Genesis 6

B. J. Halo,

Thanks for your thoughts, certainly worthy of reading thoroughly.

You said, "So, according to Jesus, angels cannot procreate,". But Jesus only stated that the Angels of God, in the resurrection, in heaven are not given to marriage. This does leave room for other angels, on earth not in the resurrection to procreate. And there is one assumption. Could it be that they did not procreate, but just had relations?

Sons of God is just a translation. We have too look into the Hebrew. Job certainly is
evidence that the term Sons of God can have a negative outlook in the OT. The NT,
certainly has the phrase Sons of God associated with that of Christians. We can’t compare the two. I can see what you are saying about Satan being the father of the lost (I think). That is a good point, but let me ask you does this mean that the Godly line of Seth were all “saved”? And the entire line of Cain were all “lost”? This would be the only place in Scripture this happend, and over hundreds of years of linage.

Pastor Larry, Why was everyimagination of their heart only evil continually?

Chet

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Chet ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chet: But Jesus only stated that the Angels of God, in the resurrection, in heaven are not given to marriage. This does leave room for other angels, on earth not in the resurrection to procreate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, Jesus was responding to the Sadducees' question about resurrection and marital status: "Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her." (Matt. 22:28)
The answer given by Jesus did not accentuate that the state of angels were ever different, when He said: "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matt. 22:30-31) In other words, angels are asexual. Hypothetically speaking, if the fallen angels were able to procreate (as some believe), then why doesn't it happen today? After all, angels are eternal beings
- and fallen angels together with Lucifer are reserved for the lake of fire: "Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt.25:41)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chet: And there is one assumption. Could it be that they did not procreate, but just had relations?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aren't the two one and the same? After all, you don't have a baby by drinking from the same cup. There has to be a relationship. However, this preclude the angels for they are asexual, remember?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chet: .....but let me ask you does this mean that the Godly line of Seth were all "saved"? And the entire line of Cain were all "lost"? This would be the only place in Scripture this happend, and over hundreds of years of linage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you asking this in jest or in earnest? I am sure you know that the Bible tells us this answer in Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." This concept was acknowledged even in the Old Testament. You can read portions of Solomon's prayer of Temple Dedication. You can see how he understood sin in the life of men: "If they sin against thee (for there is no man that sinneth not)....." (1 Kings 8:46). In the same chapter, verses 47 through 50 deals with repentance and God's forgiveness. For they called upon the name of the Lord.

The Godly lineage simply means that the descendants of Seth has sought the Lord and Cain's descendents did not. Please read Genesis 4:26 "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord." Hope this will help you to see where I stand. God bless!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pastor Larry, Why was everyimagination of their heart only evil continually?[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Total depravity.

 

I don't suppose anyone wants to hear my opinion on what this is, do you? (Or at least you already know it...)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. The reason they came the first time was to infect the blood line to our savior.Their mission failed. Jesus was born,Died and lives again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do spirit beings infect any blood line? They do not even have blood.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2.The penalty for there sin was to be cast into hell, in chains. to await judgment.
A high price for a failed attack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So then why are people in hell awaiting judgment? Did their attack on the "blood line of Jesus" fail?

They are awaiting judgment because of their rebellion against God.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What angels dose Paul speak of in 1.CORINTHIANS 11:10? Why should women be covered by Jesus because of these angels?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Covered by Jesus? That is not in the text. As for what angels Paul is speaking of and what his point is, I will have to do some study on it. But if you are using this passage to argue for angels having a body and being able to procreate with human women, the passage simply doesn’t say that. You cannot make the passage say something it doesn’t. I am not sure what Paul’s argument is. I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with Gen 6.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What about 2nd Peter 2:4? Jude v:6<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about it? These passages say that some angels are in chains being reserved for judgment. Are you expecting me to argue with that?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dose not the bible say angels have a "celestial" body?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that I know of but feel free to cite a passage in support of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Check out the teachings of Paul on the two bodies.-1. Corinthians 15:38-58.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read the passage, you will see that it says nothing about angels. It is talking about the glorified bodies of saints and emphasizing the fact that our “flesh and blood” will not inherit the kingdom. We will have a different type of body.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are we not made in the image of God and the angels?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes; No. There is no passage that says we are in the image of angels and there is no passage that says angels are in the image of God. Man alone is said to be in God’s image.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by G.B.MAC.: Why are only some angels in chains NOW? 2nd Peter 2:4.& Jude v:6
Are not Satans angels, and himself free right now?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It’s an interesting hypothesis G.B.MAC., but let's see what the Bible says about this. In 2 Peter 2:4 we read:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to our good friend, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, chain (seiras from eiro, to fasten) is not to be understood as literal material shackles. The expression "of darkness" (zóphu, of zóphos, darkness) indicates that darkness itself somehow serves to restrain these fallen spirits. If taken as a parallel passage, Jude 6 states that these creatures have been bound by "eternal" (aidios) chains and are being kept under darkness. The phrase "under darkness" suggests that darkness exercises some kind of dominion over these immured angels; it is something under the control of which the angels remain imprisoned.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"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." (Jude 6)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now Peter’s use of the word hell was borrowed from the Greek mythology, "Tártaros". Tártaros was the subterranean abyss of Greek mythology, where demigods were punished. Certainly you do not assume that Peter believed in the Greek mythology. I rather believe that he borrowed the expression to paint a horrific picture of that darkness which imprisoned all the fallen angels. The imprisonment, however, was the alienation from the presence of God. The key words are found in Jude 6: "... kept not their first estate, but..." Can you imagine being in the presence of God, the Creator and sustainer of the universe? And can you imagine being deprived for eternity to be in His presence? Someone has said very eloquently about the reality of hell: Hell is the absence of God!"

Let me repeat the words of Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, when he said: "... chains of darkness is a highly poetic expression. Darkness binds them on all hands; and so dense and strong is this darkness that it cannot be broken through, they cannot deliver themselves nor be delivered by others." Nevertheless these fallen angels are free to roam the earth until the millennial kingdom... but that is an altogether different subject. Farewell!

 

OK, I'll break the tie . . . angels are not capable of procreating!

 

Thanks John! I knew I could count on you for tipping the balance.

 

GB .. Realizing that I am totally out of my league here (so to speak) I must say I totally agree with your speaking based on the references you have posted and the studying I have done. Eve was never begiled by a snake .. there was never an apple offered to Adam. It bothers me that our children are taught this lie. Thank you for your excellent posts! May God continue to bless you!

 

B.J. Halo As far as angels being a sexual, I see your point. One thing that is certain at one time all angels were of God. But my point is, Jesus is still making the point that only in the resurrection... Who and When is the key in understanding this passage.

My point with having no relations. I have often considered the idea that the Nephilim
were not the result of sexual relations. That these men of renown were pure demonic
beings without any mixture whatsoever of man’s blood. Just a thought. What is
interesting is Giants is always in context of being destroyed. Does God not like big
people?

You said: “Are you asking this in jest or in earnest? I am sure you know that the Bible
tells us this answer in Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the
glory of God." This concept was acknowledged even in the Old Testament.”

I never said anything about not sinning. My point is that if you argue from the cain/seth
view then you have a problem. You have to accept that a whole entire line of men have by faith been redeemed, and then another whole line has not been redeemed. That a whole line of women are corrupt. And that the result of intermarriages from a Godly people to an Ungodly brought such an evil fruit that God decided to flood the earth. Why such drastic measures?

You quoted Dr. Spiros Zodhiates you must know I like him. Actually that brought me
to thinking a whole new thought. Thanks.

Pastor Larry you answered “ Total depravity”

That is a whole nother subject...

Chet

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chet: My point is that if you argue from the cain/seth
view then you have a problem. You have to accept that a whole entire line of men have by faith been redeemed, and then another whole line has not been redeemed. That a whole line of women are corrupt. And that the result of intermarriages from a Godly people to an Ungodly brought such an evil fruit that God decided to flood the earth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bro. Chet, that is exactly my point. Only by faith were the descendents of Seth redeemed, because they have sought the Lord. But alas, because of their wayward lives, at the end it was only Noah and his immediate family who found grace before the eyes of God. It was nice chatting with you!

 

Here's a thought...

Didn't the 3 heavenly beings which visited Abraham and Sarah have a meal with them?

Doesn't the physical act of eating food require a physical body to provide digestion and assimilation of the food?

Aren't these biological functions?

HankD

 

the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Gen 6:2 NIV)
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Gen 6:4 NIV)

The plural, "sons of God," is used (Genesis 6:2,4) to denote the pious descendants of Seth. In Job 1:6; 38:7 alone, this name is applied to the angels. Hosea and the NT references uses the phrase to designate the gracious relation in which men stand to God

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9 NIV)

It was not till Christ "made peace by the blood of the cross" that God could manifest Himself as "the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Hebrews 13:20)--could reveal Himself as "in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them," and hold Himself forth in the astonishing attitude of beseeching men to be "reconciled to Himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19,20). When this reconciliation actually takes place, and one has "peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"--even "the peace of God which passeth all understanding"--the peace-receivers become transformed into peace-diffusers. God is thus seen reflected in them; and by the family likeness these peacemakers are recognized as the children of God. In now coming to the eighth, or supplementary beatitude, it will be seen that all that the saints are in themselves has been already described, in seven features of character; that number indicating completeness of delineation. The last feature, accordingly, is a passive one, representing the treatment that the characters already described may expect from the world. He who shall one day fix the destiny of all men here pronounces certain characters "blessed"; but He ends by forewarning them that the world's estimation and treatment of them will be the reserve of His.

because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. (Rom 8:14 NIV)

There is no indication biblically that angels are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Some MVs correctly translate this “children of God.”

For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. (Rom 8:19 KJV)

waiteth for the manifestation--"is waiting for the revelation" of the sons of God--that is, "for the redemption of their bodies" from the grave (Romans 8:23), which will reveal their sonship, now hidden (compare Luke 20:36, Revelation 21:7).

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, (Gal 3:26 NIV)

Clearly speaking of human beings. Angels do not have “faith in Christ Jesus;” they worship Him in His presence!

For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. (1 Cor 11:10 NIV)

The outward demeanor and dress of the latter being indicative of that inward humility which angels know to be most pleasing to their common Lord: no connection to alleged prior sexual relations whatsoever.

For God did not spare even the angels when they sinned; he threw them into hell, in gloomy caves and darkness until the judgment day. 2 Peter 2:4

Though their final doom is hell, yet for a time they are permitted to roam beyond it in "the darkness of this world." Be careful! Watch out for attacks from the Devil, your great enemy. He prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for some victim to devour. 1 Peter 5:8

And I remind you of the angels who did not stay within the limits of authority God gave them but left the place where they belonged. God has kept them chained in prisons of darkness, waiting for the day of judgment.

Not that the angels carnally fornicated with the daughters of men, but that their ambition, whereby their affections went away from God and they fell, is in God's view a sin of like kind spiritually as Sodom's going away from God's order of nature after strange flesh; the sin of the apostate angels after their kind is analogous to that of the human Sodomites after their kind.

Sin entered the world through Adam, and genetically thereafter, to all humans. It is inconsistent with scripture to entertain a case for further "tainting" of mankind's inner depravity by angels fornicating with female humans.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wells: It is inconsistent with scripture to entertain a case for further "tainting" of mankind's inner depravity by angels fornicating with female humans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said Bro. Well(s)! Thanks for adding your insight to the thread - sort of tipping the scale.