I was quite surprised to find that almost nobody at my church agreed with me when I spoke about the fallen angels in Genesis 6.
They refused to even give consideration to the "sons of God" being anything other than humans.
The translators of the NIV and Good news clearly agree that we are not talking about humans in this passage, so what are the main arguments against what is so obviously written?
I should also point out that if the main objection is what Jesus said to the Sadducees regarding the widow of seven husbands, it is, not only a very weak argument, but in fact adds credence to the fallen angel account.
(If you could marry in heaven, there would be no need for them to fall)
Also, if we can compile a serious scriptural based argument against Gen 6 talking about angels, who are the angels that were punished for sinning and what was their sin (if not breeding with human women), here I refer to 2 Peter:4-5 and Jude 1:6.
They refused to even give consideration to the "sons of God" being anything other than humans.
The translators of the NIV and Good news clearly agree that we are not talking about humans in this passage, so what are the main arguments against what is so obviously written?
I should also point out that if the main objection is what Jesus said to the Sadducees regarding the widow of seven husbands, it is, not only a very weak argument, but in fact adds credence to the fallen angel account.
(If you could marry in heaven, there would be no need for them to fall)
Also, if we can compile a serious scriptural based argument against Gen 6 talking about angels, who are the angels that were punished for sinning and what was their sin (if not breeding with human women), here I refer to 2 Peter:4-5 and Jude 1:6.
Last edited: