Those pesky angels again.....

[heartstrings]

I turned 62 last April and my Wife turned ...never mind. So we finally decided to join the "Adult"(seniors) Sunday School class. The very first lesson, I kid you not, was on Genesis 6 and the teacher told us that he agreed with the "Angels cohabited with women"  view(his words) because the scholars he read "know more about it than we do". I just kept my mouth zipped. Why bother?

[R Sauter]

Why even waste your time?

[BrotherTony]

I'd have kept my mouth shut as well. People who won't study the issue for themselves and want to live in ignorance concerning certain issues in the Bible, especially ones that don't affect our salvation, are free to remain so IMHO.

[Joe Chandler]

Or before you allow the forum to consign this man, who none know but you, to the ignominy of both ignorance and unreasonableness you should talk to him and address your concerns man to man.

[heartstrings]

Even named persons, which none of us really know, are  publicly "consigned to the ignominy of both ignorance and unreasonableness" on this board from time to time. But this particular individual shall remain nameless. As a young Christian, this was the subject which prompted me to study the Bible  in more depth than I ever had before and it was one phrase which made me question the "fallen angel" interpretation when I first heard it; something that just didn't sound right: The pastor used the phrase "cohabited with women". When you have to change/alter what the Bible says about something to make your point, well, that's just changing the word of God. Because the King James Bible says they took "wives. Tell me please why fallen angels who had rebelled against God, dooming themselves to be a 'devils" or "demons" would take women as a "wives"? And why would a preacher call it "cohabited"? Anyway, this one thing made me question everything I hear men say from pulpits instead of taking their word for it as "knowing more about it" because of their notoriety, position, education, or status. And it's not wrong to question and verify what you hear.

Acts 17: 

¹⁰ And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

¹¹ These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

You're right, I should mention this to the Brother in private. But I certainly didn't feel led to cause anyone embarrassment in the Sunday School class.

Edited January 10 by heartstrings

[Jerry]

5 hours ago, heartstrings said:

When you have to change/alter what the Bible says about something to make your point, well, that's just changing the word of God.

Yup, many false teachings are passed on in this way. In fact, much false doctrine and false interpretations of the Bible (including so-called Bible errors) can be refuted by taking the Bible at face value, looking at the exact words of each passage (and related parallel passages).

[R Sauter]

10 hours ago, heartstrings said:

You're right, I should mention this to the Brother in private. But I certainly didn't feel led to cause anyone embarrassment in the Sunday School class.

Definitely do so in private. The only time you should ever confront in public is when something is blatantly heretical and others in attendance are somewhat impressionable - Hold your tongue if it is just a mere disagreement you may have over less pertinent issues.

As I said, if the teacher seems like some sort of simpleton who is too lazy to put in the time for proper study and preparation, it is not worth your time to attend the class. Go get a Latte from Starbucks or something. If they ask, I think it would be good to be honest with them that you would rather not waste your time.

[robmac68]

18 hours ago, heartstrings said:

Tell me please why fallen angels who had rebelled against God, dooming themselves to be a 'devils" or "demons" would take women as a "wives"?

Because they hated humanity so much that they wanted to pervert/corrupt it through their offspring????  Why are they down here being "demons" or "devils"?  Why not go sit on the moon?  Do they have to be here and be confined to the earth?  

[SureWord]

The early Christians believed the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were "angels who kept not their first estate". It wasn't until Origen that the idea of "the godly line of Seth" was introduced.

I've never read any of his material but I do know he is considered the Father of Allegorical Interpretation of the Bible and invented the Septuagint based on a apocryphal Jewish letter.

[BrotherTony]

12 minutes ago, SureWord said:

The early Christians believed the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were "angels who kept not their first estate". It wasn't until Origen that the idea of "the godly line of Seth" was introduced.

Not to be argumentative, but I have gone to four different Bible colleges, and not one of them taught this or would agree with your assessment. Do you have anything that we can reference for this alleged belief? Thanks.

[heartstrings]

1 hour ago, SureWord said:

The early Christians believed the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were "angels who kept not their first estate". It wasn't until Origen that the idea of "the godly line of Seth" was introduced.

I've never read any of his material but I do know he is considered the Father of Allegorical Interpretation of the Bible and invented the Septuagint based on a apocryphal Jewish letter.

That's a quote from the Book of Jude.

Three groups of sinners from the Old Testament are mentioned in the Book of Jude:

1. The angels which "kept not their first estate" had rebelled against God and were cast out because they "despised dominion"

2. The Israelites during the 40 years in the wilderness murmured and complained against Moses so they are the ones who "spoke evil of dignities".

3. The Sodomites were perverts so they are the ones which "went after strange flesh". People get this wrong by trying to say that it was the angels who went after strange flesh while completely ignoring the fact that this was the sin of the Sodomites.

[Jerry]

50 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

The Sodomites were perverts so they are the ones which "went after strange flesh". People get this wrong by trying to say that it was the angels who went after strange flesh while completely ignoring the fact that this was the sin of the Sodomites.

Yes.

Jude 1:6-7
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. 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.

Jude says the Sodomites were like the angels, not the other way around. That means the Sodomites were guilty of what Jude already said about the angels: which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation - not the other way around (ie. that the angels were also guilty of the sin of the Sodomites, giving themselves over to fornication, going after strange flesh).

Edited January 11 by Jerry
Added clarification

[heartstrings]

Luke 3:38 ..........which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

In the genealogy of Christ found in Luke chapter 3, Luke says that Adam was "the son of God". So if we look back in Genesis 5 we find that Adam 

Genesis 5: 3nd Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: ⁴And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: ⁵And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

 

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 sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Three things to assemble here:

1. Men "began to multiply"

2. Adam was still around for "830 years" after "men began to multiply"

3. Adam was a "son of God"(per Luke 3:38)

So  puts Adam in the group "the sons of God" in Genesis 6:2: 

How did Adam become a "son of God"? By calling upon the name of the Lord like everybody else. All of the men named in Genesis 5 are also listed in Luke chapter 3 in the Genealogy of Christ and all of those listed are sons of God by faith. That faith began back in Genesis 4.

And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.  Genesis 4:26

John 1:12 But as many as received him,(the Word) to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Whose name? 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Yes.

Jude 1:6-7
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. 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.

Jude says the Sodomites were like the angels, not the other way around. That means the Sodomites were guilty of what Jude already said about the angels: which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation - not the other way around (ie. that the angels were also guilty of the sin of the Sodomites, giving themselves over to fornication, going after strange flesh).

The "certain men crept in unawares" in the NT were the ones doing all three sins of those in the OT. But I digress.

[Joe Chandler]

One of the problems with the cohabitating angels is that creatures outside of their kind cannot produce offspring. A horse and a donkey can produce a mule, But a dog and a cat cannot produce anything. I am not convinced that an angel and a woman can conceive. 

I cannot explain this verse.  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.

So who came in unto the daughters of men? The giants?

On 1/10/2024 at 12:23 PM, heartstrings said:

You're right, I should mention this to the Brother in private. But I certainly didn't feel led to cause anyone embarrassment in the Sunday School class.

When I said what I said, I had no doubt that you would do the right thing, whatever that turned out to be.

[SureWord]

On 1/12/2024 at 10:32 PM, Joe Chandler said:

One of the problems with the cohabitating angels is that creatures outside of their kind cannot produce offspring. A horse and a donkey can produce a mule, But a dog and a cat cannot produce anything. I am not convinced that an angel and a woman can conceive. 

I cannot explain this verse.  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.

So who came in unto the daughters of men? The giants?

When I said what I said, I had no doubt that you would do the right thing, whatever that turned out to be.

You are assuming an angel is vastly different than a human. The fact that there are times in the Bible that they can be mistaken as humans (Hebrews 13:2) leaves the door open that they could also reproduce with a female.