the creatures of the water [1:20] and the living land creatures [1:24]?? It seems to me that, if God so chose to refer to the 'dust of the ground' as 'us' and 'our' for the creation of man [1:26], God would likewise use the terms 'us' and 'our' with respect to the waters in 1:20 and the earth/land in 1:24.

2. Who is God talking to in 1:3, 6, 9, and 14?? In those scriptures, one sees the wording "God said . . ." According to your thinking, God is speaking to some underlying foundational element [water, earth, dust] from which that which God is about to create will come.

In 1:3, we see - "And God said, Let there be light".
To whom is God speaking to from which the light would be created from??

In 1:6, we see - "And God said, Let there be a firmament".
To whom is God speaking to from which the firmament would be created from??

In 1:9, we see - "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together".
What element is God speaking to from which the waters would be gathered from??

In 1:14, we see - "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven".
Same type of question.

3. Who is God speaking to in 3:22?? In this scripture, we see "God said . . ." again. Clearly, there is no reference to the creation activities, yet God is speaking to someone.

4. Your analysis does not fit with the three ages of 2 Pet. 3.

5. The wording "bring forth" is not necessarily literal. Your analysis seems to hinge upon the rendering "bring forth" being literal. A look at the manuscript meaning yields -

H3318
יצא
yâtsâ'
yaw-tsaw'
A primitive root; to go (causatively bring) out, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, direct and proximate: - X after, appear, X assuredly, bear out, X begotten, break out, bring forth (out, up), carry out, come (abroad, out, thereat, without), + be condemned, depart (-ing, -ure), draw forth, in the end, escape, exact, fail, fall (out), fetch forth (out), get away (forth, hence, out), (able to, cause to, let) go abroad (forth, on, out), going out, grow, have forth (out), issue out, lay (lie) out, lead out, pluck out, proceed, pull out, put away, be risen, X scarce, send with commandment, shoot forth, spread, spring out, stand out, X still, X surely, take forth (out), at any time, X to [and fro], utter.
​

There is nothing in the meaning of the manuscripts which locks the rendering 'bring forth' into being a literal interpretation only.

Accordingly, it seems to me that your theory really can't meet the burden of proof and reproof required of it in order to be considered Biblically meritorious.

However, I thank you for your thoughtful perspective.

 

[tim-from-pa]

No !! Mark 12 vv25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the ANGELS which are in heaven. Doesn't that kind of indicate that angels don't have sex. Oh and does it really matter the bio line from adam to Noah is established, and all else died in the flood.

Even if you are correct, it is not for the reason you just stated--- the evidence using Jesus' quote is flimsy. For the reason, check out my post #149 the part about Enoch. (Jesus could have even been quoting Enoch for all I know). you have a right to believe what you do, but I am merely suggesting a stronger argument.

 

[Sam21]

It is a little bit of a stale mate, however it appears that the greater evidence is that "some kind" of angels did have sex with human woman and produced offspring. First, the bible never says that angels are sexless, Jesus said that resurrected humans will not marry in heaven as on earth but will be like the angels, it is assumed from this that angels cannot have sex.
On the other side we have "sons of God" which always describes created being as humans are called sons and daughters of men. This seems to be saying pretty clearly that male beings that were not descended from Adam came to earth and took up with women and had children by them that were not at all normal human children. In the NT we have Jude telling of angels that went after strange flesh and in the context it is compared to the strange flesh the men of Sodom were going after(sex they were not designed to have). Also Peter tells us of angels that sinned and have been imprisoned. So the greater biblical evidence is that angels did have sex with women and produced offspring...how this could be is not explained in the bible.

 

[warhorse]

Even if you are correct, it is not for the reason you just stated--- the evidence using Jesus' quote is flimsy. For the reason, check out my post #149 the part about Enoch. (Jesus could have even been quoting Enoch for all I know). you have a right to believe what you do, but I am merely suggesting a stronger argument.

I know that was flimsy, thats why i followed it up showing that the question was moot regardless (Oh and does it really matter, the bio line from Adam to Noah is established, and all else died in the flood.) Peaple pursue this concept because the thought is somewhat tantilizing and opens up avenues of imagination that are simply dangerouse, if we do not all spring from Adam then are we all born into sin? if we are born from angels then may be some of us born are special, superior, (elect). What race spawned from the angels? do you suppose they were all white/ black/jews? You see this leads to dangerouse imaginations that may lead some away from the truth. That all men are equal, born unto sin, and condemned from birth, unless they come to the cross. I will not accept opacrophia as evidence for any position.

 

[westtexas]

That's the whole purpose of the flood to wipe all them out (but the bible states there are such things going on after that.)

Tim, I'd like to hear your thoughts. I know you believe in a global flood. Just as I do. Scripture says-Gen 6:4- that there were giants in the days of the flood and also afterward. I'm sure you have an opinion from scripture where these giants came from after the flood. I personally believe the "Sons of God" were the sons of Seth and the "daughters of men" were the daughters of Cain. I don't care to debate. I have a great respect for your scriptural knowledge and am just curious where your belief of angels and men comes from. I'll be glad to throw my thoughts out there as to why I believe as I do and see what you think.
God bless, Westtexas

 

[Alabaster]

I do not share that belief for many reasons. The Bible indicates in Gen. 6:5 that God was only upset with the Adamic race of people -- not the other races. That is why He only flooded the land inhabited by the Adamic race.

Hence, when one reads Gen. 6:9, the reason for the flood becomes quite evident. Noah and his family were the only ones left out of the Adamic race that were not corrupted in lineage by the offspring of the fallen angels.

False. God was regretful of His creation and He flooded the entire world.

Genesis 6:5-7 NLT
5 The Lord observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil. 6 So the Lord was sorry he had ever made them and put them on the earth. It broke his heart. 7 And the Lord said, “I will wipe this human race I have created from the face of the earth. Yes, and I will destroy every living thing—all the people, the large animals, the small animals that scurry along the ground, and even the birds of the sky. I am sorry I ever made them.”

 

[Watchman_2]

False. God was regretful of His creation and He flooded the entire world.

It takes a bit of study to get at the correct answer. Your error lies in the English rendering that you are using. You read 'human' and 'human race'; however, the KJV renders it as follows:

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man . . .

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man . . .

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man . . .

​

In all three instances, the rendering is "man". A check in the manuscripts identifies which 'man' it is -

Gen 6:5​

ויראH7200 יהוהH3068 כיH3588 רבהH7227 רעתH7451 האדםH120 בארץH776 וכלH3605 יצרH3336 מחשׁבתH4284 לבוH3820 רקH7535 רעH7451 כלH3605 היום׃H3117 ​

Gen 6:6
וינחםH5162 יהוהH3068 כיH3588 עשׂהH6213 אתH853 האדםH120 בארץH776 ויתעצבH6087 אלH413 לבו׃H3820 ​

Gen 6:7​

ויאמרH559 יהוהH3068 אמחהH4229 אתH853 האדםH120 אשׁרH834 בראתיH1254 מעלH5921 פניH6440 האדמהH127 מאדםH120 עדH5704 בהמהH929 עדH5704 רמשׂH7431 ועדH5704 עוףH5775 השׁמיםH8064 כיH3588 נחמתיH5162 כיH3588 עשׂיתם׃H6213 ​

​

In each of the three uses, the article ha' [ ה ] is associated therewith the base word, which renders the proper interpretation to be 'Adam', in general. See the the Hebrew spelling of 'man' in Gen. 2:7. If speaking of mankind in these three scriptures, the article ha' would not be attached to the base word. See the Hebrew spelling of 'man' in Gen. 1:26.

Accordingly, it was only the Adamic race that God was angry with. It was only the Adamic race, except Noah and family, that God destroyed. The 6th day created man was not targeted with Noah's flood.

 

[Alabaster]

Adam means 'man'.

God regretted creating man and so he wiped them out except for Noah and his family whom He deemed righteous. They were also if the Adamic race.

We all are Adamic.

 

[theLords]

Okay, not every single thread can be about the flood. Let's get back to topic, please. Start a new thread or PM each other. Posts will be deleted from here on out.

totopic

 

[Alabaster]

I am not using extra-biblical sources. The definition of 'God', in the superlative sense, as given in the Hebrew manuscripts settles it for me.

See Gen. 1:26 -

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
​

Here, God refers to Himself in the superlative sense. So, when looking at the definition of the Hebrew word elohim [rendered as 'God'], one sees -

H430
אלהים
'ĕlôhı̂ym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
​

Hence, it is clear to me that God is speaking to the angels in 1:26. That is the basis for my conclusion in my prior post. It was only based upon the Bible.

God was speaking to the Godhead---Three in One. Son, Father, Spirit. He was not speaking to the angels. Your conclusions may be based upon the Bible, but you have added 2 and 2 and gotten 5.

We are created in His image only. Angels don't figure into the picture. to do so is simply foolish and baseless.

 

[Watchman_2]

God was speaking to the Godhead---Three in One. Son, Father, Spirit. He was not speaking to the angels. Your conclusions may be based upon the Bible, but you have added 2 and 2 and gotten 5.

We are created in His image only. Angels don't figure into the picture. to do so is simply foolish and baseless.

Well, you are wrong! The tree of life in the Garden was the Son. So, in Gen. 3:22, God is speaking to someone other than the Son.

And, your theory does not fit with the three world ages.

Furthermore, if the Godhead is three in one as you contend, there would be no need to speak at all to them -- they would know the plan already.

 

[reba]

Well, you are wrong! The tree of life in the Garden was the Son. So, in Gen. 3:22, God is speaking to someone other than the Son.

God created the garden The Son is not a creation.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

 

[theLords]

Well, you are wrong! The tree of life in the Garden was the Son. So, in Gen. 3:22, God is speaking to someone other than the Son.

And, your theory does not fit with the three world ages.

Furthermore, if the Godhead is three in one as you contend, there would be no need to speak at all to them -- they would know the plan already.

Adam and Eve ate "the Son" (= Jesus Christ)? You get more fun by the day! :rolling

 

[Watchman_2]

God created the garden The Son is not a creation.

Who said that He was??

 

[Watchman_2]

Adam and Eve ate "the Son" (= Jesus Christ)? You get more fun by the day! :rolling

You demonstrate your Bible illiteracy with that comment.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
​

As one can plainly see, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil did not grow out of the ground. So, unless you know of some apple, or other fruit, tree that suspends itself in the air without roots in the ground, one can only conclude that those two trees were entities -- not fruit trees.

If you did your homework on the word 'eat' in the manuscripts, you would have discovered that nothing therein the meaning locks it into the definition you allege in the quote above -

H398
אכל
'âkal
aw-kal'
A primitive root; to eat (literally or figuratively): - X at all, burn up, consume, devour (-er, up), dine, eat (-er, up), feed (with), food, X freely, X in . . . wise (-deed, plenty), (lay) meat, X quite.
​

For those of like mind as you, consideration should be given to the means of salvation in this flesh dispensation of time. Since you, defacto, argue that the tree of life was a magical floating apple or other fruit tree [how silly is that] and that everlasting life could be obtained by biting into a magical apple or other fruit [more silliness], then you are saying that there was a means for salvation other than Christ. Of course, such belief makes Christ a liar -- see John 14:6.

In other words, there would have had to be a change in plan by God from the eating of a magical apple for salvation to having His Son slain for salvation in order to support your theory. Scripture, not only does not state a change in God's plan after they sinned in the Gardern, but, actually informs us when the plan to have the Son slain was hatched -

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
​

Prior to the 6 days of creation in Gen. 1, it was already God's plan to have the Son slain as the means for salvation.

Accordingly, there was never a plan for magic-apple salvation. Therefore, your magic-apple-salvation tree theory never meets the burden of proof and reproof required thereof it to be considered by a true Bible believer to be meritorious.

 

[Sam21]

An angel was placed so that the man would not put forth HIS HAND and take from the tree of life and live forever, so it had to actually be a tree with fruit on it. Revelation 22: in the midst of the street of it and on either side of the river THE TREE OF LIFE which bare twelve fruits every month. Sorry but there is an actual TREE of life,it was in Eden and it will be in the coming kingdom of God.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Tim, I'd like to hear your thoughts. I know you believe in a global flood. Just as I do. Scripture says-Gen 6:4- that there were giants in the days of the flood and also afterward. I'm sure you have an opinion from scripture where these giants came from after the flood. I personally believe the "Sons of God" were the sons of Seth and the "daughters of men" were the daughters of Cain. I don't care to debate. I have a great respect for your scriptural knowledge and am just curious where your belief of angels and men comes from. I'll be glad to throw my thoughts out there as to why I believe as I do and see what you think.
God bless, Westtexas

Hi, Westtexas:

Yeah, the "Genesis 6 incident" as I call it has several bible commentaries as well as apocryphal sources believing these were angels, although I realize this has been a debate of theologians for a long time. I just sided with the angelic interpretation because of ancient commentaries as well. I also sided with the angelic theory because of other beliefs involving gods coming out of the skies. Whenever I go into a museum, lately it was the Museum of Natural History in NYC, and look at the masks of ancient cultures and weird gods, I often wonder if these were depicting the Nephilim? People don't just go to bed and dream all this stuff up. Something must have happened, even if just a contorted form, for them to make and worship all these other "gods" which the scripture then warns about and says the Lord is above them all as if they are real beings of some sort.

They were all washed out in the flood, but the Scripture also says "and after that" (the flood). The first time seemed to have the goal of messing up mankind. The next wave did not seem as intense as the giants were only mentioned in the Promised Land area. I'm not saying there weren't others, but we can deduce this was at least a Satanic plot to discourage the people of Israel from obtaining the promised land. We are all familiar with the Goliath of Gath story (although I think he was in fact one of the shorter giants) and funny stories such as the King of Og whose bed was 9 cubits (probably over 13') long. Moses mentions these were the last of the conquered giants and we see Goliath was about 2/3's the height so I'm open to possibility that he may have just had a pituitary issue. If we look at ancient carvings of Kings, we see that oftentimes the King is towering over the people, about twice as tall.

As for the end times, I wonder if these giants are going to make a reappearance as Jesus said "as in the days of Noah" and "marrying and given in marriage"? At the very least, I wonder if the beast and several others may not have such a demonic component in them. Just a thought. I base this on the proliferation of UFO and other paranormal events that are increasing these days, especially examples like little alien guys (maybe short Nephilim?) doing reproductive experiments and Poltergeists hanging around teenage girls all the time. They seem to be so preoccupied with young women.

In short, I see legends and myths all around me with a common theme, and it all makes sense in light of Genesis 6 to me.

 

[Watchman_2]

An angel was placed so that the man would not put forth HIS HAND and take from the tree of life and live forever, so it had to actually be a tree with fruit on it. Revelation 22: in the midst of the street of it and on either side of the river THE TREE OF LIFE which bare twelve fruits every month. Sorry but there is an actual TREE of life,it was in Eden and it will be in the coming kingdom of God.

If you take the time to examine that language in the manuscripts, you would see that there is nothing therein the language which locks in the meaning that you allege.

The KJV rendering with Strong's Concordance numbering -

Gen 3:22 And the LORDH3068 GodH430 said,H559 Behold,H2005 the manH120 is becomeH1961 as oneH259 ofH4480 us, to knowH3045 goodH2896 and evil:H7451 and now,H6258 lestH6435 he put forthH7971 his hand,H3027 and takeH3947 alsoH1571 of the treeH4480 H6086 of life,H2416 and eat,H398 and liveH2425 for ever:H5769
​

The English rendered word 'forth', 'hand', and 'take' in Strong's -

H7971
שׁלח
shâlach
shaw-lakh'
A primitive root; to send away, for, or out (in a great variety of applications): - X any wise, appoint, bring (on the way), cast (away, out), conduct, X earnestly, forsake, give (up), grow long, lay, leave, let depart (down, go, loose), push away, put (away, forth, in, out), reach forth, send (away, forth, out), set, shoot (forth, out), sow, spread, stretch forth (out).

H3027
יד
yâd
yawd
A primitive word; a hand (the open one (indicating power, means, direction, etc.), in distinction from H3709, the closed one); used (as noun, adverb, etc.) in a great variety of applications, both literally and figuratively, both proximate and remote: - (+ be) able, X about, + armholes, at, axletree, because of, beside, border, X bounty, + broad, [broken-] handed, X by, charge, coast, + consecrate, + creditor, custody, debt, dominion, X enough, + fellowship, force, X from, hand [-staves, -y work], X he, himself, X in, labour, + large, ledge, [left-] handed, means, X mine, ministry, near, X of, X order, ordinance, X our, parts, pain, power, X presumptuously, service, side, sore, state, stay, draw with strength, stroke, + swear, terror, X thee, X by them, X them-selves, X thine own, X thou, through, X throwing, + thumb, times, X to, X under, X us, X wait on, [way-] side, where, + wide, X with (him, me, you), work, + yield, X your-selves.

H3947
לקח
lâqach
law-kakh'
A primitive root; to take (in the widest variety of applications): - accept, bring, buy, carry away, drawn, fetch, get, infold, X many, mingle, place, receive (-ing), reserve, seize, send for, take (away, -ing, up), use, win.

​

There is nothing in the manuscripts which locks the literal interpretation that you allege is true.

​

 

[Alabaster]

Well, you are wrong! The tree of life in the Garden was the Son. So, in Gen. 3:22, God is speaking to someone other than the Son.

Sorry, I am not wrong. The Tree of Life may represent Christ in a way, but it was a TREE! God was speaking with the Son.

And, your theory does not fit with the three world ages.

What theory? World ages?

Furthermore, if the Godhead is three in one as you contend, there would be no need to speak at all to them -- they would know the plan already.

God loves to talk to His Son. Don't you?

 

[Alabaster]

You demonstrate your Bible illiteracy with that comment.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
​

As one can plainly see, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil did not grow out of the ground. So, unless you know of some apple, or other fruit, tree that suspends itself in the air without roots in the ground, one can only conclude that those two trees were entities -- not fruit trees.

Hilarious! Suspended, now?

If you've ever planned a garden, you'd know that some beautifully designed gardens have a prominent specimen that is central. Your poor ability to interpret the Scriptures is fairly alarming--and dangerous to the spiritually gullible.