Why Were Angels Allowed to Intervene in Prediluvian Human affairs

AlexDTX · Nov 30, 2016

Radrook said:
No, angels are not humans in spirit form. They are spirits who can assume a human form if allowed to do so..
True, as stated in Genesis, no earthly creature can cross the kind barrier. However, please note that the reference was to material creatures who were unable to shape-shift around such a barrier.

Angels who have shape shifting powers can get around it as is clearly and repeatedly demonstrated in the Bible when they appear in human form can. In short they are able to materialize and dematerialize bodies and are therefor not restricted to the sprit realm.
The fact that they can enable such bodies to fertilize an ovum demonstrates that they can materialize in very detailed ways.

This doctrine that you believe is more than 3,000 years old. Many people believe it, but belief does not make it true. There are millions of Muslims who believe Jesus is not God, but only a prophet. Millions of Hindus who believe Jesus is just another god to added to their pantheon.

You are making assumptions that no one knows and can not prove. Why should you assume angels that have appeared in human form have the ability to shape shift? We know two angels were with God when they appeared before Abraham and the people of Sodom saw the angel that came to Lot's home, so there is agreement that they have appeared in human form. However, it is just as possible that they don't have the ability to appear in human form by themselves, but rather God temporarily gave them human form for those tasks.

I have talked directly to Satan and heard him talking to me, as well as my own guardian angel whose name is Helen. In both cases I could not see them but only hear them and sense the location of their presence. This is not proof that they can not appear in human form on their own, but I wonder what your personal knowledge of angels might be. Other than accepting an opinion contrived by Scriptural inference.

Some cite Mathew where angels are said to not marry. But that was in reference to holy angels in who obey Gods restrictions. The rebel angels violated that restriction via misusing their powers.

Again, you are making an assumption here. How do you know your point is so apart from an opinion drawn from Scriptural inference, of which there is none regarding the Lord's direct statement.

The reference to sons of God marrying daughters of men as describing normal human to human interaction between the human sexes doesn't convince me because there are various biblical texts which indicate otherwise. For example, the term sons of God is used in the book of Job as applying to the angels. Such sons of God are depicted as being in heaven and as being present when our Earth was created and as rejoicing as a consequence.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them (Job 1:6).

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came among them to present himself before the Lord (Job 2:1).

Still an assumption. All throughout the rest of the Bible, the sons of God refer to the people who put their trust in the Messiah. The sons of God in Job could just as easily be a congregation of righteous people worshiping God on Earth, not in Heaven. Satan and his demons frequently attend church gatherings to see what kind of mischief they can do.

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7, cf. Psalm 89:6; Daniel 3:25).

So that provides us with an identification right there.

It is possible in this instance the angels might be called the sons of God, but these are still assumptions being made.

Then we have Jude's description of defilement of flesh similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah I his description of what transpired back 'in Noah's day which indicates that the relationship between the daughters of men and the sons of God was not a natural one.
And reference to angel's not staying obediently in their rightful place of dwelling or realm and being punished for it when he talks about what transpired during Noah's day.
...

I find those three references very compelling reasons to identify the sons of God with angels.

You find this compelling because of your assumption that this occurred. Those verses you quoted do not specifically state that these things happened because of the doctrine you believe.

About the giants not being the offspring of the union between Angels and women-that is a point that seems to have validity since the text does seem to separate the twain.

For the life of me I don't know why so many want to believe this doctrine. I don't see it as one that edifies the body of Christ. I once met a woman who was terrified that a demon could come in human form and rape her. God is not the spirit of fear but of a sound mind.

It is an innate human characteristic to want to know everything. I believe this is because we are made in the image of God who is omniscient. Consequently we make judgements based upon scant evidence and believe them to be the truth. What I have come to realize the older I get is that we know so little that we need to lean not on our own understanding and trust in the Lord in all our ways.

The body of Christ is divided by so many non issues of doctrines of men that the unity is not seen by the lost and dying world. Many Jews were blind to the first coming of Messiah because his actions did not fit their preconceived beliefs that Messiah would come once and liberate Israel from the Roman occupation. I am convinced that there will be many believers that will misunderstand the second coming because of their preconceived eschatological doctrines won't fit the manner of his return.

This doctrine, as I said, is not edifying and has no benefit in equipping the saints nor in uniting the body of Christ. Am I against discussing possibilities? No, of course not. There is much to discuss. But all such discussions, apart from the deity of Christ, our sins and the need for salvation through the new birth which makes us new creatures, is academic and needs to kept in the attitude of it might be or it might not be.

Radrook · Nov 30, 2016

I never claimed that the doctrine edifies the Church. I merely said that I find the scriptural support for it compelling, not because I believed the concept prior to the scriptures but because I accept the concept BECAUSE of the scriptural support I find. Assumptions are baseless. My beliefs are not.

So I guess we differ in opinions on this matter.

Greg J. · Nov 30, 2016

AlexDTX said:
You are making assumptions that no one knows and can not prove.

No one knows what spiritual truth other people know and don't know, can prove or not prove. It is a statement of people looking for proof on their own terms rather than seeking God for truth and faith (usually atheists). There are many things that each living person doesn't know for which the knowledge of it is available in Scripture.

(Edited)

AlexDTX · Nov 30, 2016

Radrook said:
I never claimed that the doctrine edifies the Church. I merely said that I find the scriptural support for it compelling, not because I believed the concept prior to the scriptures but because I accept the concept BECAUSE of the scriptural support I find. Assumptions are baseless. My beliefs are not.

So I guess we differ in opinions on this matter.

Yes, we do differ in opinions on the matter. The difficulty I had with your question: "Why Were Angels Allowed to Intervene in Prediluvian Human affairs" is the assumption that this actually happened and that God allowed it to happen. To assume God "allowed" such an abomination is to assume God is the source of our troubles because He "allows" these things to happen. I completely disagree with this perception of God.

Paul of Eugene OR · Nov 30, 2016

Radrook said:
Why not truncate that intervention at the root by limiting angelic ability to materialize and to have viable offspring from women?

Just so you are reminded, that sort of thing never really happened. Angels, Jesus reminded us, neither marry nor are given in marriage. If they were created outside the human line, they could not mate with the human line.

John Hyperspace · Nov 30, 2016

Postvieww said:
Below are the only times in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” is used.

We could also look at the phrase in the NT:

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Ro 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Ro 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Php 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Now it's clear that these are all men (except perhaps Romans 8:19). So I would propose that the phrase always be such, in all of scripture. I say this because, if it isn't, then this would be God causing confusion since we wouldn't know what the phrase meant in the OT. Meaning, if the phrase is always consistent, we can conclude without confusion that Genesis 6 is speaking of a group of men. But, if the phrase isn't being used consistently, then we now have confusion at Genesis 6, and can not understand the true picture. I would personally reject the notion of God using phrases inconsistently; this is something a bad teacher would do, and it causes confusion.

So we go to the OT and find these which would all also be describing a group of men:

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.
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

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.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Postvieww said:
The first two in Genesis are in question so let’s look at Job.

Job 1:6 these “sons of God” are clearly not human men. They came with satan to present themselves before the Lord. Satan had been going to and fro in the earth but now is in the presence of God with the “sons of God” . Context demands these are not human beings.

I believe this is an example of reading way too much into the account. The words you use here "clearly" and "demand" do not at all apply. In the context of scripture, these would be a group of men. There are times when all males come to present themselves before the Lord on earth: e.g. Exodus 34:23 At this particular gathering (the text doesn't say what type of gathering), Satan came among them, from "walking to and fro in the earth"

Postvieww said:
Job 2:1 Is the same scenario as Job 1:6, again these “sons of God” are not human men.

I presume that you're imagining in your mind that this is all taking place in heaven? Nothing in the text suggests this.

Postvieww said:
Job 38:7 The context is the creation and it is clear these “sons of God” are not humans shouting for joy when God laid the foundations of the earth.

This is an interesting verse; in looking at the Hebrew this seems rather to be moving in direction from a founding, to other things: we might render it "Or who has cast its corner-stone in the singing together of stars of morning, and all sons of God shouting for joy" as being about Christ, the cornerstone, being laid with singing and shouting of men. BUT, if we were to render it as if these "sons of God" were present during the actual creation event, then I would still maintain that this should also be consistently understood as a group of men. What this would literally mean, I have no idea. But, for sake of consistency, I would propose some sort of foreknowledge which is often mentioned of men being elected "before the foundation of the world" and such as Ephesians 1:4.

BUT, if we were to abandon consistency of phrases, and allow for the confusion of such use, this is probably the one and only verse where we might have sufficient evidence to at least propose some, supernatural beings as alluded to with the phrase "Sons of God"; but I would also here appeal to Hebrews 1:5. I don't see really any way to make this phrase "sons" apply to supernatural beings.

Postvieww said:
The only other similar phrase in the Old Testament is:

Daniel 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

It should be obvious that three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were the only humans in the fire and the forth man was not human.

Ah but the king says "I see four men loose"; this is no doubt the Word of God with them; that is Christ.

Postvieww said:
Prior to the resurrection of Christ only 2 men were called the son of God that would be Adam and Jesus, in Luke 3:38 Luke called Seth the son of Adam.

I would propose that Adam is, in fact, not being called the "son of God" in that geneology; but every "of" is directed at Jesus; the passage actually reads "Jesus: of X, of Y, of Z ... of God" and that this is the same as "Jesus, of X; Jesus, of Y; Jesus, of Z ... Jesus, of God"

Postvieww said:
Some have used Hosea as a challenge scripture. This example is not the same phrase and is prophetic “it shall be said unto them” they were not called the “sons of the living God” yet, they will in the future.

Hosea 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

This is not the same phrase in English or in Hebrew.

Hosea 1:10 Sons (1121) living (2416) God (410) bên חָי el

Genesis 6:4 Sons (1121) of God (430) bên ʼĕlôhîym

This is however speaking of people who were not the sons of God (specifically the house of Israel which was to be 'cut off' Hosea 1:4, Hosea 1:6); there were people who were (house of Judah): Hosea 1:7, Hosea 11:12; and prior to this, all of Israel: Exodus 4:22 (house Israel was only being cut off from being 'the sons of God' at the time of the Assyrian). But prior they had their father: Isaiah 63:16, Isaiah 64:8

JoeP222w · Dec 1, 2016

God is holy, perfect, righteous and just. He is also grace, mercy and love. He uses means to display these attributes.

The Bible does not say that angels had offspring with humans.

sdowney717 · Dec 1, 2016

John Hyperspace said:
We could also look at the phrase in the NT:

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Ro 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Ro 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Php 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Now it's clear that these are all men (except perhaps Romans 8:19). So I would propose that the phrase always be such, in all of scripture. I say this because, if it isn't, then this would be God causing confusion since we wouldn't know what the phrase meant in the OT. Meaning, if the phrase is always consistent, we can conclude without confusion that Genesis 6 is speaking of a group of men. But, if the phrase isn't being used consistently, then we now have confusion at Genesis 6, and can not understand the true picture. I would personally reject the notion of God using phrases inconsistently; this is something a bad teacher would do, and it causes confusion.

So we go to the OT and find these which would all also be describing a group of men:

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.
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

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.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

I believe this is an example of reading way too much into the account. The words you use here "clearly" and "demand" do not at all apply. In the context of scripture, these would be a group of men. There are times when all males come to present themselves before the Lord on earth: e.g. Exodus 34:23 At this particular gathering (the text doesn't say what type of gathering), Satan came among them, from "walking to and fro in the earth"

I presume that you're imagining in your mind that this is all taking place in heaven? Nothing in the text suggests this.

This is an interesting verse; in looking at the Hebrew this seems rather to be moving in direction from a founding, to other things: we might render it "Or who has cast its corner-stone in the singing together of stars of morning, and all sons of God shouting for joy" as being about Christ, the cornerstone, being laid with singing and shouting of men. BUT, if we were to render it as if these "sons of God" were present during the actual creation event, then I would still maintain that this should also be consistently understood as a group of men. What this would literally mean, I have no idea. But, for sake of consistency, I would propose some sort of foreknowledge which is often mentioned of men being elected "before the foundation of the world" and such as Ephesians 1:4.

BUT, if we were to abandon consistency of phrases, and allow for the confusion of such use, this is probably the one and only verse where we might have sufficient evidence to at least propose some, supernatural beings as alluded to with the phrase "Sons of God"; but I would also here appeal to Hebrews 1:5. I don't see really any way to make this phrase "sons" apply to supernatural beings.

Ah but the king says "I see four men loose"; this is no doubt the Word of God with them; that is Christ.

I would propose that Adam is, in fact, not being called the "son of God" in that geneology; but every "of" is directed at Jesus; the passage actually reads "Jesus: of X, of Y, of Z ... of God" and that this is the same as "Jesus, of X; Jesus, of Y; Jesus, of Z ... Jesus, of God"

This is however speaking of people who were not the sons of God (specifically the house of Israel which was to be 'cut off' Hosea 1:4, Hosea 1:6); there were people who were (house of Judah): Hosea 1:7, Hosea 11:12; and prior to this, all of Israel: Exodus 4:22 (house Israel was only being cut off from being 'the sons of God' at the time of the Assyrian). But prior they had their father: Isaiah 63:16, Isaiah 64:8

Your mentioning this as referring to men,
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Is taken from the creation story before man existed...
The LORD is saying when he laid earth's cornerstone, the sons of God shouted for joy, yet no single human being has yet been created.

Job 38 New King James Version (NKJV)
The Lord Reveals His Omnipotence to Job
38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said:

2 “Who is this who darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
3 Now prepare yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer Me.

4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Reject that these sons of God mentioned here are only His angels, then you must reject many other scriptures.

The earth has foundations and a cornerstone, which agrees with a flat stationary earth.

JacksBratt · Dec 1, 2016

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Just so you are reminded, that sort of thing never really happened. Angels, Jesus reminded us, neither marry nor are given in marriage. If they were created outside the human line, they could not mate with the human line.

Actually, the scripture is:

Mathew 22:29-30
29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Notice that these are the angels in heaven. The angels that show up in Genesis 6 had left their first estate, as we see here:

Jude 6King James Version (KJV)

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.

Notice, also, that the punishment to these angels was to be chained, everlasting chains unto judgment of the great day.

No other angels have been judged like this, that we are told.

No, these angels did a great sin and were given a specific, early punishment.

ToBeLoved · Dec 1, 2016

Radrook said:
r
But if indeed so, then the Flood failed since the angels were once more taking women and procreating. That goes contrary to what Peter told us befell those angels during the Flood. It tells us they were restrained.

2 Peter 2:4. Here we read that "God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into Tartarus and committed them to pits of darkness (sirois zophou), reserved for judgment". The allusion is to the angels that intermarried with human females.

If that report was merely what the spies THOUGHT they were seeing, then there is no contradiction. But then we have the problem I-f the statement of after that. Which brings up the question: After what happened? After there were giants? What happened after there were giants? Men of renown appeared among the offspring. So there seems to be a division between the giants who were not renown and the ones who came after who were sons of angels and women but who were renown? A very problematic passage if we are to assume that both were human angelic hybrids. Seems as if the giants might have not been of angelic descent but merely big and clumsy humans while those that followed were the real hybrids and they became renown?

Well think of it very simply then.

God said that there were only 7 living beings who were righteous. So I think that satan was very close to killing the bloodline of Jesus.

Or is 7 people a lot?

ToBeLoved · Dec 1, 2016

Radrook said:
I actually met a woman who gleefully spoke about that nightly ravishing visit as normal and talked about other women who spoke the same way. It seems that although unable to materialize they are still interested in human females. Note also that most mediums are female. Question is why allow this?

Most pedofiles are male though. Difference between fantasy and action I guess.

Radrook · Dec 1, 2016

ToBeLoved said:
Most pedofiles are male though. Difference between fantasy and action I guess.

She was referring to invisible demonic visitations. Didn't you read the context of what is being discussed?

JacksBratt · Dec 1, 2016

Postvieww said:
I see no contradiction I don’t believe the flood stopped the behavior. We still find Nephilim after the flood.

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

I believe the flood was to preserve a pure uncontaminated blood line of Noah, so Jesus could fulfill God’s plan of redemption.

Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

It is my belief perfect in his generations does not refer to his standing with God, it refers to his DNA , his bloodline uncontaminated and thru which Jesus would come. The verse said Noah was a just man, that spoke to his standing before God.

Verse 9 starts with “these are the generations of Noah”, and verse 10 list his sons, his blood line to follow and thru their descendants would come Jesus.

I agree, except, the flood did what it needed to do. The corruption of mankind was so immense that God needed to reduce the population to that of humans with pure DNA and 3 humans who were not of pure human DNA. We must trust that these wives that Noah chose were at least righteous in their hearts, to some extent.

In the end, the bloodline was kept pure for Jesus to come and die on the cross.

John Hyperspace · Dec 1, 2016

sdowney717 said:
Your mentioning this as referring to men,
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

I do believe this is speaking of men. The reason for this belief is because this is how the phrase "sons of God" is used when it is being clearly used. Since the phrase is clearly used to speak of men, then what I reject is that God would use the phrase in an inconsistent manner, leading to confusion. So "sons of God" consistently refers to men. In other words, I reject the idea of an inconsistent use of phrase.

Also again I would appeal to Hebrews 1:5 as indicated no "angel" is ever enjoying the "Father; son" relationship. But only men are every called "sons" by God, Who is also called "Father" by men.

So, the consistent use of the phrase "sons of God" to mean "men" (also the idea of the Father-son relationship only existing between God and men), together with, scripture claiming no angel enjoys "Father; son" relationship; I believe "sons of God" should always be understood as it is clearly defined, of men.

sdowney717 said:
Is taken from the creation story before man existed...
The LORD is saying when he laid earth's cornerstone, the sons of God shouted for joy, yet no single human being has yet been created.

I would propose that something about the passage is being misunderstood if we are trying to cause the phrase "sons of God" to not mean, men, since this is the only consistent method of understanding the phrase (since it is clearly used of men in both OT and NT; as cited) and since scripture indicates no angel enjoys the "Father-son" relationship. Either the passage is alluding to some other cornerstone being laid (I propose Christ, the Cornerstone: Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:6-7), or, men were in some way regarded as being present at the time, perhaps in some form of foreknowledge of God in the rejoicing of men over Christ, or, perhaps even in some literal way; or, the passage is applicable to some unknown understanding.

But in the end, to anyone claiming these "sons of God" are not men (as men are clearly identified by precedent in scripture as being the "sons of God") I would ask if they were able to cite some form of precedence in scripture which teaches that something other than men are also able to enjoy the "Father-son" relationship. If this precedent could not be produced, I would reject their prior claim as without scriptural support.

Theo Book · Dec 1, 2016

Radrook said:
Why not truncate that intervention at the root by limiting angelic ability to materialize and to have viable offspring from women?

Scripture tells us "If the princes of this world had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."(I Cor 2:2)

What the angels of Gen 6 were doing was a counterfeit of the Son of God/Son of Man hybrid that constituted the Messiah.

If God had interfered before damage was done, there would have been no justification for destroying the Giant offspring of the Sons of God with Daughters of Men; So God waited until justification could be made that hid the real issue; that God could not allow a counterfeit son of God to exist on earth.

That is also why God introduced the revelation we know as the Septuagint; the Greek old testament. God told enough of the Messianic prophecies to lead the Jews to Christ, but told the rest of the story in a way the Jews would not read, and talk about, for if they talked about it, Satan would have learned the plan of Salvation, and would never have crucified Messiah.

JacksBratt · Dec 1, 2016

John Hyperspace said:
I do believe this is speaking of men. The reason for this belief is because this is how the phrase "sons of God" is used when it is being clearly used. Since the phrase is clearly used to speak of men, then what I reject is that God would use the phrase in an inconsistent manner, leading to confusion. So "sons of God" consistently refers to men. In other words, I reject the idea of an inconsistent use of phrase.

Also again I would appeal to Hebrews 1:5 as indicated no "angel" is ever enjoying the "Father; son" relationship. But only men are every called "sons" by God, Who is also called "Father" by men.

So, the consistent use of the phrase "sons of God" to mean "men" (also the idea of the Father-son relationship only existing between God and men), together with, scripture claiming no angel enjoys "Father; son" relationship; I believe "sons of God" should always be understood as it is clearly defined, of men.

I would propose that something about the passage is being misunderstood if we are trying to cause the phrase "sons of God" to not mean, men, since this is the only consistent method of understanding the phrase (since it is clearly used of men in both OT and NT; as cited) and since scripture indicates no angel enjoys the "Father-son" relationship. Either the passage is alluding to some other cornerstone being laid (I propose Christ, the Cornerstone: Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:6-7), or, men were in some way regarded as being present at the time, perhaps in some form of foreknowledge of God in the rejoicing of men over Christ, or, perhaps even in some literal way; or, the passage is applicable to some unknown understanding.

But in the end, to anyone claiming these "sons of God" are not men (as men are clearly identified by precedent in scripture as being the "sons of God") I would ask if they were able to cite some form of precedence in scripture which teaches that something other than men are also able to enjoy the "Father-son" relationship. If this precedent could not be produced, I would reject their prior claim as without scriptural support.

The question arises, for me:

How on earth, can one line of mankind, mate, or take wives, with another line of mankind and end up with giants?

How on earth can this corrupt all flesh to the point that God wants to wipe it out?

It makes no sense.

Angels are the "sons of God"
Angels left their first estate and mated with women
These hybrid offspring were giants, huge giants.
These angels also taught mankind all kinds of things
These angels also inter bred and intertwind the DNA of many organisms and corrupted all flesh.
Only Noah, his wife and three sons were left with a pure human bloodline.

This could not have happened if it were mere human men and human women of another tribe.

If so this would have happened continually throughout the ages of 6000 years of man populating this earth and interbreeding with all races and creeds.

Satan intended on tainting the whole human DNA bloodline so that Christ could never become a true human savior. Plus, there would not be one pure human to save.

He did this by getting angels to mate with human women. These angels paid a dear price. They watched their offspring die in a bloody civil war and then were chained in the deepest part of hell and they are still there.

John Hyperspace · Dec 1, 2016

JacksBratt said:
The question arises, for me:

How on earth, can one line of mankind, mate, or take wives, with another line of mankind and end up with giants?

I propose that before we start conjecturing; we acknowledge the clear things, these will help direct our understanding. So, clearly (passages I've already cited) we see that men are called "sons of God" and that men are clearly established in a "Father-son" relationship. We don't clearly see this said of any other creation. In fact, the opposite is true in the cited passage from Hebrews where the author is asking "When did God ever say, 'I will be a Father to you; and you my son' to any of the angels?"

So when we look at the phrase "sons of God" we should be understanding that clear precedent teaches this as an epithet of men. This may open up new question such as yours, but the fact that it raises new questions doesn't really mean we should disregard everything else clearly taught, and begin proposing something that isn't clearly taught.

However, in relation to your question; I would ask what you meant by "giants"? If you're meaning the "nephilim" (which I presume you are) then the passage says they were already in the earth in those days, and, also after that (when the sons of God married "strange wives"). The scripture doesn't really seem to indicate their origin. I suppose if we understand them literally (such as Goliath) I would conjecture that they are some sort of "birth defect" in childbirth. It seems to be a hereditary trait much like "gigantism" which affects children even today.

JacksBratt said:
How on earth can this corrupt all flesh to the point that God wants to wipe it out?

The passage states that all flesh had "corrupted his way" not that the flesh itself was corrupt. I would propose this is indicating that people had become corrupted by carnality and perverse customs and such: Galatians 6:8. We might think of this as world-wide corruption of truth and understanding. We see this pattern repeating through both the OT and NT (no 'angelic mating' necessary) in such places as Numbers 25:1-3, 1 Kings 11:8-10, Ezra 10:14, Ezra 10:44, Nehemiah 13:25-27

JacksBratt said:
Angels are the "sons of God"

This is a claim which is at odds with scripture: Hebrews 1:5; and in the scripture only men are ever called "son" and enjoy the Father-son relationship with God: 2 Samuel 7:14, 1 Chronicles 28:6, Exodus 4:22, Isaiah 63:16, John 20:17, Matthew 23:9, Philippians 2:15, etc.

But can you cite a single passage anywhere in the scripture in which a creation other than man is clealry taught to be a "son of God" or enjoys the Father-son relationship with God?

JacksBratt said:
Angels left their first estate and mated with women
These hybrid offspring were giants, huge giants.
These angels also taught mankind all kinds of things
These angels also inter bred and intertwind the DNA of many organisms and corrupted all flesh.
Only Noah, his wife and three sons were left with a pure human bloodline.

This could not have happened if it were mere human men and human women of another tribe.

If so this would have happened continually throughout the ages of 6000 years of man populating this earth and interbreeding with all races and creeds.

Satan intended on tainting the whole human DNA bloodline so that Christ could never become a true human savior. Plus, there would not be one pure human to save.

He did this by getting angels to mate with human women. These angels paid a dear price. They watched their offspring die in a bloody civil war and then were chained in the deepest part of hell and they are still there.

This seems to be entirely speculative conjecture with no basis in actual scripture.

BARNEY BRIGHT · Dec 1, 2016

Postvieww said:
Could one not use the same logic and ask why God allows any evil to continue in this world? When satan deceived Adam and Eve they lost dominion over this earth they were given and it was transferred to satan and his crowd.

All of this will come to an end, in God’s timeframe, according to His plan.

i agree.We must understand during this time that satan is ruling in this world we are living in now that evil will exist til GOD due time arrives

BARNEY BRIGHT · Dec 1, 2016

Radrook said:
That it is allowed is obvious as are the plans to bring it to an end. The answer as to why it is allowed in the first place isn't as obvious.

i disagree it is obvious why it is allow.Think of a math teacher teaching his class how to solve a problem and one of his students speaks up interrupting the teacher saying he knows a better way to solve the problem.The teacher says prove it.Well a rebellion happened in eden satan with Adam and Eve joining him basically saying they know a better way to rule than GOD.HE has given them all this time to prove it.

BARNEY BRIGHT · Dec 1, 2016

Radrook said:
You offered free will as the reason that he chose to allow angels to come to earth marry women and produce Nephilim which resulted in his decision to bring the Noachian Flood. In short, his respect for free will prevented him from stopping that behavior from starting but it did not stop him from stopping it later. There is a contradiction there.

GOD does not punish til after one sins not before

Why Were Angels Allowed to Intervene in Prediluvian Human affairs

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Finally Old Enough

UnKnown ReMember

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Searching for Truth

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Searching for Truth

UnKnown ReMember

Active Member

Searching for Truth

UnKnown ReMember

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads