NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Lets stay on topic folks. A poster's church membership is not the topic of this thread.
-
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!
Sons of God
- Thread starter Rubato 1
- Start date
God tells us that the angels are neither married nor given in marriage. However no place does it say they Couldn't. Dr. McKormick just said could it be possible thet the fallen angels came and took the daughters of men and the offspring was so horrible that it "repented" God that He had made man and He destroyed them. Just a thought......can't build much on it, it's just another theory.
SeekingHisTruth
New Member
SFIC KJVKid has made a good point. It never says that it's impossible for angels to marry. It certainly is not the original purpose of angelic beings, but fallen angels are not interested in keeping their original purpose.
If angels can manifest themselves in human bodies, and I think that is pretty clear that they can there would be no reason why they couldn't marry and/or have relations with human females or males for that matter.
That means we would just have to deal with what Scripture "says". That gets us a little nervous when dealing with texts that don't "actually say" what we want it to . Much easier just to start the personal attacks.
If angels can manifest themselves in human bodies, and I think that is pretty clear that they can there would be no reason why they couldn't marry and/or have relations with human females or males for that matter.
SFIC if you think the "Baptist" church has cornered the market on absolute correct doctrine then I have some ocean front property to sell you in Kansas. It's a good price!
Never been to Virginia, but heard it's nice. Hot and humid in the summer from what I'm told.
Come on C4K that's not fun to saty on topic
That means we would just have to deal with what Scripture "says". That gets us a little nervous when dealing with texts that don't "actually say" what we want it to . Much easier just to start the personal attacks.It makes perfect sense. If Satan knew that there was coming a Seed through man then how better to try and keep that from happening than to pollute the human race.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
2 Peter 2:4 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;
Jude 1:6 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.
There's your answer, SeekingHimFirst. God cast down the angels that rebelled down to hell... not to earth. and they are in chains of darkness to this day. Those fallen angels were never on this earth to reproduce.
Jude 1:6 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.
There's your answer, SeekingHimFirst. God cast down the angels that rebelled down to hell... not to earth. and they are in chains of darkness to this day. Those fallen angels were never on this earth to reproduce.
Bob Dudley
New Member
Hi SFIC,
I actually think the verses you quoted (2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6) help support the argument that the Sons of God in Genesis were fallen angels that had relationships with women to create the Nephilim. Those NT passages you quoted say that God punished the fallen angels after they sinned and left their first estate. It doesn’t say they thought about sinning and God punished them before they could actually complete the act.
Not sure where I fall in the whole angel-women procreating debate. But, if you take a literal read of the passage (like we do with the rest of Genesis) then I think you have to come away with the fact that fallen angels had relationships with these women before the flood. And some passages later in the OT seem to point to the same thing happening after the flood. Joshua and Caleb seem to have met some of their offspring and David’s Goliath might have been one.
The Bible really doesn’t say it is impossible. We know for a fact that an angel can take the form of a man. And we have several cases where they did – ex, the 2 angels that accompanied Christ when He talked with Abraham. So, if they look like a man to our eyes maybe they are just like a man all the way down to the DNA level. If so, then the possibility exists that a union between a fallen angel and a woman would produce some sort of offspring.
I actually think the verses you quoted (2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6) help support the argument that the Sons of God in Genesis were fallen angels that had relationships with women to create the Nephilim. Those NT passages you quoted say that God punished the fallen angels after they sinned and left their first estate. It doesn’t say they thought about sinning and God punished them before they could actually complete the act.
Not sure where I fall in the whole angel-women procreating debate. But, if you take a literal read of the passage (like we do with the rest of Genesis) then I think you have to come away with the fact that fallen angels had relationships with these women before the flood. And some passages later in the OT seem to point to the same thing happening after the flood. Joshua and Caleb seem to have met some of their offspring and David’s Goliath might have been one.
The Bible really doesn’t say it is impossible. We know for a fact that an angel can take the form of a man. And we have several cases where they did – ex, the 2 angels that accompanied Christ when He talked with Abraham. So, if they look like a man to our eyes maybe they are just like a man all the way down to the DNA level. If so, then the possibility exists that a union between a fallen angel and a woman would produce some sort of offspring.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
When did they sin? Did they not sin in heaven to be cast out of heaven?
Bob Dudley
New Member
Well, for sure, Satan is cast out of heaven. But Jude 1:6 seems to indicate that, at least some of the angels, left voluntarilly and that was part (if not all) of their sin.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
If they left voluntarily, then they still sinned... they left their habitation. God cast them down into hell.
Bob Dudley
New Member
Yes, I agree with you on that point - have to agree with you, that's what the Bible says. :thumbs:
I'm just saying, could part of "left their own habitation" be what happened in Genesis 6:4. The Bible says God has "reserved <these angels> in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." But there is no time frame here. Did God do this the second they sinned or did He do it 100 years after they started sinning?
I'm just saying, could part of "left their own habitation" be what happened in Genesis 6:4. The Bible says God has "reserved <these angels> in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." But there is no time frame here. Did God do this the second they sinned or did He do it 100 years after they started sinning?
SeekingHisTruth
New Member
SFIC once again you have pointed to Scripture that doesn't prove your point. What you need to point to is a text that say angels can't have sex with women or that they can't produce offspring.
The problem is that text doesn't exist. If it did I'm sure you would have pointed it out by now.
The text that you are using doesn't say that ALL fallen angels are in this place. If that were so then there would be any left to enter mankind as demons and there wouldn't be another to do the bidding of Satan, but it is abundantly clear that there are some that are not bound, but roaming around the earth still today.
There simply is no Biblical indication that angels can't have relations with humans. Therefore we have to take the Scripture for what it "actually says" not what helps us feel theologically comfortable.
Personally I'm not sure what the huge problem is with understanding that these were angels and the product of these encounters were somewhat super-humans if you will. Why is that such a horrible way to see things?
Again to me it makes perfect sense. If you are wanting to keep The Seed from coming about what better way than to defile the entire human race. If all humans are defiled then The Seed can not come forth.
The problem is that text doesn't exist. If it did I'm sure you would have pointed it out by now.
The text that you are using doesn't say that ALL fallen angels are in this place. If that were so then there would be any left to enter mankind as demons and there wouldn't be another to do the bidding of Satan, but it is abundantly clear that there are some that are not bound, but roaming around the earth still today.
There simply is no Biblical indication that angels can't have relations with humans. Therefore we have to take the Scripture for what it "actually says" not what helps us feel theologically comfortable.
Personally I'm not sure what the huge problem is with understanding that these were angels and the product of these encounters were somewhat super-humans if you will. Why is that such a horrible way to see things?
Again to me it makes perfect sense. If you are wanting to keep The Seed from coming about what better way than to defile the entire human race. If all humans are defiled then The Seed can not come forth.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
From Things Hard To Be Understood...
The arguments for the angel view have merit and I once held that view, but I have come to reject it. Following are the problems with it. (a) The Bible says angels do not marry (Mt 22:30). How can Christ’s statement in Matthew be reconciled with the view that angels cohabited with women in the early history of mankind. It is possible that Christ was referring to the natural state of angels, whereas Genesis 6 is referring to an unnatural state. It is also possible that Christ was referring only to marriage and that He was not saying that angels could not have sexual relations if they were perverted from their created design. By creation, men do not “marry” men, but we know that homosexuality perverts the natural condition of the man so that he does things God did not create him to do. In describing the fall of certain angels in Jude 1:6-7, the Bible connects their sin with that of Sodom. It is possible that both involved a perversion of the natural created state. While this could possibly explain the apparent contradiction between Mt 22:30 and the view that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were fallen angels, we do not believe that it does for the following reason. (b) Nowhere else in Scripture are we told that angels cohabit with the human race. Genesis 6 does not say that the “sons of God” merely had sexual relations with women, it says they “took wives” of them. If they were demonic spirits, they would have had to have taken permanent physical bodies and settled down into marital relationships in this world. I do not believe the Bible taken as a whole supports this possibility. (c) The Bible says that kind reproduces only after its own kind (Ge. 1). For the angels to be able to cohabit with human beings and to reproduce offspring would appear to be contrary to this law of nature. (d) Ge 6:4 does not specifically say that the giants were the product of the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men. The verse indicates, in fact, that the giants were already in the land. The union between the sons of God and the daughters of men is specifically said to have produced men of renown. Thus there is no reference to an unnatural product of this union. (e) Even if the offspring were giants, this does not necessitate the view that the sons of God were angels or that the union produced something monstrous and unnatural. Giants are frequently mentioned in the Old Testament without any hint that they were the product of an angelic-human union. (f) While the term “sons of God” does refer to angels in the Old Testament, it appears only to refers to good angels, not fallen angels. This would appear to argue against the use of “sons of God” in Ge 6:2,4 being a reference to fallen angels.
The arguments for the angel view have merit and I once held that view, but I have come to reject it. Following are the problems with it. (a) The Bible says angels do not marry (Mt 22:30). How can Christ’s statement in Matthew be reconciled with the view that angels cohabited with women in the early history of mankind. It is possible that Christ was referring to the natural state of angels, whereas Genesis 6 is referring to an unnatural state. It is also possible that Christ was referring only to marriage and that He was not saying that angels could not have sexual relations if they were perverted from their created design. By creation, men do not “marry” men, but we know that homosexuality perverts the natural condition of the man so that he does things God did not create him to do. In describing the fall of certain angels in Jude 1:6-7, the Bible connects their sin with that of Sodom. It is possible that both involved a perversion of the natural created state. While this could possibly explain the apparent contradiction between Mt 22:30 and the view that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were fallen angels, we do not believe that it does for the following reason. (b) Nowhere else in Scripture are we told that angels cohabit with the human race. Genesis 6 does not say that the “sons of God” merely had sexual relations with women, it says they “took wives” of them. If they were demonic spirits, they would have had to have taken permanent physical bodies and settled down into marital relationships in this world. I do not believe the Bible taken as a whole supports this possibility. (c) The Bible says that kind reproduces only after its own kind (Ge. 1). For the angels to be able to cohabit with human beings and to reproduce offspring would appear to be contrary to this law of nature. (d) Ge 6:4 does not specifically say that the giants were the product of the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men. The verse indicates, in fact, that the giants were already in the land. The union between the sons of God and the daughters of men is specifically said to have produced men of renown. Thus there is no reference to an unnatural product of this union. (e) Even if the offspring were giants, this does not necessitate the view that the sons of God were angels or that the union produced something monstrous and unnatural. Giants are frequently mentioned in the Old Testament without any hint that they were the product of an angelic-human union. (f) While the term “sons of God” does refer to angels in the Old Testament, it appears only to refers to good angels, not fallen angels. This would appear to argue against the use of “sons of God” in Ge 6:2,4 being a reference to fallen angels.
Last edited:
SeekingHisTruth
New Member
Actually it just says "of God" [the son] is not in the text, but added.
Contextually in Matthew it seems to be speaking of angels that are obedient. It does not say this of "fallen" angels. However even if the case can be made that this is true, the word "wives" used in Genesis 6 can simply be a generic term and not actually referring to a spouse.
So this can't be proven simply by the language.
I don't think you "really" want to go here, because that means that Mary couldn't have produced Jesus, because she would have been producing outside of her kind.
These unions produced the "same" the Nephilim, which is fallen ones or rebels.
Again I don't see the harm in viewing matters in this manner. It certainly is allowing Scripture to speak, especially concerning the "seed" of the serpent.
Bob Dudley
New Member
Another argument against:
"The Bible says that kind reproduces only after its own kind (Ge. 1). For the angels to be able to cohabit with human beings and to reproduce offspring would appear to be contrary to this law of nature.
is the fact that, when the angels took on the form of men they were (in all probability) EXACTLY like a man down to the DNA level. So, physically, they were producing after their kind - or close to it. I say close to it since the results were the Nephilim - an unerdeemable group of part-humans.
SeekingHisTruth
New Member
Help me . . . I've fallen into the sea of mush and gush and I can't get up :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin: Just messin' with ya Tim :smilewinkgrin:
SeekingHisTruth
New Member
Well I'll just leave this "brown" statement alone
:thumbs:Salamander
New Member
The Context of Genesis is very clear: the "sons of God" are the Sethites who are the followers of God. The daughters of men are the seed of Cain.
Want "Bible"? Read Genesis w/o any bias suggested by any commentators.
Want "Bible"? Read Genesis w/o any bias suggested by any commentators.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Salamander said:
Linda and I both agree that the sons of God were Sethites (children of Seth), Salamander