This is a fallacious argument.
How so? Where's "NOW it came to pass" in your quote? Where is it?
That actually doesn't change the meaning of anything. To simply say, "When man began to multiply on the face of the earth," implies "now it came to pass." When else would it come to pass?
When Noah was 500 years old, Gen. 5:32. You erroneously assmued that "they had clearly been multiplying for well over a thousand years", but there's nothing to suggest any significant population growth until that point. From Adam to Noah, everyone down the bloodline had sons and daughters, but it never "came to pass" until Noah's generation.
No, it is not debunked, not even close. It's a fallacious argument for at least a couple of reasons.
What reasons?
They looked like men. You're again fallaciously begging the question by assuming that the angels had the ability to procreate. More than that, as I have pointed out and you continually ignore, according to your position, it means that the angels can create ex nihilo. But that power belongs to God alone.
You're falsely assuming angels retain their celestial forms on earth, which is contradictory to what the bible teaches. You are conflating celestial body terrestial body, even though Paul made a clear distinction between the two.
There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. (1 Cor. 15:40)
You've ignored "in heaven", and you're in denial.
You're once again fallaciously begging the question by assuming that angels on earth are different than angels in heaven.
You spit at everybody with the false accusation "fallaciously begging the question" when you have no valid reasoning. It's like "sexist" or "racist", you know, when you spam it like that, it loses its potency. At least try something else. Where's your creative power? And I don't beg any question in this case, angels on earth are absolutely different than angels in heaven, 1 Cor. 15:40 says so.
The whole context of what Jesus was addressing was the resurrection and life in heaven.
Then why are you relentlessly applying that to the pre-flood world in Gen. 6, which was neither in resurrection or in heaven? That's another clear distinction, that there was no marrying or giving in marriage in resurrection or in heaven, but the pre-flood world was the polar opposite, the hallmark or the zeitgeist of that era was "marrying or giving in marriage", Jesus specifically pointed that out in Matt. 24:38!
No, I've shown that it is a legitimate understanding and is the stronger position, given the context and language in the OT of those who are godly and righteous being children of God. Your position relies on too many assumptions and speculation, as I have also shown.
You've shown nothing, I've debunked your erroneous arguments one by one. You're the one who keeps making assumptions and speculations, not me. You falsely claim "Context and language in the OT", and yet you're using NT context and language to justify your supposed "stronger position", which are not applicable at all since Jesus was not there for anybody to have access to God, how is that a "legitimate understanding"?
Yes, they can, as I clearly showed.
No they can't, you've showned nothing.
I never said it was passed down through the genes. Please stick to addressing what I actually wrote and stop assuming.
O really? Then who wrote these below? Was your previous account stolen or something? Did somebody else write these without your permission?
In Genesis 4, we see the line of Cain:
Lamech was evil, in the way of Cain but much worse. And, yes, that contrasts with Seth's line:
Right from the start Cain's line was evil and Seth's line "began to call upon the name of the LORD."
You're blatantly contradicting biblical truth, and you don't have the gut to admit it.
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ez.18:20)
My whole point was clearly that there is no mention of godliness or "calling upon the name of the LORD" in Cain's line, but there is at a few points in Seth's line, including Noah, whom is mentioned immediately prior to 6:1.
So what? How does it matter, regarding the principle stated in Ez. 18:20? Where's the distinctiong between "Cain's line" and "Seth's line" in the CONTEXT of Gen. 6? I'm not asking you what's prior to 6:1, the topic is set in THOSE DAYS, which was Noah's generation, where everyone was evil to the core, the whole earth was corrupt, other than Noah and his family, there's not beep about who's Cain's descendants and who's Seth's descendants, God didn't discriminate like you do. And I've repeatedly shown that "calling upon the name of the LORD" alone means nothing to God. In modern terms, that's just "virtue signaling".
When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; Even though you make many prayers,
I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood. (Is. 1:15)
And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. (Matt. 6:5)
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. (Matt. 7:21)
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. (Lk. 18:11)
No, it's a legitimate reading of the text. The sooner you understand that, the better.
The sooner you realize that this "legitimate reading" is like the emperor's new clothes, the better.
