Is it possible for angels t rape women?

[psalms 91]

I don't buy a lot of that stuff about angels mixing with human beings. Angels and demons are spiritual beings. There is no way that a spiritual being can mate with a human female. We don't even know whether angels are male and female. It was the human race that was created male and female. There is no evidence that angels have gender in the way that we would understand it. Angels have revealed themselves as male because that is the only way that humans could relate to them, but the bodies they appeared in were constructed for the purpose and disappeared once they went back into the spiritual realm.

Christ Himself, before His incarnation, appeared in angelic form to Abraham and others. Even though it had the appearance of a human body, it was not an actual human body of flesh and blood.

Incidentally, there are no references in Scripture of angels appearing in female form.

However the conception of Jesus was spiritual to physical was it not? I believe that the Old Testament does show exactly this and I also believe that their spawn was the giants

 

[Faulty]

There is no way that a spiritual being can mate with a human female.

You mean you assume this rather. I mean, have you observed a spirit and a human trying to have a baby and failing to know for sure, or just an assumption presumed to be fact?

We know these 'sons' and their wives had children, they were giants. We know from Gen 6:9 that Noah had a pure bloodline, which doesn't make any sense unless there were contaminents in the bloodlines of others.

We know there were these giants also in the land after the flood, but if Noah and his family were the only survivors, then the 'sons of Seth' and 'daughters of Cain' theory falls flat on its face at this point due to the bottlenecking of the human gene pool and bloodlines.

We know that Joseph and the Israelites were charged with killing all of many peoples who were considered the Anakim decendents, or the nephilim.

Human on human offspring just does not fit here.

 

[Yekcidmij]

You mean you assume this rather. I mean, have you observed a spirit and a human trying to have a baby and failing to know for sure, or just an assumption presumed to be fact?

I don't think that's a good argument, especially when you don't hold that view consistently with other things.

We know these 'sons' and their wives had children, they were giants. We know from Gen 6:9 that Noah had a pure bloodline, which doesn't make any sense unless there were contaminents in the bloodlines of others.

I don't see how Gen 6:9 gives that interpretation. It says Noah was blameless among his generations, which would seem to imply to me that his contemporaries were corrupt, which goes pretty well with what I put foward in my last post.

We know there were these giants also in the land after the flood, but if Noah and his family were the only survivors, then the 'sons of Seth' and 'daughters of Cain' theory falls flat on its face at this point due to the bottlenecking of the human gene pool and bloodlines.

Assuming a worldwide flood...which still wouldn't explain the very survival of the Nephilim.

Human on human offspring just does not fit here.

I think it fits.

 

[visionary]

Angels are more powerful than men... as Ps 91 says.

 

[Faulty]

I don't think that's a good argument, especially when you don't hold that view consistently with other things.

Perhaps you didn't notice the argument too well. He listed 4 or 5 things that we "don't know" then came to a 'factual' conclusion based on things we "don't know".

I don't see how Gen 6:9 gives that interpretation. It says Noah was blameless among his generations, which would seem to imply to me that his contemporaries were corrupt, which goes pretty well with what I put foward in my last post.

Maybe you should look at the construct a bit more closely.

Assuming a worldwide flood...which still wouldn't explain the very survival of the Nephilim.

Of course I assume a worldwide flood, and the Nephelim did not survive. Of course that lends credibilityto the 'sons' being angels, because they could have indeed been around to cause a reinfestation.

I think it fits.

And you're free to think that.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Perhaps you didn't notice the argument too well. He listed 4 or 5 things that we "don't know" then came to a 'factual' conclusion based on things we "don't know".

Ok, fair enough.

Maybe you should look at the construct a bit more closely.

Are you talking about a grammatical construct where 2 nouns appear side by side?

Of course I assume a worldwide flood, and the Nephelim did not survive. Of course that lends credibilityto the 'sons' being angels, because they could have indeed been around to cause a reinfestation.

Ok, so you think there was a worldwide flood and that the flood didn't kill everything on earth save Noah's family?

 

[Faulty]

Are you talking about a grammatical construct where 2 nouns appear side by side?

No. I'm refering to the original meanings in Hebrew.

Ok, so you think there was a worldwide flood and that the flood didn't kill everything on earth save Noah's family?

I clearly said the nephelim died and that the human bloodline was bottlenecked during the flood due to Noah and his family being the only survivors.

But I also stated that there were nephelim after the flood, because the scriptures say so and they played a major role in the conquest of Canaan.

If the original nephelim came about due to the rightous sons of Seth and evil daughters of Cain, then there was no cause for them to reappear after the flood, being that Noah was declared righteous and his bloodline as 'perfect'. There were no 'daughters of Cain' for them to mingle with, and yet they appeared again.

So, since it would have been impossible for Noah to have these nephilim as part of his offspring (according to the Seth/Cain theory), it would have been necessary for the human race to have been contaminated again by something else that would have not been affected by the flood since everything in the flood died. Angels would fit that description nicely.

 

[Yekcidmij]

No. I'm refering to the original meanings in Hebrew.

OK, I'm not sure what you think I, or Oscarr, haven't accounted for. (And a construct is an actual grammatical term, which is why your comment confused me).

But I also stated that there were nephelim after the flood, because the scriptures say so and they played a major role in the conquest of Canaan.

Right, Num 13:33.

If the original nephelim came about due to the rightous sons of Seth and evil daughters of Cain, then there was no cause for them to reappear after the flood, being that Noah was declared righteous and his bloodline as 'perfect'.

First, you think the flood was worldwide, which is fine, but since I don't see it like that the existence of Nephilim in Num13:33 isn't really a problem for me. Second, it's Noah that is declared righteous, but I don't see anything about his bloodline being declared perfect, and Noah and his descendents still fall as well.

There were no 'daughters of Cain' for them to mingle with, and yet they appeared again.

Or they were just never gone in the first place. Also note that Gen 6 just notes the presence of the Nephilim when the sons of god took daughters of men for their wives. It doesn't say that the sons of God WERE the Nephilim. It even seems to make a distinction between the 2.

So, since it would have been impossible for Noah to have these nephilim as part of his offspring (according to the Seth/Cain theory), it would have been necessary for the human race to have been contaminated again by something else that would have not been affected by the flood since everything in the flood died. Angels would fit that description nicely.

I want to make sure I have this correct. You think these semi-divine Nephilim of Gen 6 were the result of human and divine mating. God sees this corruption and decides to rid the world of it through a worldwide flood and saving only Noah and his family. Some distant time after the flood, these rogue angels (which God has for some reason managed not to judge with the judgement rendered previously) re-mate with humans, and this is what the spies see in Numbers 13:33.

I don't think the text warrants such wild and imaginative speculation. It sounds to me more like the fun that takes place in the Canaanite or Greek pantheons. I think what I posted previously better fits what's happening in Genesis.

 

[montgolfier]

Sounds like alien abductions

I was just thinking the same..

 

[Faulty]

OK, I'm not sure what you think I, or Oscarr, haven't accounted for. (And a construct is an actual grammatical term, which is why your comment confused me).



Right, Num 13:33.



First, you think the flood was worldwide, which is fine, but since I don't see it like that the existence of Nephilim in Num13:33 isn't really a problem for me. Second, it's Noah that is declared righteous, but I don't see anything about his bloodline being declared perfect, and Noah and his descendents still fall as well.



Or they were just never gone in the first place. Also note that Gen 6 just notes the presence of the Nephilim when the sons of god took daughters of men for their wives. It doesn't say that the sons of God WERE the Nephilim. It even seems to make a distinction between the 2.



I want to make sure I have this correct. You think these semi-divine Nephilim of Gen 6 were the result of human and divine mating. God sees this corruption and decides to rid the world of it through a worldwide flood and saving only Noah and his family. Some distant time after the flood, these rogue angels (which God has for some reason managed not to judge with the judgement rendered previously) re-mate with humans, and this is what the spies see in Numbers 13:33.

I don't think the text warrants such wild and imaginative speculation. It sounds to me more like the fun that takes place in the Canaanite or Greek pantheons. I think what I posted previously better fits what's happening in Genesis.

That's fine. I wouldn't believe it either if it weren't there in the text.

Oddly enough, this was also the way of thinking of those on the OT times as well as expounded in the Book of Enoch. Not a divine book, but a great window into how the Jews saw this event as well. Not the way you read it, but rather the way I do.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Oddly enough, this was also the way of thinking of those on the OT times as well as expounded in the Book of Enoch. Not a divine book, but a great window into how the Jews saw this event as well. Not the way you read it, but rather the way I do.

Enoch is a Second Temple writing that reflects but one interpretation on Genesis 6 that was alive during the Second Temple period. If we are going to look at what second Temple Jews believed, I might point out that the LXX, which the NT quotes far more than Enoch, doesn't translate "sons of God" in Genesis 6 as "angels of God" as it does in Deut 32:8, Job 1:6, Job 38:7, which indicates to me that there were other 2nd Temple Jews who thought that Gen 6 didn't refer to angels. I might also point out that the Aramaic Targums don't think they are divine beings either.

 

[imperfectchristian]

The root word used for "Gods" in Genesis 6 was used in early Old testament times to refer to nobles. There is another place in Scripture (can't remember it off hand) where "Gods" is used and it actually meant "judges". This view that is not widely considered, but for which has the best evidence (IMO) is that the "Sons of God" were nobles of the period who lusted for power and fame (renown) and part of their desire to gain as much power as they could was to marry a number of wives who produced offspring that furthered the dynasties of these rulers.

The Book of Enoch was widely regarded by Early Jews as not inspired, though ironically this urban legend of angels mating with women was embraced as true by most Jews.

The conclusion (from what I understand) when they decided on not including the Book of Enoch into the canon of Scripture was that it was determined as being a work of fiction that sensationalized Old Testament figures. (It has Enoch basically playing a Messianic figure).

 

[Faulty]

Perhaps if one could show where the children of a rightous man and an unrightous woman regularly creates mutant spawn, then that would be a valid argument, but it doesn't.

If you trace the names of the peoples who were the Nephilim after the flood in the OT, you'll find they were indeed the giants, or titans of old. The lineage of Goliath is given in the scripture and he is shown to be a descendant of these Nephilim. He didn't grow to his size because he was abnormal. He was that size, just as his four brothers were, because that was their lineage.

These people existed, like it or not.

 

[Yekcidmij]

The Book of Enoch was widely regarded by Early Jews as not inspired, though ironically this urban legend of angels mating with women was embraced as true by most Jews.

The conclusion (from what I understand) when they decided on not including the Book of Enoch into the canon of Scripture was that it was determined as being a work of fiction that sensationalized Old Testament figures. (It has Enoch basically playing a Messianic figure).

It was probably largely rejected because it fit one particular sect's view (ie, the Essenes) and so didn't gain wide acceptance among most Jews (ie, Pharisees, Sadducees, and others). I don't think it's that they recognized it as forgery, or at least there is no evidence that I know of where someone recognized it as forgery. They didn't use literary analysis and techniques that are currently in use. Most that rejected it probably gave it a curious look and just dismissed it because it didn't match what they had been taught.

Josephus just in passing, with no indication that he himself believed in it, mentions the Essenes views relating to angels:

War 2.8.7 "Moreover, he swears to communicate their [Essene] doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them himself; that he will abstain from robbery, and will equally preserve the books belonging to their sect, and the names of the angels. These are the oaths by which they secure their proselytes to themselves.

And St. Paul may be commenting on their views, or an offshoot of their views:

Col 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days – 2:17 these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ! 2:18 Let no one who delights in humility and the worship of angels pass judgment on you.

And this might further be reflected when Josephus makes another curious comment about Essene practices:

War 2.8.5. And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sun-rising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising.

Does Josephus think they are offering prayers to the sun? In any case, Josephus' way of seeing it may have been typical. They were certainly a pious group that was very strict in their observances, but they were not the norm to be accepted.

 

[Merlin]

another possibility.
ben-elohim is not 'angel'
given hebrew has a word for angel, why be so cryptic?
this could be a reference to some 'entity' other than 'man' or 'angel'

 

[nephilimiyr]

Gen 6
Your thoughts?

It's very possible that the angels that sinned raped the women in Genesis 6, it's also just as possible that the women were willing participants, the text does not give too many clues as to what actually happend. However, the clues and all of the evidence show over-whelmingly that angels did become physical and mated with human women and that thier offspring became known as the Nephilim. Any other explanation is a total escape from the truth of those events and I am 110% convinced of this.

You all must ask yourself if this really makes a difference. Is this worth the effort to defend or argue?

 

[Tamara224]

Perhaps if one could show where the children of a rightous man and an unrightous woman regularly creates mutant spawn, then that would be a valid argument, but it doesn't.

Exactly. I've been waiting for years for someone to provide a reasonable explanation for this anomaly and so far none has been offered.

If a human's righteousness or lack thereof can affect the genetics of his or her offspring then that's pretty huge. I mean, people should know about that! A lot of people are in very real danger of spawning mutant children.

You'd think God might have mentioned that at some point. Like when He was warning the Israelites of the consequences of them worshiping false gods. "If you obey me and practice my commands, I'll bless you and establish you in your land. If you do not listen to me and follow after false gods, you will be dispossessed of the land and your children will be mutants."

I mean, seriously. It would seem rather strange that such an idea is never mentioned again in Scripture.

Also, I guess the biggest problem I have with the Seth/Cain theory here is that Scripture didn't just say "the Sons of Seth saw the daughters of Cain". If that was what was meant, then why isn't that what was written? Why are Seth's and Cain's names suddenly omitted from the narrative?

It's definitely not the simplest explanation. It requires a lot of fancy footwork to conclude that "sons of God" = sons of Seth and "daughters of men" = "daughters of Cain." Since Scripture doesn't expressly tell us that Seth's descendants were "sons of God" and Cain's were "sons/daughters of men" it's eisegesis. Reading into the text instead of allowing the text to speak for itself.

 

[_Sonnie]

A lot of people are in very real danger of spawning mutant children.

You'd think God might have mentioned that at some point. Like when He was warning the Israelites of the consequences of them worshiping false gods. "If you obey me and practice my commands, I'll bless you and establish you in your land. If you do not listen to me and follow after false gods, you will be dispossessed of the land and your children will be mutants."

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I don't think that God was against Canaanites for any less reasons than that they were mutants.
God is opposed to those who pervert His original purpose.

 

[lashan]

Gen 6
Your thoughts?

yes they can i opened my third eyes through mediation and i am being raped by them and i need help because it wont stop
this is what happened i was lying in bed and the name gabriel popped up in to my mind then i thought that i don't know who he is and a thought your about to find out popped up in to my mind and i felt horrible pain like rape happening it shocked me and when i looked up the name i found out he is a good angel can good angels rape people?