The Cancer on this board.

[wavy]

No one has to make any 'assumptions' about whether angels can procreate to interpret what the text is saying. I certainly don't. (obviously because I don't believe angels even exist, but that's beside the point)

The issue is what best explains what the text means. That the 'sons of God' are some kind of divine beings is the most probable. My challenge stands.


Finis,
Eric

Two major assumptions which are totally unsupportable are that 1) angels, who are supernatural beings, can procreate, and 2) most difficult of all, that they can procreate with humans. Then there are issues of word definitions.

Note that you are using only one passage to create, for some reason, a strange doctrine. This is not at all the correct way to develop theology.

And cut the un-Christlike attitude Nightmare.

 

[wavy]

Good. Some one should read the information I supplied in my initial post and if they disagree respond accordingly.


Finis,
Eric

The sad part is that the close minded are not smart enough to take in the information posted here, apply it and re evaluate their understandings and ways of thinking. They just say, " oh he disagrees with me, I will go some where else now"

 

[(THE)]

Two major assumptions which are totally unsupportable are that 1) angels, who are supernatural beings, can procreate, and 2) most difficult of all, that they can procreate with humans. Then there are issues of word definitions.

Note that you are using only one passage to create, for some reason, a strange doctrine. This is not at all the correct way to develop theology.

And cut the un-Christlike attitude Nightmare.

It is not un-christian to say ignorance is a cancer moderator.....

Again humans can eat angel food,,,angels can eat human food,,,so obviously the make up a angel is not to different from a humans.........Sorry but your un-ability to see the text and understand the word is sickly especially when your name is glowing.....

1And there came two angels to Sodom at even

5And they (humans) called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men (angels) which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.(have sex)

6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Now what were these men thinking that Lot would give up his to VIRGIN daughters and allow men to do anything to them????????

These men obvioulsy knew they could mate with angels and were trying to,,,,but then we got these IGNORANT students whos say.,,, :nag angels are different then humans they cant mate :nag

If you really want to take this a step further lets bring out the Hebrew defintions for "sons of God" nah you dont want to do that...........

 

[(THE)]

The sad part is that the close minded are not smart enough to take in the information posted here, apply it and re evaluate their understandings and ways of thinking. They just say, " oh he disagrees with me, I will go some where else now"

closed minded,,,,out of all the things in the world that are evil and bad,,,,you call believing that angels mated with adamic woman a cancer,,,,then mention closed minded......

Well if you dont believe in that,,,how can you possibly believe in Giants???????

You dont think Goliath came from all human dna do you ?????????/

Obvioulsy you dont know what the flood of Noah was even for,,,,and why God brought it....

 

[Lewis]

Here is another one, I have heard and seen many on this subject.

Are the "Nephilim" in Genesis 6 the offspring of angels and men?

Q. Are the "nephilim" mentioned in Genesis 6 the offspring of angels and men? (the most frequently asked question I receive)

Genesis 6:1-4 (NAS95)

1* Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,

2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

3* Then 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."

4* The 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.

1) The Hebrew word for "sons of God" is "bane-elohim"; it is found in only 5 places in the Old Testament:

Genesis 6:2, 4

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

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came 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?

According to Hebrew scholars 'bane-elohim"' means angels in each of these passages.

2) The traditional Jewish/rabbinical understanding of this passage is that it is a reference to angels.

3) The argument is that angels can't marry (from Matthew 22). But "in heaven they neither marry nor are given in marriage." The OT clearly demonstrates that when on earth angels do earthly things (walk, eat, etc.)



Another passage we must consider is:

4) Jude 5 - 7
5* Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. 6* And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7* just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Jude 6 refers to sinning angels.

Jude 7 speaks of the SEXUAL IMMORALITY of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The little clause "in like manner" (KJV), "in a similar way" (NIV), "which likewise" (RSV), "they, in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh..." (NAS95), must be understood in it's proper context.

Most credible scholars believe that Jude is referring to some event in which angels, in the same way as Sodom, went after strange flesh in a sexually immoral way. It seems likely that the context of Jude 6 considers the context of Genesis 6.

6) Genesis 6:4 indicates that the offspring of this union were "mighty men." Again the Jewish interpretation explains that the angels fathered the 'goliaths' of the ancient world.

I know this sounds almost mythological, but this is the position of the Hebrew scholars.

The conservative position is this:

The phrase: "sons of God" should be understood as referring to the posterity of Seth, who from the times of Enos, were called by the name of the Lord, (Gen. 4:25) and had the title of the sons of God, in distinction from the children of men.

Those in the line of Seth claimed the privilege of divine adoption, and professed to be born of God, and partakers of his grace, and claimed to worship him according to his will, so far as revealed to them, and to fear and serve and glorify him.

According to the Arabic writers, immediately after the death of Adam the family of Seth was separated from the family of Cain; Seth took his sons and their wives to a high mountain (Hermon), on the top of which Adam was buried, and Cain and all his sons lived in the valley beneath, where Abel was slain; and they on the mountain obtained a name for holiness and purity, and were so near the angels that they could hear their voices and join their hymns with them; and they, their wives and their children, went by the common name of the sons of God:

http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=&id=303

 

[(THE)]

Here is another one, I have heard and seen many on this subject.

Are the "Nephilim" in Genesis 6 the offspring of angels and men?

Q. Are the "nephilim" mentioned in Genesis 6 the offspring of angels and men? (the most frequently asked question I receive)

Genesis 6:1-4 (NAS95)

1* Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,

2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

3* Then 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."

4* The 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.

1) The Hebrew word for "sons of God" is "bane-elohim"; it is found in only 5 places in the Old Testament:

Genesis 6:2, 4

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

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came 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?

According to Hebrew scholars 'bane-elohim"' means angels in each of these passages.

2) The traditional Jewish/rabbinical understanding of this passage is that it is a reference to angels.

3) The argument is that angels can't marry (from Matthew 22). But "in heaven they neither marry nor are given in marriage." The OT clearly demonstrates that when on earth angels do earthly things (walk, eat, etc.)



Another passage we must consider is:

4) Jude 5 - 7
5* Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. 6* And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7* just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Jude 6 refers to sinning angels.

Jude 7 speaks of the SEXUAL IMMORALITY of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The little clause "in like manner" (KJV), "in a similar way" (NIV), "which likewise" (RSV), "they, in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh..." (NAS95), must be understood in it's proper context.

Most credible scholars believe that Jude is referring to some event in which angels, in the same way as Sodom, went after strange flesh in a sexually immoral way. It seems likely that the context of Jude 6 considers the context of Genesis 6.

6) Genesis 6:4 indicates that the offspring of this union were "mighty men." Again the Jewish interpretation explains that the angels fathered the 'goliaths' of the ancient world.

I know this sounds almost mythological, but this is the position of the Hebrew scholars.

The conservative position is this:

The phrase: "sons of God" should be understood as referring to the posterity of Seth, who from the times of Enos, were called by the name of the Lord, (Gen. 4:25) and had the title of the sons of God, in distinction from the children of men.

Those in the line of Seth claimed the privilege of divine adoption, and professed to be born of God, and partakers of his grace, and claimed to worship him according to his will, so far as revealed to them, and to fear and serve and glorify him.

According to the Arabic writers, immediately after the death of Adam the family of Seth was separated from the family of Cain; Seth took his sons and their wives to a high mountain (Hermon), on the top of which Adam was buried, and Cain and all his sons lived in the valley beneath, where Abel was slain; and they on the mountain obtained a name for holiness and purity, and were so near the angels that they could hear their voices and join their hymns with them; and they, their wives and their children, went by the common name of the sons of God:

http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=&id=303

) The argument is that angels can't marry (from Matthew 22). But "in heaven they neither marry nor are given in marriage." The OT clearly demonstrates that when on earth angels do earthly things (walk, eat, etc.)

Good catch this is not a argument against Genesis 6 for Chrsit was talking about being on earth dying and going to heaven and marrying,,,,,not coming from heaven already as a angel an mating......

I know this sounds almost mythological, but this is the position of the Hebrew scholars.

NOt just scholars,,mostly anyone who has ever really study the entire word.......Its obvious satan tried to stop Christ,,,,polluting the bloodline was just one way ,,, almost worked to....(not really)

 

[Free]

The issue is what best explains what the text means. That the 'sons of God' are some kind of divine beings is the most probable.

Firstly, it best explains the text based on certain presumptions. Secondly, how is it more probable that "the 'sons of God' are some kind of divine being"? How is that more probable then men, whom we already know are able to procreate and that with human women?

 

[(THE)]

The issue is what best explains what the text means. That the 'sons of God' are some kind of divine beings is the most probable.

Firstly, it best explains the text based on certain presumptions. Secondly, how is it more probable that "the 'sons of God' are some kind of divine being"? How is that more probable then men, whom we already know are able to procreate and that with human women?

Firstly, it best explains the text based on certain presumptions

NO it is the truth and knowledge obtained by the word,,,that you are unable to see and have not obtained yet

Secondly, how is it more probable that "the 'sons of God' are some kind of divine being"?

If you do the research you wont have to ask these questions......I think it has already been answered in the post your quoting.........

 

[Lewis]

Would not God have to give angels permission, to manifest themselves in human form ? I think the answer would be yes. I mean they had fully functioning sexual organs, and I don't think angels have that kind of power unless, God ordained it.

 

[whirlwind]

Would not God have to give angels permission, to manifest themselves in human form ? I think the answer would be yes. I mean they had fully functioning sexual organs, and I don't think angels have that kind of power unless, God ordained it.

I think the problem was...He didn't give them permission to do what they did...but they did it anyway.

 

[Vic C.]

It's sad day when Bible interpretation and science fiction merge.

Let the falling away begin and may God have mercy on us all. :help

 

[(THE)]

It's sad day when Bible interpretation and science fiction merge.

Let the falling away begin and may God have mercy on us all. :help

Falling away begin,,,you a little late bro.....

It's sad day when Bible interpretation and science fiction merge

Then please compare your "sons of God" interpretation to my loads and loads of Hebrew/biblical research.....and lets see whos living in lala land......... :armed

 

[wavy]

Firstly, it best explains the text based on certain presumptions.

Which are? That we should interpret writings in their contexts?

Secondly, how is it more probable that "the 'sons of God' are some kind of divine being"? How is that more probable then men, whom we already know are able to procreate and that with human women?

I have listed no less than three solid lines of evidence (the 4th is just icing on the cake, and the 5th is your task) for why the sons of God are divine beings. I have not seen them addressed.


Finis,
Eric

 

[Elijah674]

There is a cancer on this board. It is this idea that demons and angels can have children with humans.

Show me the evidence for this, show me in the Bible. This is a Christian forum and if you cant back up what you say with the Bible there is no point in posting it. :mad

Here is a post from several years back when I went by John, and I think Bolts is still saround here someplace? See if it fits? If not? just deleat it! ;) --Elijah

Amended, please see addition on 'giants' on the earth at the bottom of the page.

Bolts:

The sons of God verse of Genesis 6 has been botched up in 'History' (See the Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15) in many different ways. Ancient Jewish commentators, and early church fathers (Revelation 17:5) and today's Jude 1:12 'wind' ones have these 'sons' to be angels. Comparing them with Job 1:6, Job 2:1 & Job 38:7.

But, this is not the Everlasting Gospel! (Revelation 14:6) Notice Genesis 6:2-4 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and took them wives of all which they chose. (even more than one, huh! wives.) And verse 3 tell of the death by flood. These ones were not human angels stuff! The Striving of the Holy Spirit had long gone been over for them of heavens rebellion. And also was soon to be over for even Seth's 'ex/son of God' apostates! And these ones were to die by the flood. (drowning angels??)

Verse 4 says: There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the [sons of God came in unto the daughters of men], and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Again: This has to be rejected as having no merit, because the punishment was for the sins of human beings and not angels. (there time will come after the 1000 years of Revelation 20:1-3 are up!) And Christ has documented that angels do not marry in Matthew 22:30. Ask yourself, when God asks us to come and reason together, who would benefit by this satanic teaching, Christ or the devil? Christ is immortal and there has never been a time that He was not Christ/God of the Godhead! (and satan is a created being for just a short time more. Obadiah 1:16)

No. Adam was a created Son of God, and a Born Again son of God by faith in the Genesis 3:15 Everlasting Gospel. It was CONDITIONAL! And as one can see that Cain was saved by faith until he did the devils thing in full mature 'sin against the Holy Ghost' in rejection. (See Genesis 4:7) At this moment the devil has his first convert! This is the first son of man. If one follows on, we see that Seth did not come on the scene until approximately 120 years later.
Also take note of Exodus 4:22 & Deuteronomy 14:22 where Moses called the children of Israel as 'His first born son' & 'Children of the Lord your God'. These others were the ones who disobeyed God that were from the lineage of Seth and became the sons of men. (lost ones) See Deuteronomy 7:3-4, Joshua 23:12, Ezra 9:2 & what is new?? See 2 Corinthians 6:14-15!

One more thought on the execution of 'mankind' by a flood. 'I will destroy man' Genesis 6:7
The Hebrew expression means literally "I will wipe off" or "blot out" or "erase" (see Exodus 32:32-33, Isaiah 43:25) Surely the flood did this to all of mankind who were not inside the ark! And notice that the antediluvians Christ has compared to His human race at the [end of time]! Matthew 24:37-39
And the giant thing? Well, most before the flood lived around a thousand year period of time. Books were not even needed much surely, for everything could be passed along from the aged, to far into his descendents. Even today, we do not see the total death of mankind's physical & mental capacities that God created them with. But when one reads some of these forums threads, sometime I wonder? (and no, many do not give the credits to God)

---John

Addendum:
Giants on the earth. Genesis 6:4 "There were giants on the earth in those days: and after that, when the [sons of God] came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

OK: Notice first that these were son's of God. His creation which were from the start, that were obedient. When Adam was created God pronounced that he was not good, but Very Good! (PERFECT!) Think what that means? His memory was flaw/less. No need of books! Everything was perfectly remembered. And yes, after sin, these ones 'decayed' (sin does that) much less & slowly than that of the sons of men who followed Cain's (satan) rebellion on earth. Now when one thinks of these two groups with one following God & one following satan's first convert Cain, ask yourself the question of the height of man? Which of the two groups are blessed of God, and which of the two would die the quicker without God's Blessing them? And how tall was Adam when created? The Word of God just stated that there were giants on earth 'in those days: and after that'! But not all, huh? Why?? We will get to that. (and if not? diet had and has, a lot to do with life)

Now notice that it continues on with 'When the sons of God came unto the daughter of men'. And notice that the thought is still being the sons [of God] and the descendants of satan's convert Cain as.. 'daughters of men'. Got that?
We do remember that God did not want this to happen! (the yoke of God with the bondage of f satan) 1 Corinthians 6:14-18 & the REASON WHY as seen in Deuteronomy 7:3-4. Yet, that is exactly what happened over & over again. If you do not think so, then why do we see this 'post' of needing to tell these ones here, that their thinking is woven in with the 'son's of men mentality'?

But, lets continue on? Seth (Adams son of God) obeyed God until his descendents began starting to apostasis. And even then the children still carried on the 'strengths' that God gave unto them in Obedience, be it mental genius, or physical strength, + giant structure. But surely, God 'sa PERFECT Creation were [all] this way when created! Sin deteriorate's . (notice the life span of the pre/flood ones as compared to after the flood! See Genesis 9:5
Again notice the two groups of Gods creation above, both seen with free ones choice, to Obey God or to obey satan.

But what about angels?
Do you see angels? (God can & has used angels in bodily form) Yet, He tells us that they are.. Hebrews 1:7 "And of the angels He saith, Who maketh His angels spirits,.." And in Psalm 104:4 the Word of God says again.. "Who maketh his angels spirits; .." And we did notice that the Genesis 6:3 verse said that it was the sons of God that came to the daughter of men and it was they who 'bare children to them'. (women angels? Hardly!) And surely Christ's Word tell's us flat out that angels do not.. "marry or give in marriage" Matthew 22:28-30

 

[researcher]

The Striving of the Holy Spirit had long gone been over for them of heavens rebellion. And also was soon to be over for even Seth's 'ex/son of God' apostates! And these ones were to die by the flood. (drowning angels??)

If a spirit impregnated a person, that person would not have an angel, lol. The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary with Jesus. Was Jesus an angel? :o

This has to be rejected as having no merit, because the punishment was for the sins of human beings and not angels.

See above.

Adam was a created Son of God

Yes. Romans 5:14

 

[Free]

First, you have to explain why we shouldn't take the 'sons of God' as the widespread Semitic idiom denoting gods or heavenly beings of some sort that we know it to be.

Second, you have to explain why in all the relevant passages from the Hebrew bible where the phrase 'sons of God' is used the most natural interpretation from the context is that they are heavenly beings.

Third, you have to explain the giants with something other than utterly baseless and ad hoc claims that are nowhere supported by the text or context. (see Cornelius for examples of what I mean)

Fourth, you have to explain the tradition behind interpreting the 'sons of God' as angels in later Jewish tradition.

Fifth, you have to supply positive evidence for your own interpretation that addresses items 1-4.

1. "sons of God" is most often used of angels, however, it would be fallacious to conclude that every occurrence means the same, especially in light of all that Scripture says.

Psa 82:6 I said, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;
-This is quote by Jesus and he states that it is referring to the Jews: Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?

There are numerous verses that clearly state that Israel as a nation is a son of God.

2. You need to explain how it is that every instance would mean the same. In this particular case, an interpretation is being forced on the text with the assumptions that not only do angels procreate but that they are able to procreate physically with women. That is an unsupported assumption, especially in light of Matt. 22:28-30:

Mat 22:28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her."
Mat 22:29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

To take one passage from the Bible, especially when there are assumptions being made regarding the language, and make a doctrine of it, is absolutely the wrong way to do things. It is dangerous and leads to much error.

3. The Hebrew word for "giants" may actually denote their ferocity and not their stature.

Perhaps you can explain a) very tall people now, and b) why it hasn't happened since, if in fact, giants resulted from fallen angels procreating with women.

4. Relevant how?

5. Done.

 

[wavy]

1. "sons of God" is most often used of angels, however, it would be fallacious to conclude that every occurrence means the same, especially in light of all that Scripture says.

Of course, the burden of proof would be on you to prove an exception to the general rule.

Psa 82:6 I said, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;
-This is quote by Jesus and he states that it is referring to the Jews: Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?

There are numerous verses that clearly state that Israel as a nation is a son of God.

We've been over this before. You already know my sentiments about trying to interpret one book of the bible with another rather than approaching it as literature like any other literature...I'm sure you were aware of them before you wrote this. But even then this verse is contextually unrelated to Gn vi.4, and given known methods of first-century Jewish exegesis where passages are purposefully taken out of their contexts to make a point, this defense becomes even weaker and does nothing to address the first item on my list about the Semitic idiom. Next, there are indeed several verses where Israel is called God's son...but none of these verses are examples of the specific construct 'sons of God', the idiom in question...you will not find a single verse referring to Israel in this way. To ignore this point is sloppy linguistics. We've been over this point before too...and your defense has not become any stronger since the last time you raised it.

2. You need to explain how it is that every instance would mean the same. In this particular case, an interpretation is being forced on the text with the assumptions that not only do angels procreate but that they are able to procreate physically with women. That is an unsupported assumption, especially in light of Matt. 22:28-30:

This is false and a misrepresentation of my position. My argument is not that every instance of this phrase has to refer to divine beings. This goes to show that you have not yet understood it. My position is one of parsimony and a very strong inductive argument. As aforesaid, the burden of proof is on you to provide indications to the contrary of what you yourself have already admitted is the general rule. Anything else is special pleading. I'm perfectly open to the possibility that the 'sons of God' here could be an anomalous reference in the Hebrew to human beings...but this mere possibility means nil unless you can show it.

And you're still misled about 'assumptions'. I already addressed it, but you're repeating it again so I'll go into some more detail and hope you return, if at all, with a properly formulated rebuttal. In my case I don't even believe gods/angels exist....I could hardly be 'assuming' that gods/angels can procreate with humans. The story itself to me is nothing but mythology. That fact itself falsifies this counter. What you seem to be confused over is the difference between one's own personal beliefs and the text's semantic meaning based on contextual and linguistic considerations. Stated another way, what you believe about angels is irrelevant to what the text is saying. The linguistic and contextual evidence points to a 'angelic' interpretation...not anyone's beliefs about divine procreation. You have to deal with the linguistic and contextual evidence. Everything else is just a smokescreen.

However, even if I did believe gods/angels exist and that this event did actually take place by taking the bible's word for it, your case still falls apart. Nothing a priori rules out angels having sex and children with women. The Matthew passage could only mean that angels aren't rightfully supposed to do this. It doesn't mean they didn't or can't. And as others have pointed out, the context specifies heaven. Obviously the 'sons of God' didn't whisk the 'daughters of men' away there to do it right in front of God's face.

To take one passage from the Bible, especially when there are assumptions being made regarding the language, and make a doctrine of it, is absolutely the wrong way to do things. It is dangerous and leads to much error.

This would hardly be a 'doctrine', even for a believer. It's simply about what the text says happened, not about any 'teaching' some one derives from it.

3. The Hebrew word for "giants" may actually denote their ferocity and not their stature.

Reputable source please. Even so, none of the versions (translations from the Hebrew, i.e. Greek, Syriac, etc.) interpreted it this way and Nb xiii.33 is against it. Was there still some existent 'line of Seth' in the days of the exodus still mingling with the 'daughters of men'?

Perhaps you can explain a) very tall people now, and b) why it hasn't happened since, if in fact, giants resulted from fallen angels procreating with women.

I am under no obligation to explain either of these two things since they are irrelevant to what the text says. I will say one thing though: 'very tall people' today certainly don't come from living descendants of the so-called 'line of Seth'.

4. Relevant how?

It would be very curious if Judaism somehow lost to history this interpretation of the 'line of Seth' and instead mythologized it, which goes completely against the tendency of Judaism to historicize mythology rather than mythologize history.

5. Done.

Unfortunately, no.


Finis,
Eric

 

[Vic C.]

There is a cancer on this board. It is this idea that demons and angels can have children with humans.

Show me the evidence for this, show me in the Bible. This is a Christian forum and if you cant back up what you say with the Bible there is no point in posting it. :mad

Here is a post from several years back when I went by John, and I think Bolts is still saround here someplace? See if it fits? If not? just deleat it! ;) --Elijah...

No NB, that was good. It can stay. :yes

Thanks and God bless.

 

[researcher]

[

He called the son of Mary who he impregnated his Son.

Maybe because Jesus WAS His Son ? He was not an angel.

Sons of God have the Word living IN them. There are no other "sons"

Jesus was the "Son of man" (through Mary) in Whom the Son of God (the Word) lived. Jesus was called both.

The point was, He called someone that was flesh and blood his son. The first born in the flesh.

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren

Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn,

What did God call him before he was in the flesh? Lol. ;) ;) ;)

 

[veteran]

When is the subject going to get back to explaining these verses more in-depth?

Jude 1:6-7
6 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.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, 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.
(KJV)

And the phrase "men of renown" per Gen.6:4 about the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men"? Does that have anything to do with the origin of ancient pagan mythologies?