Part two
Edward continues:
The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 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; 2 Peter 2:4-5
Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah.
How so??
And when did the Satan fall? Was it at the time of the flood or at or even before Eden? We simply do not know.
The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 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; 2 Peter 2:4-5
Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah.
How so?? Where does Peter say that the angels fell in sin at the time of the flood? I see a transition between v4 and v5.
Assuming the Satan is also an angel (arch Angel perhaps) when did it fall? Did that occur at the time of the flood or at least as early as the garden of Eden episode?
When we consider Peter's letter in context, ie looking at what precedes V4, we see that God's judgement is, and has been active throughout the ages.
You stopped at v5, but V6,v7 are also part of Peter's argument, why not consider them in context as well? There is judgement of ungodliness followed by destruction. That is what Peter is saying, he also goes on to talk about mercy and deliverance of the Godly.
Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven`." In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus.
The Epistle of Jude also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process:
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6,7
The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oikētērion , refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.)
Here I am seeing a great difficulty that you are labouring under.
Of whom exactly is it said that they went after "strange flesh"?
Was it not the inhabitants of Sodom and surrounding cities?
If you want to link the "in like manner" with the angels then you have to suppose these fallen angels were also doing unlawful things amongst themselves. BTW we never hear of girl angels, why is that do you think?
In discussing the resurrection and the age to come, what did Jesus disclose to us?
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.Esv
There is no marriage in heaven and what exactly is marriage? Is it not the harmonious merging of two genders into one? On that note is it not interesting to see that these 'sons of God' actually took as their wives any of the women they chose. They did not just inseminate them, but formed a life long bond with them. This makes little sense for an ageless being to do.
So neither of these two New Testament Scriptures tell us that the angel who fell mated with human women, and since it seems that angels have no gender, if it were even possible for them to take on a flesh/blood body, why would they not have also transfigured into seductively beautiful women and had it off with men as well?
These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies.
Again there is nothing in Scripture to support the exclusiveness of Sethite/Cainite only marriages. The fact that some of the fallen angels are imprisoned and some are not is indeed a mystery.
All we can think is that both states suits the Lord's purpose.
So I seem to be stuck here in the Angel view. I've been wrong before, and I'm not so egotistical to not be able to admit it if I could be proven wrong. That hasn't happened. The case made for the Angel view is lots stronger than the Sethite view and has not been debunked properly and conclusively. Knowing that the enemies primary tool is deception, I really can't allow the apparent absurdity of the text of Genesis 6 to give me cognitive dissonance and reject it. However twilight zone it may sound...it actually makes much more sense than the other views that I've heard.
Have you considered that in order or spirit beings, (angels) to become flesh and blood men having the ability to procreate with women would require God like power to create their new bodies? Angels remember have no gender of their own. We mostly refer to them in the masculine state because there is no neuter gender in the Hebrew language, so a thing is either he or she. And Angels not marrying need no gender so I do not believe the Lord created them with gender for which there is no use. For them to aquire gender requires powers and ability far beyond that of created beings. IMO.
