When I was a boy I used to love building model cars, boats, and planes.
The models could not be put together with one step only found in the instructions. If I followed only step #1? I did not sit there and say to myself... "How does one get an airplane out of that?" And, then walk away..
That is what you have been doing with your text isolation ploy. The text is only a step in its construction.
What I have shown requires study and a desire to learn more than you now know. For it needs that a good number of passages be understood and combined. Not by just one verse (as you asserted and demand) for giving an entire picture.
It would be much better (for all of us) than closing your mind, to ask questions as to what you do not yet understand. Instead. You just close your mind. And, make your own rules. Possibly, you do not want the responsibility that comes with better understanding the enemy.
Your analogy falls apart because in the instructions itself, you are told what the airplane is going to look like. We are not told about possible female angels in the Bible, therefore we need not put together verses that do not go together to design our own inventions. And in fact, I have not done 'text isolation' ploy; I admitted to you that there are 11 verses in the Bible that use the term 'son of God' and I explained to you already why the balance and weight of witnesses is on the side of the godly line of Seth. I also looked at the whole picture by referring you to context, such as Genesis 5, to show why and how we come upon Genesis 6.
What you have shown is great speculative work, and in fact if we were to look closer into theology - there is a whole realm of theology called 'speculative theology'. In fact, that is a **real** thing. But it must remain categorized as 'speculative' theology because as you stated, it is not said plainly in Scriptures.
And actually, no. I don't make my own rules. I believe there is an argument to be made that the Bible should be interpreted with important rules. We don't get to put our spin on the message of the text, nor do we get to invent rules to our liking. Context is an important rule; historical understanding is another because the ancient near east has its own customs and understandings (which don't override God, but simply show us that the Bible was not written in a vacuum.) There is a principal called the historical-grammatical principal of interpretation. Again, if there is not a clear passage, then obscure ones cannot be used to build doctrine. If obscure ones could be used to build doctrines, then they would not be obscure. If you can read a passage plainly and come to plain conclusions, that is how you know you have a clear passage.
The enemy is a deceiver; that is his biggest ploy. And one of the ways he will deceive us is to try to convince us he is more powerful than what he really is. He also lies and is the father of lies. Martin Luther says that though his power is great, we tremble not for him - for one little word will 'fell' him.
We ought not to give him power; Neil Anderson has a great series of studies called Freedom in Christ ministries. We are taught to reject falsehood (anything outside of God's word) and accept God's truth (the Bible). We go through the Freedom of Steps in Christ to clear away these cobwebs that are holding us back in Christ. We renounce the devil and his ways, but it is more important to identify his falsehoods and identify the things we believe that are *wrong*, and fill it with things that are *right*. That is the strategy of the Bible; the strategy is not to speculate on Satan and his ways whose ultimate doom is the Lake of Fire. Remember that even the angel Michael did not dispute with Satan, but simply turned Satan over to God and said 'the Lord rebuke thee'.
"Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." - Jude 9
So no. We absolutely do not need to open our minds so wide that our brains fall out; we must open our minds to the truths laid out in God's word. In the analogy of the airplane, you know in advance you have the pieces and it must be put together *correctly* to form the airplane. That is good Bible interpretation; the overall message of the Bible is man is a sinner, Christ is crucified for all sinners (which is all of us), and that believe in Him brings eternal life. Any other message is a side message that supports this bigger message.
Your giving up on step 1 is not what I am doing; I am suggesting to you that female angels and the angelic marital act is not given to us immediately as the final picture for one simple reason: you can't come up with it by simply reading the text.
As far as denominationalism, that is a poor argument for poor exegesis of a Bible passage. Denominationalism is not wrong or evil; I like the fact that there are different denominations. Different denominations do not exist because we disagree on what the Bible says (weird angel theories that it does not say); but rather because of the 'interpretation' of passages. You've not interpreted passages ... you've added to passages things that are not there. And again, I'm sure your a fine brother in the Lord and you love Him with all your heart. But you have come up with things that are not in the Scripture.
Now I understand there are some Bible translations that will use the word angels in Genesis 6. This goes back to the critical text; if you trust Westcott and Hort, then you'll get that type of translation. I trust Byzantine texts solely, so the Bible translations I read don't use the word angel because it's not in the text. But even if we give it to you - even if we say interpretation #3 is possible (which you have a fine line of supporters for your position including John MacArthur) - you still can't get female angels from that or angels that are actually interested in procreation. (And in fact, if we were to accept your belief that they are male angels - why is Johnny Mac's take on it any better or worse than you. He says the reason why ungodly angels procreated with man was not because angels wanted sex, but rather it was to interbreed with man so that when the offspring came - they would be damnable creatures that God could never redeem since they were angel-human hybrids. Again, more rubbish theories - and I was saved under MacArthur's radio ministry. But it doesn't change poor exegesis.)
The Bible is clear that in heaven, we will be like the angels - not given in marriage. This means either one of two things: a) we will not procreate in heaven or b) it's just free love in heaven. So I suppose you can choose, but most people in their hearts know what that means: there is no procreation in heaven because it is no longer necessary and angels do no procreate. Very simple and very straightforward. Exegetical gymnastics unnecessary.
Read Jeremiah 33:3 in context:
33 Moreover the word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah the second time, while he was yet shut up in the court of the prison, saying,
2 Thus saith the Lord the maker thereof, the Lord that formed it, to establish it; the Lord is his name;
3 Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.
4 For thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning the houses of this city, and concerning the houses of the kings of Judah, which are thrown down by the mounts, and by the sword;
5 They come to fight with the Chaldeans, but it is to fill them with the dead bodies of men, whom I have slain in mine anger and in my fury, and for all whose wickedness I have hid my face from this city.
This is *not* a passage about deeper studies into God's word that will reveal esoteric knowledge that only those who have a special relationship with God will attain. This is about God wanting to show the depth and depravity of Israel's sin to Jeremiah, the prophet. The passage goes on to say God will heal His people. That is the "great and mighty things, which thou knowest not" that God is referring to.
