If the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 were angels...

Paul4JC · Jan 1, 2023

Jamdoc said:
Well the language in Genesis 6 indicates that it was a desire for the women, noting that they were beautiful. I Enoch also points this out, and when the Angels are told they have sinned and will be punished for it, they seek intercession from Enoch, begging for forgiveness. So by that text, the motivation was not deliberately intending to dethrone God (though the serpent may have used their desire to wage HIS war against God, it seems like the watchers actually got duped by their leader), and part of the punishment that God would mete out is for the children of the watchers, whom they loved, fight and kill each other and the watchers had to witness it.

So from Genesis 6 and Enoch, it's a desire for women and to have offspring that drove them, Enoch specifically says that the watchers lusted after the women.
and Genesis 6 goes that route as well, emphasizing that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair.
So while Satan may have been looking to it as a means of corrupting the seed, they had lust for women. It was perhaps, not something that the angels would have had an idea on their own to do, until Satan put the idea in their minds, but what they did was lust, the text was not saying this was a plan to corrupt the seed, but that the sons of God saw that they were fair and wanted wives.

Your focus seems to be only on lust. You're missing the main point and making a means, an end. Was the serpent's goal just getting Adam and Eve to eat "pleasing to the eyes" fruit? Did Satan attack Job just to make him suffer? Did Satan tempt Christ just to get him to do what he wanted?

If we miss the proper context of a subject, we end up with misinterpretation. Secondary points become objectives. If you miss the spiritual objective, you miss everything.

[Eph 6:12 NIV] For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Jamdoc · Jan 2, 2023

Paul4JC said:
Your focus seems to be only on lust. You're missing the main point and making a means, an end. Was the serpent's goal just getting Adam and Eve to eat "pleasing to the eyes" fruit? Did Satan attack Job just to make him suffer? Did Satan tempt Christ just to get him to do what he wanted?

If we miss the proper context of a subject, we end up with misinterpretation. Secondary points become objectives. If you miss the spiritual objective, you miss everything.

[Eph 6:12 NIV] For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

I'm going by what the text says, not injecting motivations on my own.

Genesis 6

6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
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.

That's the motivation given

1 Enoch 3

1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters.
2 And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: "Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children."

should I really be injecting motivations into the text that are not said there?

Now mind you they may have been led into it for an ulterior motive, however, the angels themselves, lusted. They saw beautiful women and desired them. That's what the text says.

Paul4JC · Jan 2, 2023

Jamdoc said:
I'm going by what the text says, not injecting motivations on my own.

Genesis 6

That's the motivation given

1 Enoch 3

should I really be injecting motivations into the text that are not said there?

Now mind you they may have been led into it for an ulterior motive, however, the angels themselves, lusted. They saw beautiful women and desired them. That's what the text says.

Okay, let's use your texts. There could be another motivation. As much as you use "lust", the word "saw" could be the main point. What does "saw" mean? Had they not seen women before? Were not women beautiful before this time? They were watcher angels who saw what they could achieve by creating Nephilim and destroying the earth, which they did accomplish, resulting in God wiping out humanity via the flood.

Chapter 8 of 1 Enoch explains how the beautification of women took place. This happened before the angels fell.

1 Enoch 8:1 And Azâzêl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth〉 and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures. 2 And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways.

The book of Jubilees also points out the watcher angels were sent to teach good to humanity. Yet it's clear from the above passage that these angels rebelled by revealing evil knowledge.

Jubilees 4:15b/ He named him Jared because during his lifetime the angels of the Lord who were called Watchers descended to earth to teach humanity and to do what is just and upright upon the earth.

[Btw Jared, means descent, or coming down. Jared - Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary Online]

The book of Daniel also mentions watcher angels.
[Dan 4:13 ESV] "I saw in the visions of my head as I lay in bed, and behold, a watcher, a holy one, came down from heaven.

[Dan 4:23a ESV] And because the king saw a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven and saying, ...

Aaron112 · Jan 4, 2023

ChetSinger said:
If the New Testament isn't worried about then I won't be, either. Paul writes that no one has ever seen, heard, or even imagined what our resurrected existence will be like. I don't think you need be concerned about this.

Good.
Scripture is True and Good and Right and God-Given.
He Says Himself everything reproduces with its own kind.
Angels never reproduce. Nothing ever indicates they desire to or have any affection for wooman.
Giants happen without angels. No worries there. Never was a worry.
The problem is spurious fairy tales and imaginations of the flesh and from demons.

Aaron112 · Jan 4, 2023

Jamdoc said:
I'm going by what the text says, not injecting motivations on my own.

Genesis 6

That's the motivation given

Or spurious and false feelings, motives and desires.
Men desire women.
Men have children with women.
Sons of men have desires of women, and have children with women.
Angels never have, never will.
Mistranslated and misinterpreted texts won't provide and defense at all to God's Judgment on Judgment day for anyone.

Aaron112 · Jan 4, 2023

p.s. the fairy tales about and concerning nephelim are not something new , nor ever true.
They have been a source of distraction from the truth, a deception for multitudes, for centuries now.

Jamdoc · Jan 4, 2023

Aaron112 said:
p.s. the fairy tales about and concerning nephelim are not something new , nor ever true.
They have been a source of distraction from the truth, a deception for multitudes, for centuries now.

Jude and Peter referred back to the supernatural interpretation of Genesis 6.
and again
Genesis 6 if it's all humans is so redundant that it's insulting. There's no point to the first few verses to say "when the men and women had kids they got married and had more kids"
which is essentially what you're saying when it's NOT the supernatural interpretation.

Aaron112 · Jan 4, 2023

Jamdoc said:
Jude and Peter referred back to the supernatural interpretation of Genesis 6.
and again
Genesis 6 if it's all humans is so redundant that it's insulting. There's no point to the first few verses to say "when the men and women had kids they got married and had more kids"
which is essentially what you're saying when it's NOT the supernatural interpretation.

So you stubmle, are insulted , by truth , and apparently reject Jesus' Jude and Peter meaning .
That doesn't make men into angels, nor angels into men.

Jamdoc · Jan 4, 2023

Aaron112 said:
So you stubmle, are insulted , by truth , and apparently reject Jesus' Jude and Peter meaning .
That doesn't make men into angels, nor angels into men.

The insult is the level of redundancy of Genesis 6 if it's humans and humans.

Genesis 6

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the (men) saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the (men) 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.

Why spend 2 verses redundantly saying men and women got married and had kids? That was established in the first verse, that men were multiplying, are you going to say they were multiplying asexually and only later began reproducing sexually? Because it's either that, or it's department of redundancy department. It makes no sense.

going on

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

That's a specific thing to be perfect in, and Noah the drunk was not morally perfect, he was just, but not morally perfect, he still sinned, AFTER being delivered from the flood even. Is that morally perfect behavior? Getting drunk?

Under a supernatural interpretation, it makes sense. Noah didn't have any hybridization, he was pure human. Other people had some level of hybridization, their generations were corrupted.

also we're not talking about Shaquille O'Neal "giants". Og was 13 feet tall, and that was during the days of Israel in the wilderness, a long time after Noah's flood. That's almost 2 times taller than Shaq.

and let's look at what Jude said

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.

Btw this punishment about being kept in chains for 70 generations? That's from I Enoch, that's what Jude is referring to.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Why give a verse about sinning angels followed by the specific sin of Sodom?
If the supernatural interpretation is what is being referenced, it makes sense, similar sin.

If the department of redundancy department interpretation is being used.. then it's 2 unconnected concepts, the angels leaving their first estate has nothing to do with Sodom.

and Peter

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;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

again, the specific punishment, chained until (the 5th and 6th trumpets in Revelation), judgement, is something referenced from I Enoch, where the angels that sinned are chained up for 70 generations (about 5000 years)

Peter talks about this happening before the flood of Noah, which aligns to the supernatural interpretation of Genesis 6, and again, also links it to Sodom. Where the sin was, unnatural sexual relations.

Why would Jesus, Peter, and Jude refer to a fable?
Why would Enoch's description of heaven, match John's description in Revelation?

Sure, before the Dead Sea scrolls it was easy to say, that Enoch had been written AFTER Revelation and referred back to those.. but this was found and dated to be hundreds of years before Christ.

and they align.

Aaron112 · Jan 4, 2023

Jamdoc said:
The insult is the level of redundancy of Genesis 6 if it's humans and humans.

The sons of Elohim today are not offended by what you call redundancy.

We/they reject the false teachings that angels had children with women - those false teachings are false in origin, false in practice, false in context, and contradict all Scriptural Truth and God's Plan.

Jamdoc · Jan 4, 2023

Aaron112 said:
The sons of Elohim today are not offended by what you call redundancy.

We/they reject the false teachings that angels had children with women - those false teachings are false in origin, false in practice, false in context, and contradict all Scriptural Truth and God's Plan.

and are referred to by Apostles.

the men began multiplying and begat daughters and married them and had children

yeah .. no. that doesn't work in context.
It's the same level of dumb as people who claim 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is referring to the rapture and not apostasy, saying that Paul was saying that "regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, don't be deceived by anyone that the Day of the Lord is imminent, that day shall not come until the rapture"... uh.. He just connected the Day of the Lord/Jesus' return/the rapture as all happening at the same time then said those won't happen until something else happened, and they want to inject the rapture as happening first when 1 Thessalonians 4 has the second coming happen first, then the dead are resurrected and then the rapture.

They can't put it in context and if you put their doctrine in context, it makes no sense.

How was Noah perfect in his GENERATIONS?

Derf · Jan 11, 2023

Jamdoc said:
when I'm reading of giants in the old testament they're giving figures of 10 (Goliath)-13 feet (Og) tall or so, although the account in Numbers for the Anakim says much larger than that but okay the scouts gave hyperbole when they said these people make us look like grasshoppers. But tallest documented human was what 8 foot 11 inches? Goliath and other biblical giants are given statures taller than that.

and foreigners from where? We're talking pre-flood, pre tower of babel, pre spreading humans all across the world.

and beside the point, the Apostles and Jesus referenced Enoch.

Go ahead, search your old testament for where Jesus could have meant that the reason the Sadducees erred was they did not know the scriptures when He said there's no marriage after the resurrection. Because that's the reason Jesus gave for their error, they didn't know the scriptures. But without Enoch, where in the old testament would the Sadducees have deduced no marriage after the resurrection?

Because without Enoch...

Jesus basically told them, they erred because they didn't know the scriptures then proceeds to give doctrine that is NOWHERE in scripture, and for a reason that is NOWHERE in scripture.

except the doctrine, and the reasoning for it, are found in I Enoch... and it is the same reason Jesus gives.

So where else did this doctrine come from that the Saducees should have found in their canon old testament.

Good luck.

Jesus was dealing with the Sadducees' rejection of the resurrection rather than their misunderstanding of marriage in the resurrection, at least according to Matthew.
The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, [Mat 22:23 KJV]
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. [Mat 22:29 KJV]
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. [Mat 22:30 KJV]
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, [Mat 22:31 KJV]

Why would God need special power to implement no marriage in the resurrection, since He already did it with the angels?

Jesus knew the real reason for the question, just as Matthew did--it was all about the resurrection. They cared nothing about how marriage worked, because you don't need marriage when you're dead.

Jamdoc · Jan 12, 2023

Derf said:
Jesus was dealing with the Sadducees' rejection of the resurrection rather than their misunderstanding of marriage in the resurrection, at least according to Matthew.
The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, [Mat 22:23 KJV]
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. [Mat 22:29 KJV]
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. [Mat 22:30 KJV]
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, [Mat 22:31 KJV]

Why would God need special power to implement no marriage in the resurrection, since He already did it with the angels?

Jesus knew the real reason for the question, just as Matthew did--it was all about the resurrection. They cared nothing about how marriage worked, because you don't need marriage when you're dead.

Correct but He introduced a doctrine that had 0 old testament revelation and then gave the reason for their not understanding being not knowing the scriptures. They only regarded the books of Moses as scripture, and rejected everything else. If Enoch is considered scripture by Jesus, then it fits. They made a mistake even asking the question because from Enoch they would know that the elect are resurrected and cannot die, and thus do not marry. It's a rationale explained in I Enoch but not anywhere in the canon old testament, much less the books of Moses.

They were attempting to trap Jesus on a doctrine of the resurrection and Jesus instead told them their first assumption was wrong, that people would be married after the resurrection.

Derf · Jan 12, 2023

Jamdoc said:
Correct but He introduced a doctrine that had 0 old testament revelation and then gave the reason for their not understanding being not knowing the scriptures. They only regarded the books of Moses as scripture, and rejected everything else. If Enoch is considered scripture by Jesus, then it fits. They made a mistake even asking the question because from Enoch they would know that the elect are resurrected and cannot die, and thus do not marry. It's a rationale explained in I Enoch but not anywhere in the canon old testament, much less the books of Moses.

They were attempting to trap Jesus on a doctrine of the resurrection and Jesus instead told them their first assumption was wrong, that people would be married after the resurrection.

I understood what you were getting at before, but just repeating it doesn't make it more true. Would you like to instead actually deal with what I wroe, so it will be more like a normal discussion, where we respond to the content we are presented with?

Since "the book of Enoch" is never presented in scripture as a source, but only what Enoch prophesied, it might be premature to canonize the book of Enoch.

Jamdoc · Jan 12, 2023

ItsAdventageous said:
"sons of God" in Genesis 6 are not "angels". They're human beings. The entire context from Genesis 4 to 6 is about humanity, and the divide of those who accepted the Lamb, and called upon the name of the LORD and those who refused the offer of the Lamb. Genesis 6 refers to intermingling of the saved and lost in marriage and the great apostasy that ensued because of it. The same warning is given throughout all of scripture.

The context of where Peter and Jude use Enoch's story though doesn't fit with that interpretation

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;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

3 examples Peter gives of God's wrath. 1 is the flood narrative from Genesis, 1 is the destruction of Sodom from Genesis.
The first example though? Where's that in canon scripture?
Peter was writing before Revelation. You'd have him drawing from thin air, and his audience would know what he was referring to, from thin air as well.

But 1 Enoch is a story about Angels who sinned, and their punishment, which is being chained in hell for 70 generations (and there are 70 generations from Enoch to Jesus, and as Jesus had no future generations and is still alive, it's referring to both comings), and that fits the other interpretation of Genesis 6, not yours. What is Peter referencing if your interpretation is true?

Jude 1

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
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.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Again, Jude gives examples of the wrath of God, and one of them is referring to something that in your interpretation, never happened in canon scripture, as Revelation had not been written yet. But it fits I Enoch, including the referred to punishment. What is Jude referencing if your interpretation is right? Do pure blooded humans have children that are as tall as Og, 13-14 feet tall?
There's a lot of couples where 1 person is saved and the other is unsaved and their children aren't over 10 feet tall.

Jamdoc · Jan 12, 2023

Jamdoc said:
Correct but He introduced a doctrine that had 0 old testament revelation and then gave the reason for their not understanding being not knowing the scriptures. They only regarded the books of Moses as scripture, and rejected everything else. If Enoch is considered scripture by Jesus, then it fits. They made a mistake even asking the question because from Enoch they would know that the elect are resurrected and cannot die, and thus do not marry. It's a rationale explained in I Enoch but not anywhere in the canon old testament, much less the books of Moses.

They were attempting to trap Jesus on a doctrine of the resurrection and Jesus instead told them their first assumption was wrong, that people would be married after the resurrection.

The reason being you only touch on half of what Jesus said, the part that can be deduced from canon scripture, which is, that there is a resurrection, and as Jesus shows, there is life after death even hidden in the books of Moses.
You wave off the rest of what Jesus said, being a doctrine with no canon source, that they were supposed to know.
How were they to know it?

Derf · Jan 12, 2023

Jamdoc said:
The reason being you only touch on half of what Jesus said, the part that can be deduced from canon scripture, which is, that there is a resurrection, and as Jesus shows, there is life after death even hidden in the books of Moses.
You wave off the rest of what Jesus said, being a doctrine with no canon source, that they were supposed to know.
How were they to know it?

I suppose this was intended for me.

They didn't need to know it already if it was new info. He chided them for not knowing the resurrection part, but then gave new revelation, which He was certainly capable of doing, on the marriage part.

Jamdoc · Jan 12, 2023

Derf said:
I suppose this was intended for me.

They didn't need to know it already if it was new info. He chided them for not knowing the resurrection part, but then gave new revelation, which He was certainly capable of doing, on the marriage part.

His phrasing was not that this was new information but that they didn't know old information.

If he'd not dropped the "not knowing the scriptures" I'd accept it all as new information, but then He'd need to defend His doctrine. Remember, they did not believe He was the Son of God. He couldn't just pull new doctrine out of thin air and they accept it as truth. With His disciples who believed Him, He could do that. He couldn't do that with the Pharisees or Sadducees. Anything He taught, He had to root in what was already revealed by God that people accepted as revelation from God, because of their unbelief. Everything Jesus taught to people who did not believe in Him, He had to be consistent with scripture. With His disciples, because He was consistent with scripture already, they accepted new truths He revealed that were not references to prior scripture. The Pharisees and Sadducees would have rebuked His answer, if it was new doctrine out of thin air that they were totally unfamiliar with. They didn't rebuke His answer, they knew what He was referring to but had not seen that material used in such a way. That's different. Using scripture in a way that they had not seen in their surface level reading of it, would produce a reaction like "I see where he's getting this from, I have to think about this"
When He said things that seemed out of thin air to the Pharisees, they got angry, they rebuked, they said He was blaspheming.

Even when He used a reference to Old Testament scripture, if it was teaching a doctrine that was not explicit in the Pharisee's eyes, such as the Divinity of the Messiah, it produced a reaction of accusations of blasphemy.

If this doctrine had been out of thin air? They'd have picked up stones.
But because they were familiar with what He was referencing just never seen it used that way.. it required thought and meditation. They couldn't accuse blasphemy because what if what He said was true in scripture?

Sheila Davis · Jan 13, 2023

Jamdoc said:
If the supernatural view of the first part of Genesis 6 is taken, where it's Angels making human hybrids and not this kinda goofy redundant view that it's just men.. cause if it is just men then it's men reproduced, had daughters and then.. men saw them and took them as wives and reproduced? Wait isn't that how they got the daughters in the first place?

But anyway.. if it's true that it's Angels with Humans reproducing that made th wee Nephilim,

#1 it lends credence to I Enoch, which Jude, and Peter reference, Jude directly quoting, and Jesus appeared to reference in Matthew 22 (there is NOWHERE in the canon old testament that indicates marriage doesn't exist after the resurrection, but I Enoch gives the same rationale for there not being marriage after the resurrection as Jesus gave... even though it's a difficult thing to take in and kind of makes little sense as women, marriage and procreation were introduced BEFORE the fall, not after, but the rationale of no marriage and no procreation because no death is hard to reconcile with there not being death until the fall but marriage existed before the fall)
#2 It challenges very popular beliefs such as, simply seeing God's glory eliminates all desire for anything like sex or children, just staring at God fulfills all desires. Popular teaching but, if Angels who lived in Heaven and beheld God in all His glory chose to "leave their first estate" to marry human women and have children... why wouldn't we? If God's glory was all we'd ever need, why'd God provide other things and other gifts? Angels were created just to glorify God, and God never gave them things like food, a planet, animals, women, etc. So if any being would be totally fulfilled by God's glory, and desire nothing else.. it'd be Angels... but they still chose other things, they still chased after "strange flesh". Meanwhile we were given many other things, and given desires for those other things, to be fulfilled by things other than staring at Jesus. Praising God doesn't satiate hunger or thirst drive for instance, God PROVIDED the means to satiate them instead.
#3 It also challenges the popular belief that the elimination of sin in the New Earth is accomplished by beholding God's glory wiping away desires for anything else. If Angels can sin, after knowing God's glory but choosing something they didn't even have a biological need for.. wouldn't we also still have that potential, having been designed with needs that are fulfilled by providence rather than directly by beholding glory? Like we're already predisposed to choosing to satiate a need rather than just staring at God and praising Him. Resurrected Jesus still .. ate food for instance, and the imagery given even in Revelation 21 and 22 still involves eating and drinking, biological drives that are fulfilled through things that God provides, rather than just, glory.

What prevents us from desiring physical intimacy from the opposite gender when even Angels desired it?

Does God just.. make us all Barbie and Ken dolls so we're physically incapable?
Does God change all women into men? I mean after all, only the male gender is really addressed in the later chapters of Resurrection aside from the bride imagery, the New Jerusalem is referred to by feminine pronouns, but the individuals, the overcomers, are referred to by masculine pronouns only.

Revelation 21

Mind you I don't believe that's how it's solved but I do have to pose the question of possible ways for it to be solved, because Angels choosing women over God's glory challenges the popular belief.

Most other sins can be addressed just by living in love, God's providence, and the impossibility of dying. Why bother stealing if God gives all things freely? Why bother coveting if God has provided for all needs? Can't murder when nobody can die, can't commit Adultery if there is no marriage, and can't lie if everyone already knows the truth.

But fornication.... that's a tough one to solve unless the people are physically incapable due to being anatomically incomplete, or there are no such thing as women anymore to desire, or the law itself changes... because the desire for physical intimacy exists often as a RESULT of loving someone, and no that desire is not created just out of biological need to reproduce, eliminating the possibility of biological reproduction does not eliminate sexual desire. Old people past menopause still have that desire, sterile couples still have that desire, and if Angels who were never created to have that desire or biological drive could learn to desire it... new biology doesn't solve it, living in love doesn't solve it, and if God's not providing a means for it, then it becomes an unmet desire, as it was an unmet desire for the Angels, and so they thought to fulfill it on their own.

I personally believe Genesis 6 is speaking of angelic beings.
I do not believe that they were 400 ft Giants, I believe that either is an error in translation or a error in whosoever originally wrote the Book of Genesis if it was Moses or rewrote it, the Babylonians did destroy the Hebrew scrolls, did they not.
For some reason people of today expect for the ancient people who were just learning the craft of writing and the craft of reading to be literally / politically correct and they were not. And try to use it against them in far too many cases. When if one just stops and think it's only been a good hundred years since everybody was required schooling worldwide and in some cases in the world today still there is no such thing as schooling. A study indicated in 1870 one of four or one of five people actually attended School and that was in the so-called civilized world.

You bring up some good points. Could it have started with Eve and the one we call Satan seducing her and her bearing a child for him accepted as Cain by many Christians. After all Satan was wise/ full of wisdom was he not

Most churches teach Angels are spiritual beings and yet they had to have physical form and physical capabilities of reproducing in order to do this and in order to be seen as men. OR they actually did what man today considers as artificial insemination _ spliced their DNA with the DNA of man.

Some churches use to teach that all the Angels were males.
Jesus said we will be as the angels are neither marrying or given into marriage - could we all be males again, if that is so.
No females - no temptations of desire. Plus scripture says there will be no remembrance of none of this.

In the Old Testament the Bible does state that the Angels were curious and in The Book of Enoch it says they were doing experiments with both man and beast and creating monstrosities. So suppose they are too scientist of sorts.

Your words are food for thought.

Wayne Gabler · Jan 13, 2023

Jamdoc said:
If the supernatural view of the first part of Genesis 6 is taken, where it's Angels making human hybrids and not this kinda goofy redundant view that it's just men.. cause if it is just men then it's men reproduced, had daughters and then.. men saw them and took them as wives and reproduced? Wait isn't that how they got the daughters in the first place?

But anyway.. if it's true that it's Angels with Humans reproducing that made the Nephilim,

#1 it lends credence to I Enoch, which Jude, and Peter reference, Jude directly quoting, and Jesus appeared to reference in Matthew 22 (there is NOWHERE in the canon old testament that indicates marriage doesn't exist after the resurrection, but I Enoch gives the same rationale for there not being marriage after the resurrection as Jesus gave... even though it's a difficult thing to take in and kind of makes little sense as women, marriage and procreation were introduced BEFORE the fall, not after, but the rationale of no marriage and no procreation because no death is hard to reconcile with there not being death until the fall but marriage existed before the fall)
#2 It challenges very popular beliefs such as, simply seeing God's glory eliminates all desire for anything like sex or children, just staring at God fulfills all desires. Popular teaching but, if Angels who lived in Heaven and beheld God in all His glory chose to "leave their first estate" to marry human women and have children... why wouldn't we? If God's glory was all we'd ever need, why'd God provide other things and other gifts? Angels were created just to glorify God, and God never gave them things like food, a planet, animals, women, etc. So if any being would be totally fulfilled by God's glory, and desire nothing else.. it'd be Angels... but they still chose other things, they still chased after "strange flesh". Meanwhile we were given many other things, and given desires for those other things, to be fulfilled by things other than staring at Jesus. Praising God doesn't satiate hunger or thirst drive for instance, God PROVIDED the means to satiate them instead.
#3 It also challenges the popular belief that the elimination of sin in the New Earth is accomplished by beholding God's glory wiping away desires for anything else. If Angels can sin, after knowing God's glory but choosing something they didn't even have a biological need for.. wouldn't we also still have that potential, having been designed with needs that are fulfilled by providence rather than directly by beholding glory? Like we're already predisposed to choosing to satiate a need rather than just staring at God and praising Him. Resurrected Jesus still .. ate food for instance, and the imagery given even in Revelation 21 and 22 still involves eating and drinking, biological drives that are fulfilled through things that God provides, rather than just, glory.

What prevents us from desiring physical intimacy from the opposite gender when even Angels desired it?

Does God just.. make us all Barbie and Ken dolls so we're physically incapable?
Does God change all women into men? I mean after all, only the male gender is really addressed in the later chapters of Resurrection aside from the bride imagery, the New Jerusalem is referred to by feminine pronouns, but the individuals, the overcomers, are referred to by masculine pronouns only.

Revelation 21

Mind you I don't believe that's how it's solved but I do have to pose the question of possible ways for it to be solved, because Angels choosing women over God's glory challenges the popular belief.

Most other sins can be addressed just by living in love, God's providence, and the impossibility of dying. Why bother stealing if God gives all things freely? Why bother coveting if God has provided for all needs? Can't murder when nobody can die, can't commit Adultery if there is no marriage, and can't lie if everyone already knows the truth.

But fornication.... that's a tough one to solve unless the people are physically incapable due to being anatomically incomplete, or there are no such thing as women anymore to desire, or the law itself changes... because the desire for physical intimacy exists often as a RESULT of loving someone, and no that desire is not created just out of biological need to reproduce, eliminating the possibility of biological reproduction does not eliminate sexual desire. Old people past menopause still have that desire, sterile couples still have that desire, and if Angels who were never created to have that desire or biological drive could learn to desire it... new biology doesn't solve it, living in love doesn't solve it, and if God's not providing a means for it, then it becomes an unmet desire, as it was an unmet desire for the Angels, and so they thought to fulfill it on their own.

Angels were not given in marriage, rather than they were incapable of having a child. Ge:6 also explains why they were not given in marriage, their children fell into sin and had to be killed. A sinful child of two angels would have to be sent to the fiery lake with their parents. The reference below is when the 2/3 that did not sin are in their promised new heaven. As perfected beings, they would be given in marriage and the child they have would be born perfected. God and the Holy Spirit are equal to perfected angels, Christ is their child that was born perfected. Ge:1 is His parents creating an inheritance for their child.
M't:22:30:
For in the resurrection they neither marry,
nor are given in marriage,
but are as the angels of God in heaven.

This is for the group of people alive for the 1,000 years, they are not given in marriage during that reign, or when they live in New Jerusalem during the new earth era. They are the 'perfected people' in this reference, the next time they appear there they are equal to the angels. That is when God will give them in marriage:
Heb:12:22-23:
But ye are come unto mount Sion,
and unto the city of the living God,
the heavenly Jerusalem,
and to an innumerable company of angels,
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn,
which are written in heaven,
and to God the Judge of all,
and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Their flock will be the ones from the GWT event, they will be scattered across the universe, each will have a world they transform from being barren to being full of life using the Ge:1 process. Their children will eat food until the age of 120, then they are made into immortals, when they stop having natural children. Isa:65 is the best passage for that concept.
Isa:11:6:
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the kid;
and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
and a little child shall lead them.
Isa:65:25:
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock:
and dust shall be the serpent's meat.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain,
saith the LORD.

If the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 were angels...

the Sun of Righteousness will rise with healing

Watching and Praying Always

the Sun of Righteousness will rise with healing

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

Watching and Praying Always

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads