My point precisely!!!
IOW, simply accept God's word as written, and interpretation problems will be few & far between!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Angels and CoHabiting with Mankind?
- Thread starter righteousdude2
- Start date
- Status
My point precisely!!!
IOW, simply accept God's word as written, and interpretation problems will be few & far between!
But here was your point, your words:
That is not what the Bible says; that is what "many folks" say.
Just one out of many points that the Bible makes is that "every mountain" was covered with water, which would indicate a world-wide flood.
Every person, except for Noah and his immediate family was destroyed.
If regional, all those people could have run to "another region" and escaped the flood, likewise for the animals that Noah saved via the Ark.
The flood water inundated all the earth, not just a region, as the Bible says, when it speaks for itself.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Angels cohabitating with people, good grief. Next we will be believing in unicorns and bridge trolls.
And what do you think precipitated the Flood?
A mixed marriage? No doubt Cain had already done that!
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Yeah! I can't believe the willingness of some to believe nonsense.
People who should know better.
Demons can possess fallen men, why not women, in order to procreate thru them?
If wouldn't matter, their DNA doesn't meld with that of a person when they possess. They take over the mind. It would still be the woman's DNA
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
This discussion started out making the definitive statement that these "angels" were properly referred to as "Sons of God." So how do we make the leap from there to making them demons??
Again, it's ridiculous to jump to such a baseless, false conclusion. The reference is to the line of Seth, who through the end of the chapter just ended before this passage appears, were righteous, godly men. There's no freakin' way the "sons of God" are angels. I'm sure it's getting old, but yet again ...
Ridiculous!!!
beameup
Member
The text is quite clear:
bene 'elohiym
procreated with
bath 'adam
and produced
nephilim
Any uneducated person can see that these were daughters of mankind juxtaposed with "Sons of God".
The goal of Satan was to corrupt the entire human genome. Noah was pure in his generations (ie: without spot or blemish).
bene 'elohiym
procreated with
bath 'adam
and produced
nephilim
Any uneducated person can see that these were daughters of mankind juxtaposed with "Sons of God".
The goal of Satan was to corrupt the entire human genome. Noah was pure in his generations (ie: without spot or blemish).
The term "sons of God" are used in a number of passages, especially in the book of Job, to refer to angels.
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
--Whatever your interpretation here, the "sons of God" must be celestial being--good or evil. It makes more sense in the context to assume they are evil, after all it is a poetic scene here--Satan and his demons.
Now Israel had intermarried with the Moabites later on with some judgment, but not catastrophic. Why would intermarriage bring world-wide judgment? That question needs to be answered.
To assume all the descendants of Seth are Godly and all the descendants of Cain are ungodly is a big assumption. Can it be proven?
Men desired to have sex with angelic beings in Lot's time; why is it so far-fetched to believe it here?
In Lot's time the entire city was destroyed and the surrounding cities destroyed for their wickedness. That is ultimately what happened. Just before that, for their immediate threat on the angels and Lot, the angels blinded those men and confused them.
We have plenty of evidence of this kind of wickedness that God judged.
There is further NT evidence as well.
You assume facts not in existence.
You state as fact: "Angels cannot procreate."
That is not a fact "in existence," or that you can back up as factual.
IOW, it is simply your opinion and nothing more.
As far as the rest of your post about fairy tales, it is irrelevant.
If you really want to present a good case then go back to my post here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2117428&postcount=76
And try to refute the points made there, especially the quote from Dr. Morris.
First Matthew 22:30 is a clear reference to the ability to procreate. The angels are spirit beings and not physical like we are. To suggest that “not given in marriage” somehow leaves out the sexuality is to ignore the context and the clear implication.
Genesis 1 tells us that everything including man will reproduce after its kind. That has never been changed or done otherwise.
The phrase “sons of God” does not always refer to angels and in fact refers to men at times. (Romans 8:14; Like 3:38)
In Genesis 6 scripture tells us that God will not tolerate man any longer. Nowhere in that passage are angels or the off spring of angels even mentioned. (because it is an absurd fairy tale)
Also, and this is the clincher, there were giants around before scripture says the “sons of God” ever procreated with the daughters.
Thus ends the fairy tale.
Genesis 1 tells us that everything including man will reproduce after its kind. That has never been changed or done otherwise.
The phrase “sons of God” does not always refer to angels and in fact refers to men at times. (Romans 8:14; Like 3:38)
In Genesis 6 scripture tells us that God will not tolerate man any longer. Nowhere in that passage are angels or the off spring of angels even mentioned. (because it is an absurd fairy tale)
Also, and this is the clincher, there were giants around before scripture says the “sons of God” ever procreated with the daughters.
Thus ends the fairy tale.
You have the teaching of the verse wrong.
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
The teaching is the opposite. The question was about a woman who had been bereaved of her husband and then remarried seven times. Whose wife would she be in heaven. The answer: They (man in his resurrected body) neither marry nor are given in marriage... in heaven
--The verse actually supports my position. There is no "marriage" in heaven except for the marriage of the lamb.
That does not exclude marriage on the earth. Nowhere does the Bible exempt marriage for angelic beings on earth.
Second, the Bible teaches we are lower than the angels, indicating the angels are higher and mightier than us. They can do greater things than us, presumably the act of procreation included.
Third, the Bible indicates that both the angels and mankind are spirit beings.
2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
--Without this earthly tabernacle (this body) we are naked (that is, just a spirit), just like all the spirits of the living that are in heaven right now awaiting the resurrection. We are spirit beings. We have a temporary body. Later on we will have a glorified body like Christ. That is just the body. That is the outer shell. Like the angels we are spirit beings.
The angels can assume a body at any time.
The difference is that the good angels do the will of their Father ("On earth as it is in Heaven.")
--But in Genesis 6, they were celestial beings, but not good angels. They were demons.
Basically angels and man are of the same "kind." We are a "little lower than the angels," spirit beings, not a different "kind."
The term "sons of God" consistently refers to angels in the OT. And that is what the context is here. We are not speaking of NT terminology.
The same is true of "son of man." Ezekiel, for example, is often called "the son of man," whereas in the NT, it is a title for Christ.
You fail to mention what this great wickedness is; how it came about; how and what it was that God caused the entire population of the world to be wiped out. The simple intermarriage between Seth and Cain couldn't have done that. It is not reasonable to suppose that. It cannot even be proven. There is not even any evidence.
Read more carefully. Were there giants before this wickedness started taking place? How long had this wickedness been going on? Why were there giants in the land. It wasn't just an all of a sudden event. God tolerated it up to a certain point.
Then he said: "My spirit shall not always strive with man." And that didn't refer to intermarriage.
Jude called them angels who chose to live their abode, heaven, and came to earth to have relations with women!
Fallen Angels are demons, correct?
And if they, as demonic beings now, had to possess human nessals, just as they did in time of jesus, wouldn'r men possessed by them corrupt their seed, and results in gross MUTATIONS BREAKING OUT AMONG HUMANITY>
Something was happening to humanity, far worse than just pagans mixing with godly lineage back then!
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
I've addressed that at least twice before on this thread, and so have others. Look at the passage. He doesn't say that at all.
Jude, NASB
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.
Note that the half-brother of Jesus states quite clearly that those angels have been kept in eternal bonds since they abandoned "their domain" -- heaven, and the presence of God. The reference to "strange flesh" is to the men of Soddom and Gomorrah and the cities around them that sought after illicit sex with other men. It does not say angels did so. And as has been pointed out repeatedly, they being spirit beings not of flesh, such a sexual relationship is impossible.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.
People want to believe in fairy tales and magic, but it has no place in bad interpretations of biblical passages.
- Status