Featured Angels and CoHabiting with Mankind?

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them,
2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose. Gen 6

I don't know why you've brought 'demons' into this. What the ancient text clearly implies is that 'sons of God' does mean something other than 'sons of men'.

 

No, he didn't. But you're free to think that if you wish.

:BangHead: Yeah, that would be a pretty good clue!

Again you are incorrect, perhaps from a lack of understanding the simplicity of the Hebrew. Hebrew is a very literal language. Each word, except for proper names, personal pronouns, and some verbs, has many meanings. The word "man" is translated from the Hebrew 'eesh, but it can simply be a gender-specific pronoun, and in fact acts as an adjective when used with a proper name. It identifies Gabriel as male. It does not identify him as a "man" nor does it indicate he appears fleshly in appearance. All angels are identified in the masculine. No where in the Bible are any spoken of in any form or fashion that would suggest females.

When Gabriel first appears to Daniel in 8:15, Daniel specifically states that "before me was one who looked like a man." The word "looked" is the Hebrew mar'eh meaning "having an appearance" or, as a vision. Daniel never mistook Gabriel for a fleshly being, nor should we.

 

You're working under the assumption that a fallen angel (demon) is automatically going to do everything visibly wicked within your imagination. By default, everything someone apart from G-d does is wicked, because it is done apart.

Who appears as an angel of light?
Can you not see the power in the deceit of appearing so close to good that you are nearly indistinguishable?

That is how evil operates.

Also consider that there are degrees of behaviors among those who walk outside of the will of their Creator. Not all walk around raping and pillaging and burning down villages. "It can't be true because they'd just rape people, not marry them, because they're bad and that's how bad people must act" is not a logical way to examine a possible historical event.

 

You must share DHK's reading skills

I never implied that. Reread what I wrote.

 

I've never heard of a demon with good morals, this is a first

At any rate, only the righteous and angels (never demons, ie fallen angels) are referred to as SoG, and species only reproduce after their kinds

 

Then what were they before they fell?

 

They WERE SoG. The Bible never refers to fallen angels as SoG, what would be needed to make the text fit.

 

...and you're just as squirrelly as you ever were....

 

Then who were the sons vs the daughters? People born of men and women were not referred to in that manner in the old testament. Only in reference to those whose original habitation was meant to be heaven is that wording used.

 

No, I just know how to read and invited you to try the same. I'll make it real simple for you...only the righteous and angels are in union with God. Better?

 

While I normally disagree with Sproul, and do about his view on angels, I believe he has the correct context in view. http://www.ligonier.org/blog/who-are-sons-god-and-daughters-men-genesis-6/

 

OK, point taken. And I'll reiterate, what the ancient text clearly implies is that 'sons of God' does mean something other than 'sons of men'.

 

That makes some sense, but I can see arguments in that too. If I haven't mentioned it, I see arguments in all these theories. :saint:

One is that it makes no sense that when this phrase was used every other time, it referred to angels, but in this one instance, where the phrase is identical to the one where they present themselves in heaven with Satan, and nearly the same as the other two where it clearly refers to angelic beings, it suddenly means regular people.

Another is that the old testament simply does not refer to regular people as "sons of G-d" vs "sons of man" to define believers vs unbelievers, and it seems pretty interesting that marrying unbelieving women would result in heroes and men of renown. Something doesn't seem quite right with interpreting those two things in that manner.

 

While I normally agree with Sproul, and do not about his view on angels, I believe he has the incorrect context in view. I agree with Pink. It was Satan's device to thwart the coming of the seed of the woman. Cain, who was of Satan, killed Abel, Gen 4. That was Satan's very first recorded attack after the pronouncement of Gen 3:15. Then we have the attack of Gen 6. Then we have many, many recorded attacks after that down through the centuries.

 

And his tail draweth the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon standeth before the woman that is about to be delivered, that when she is delivered he may devour her child. Rev 12:4

 

He says:

Is there proof for this? Can anyone trace the lines of the women of Seth back to see if they had remained pure of when they had begun "intermarrying," or is this just guess work?
Since when is it a sin for a descendant from Cain to marry a descendant of Seth? Does the Bible explicitly condemn this as sin?
It condemns:

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
--Where are the lines of Seth and the lines of Cain mentioned here?
The argument is an argument from silence and doesn't make sense.

Remember when Dina went "to see the daughters of the land," and instead saw Shechem and was consequently raped by him. The end result was that Simeon and Levi, in their deceit, after getting the men of the town to agree to circumcision, went in and destroyed everyone in the city.
Why didn't that bring the judgement of God?
Why not when the Israelites took for them wives from the Moabites?
There has been intermarriage many times throughout Israel's sordid history. Never has it been so bad as to warrant a world-wide destruction as The Flood. That view just does not make sense.

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Jesus verified the historicity of the Flood here. The Coming of Christ would be in times similar to these.
[FONT=&quot]

The above are some of the arguments put forth by John Morris in his commentary "The Genesis Record"

 

Yep, the Nephilim and the Anakim.

 

Well you know that the flood was just a regional event according to many folks, so if it was not a "JUDGEMENT OF GOD", then there could certainly be no specifics in this locality that could have spurred God to such an action.

Just one minor example of the liberalizing of scripture that has a domino effect.

Taken to the extreme, the Word is nothing more than a series of individual compilations of ancient legends.

In this instance, God noted that there were various off-spring from these un-Godly unions, that DO NOT FIT the natural progeny of man-kind; why not accept what He said, and stop trying to second guess God???

Just accept what He said, as He said it, even if it doesn't fit "my" concepts of what God "ought" to say!!??!!??

 

Except that wording was quite clear that it was a Universal Flood, God sent in judgement upon evil mankind,,,

And the Scriptures are God breathed, so while the authors might hve known of other traditions, they did NOT include them in their accounts! they had a diredct revelation by God...