"Sons of God" descendants of Seth or fallen angels

[IM4given]

1. There is only one direct, absolute definition, for "sons of God", found in the Bible: believers.
"Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God"...."brethren, now are we the sons of God".....

2. A son is begotten....that includes the only begotten Son...AND believers. Angels are not begotten. Not a single one.

The world was not destroyed in the flood because of a "tainted line" or "cohabitation" of angels and humans. The Bible says it was destroyed because the "wickedness of MAN was great".

Jesus tells us in the New Testament what men were doing before the flood...."marrying and giving in marriage". He mentioned NOTHING about the cause being any angelic beings. Now read Genesis chapter 5 and 6. Genesis 5 begins with the "generations of Adam". These BELIEVERS were doing alot of "generating". Then in chapter 6 it explains more details about those "generations"...It says they "took them WIVES". These guys were praciticng polygamy with unbeleivers. Then, later in chapter 6, it says that Noah was "PERFECT in HIS generations". What does that mean? Perfect means FLAWLESS. Noah was the husband of ONE wife, and that wife was evidently a believer. The Ark was a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. Incidently.....Only beleivers are IN the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, Noah was perfect in his generations. He generated God's way. And the book of Jude doesn't prove your theory either because those who try take it out of context.

Prove that Genesis 6. Job 1:7, Job 2:1 and Job 38 is speaking of angelic beings. You cannot do it.

Proving that the Bible does not say what it says is the most difficult of all things to do!

[IM4given]

Here comes another can o worms...

:worm: :worm: :worm: :worm: :worm: :worm:

One can open up all the cans of worms that there are, but that does not change the Bible!

[Will]

1. There is only one direct, absolute definition, for "sons of God", found in the Bible: believers.
"Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God"...."brethren, now are we the sons of God".....
Patently incorrect. The term "sons of God" is a Semitic phrase that does refer to Angels. There are actually three views on how to interpret this verse. The first is absurd, claiming that the phrase "sons of God" refers to "princes." This leaves us with two views, that "sons of God" refers to angels, or that it refers to the so-called "godly line" of Seth. You are presupposing into these texts that the term "sons of God" can only refer to humans, but you have no standing on which to do so. Do you believe that in Job that all the humans on earth(or at least the believers) were physically presenting themselves to God, and Satan randomly decided to show up? The very nature of that passage must point to the "sons of God" being angels. What of Job 38:7? Do you suppose that this verse refers to Angels or non-existent Humans? Job 38:7 is referring to the creation of the world, and humans were not present at that point. So the term "sons of God" cannot possibly refer to mankind. Note that there is an antithesis here, that is "Sons of God" contrasted to "Daughters of Men." We are not told that this is "the line of Seth" and the "the line of Cain." This is a presupposition forced upon the text itself. Is there any Biblical support to say that "sons of God" refers to the line of Seth? How do we know that the line of Seth was godly? Where does Scripture support this? How do we know that the "daughters of men" refers solely to the line of Cain? Furthermore, why is it only the men from one line taking the daughters of another?

2. A son is begotten....that includes the only begotten Son...AND believers. Angels are not begotten. Not a single one.
You are arguing that the term "son" can only refer to physical birth. This is called nomen naturae, that is to say that angels cannot possibly be called "sons of God" because they were not naturally or physically born. However, we also have nomen officii which is the idea that one can be a son of God by office(as believers are). Believers are NOT sons of God by physical birth, but by office. We are adopted into God's family, and are given the position of "sons of God." Angels can also be termed "sons of God" in this same manner.

The world was not destroyed in the flood because of a "tainted line" or "cohabitation" of angels and humans. The Bible says it was destroyed because the "wickedness of MAN was great".
I agree. The Bible doesn't state otherwise, no argument.

Jesus tells us in the New Testament what men were doing before the flood...."marrying and giving in marriage". He mentioned NOTHING about the cause being any angelic beings. Now read Genesis chapter 5 and 6. Genesis 5 begins with the "generations of Adam". These BELIEVERS were doing alot of "generating". Then in chapter 6 it explains more details about those "generations"...It says they "took them WIVES". These guys were praciticng polygamy with unbeleivers. Then, later in chapter 6, it says that Noah was "PERFECT in HIS generations". What does that mean? Perfect means FLAWLESS. Noah was the husband of ONE wife, and that wife was evidently a believer. The Ark was a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. Incidently.....Only beleivers are IN the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, Noah was perfect in his generations. He generated God's way. And the book of Jude doesn't prove your theory either because those who try take it out of context.
Prove that they were practicing polygamy(actually, polygyny). *sighs* This is an absurd line of reasoning. The Bible doesn't suggest such a thing. What it says is that the sons(plural) of God took wives of the daughters(plural) of men. So we had a plurality of sons taking from a plurality of daughters. The text doesn't suggest polygyny. This is completely forced onto the text with no Scriptural warrant.

Prove that Genesis 6. Job 1:7, Job 2:1 and Job 38 is speaking of angelic beings. You cannot do it.
Prove that they aren't. You cannot do it. *sighs* Where do you think those "men" came from in Job 38 who were present at the creation of the world? Why were all the "believers" physically presenting themselves before God in Job 1 and 2? Your argument that these were not angels is flawed, and is based upon the presupposition that sons of God cannot possibly refer to angels because of nomen naturae.

Devil's Advocate

[Madeline]

:worm: :worm: :worm: :worm: :worm: :worm:

One can open up all the cans of worms that there are, but that does not change the Bible!

............

[IM4given]

Devil's Advocate <--- Truer words were never spoken!

[qwerty guy]

I'm going to throw in on this, just because people seem to be getting upset, so they may as well be upset with me.

The following, I outline how there is no other choice but for the sons of God in gen 6 to be anything but fallen angels. I tried my best to cover any argument, by all means yell away if you find some hole I left. Don't bother yelling at my spelling, microsoft does my spelling for me and I was too busy to hit the check button

Study: Who where the "sons of God" that had children with the "daughters of man" in Genesis chapter 6

Options:
1) Angels
2) Line of Seth breeding with people who don't follow God, most likely the line of Cain
3) Unknown varable breeding with daughters of man

Known truths:
The mating of the sons of God with daughters of man created children that where "of old" "mighty men" and "men of renown" (Genesis 6:4)
That the giants where before the breeding of sons of God and daughters of man, so the offspring where not "giants" (Genesis 6:4)
The breeding of these two, is one of the three reasons for the flood. Reason 1) continual evil thoughts of man (Genesis 6:5) Reason 2) The breeding of sons of God and daughters of man Reason 3) All flesh had become corrupted

Define: Sons of God
Used to define angels Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7
Used to define saved people John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Romans 8:19, Philippians 2:15, I John 3:1, I John 3:2

Not only is there a definite divition of the term from pre-post Jesus, the term "sons of God" is directly related in the new testimate to those washed in the blood. No people in the old testimate could have this status while on earth. I John 3:2 and Romans 8:19 refures to people washed in the blood as sons of God, but only in future terms. I John 3:2 specifically says we are called sons of God, only because we shall be made so upon his return. Luke 20:36 expains this that we are to become like the angels, and are sons of God, because we are the "children of the reserection". This is not a term that could be applied to the pre-Christ peoples.

If the term "sons of God" was restricted to a blood line, just as Isriel is a blood line, then it could not be used for gentiles saved by the blood. The bible clearly makes a distiction between gentiles and the nation of Isriel, even post Jesus, and so no connection could be made between the saved being called "sons of God" and a blood line of pre-flood earth.

There is only one occurance of the term "son of God" in the old testimate, refuring to the pre-incarnet Jesus in the furnace in Daniel 3:25

In the new testimate, 2 people are called the son of God, Jesus, and Adam. The referance to Adam is in the liniage found in Luke 3, going backward listing the father after the son, so when they got to adam, only God was left.

Define Son of Man:
Psalms 8:4, Psalm 144:3 David is in awe that God would even deal with "son of man"
God calls Ezekiel "son of man" 93 times in the book of Ezekiel

All occurances of Son of man, applies to Jesus as a title, and all other occurances are of simply calling man what it is, a created being.

Sons of man, occures in Proverbs 8:4 and Ecclesiastes 1:13. Each occurance is for humans, the one for Ecclesiastes more specifically for Godly people.

The only time "daughter of man" "daughters of man" "daughter of men" and "daughters of men" is found is the 2 times in Genesus 6:2 and 6:4, our target text.

Define: Men of old
The term "of old" used in the bible, is used simply to point out a time before now, history, things that have happened before. To put it into todays speech, it would best be said as "it used to be" or "remeber when" or even "before". In it's use through the old testimate, it is used to define historical landmarks, patterns through history, or even simply to say that you have gained wisdom by studying the past. There was only one difference, one time period before Genesis 6, and that is the garden

To be men of old in a post eden pre-flood world, you would have a couple options:
1) Immortal flesh, as Adam and Eve had in the garden (Genesis 3:19 curses Adam to die, he was immortal before)
2) Murderers, as Cain and his great great great great grandchild (Genesis 4:8 and Genesis 4:23)
3) Those who follow God

We can throw out option 3, for obviously if they followed God then there would be no need for a flood, or the negitive light that it is shown for sons of God to take wives of daughters of men.
Both option 2 and option 1 would fit though, depending on the reasoning for the flood. If they are murderers, it would fit with the corruption that causes God to flood the earth. The other option though, that the breeding of angels with humans would produce immortal flesh, would fit with the choice of God to flood the earth, instead of other means of distruction such as plague. For now, we would need to keep both option 1 and 2 on the table until compaired with the other parts. Keep in mind though, that if someone was half angel, half human, would they have an argument to have access to the tree of life in the garden because they are not full blooded man?

Define: Renown

Simply renown means honor, a man of renown would be one who has power, like a price, or a king. This use can be for someone born into a possition, or someone who simply takes a position. The president of the United States, would be a man of renown, but so would the King of Iran. The leader of a street gang, or the mayor of a city, would also fit for thier respected areas of influence. Most of it's use is found in Ezekiel, talking about the blessings put on Isriel, and how thier men of renown once decoraded nicly, would whore themselves out, corrupted by thier power.

So the breeding of the Sons of God with daughters of man, created men that had something in common with past peoples, they had power and are called mighty. If you tie it togeather with simple ruthlessness, then the children born with the combonation of Seth and Cain blood ruled by fear. It could be possible that with the wisdom of Seth's line, combined with the lack of morals on Cain's side, would make crafty killers who would lead like a street gang leader, by fear and intimidation.

The problem if it's Seth's line, is why would someone in Seth's line, not raise thier children in a way that they are not so horrible? Are we to believe that someone in Seth's line took a wife of Cain's line, and taught the child to be brutal? Or are we to believe that the children would take the wisdom of thier fathers, and turn it wicked? Also, if the line of Cain was so wicked, and the line of Seth so good, then would not the line of Cain want to cause harm to the children, instead of prop them up?

We still have the problem that "sons of God" is always used as a term to discribe angels.

What makes all pieces fit, is that it was angels breeding with women and producing half breeds.

If they took on some of the attributes of the angels, then it is fully possible that they would have immortal flesh like the angels. This would explain the "of old" referance, in that Adam was made with immortal flesh. This also would explain why God used a flood to wipe them from the earth. With even 1/2 strength of angels, they would be called "mighty" and the discription of being renown would fit, given the pattern of men worshipping angels in the bible, a half angel would most likely cause reverance from others.

This also would explain 2 things as far as angels. 1) Why don't the devils have flesh anymore, and 2) how did 1/3 of the angels join Satan?

We see from Satan, that he was perfect in his ways, meaning it's actions that God is interested in. (Ezekiel 28:15) We see that no angel is perfect (Job 4:18) For 1/3 of the angels to fall, they would need to have an action against God, not just thoughts. Satan tempts many in the bible, and it is not a sin to be tempted, it is a sin to follow the temptation and do something against God. Don't make the mistake that thoughts cannot be sinful, that's not what I'm saying. There is a big difference though between thinking about rebelling, and doing the action. Satan, obviously, thought about rebelling before he did it. It was after the action though, that he was found guilty. The angels, breeding with men, would be a simple action that would cause them to rebel from God.

This would also explain why the devils do not have flesh. We see that Satan and the devils in the old testimate, can still go to heaven spiritually (Job 1:6, 1 Kings 22:22) but you cannot find a post flood devil that still has flesh. The flood, would not only clear the earth of all the half breeds, but the flesh of the devils also, so that the pollution could not be done again. This would also fit the judgment of a holy God, who would not simply kill the flesh of the fallen angels without cause.

Simply put, why God flooded the earth is not relivant, it neither supports nor discounts either theory, but what we are pointed too is the referances to Sons of God always being that of angels in the old testimate, and only for the saved in the new because one day they will be like angels. If you where to put odds on this text, you would be stretching to give the chances of "sons of God" being of the line of Seth more then 1%. The term is not used that way anywhere else, it does not explain and accually goes against the discription of the children, and causes more questions then answers.

The only argument left, is if it is possible for an angel to breed with a human.

Physically, angels appear as spritual only (Numbers 22:23, Job 4:14) but they also have flesh. We find strange flesh like the cherubims and seraphim (Ezekiel 1:5-12, .Isaiah 6:2-7), we find female flesh with wings (Zechariah 5:9), but mostly we find that angels have flesh like men (Judges 6:21, Genesis 18:8, Luke 1:19). The bible even warns us that we may be dealing with an angel without knowing it (Hebrews 13:2) although this could be applied to men of God also. It is obvious by examples in the scripture though, that angels do have flesh.

Would angels marry the daughters of men though? Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. This says that the angels of God don't marry. It doesn't say that they can't, it says they don't. It also points out the female and male, given at the time men got married, but women where given in marriage. Simply because they do not get married, people have said it's because they are not "equiped" to do so, but that's not what this says. Also, the argument that they don't because they are all men is discounted by Zechariah 5:9 and the fact you'd be saying that there will be no women in the resurrection.

If a person lives thier entire life, and dies a virgin, does that mean they couldn't marry? If a 30 year old virgin dies in a car accident, are they no longer a he or she but an it? It says that the "angels of God" don't marry, but what about devils? If it's a rule in heaven that they don't marry, and an angel falls to his lust and takes a wife of the daughters of men, wouldn't that make him a devil, rebellious, out of the will of God? Why yes, I think it would.

With the view of "sons of God" being angels, pieces fit, answers come, and no stretch of the imagination is needed as to explain things. If the "sons of God" where Seth's line, or something else, then you need to take the bible non-litterally, produce answers for questions that crop up that have no answers, and in the end the only argument is that "it's not angels because I refuse to accept that".

If it's Seth's line, then:
1) What did the other angels do that made them fall into devils
2) Why did the combination of Seth's line and Cain's line produce mighty, renown, of old children?
3) Why did God kill the flesh of the fallen angels?
4) Why was a flood needed and not simply a plague, fire, or mass beheadings?
5) Why is the term "sons of God" used for pre-flood Seth's bloodline, but for angels only in post flood?
6) Why would devils corrupt God's work in all areas except this one?

If it's angels, then we have the answers for these questions
1) Angels followed Satan by following carnel lusts against God's will
2) Angels breeding with men would produce half angles, mighty, renown, and "of old" being closer to perfect flesh like Adam
3) God killed the flesh of the devils after they proved they would use it in sinful ways
4) The flood not only killed the half breeds, but the flesh of the devils, making them only spiritual now
5) The term "sons of God" is used for angels through the entire old testimate, and as an example of how the saved are special in the new testimate
6) The devils are willing to corrupt all of God's work, what ever they feel like doing.

[lettheredeemedsayso]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... hilim9.asp

[IM4given]

I don't know why this subject seems to come around every couple of months? The Bible has not been rewritten in that amount of time, and nothing new has ever been said - it all boils down to whether or not you believe in the KJV Bible as it is written or you don't. I happen to believe what it says - every word from Genesis to Revelation! Those folks who believe otherwise are relying on some other man-made translation!

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15361&hilit=+fallen+angels

:merrygoround:

[Will]

I'm going to throw in on this, just because people seem to be getting upset, so they may as well be upset with me.

The following, I outline how there is no other choice but for the sons of God in gen 6 to be anything but fallen angels. I tried my best to cover any argument, by all means yell away if you find some hole I left. Don't bother yelling at my spelling, microsoft does my spelling for me and I was too busy to hit the check button

Study: Who where the "sons of God" that had children with the "daughters of man" in Genesis chapter 6

Options:
1) Angels
2) Line of Seth breeding with people who don't follow God, most likely the line of Cain
3) Unknown varable breeding with daughters of man

Known truths:
The mating of the sons of God with daughters of man created children that where "of old" "mighty men" and "men of renown" (Genesis 6:4)
Technically, this proves nothing.

That the giants where before the breeding of sons of God and daughters of man, so the offspring where not "giants" (Genesis 6:4)
Okay, well, you're completely skipping verse three. Also, we don't necessarily know that the giants(nephelim) were a)a different race of beings, or b)the offspring of angels and humans.

The breeding of these two, is one of the three reasons for the flood. Reason 1) continual evil thoughts of man (Genesis 6:5) Reason 2) The breeding of sons of God and daughters of man Reason 3) All flesh had become corrupted
Verses 5 and 6 don't agree with points 2 and 3. Let's contextualize this passage.

Define: Sons of God
Used to define angels Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7
Used to define saved people John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Romans 8:19, Philippians 2:15, I John 3:1, I John 3:2

Not only is there a definite divition of the term from pre-post Jesus, the term "sons of God" is directly related in the new testimate to those washed in the blood. No people in the old testimate could have this status while on earth. I John 3:2 and Romans 8:19 refures to people washed in the blood as sons of God, but only in future terms. I John 3:2 specifically says we are called sons of God, only because we shall be made so upon his return. Luke 20:36 expains this that we are to become like the angels, and are sons of God, because we are the "children of the reserection". This is not a term that could be applied to the pre-Christ peoples.

If the term "sons of God" was restricted to a blood line, just as Isriel is a blood line, then it could not be used for gentiles saved by the blood. The bible clearly makes a distiction between gentiles and the nation of Isriel, even post Jesus, and so no connection could be made between the saved being called "sons of God" and a blood line of pre-flood earth.
Yes, as I stated before, there is a difference between nomen naturae and nomen offici, but if we're going to try and prove your point, you need to go further.


There is only one occurance of the term "son of God" in the old testimate, refuring to the pre-incarnet Jesus in the furnace in Daniel 3:25

In the new testimate, 2 people are called the son of God, Jesus, and Adam. The referance to Adam is in the liniage found in Luke 3, going backward listing the father after the son, so when they got to adam, only God was left.

Define Son of Man:
Psalms 8:4, Psalm 144:3 David is in awe that God would even deal with "son of man"
God calls Ezekiel "son of man" 93 times in the book of Ezekiel

All occurances of Son of man, applies to Jesus as a title, and all other occurances are of simply calling man what it is, a created being.

Sons of man, occures in Proverbs 8:4 and Ecclesiastes 1:13. Each occurance is for humans, the one for Ecclesiastes more specifically for Godly people.

The only time "daughter of man" "daughters of man" "daughter of men" and "daughters of men" is found is the 2 times in Genesus 6:2 and 6:4, our target text.
Okay, again, you're not proving anything with these statements.

Define: Men of old
The term "of old" used in the bible, is used simply to point out a time before now, history, things that have happened before. To put it into todays speech, it would best be said as "it used to be" or "remeber when" or even "before". In it's use through the old testimate, it is used to define historical landmarks, patterns through history, or even simply to say that you have gained wisdom by studying the past. There was only one difference, one time period before Genesis 6, and that is the garden

To be men of old in a post eden pre-flood world, you would have a couple options:
1) Immortal flesh, as Adam and Eve had in the garden (Genesis 3:19 curses Adam to die, he was immortal before)
2) Murderers, as Cain and his great great great great grandchild (Genesis 4:8 and Genesis 4:23)
3) Those who follow God

We can throw out option 3, for obviously if they followed God then there would be no need for a flood, or the negitive light that it is shown for sons of God to take wives of daughters of men.
Both option 2 and option 1 would fit though, depending on the reasoning for the flood. If they are murderers, it would fit with the corruption that causes God to flood the earth. The other option though, that the breeding of angels with humans would produce immortal flesh, would fit with the choice of God to flood the earth, instead of other means of distruction such as plague. For now, we would need to keep both option 1 and 2 on the table until compaired with the other parts. Keep in mind though, that if someone was half angel, half human, would they have an argument to have access to the tree of life in the garden because they are not full blooded man?
That's really not making any sense. If these people were allegedly immortal flesh, then the flood wouldn't have wiped them out. Unless they were only vulnerable to water. :roll

Define: Renown

Simply renown means honor, a man of renown would be one who has power, like a price, or a king. This use can be for someone born into a possition, or someone who simply takes a position. The president of the United States, would be a man of renown, but so would the King of Iran. The leader of a street gang, or the mayor of a city, would also fit for thier respected areas of influence. Most of it's use is found in Ezekiel, talking about the blessings put on Isriel, and how thier men of renown once decoraded nicly, would whore themselves out, corrupted by thier power.

So the breeding of the Sons of God with daughters of man, created men that had something in common with past peoples, they had power and are called mighty. If you tie it togeather with simple ruthlessness, then the children born with the combonation of Seth and Cain blood ruled by fear. It could be possible that with the wisdom of Seth's line, combined with the lack of morals on Cain's side, would make crafty killers who would lead like a street gang leader, by fear and intimidation.

The problem if it's Seth's line, is why would someone in Seth's line, not raise thier children in a way that they are not so horrible? Are we to believe that someone in Seth's line took a wife of Cain's line, and taught the child to be brutal? Or are we to believe that the children would take the wisdom of thier fathers, and turn it wicked? Also, if the line of Cain was so wicked, and the line of Seth so good, then would not the line of Cain want to cause harm to the children, instead of prop them up?
Or, the problem could be that Seth's line also became corrupt. And why would the line of Cain want to "cause harm to the children?" There's a disconnect here.

We still have the problem that "sons of God" is always used as a term to discribe angels.
That is a norm in the Old Testament, yes. But every rule has an exception correct?

What makes all pieces fit, is that it was angels breeding with women and producing half breeds.

If they took on some of the attributes of the angels, then it is fully possible that they would have immortal flesh like the angels. This would explain the "of old" referance, in that Adam was made with immortal flesh. This also would explain why God used a flood to wipe them from the earth. With even 1/2 strength of angels, they would be called "mighty" and the discription of being renown would fit, given the pattern of men worshipping angels in the bible, a half angel would most likely cause reverance from others.
It's complete speculation that these "half-breeds" would have "immortal flesh." And even if they did, why didn't they survive the flood? Is water to them like sunlight is to a vampire?

This also would explain 2 things as far as angels. 1) Why don't the devils have flesh anymore, and 2) how did 1/3 of the angels join Satan?
Ummmm...A)How do we know that the devils had flesh, and B)how do we know the angels didn't join in Satan's rebellion? Again, speculation.

We see from Satan, that he was perfect in his ways, meaning it's actions that God is interested in. (Ezekiel 28:15) We see that no angel is perfect (Job 4:18) For 1/3 of the angels to fall, they would need to have an action against God, not just thoughts. Satan tempts many in the bible, and it is not a sin to be tempted, it is a sin to follow the temptation and do something against God. Don't make the mistake that thoughts cannot be sinful, that's not what I'm saying. There is a big difference though between thinking about rebelling, and doing the action. Satan, obviously, thought about rebelling before he did it. It was after the action though, that he was found guilty. The angels, breeding with men, would be a simple action that would cause them to rebel from God.
This doesn't take into account that the Bible tells us that Satan took these angels with him when he fell. Logic would tell us that these 1/3 would have rebelled with Satan yes?

This would also explain why the devils do not have flesh. We see that Satan and the devils in the old testimate, can still go to heaven spiritually (Job 1:6, 1 Kings 22:22) but you cannot find a post flood devil that still has flesh. The flood, would not only clear the earth of all the half breeds, but the flesh of the devils also, so that the pollution could not be done again. This would also fit the judgment of a holy God, who would not simply kill the flesh of the fallen angels without cause.
No, this doesn't tell us anything about why devils don't have flesh. How do you know devils don't have the ability to take on flesh? How do you know that angels have flesh?

Simply put, why God flooded the earth is not relivant, it neither supports nor discounts either theory, but what we are pointed too is the referances to Sons of God always being that of angels in the old testimate, and only for the saved in the new because one day they will be like angels. If you where to put odds on this text, you would be stretching to give the chances of "sons of God" being of the line of Seth more then 1%. The term is not used that way anywhere else, it does not explain and accually goes against the discription of the children, and causes more questions then answers.
Ummm...then why have you been arguing that God's reason for flooding the earth has to do with these half-breeds? Either take that out of your argument for consistency's sake, or dismiss your above statement for the same reason.

The only argument left, is if it is possible for an angel to breed with a human.
Why is that the only argument?

Physically, angels appear as spritual only (Numbers 22:23, Job 4:14) but they also have flesh. We find strange flesh like the cherubims and seraphim (Ezekiel 1:5-12, .Isaiah 6:2-7), we find female flesh with wings (Zechariah 5:9), but mostly we find that angels have flesh like men (Judges 6:21, Genesis 18:8, Luke 1:19). The bible even warns us that we may be dealing with an angel without knowing it (Hebrews 13:2) although this could be applied to men of God also. It is obvious by examples in the scripture though, that angels do have flesh.
*sighs* If the angels are spiritual, and yet are able to have flesh, wouldn't it make sense that the devils could to? Or rather, wouldn't it be better to say that angels and devils can APPEAR to have flesh?

Would angels marry the daughters of men though? Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. This says that the angels of God don't marry. It doesn't say that they can't, it says they don't. It also points out the female and male, given at the time men got married, but women where given in marriage. Simply because they do not get married, people have said it's because they are not "equiped" to do so, but that's not what this says. Also, the argument that they don't because they are all men is discounted by Zechariah 5:9 and the fact you'd be saying that there will be no women in the resurrection.
Huh?

If a person lives thier entire life, and dies a virgin, does that mean they couldn't marry? If a 30 year old virgin dies in a car accident, are they no longer a he or she but an it? It says that the "angels of God" don't marry, but what about devils? If it's a rule in heaven that they don't marry, and an angel falls to his lust and takes a wife of the daughters of men, wouldn't that make him a devil, rebellious, out of the will of God? Why yes, I think it would.


With the view of "sons of God" being angels, pieces fit, answers come, and no stretch of the imagination is needed as to explain things. If the "sons of God" where Seth's line, or something else, then you need to take the bible non-litterally, produce answers for questions that crop up that have no answers, and in the end the only argument is that "it's not angels because I refuse to accept that".
You've been stretching a lot here.

If it's Seth's line, then:
1) What did the other angels do that made them fall into devils? As stated before, they could have rebelled with Satan.
2) Why did the combination of Seth's line and Cain's line produce mighty, renown, of old children? Perhaps because by that time cities and villages were being built. Society was starting to form. The word "mighty" there denotes a "warrior."
3) Why did God kill the flesh of the fallen angels? Where does the Bible say He did?
4) Why was a flood needed and not simply a plague, fire, or mass beheadings? Well, following your logic, fallen angels and their offspring are kinda like vampires. Water is their sunlight. :roll
5) Why is the term "sons of God" used for pre-flood Seth's bloodline, but for angels only in post flood? It isn't used for angels only post-flood.
6) Why would devils corrupt God's work in all areas except this one? Maybe they were spiritual beings who couldn't have physical relations with humans?

If it's angels, then we have the answers for these questions
1) Angels followed Satan by following carnel lusts against God's will? Or, as I said before, they rebelled with Satan.
2) Angels breeding with men would produce half angles, mighty, renown, and "of old" being closer to perfect flesh like Adam. If you say so.
3) God killed the flesh of the devils after they proved they would use it in sinful ways. You think God didn't know the devils would use it sinfully before? He just kinda went "oops! How'd that happen?" Is that what you think went on?
4) The flood not only killed the half breeds, but the flesh of the devils, making them only spiritual now. How did immortal beings get killed by water?
5) The term "sons of God" is used for angels through the entire old testimate, and as an example of how the saved are special in the new testimate. Ummm...this is an illogical statement. We are called sons of God in the New Testament because of nomen offici. That is to say, we are put into the position of children of God by virtue of Christ's sacrifice when we are saved.
6) The devils are willing to corrupt all of God's work, what ever they feel like doing.

Here's a fun question for you! If all there were all these women having relations with fallen angels, producing half breeds, does that mean that we all have a little bit of fallen angel in us? If you say no, please prove that Noah did not have any devil dna in him. I'll wait.

Oh, and:

Testament, not Testimate.
Spiritual, not spirtual.
Description, not discription.
Reference, not refarance.

[qwerty guy]

You don't have to wait Willy, I'm new here so I'm hanging around reading a lot of posts.

First, I would like to thank you very much for pointing out the spelling errors, that I so clearly warned existed and didn't need pointing out, shows you are paying attention.

Second, Lets address some of your rebukes.
Before I do so, I'd like to point out I'm not dogmatic about this, and if it really truly upsets you so very very much, I'll drop it

I will ignore comments you had made where you seemed to be typing what you are thinking, without thinking what you are typing. You're very first comment, "Technically, this proves nothing.", proved nothing. It's was a statement to establish the known truths, to help expound upon the topic. You may find that just by saying something is true, people should just accept it, but a little study goes a long way.

You said I skipped verse 3.. you then said that the "giants(nephelim)" you don't know if they are a different race or half breeds. You must not have been paying attention good sir, or you would have seen that 1) verse 3 doesn't apply to the topic, and 2) that my argument was dismissing the relevance of the giants with the sons of God. Obviously, if you read what I wrote, you couldn't of given option B in your rebut, for the giants had nothing to do with the issue, existing before the birth of the SOG/DOM joinings

Chapter 6:1-4 is an account of what the happenings on the earth where. God saw, when he looked in verse 5-6 these things. Points valid.

"prove your point, you need to go further." How much further? I established quite clearly, that even in the NT, sons of God is a term used for a future after second coming title. It's never used for people on earth. The times the saved, still living, are called sons of God, is like calling an elected president who hasn't been sworn in, Mr.President. Technically, he isn't, but it's coming. Please explain good sir, how I did NOT prove my point. Don't come at me with "I'm not convinced" and that some how makes my points invalid... you have to show where I failed, or it's just you simply being stubborn.

Okay, again, you're not proving anything with these statements. <---- really? I'm making sure, no questions are asked, no rocks not uncovered. Have you ever done a study before? Seen one before? Had to deal with people that have their minds made up without all the facts, and want to disarm them from making silly arguments, thus answering the questions before they are asked? I'm not proving a thing here silly, I'm showing a non-thing.

That's really not making any sense. If these people were allegedly immortal flesh, then the flood wouldn't have wiped them out. Unless they were only vulnerable to water. :roll I'm going to point out here, that you're setting up a straw man, and you use this same one to make childish arguments about vampires and junk later. Let me explain what immortal flesh is. Adam could of had it, Eve could of had it, it's given, by access to the tree of life (gen 3:22) The tree of life was not removed from earth, it was guarded against man accessing it (3:24). Angels had access, it's 2 cherubims standing right in the garden keeping watch. So what if a half man, half angel wanted in the garden? Did I make the comment somewhere that you only had to eat from the tree once? You think Adam didn't have some before the fall? You said flesh that is immortal, can't be killed. I never said this.

Or, the problem could be that Seth's line also became corrupt. You have a biblical backing for this? Maybe you think Enoch went off with aliens? (see how saying stuff like that is stupid? I appreciate how you do it though, instead of using silly biblical passages like little ol' me) I'm glad you're questioning Seth's line though, given what chapter 4:26 says... oh, don't worry, you shouldn't let the bible ruin your views

What is the exception to the rule you say exists? At the root of this, what is the one thing you can do to lose your salvation, given there is always an exception to every rule.

"It's complete speculation that these "half-bree" Yes, it is speculation, but you seem to abound in it. I have established already how this could be, given the tree of life. I'll explain it really really simple to you: God is just. Half man, half angel, wants to enter the garden of Eden... The respect of blood line, when split, goes toward the male. It was the SONS of God, taking WIVES of the DAUGHTERS of men... Not DAUGHTERS of god taking HUSBANDS of SONS of men. With 50/50 blood, and God's seriously evident respect for the male seed, when a half breed wanted access to the garden, it would claim it's angelic father as his blood line. Even if a half breed married a full mortal woman, the 1/4 angel children could STILL claim the fatherly blood line, same with 1/8, 1/16... The male blood lines abound in the bible with Godly respect to promises and curses. You think the devils wouldn't pervert this respect from God, and do this damage?

Devils had flesh: Ezekiel 28 talks about Satan and his flesh
Devils are fallen angels, angels have flesh. To argue that the angelic spirits, means angels don't have flesh, is to discount the many fleshly angels in the bible. I could argue, that you have flesh, thus you have no spirit. No devil has flesh now though, I explain how this could be.. not WHY, but HOW it could be, I'm not getting dogmatic.

B)how do we know the angels didn't join in Satan's rebellion? When did I say they didn't join in Satan's rebellion. I spoke of a possible motivation for them to join Satan. We know why Satan rebelled, but not why 1/3 of the angels joined him.. they can't have the same motivation, of they would be at war with each other over who gets to take the throne of God.

Jude 1:6 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. Not every devil is in chains, only those who didn't keep their first estate... that would be heaven. You see in Job Satan himself still reporting to Heaven as he is commanded, thus keeping his first estate. You see in 1 Kings 22:19 all the host of Heaven on the right hand, and left hand of Jesus. Biblically speaking, you don't wanna be on the left hand of Jesus. In this host, Jesus finds a willing spirit to tell lies. Oh, SPECULATION of course, but I'd put my money that it came from his left side.

This doesn't take into account that the Bible tells us that Satan took these angels with him when he fell. Logic would tell us that these 1/3 would have rebelled with Satan yes? The bible doesn't say that at all. Your talking about Rev chapter 12, verse 4. Satan didn't have 1/3 of the angels REBEL with him, he sent them to earth. The war in Heaven that I think you somehow keep confusing with the word rebellion, is in verse 7, where it talks of the dragon fighting with his angels. I think you need to understand, that rebellion can be anything.. tempting Eve, Lusting on a woman, not going to Nineveh. Each devil did rebel some way, but not the same way as Satan. There was only one Eve, they all didn't tempt her. The WAR though, is in revelation chapter 12 verse 7, and the 1/3 is found in verse 4 (I wouldn't even get to dogmatic about this given there is no other scriptural backing to solidify this number. What if 1/2 of the angels turned to devils, but Satan only sent 1/3 down leaving some in heaven?)

Satan took these angels with him when he fell Obviously, I just proved you're wrong here, yes?

No, this doesn't tell us anything about why devils don't have flesh. How do you know devils don't have the ability to take on flesh? How do you know that angels have flesh? It gives a workable theory that you haven't dis-proven. 2) Devils do have the ability to take on flesh, mans flesh... they cannot create their own they must take control of ours. 3) to doubt that angels have flesh, when God has flesh, man has flesh, and dozens of angels in the bible have flesh, is now just silly

Ummm...then why have you been arguing that God's reason for flooding the earth has to do with these half-breeds? To show a workable theory, and an x vs y argument of which is more likely

Why is that the only argument? Because I've proven Motive, I've shown that no evidence discounts it, I've shown evidence that circumstantially backs it, I've shown reason. Now, the only argument, is ability. Did you even read what I wrote or are you just bashing something because you dis-agree with it? What argument truly remains sir? Vampires?

*sighs* If the angels are spiritual, and yet are able to have flesh, wouldn't it make sense that the devils could to? Or rather, wouldn't it be better to say that angels and devils can APPEAR to have flesh? Wow.. I mean wow... I repeat, you have flesh, and a spirit.. they can't!?!? I explained, how devils WOULD have flesh, and why they would not now. NO it would not be better to say they APPEAR to have flesh, given that so many non-vision, fully literal verses in the bible have angels WITH flesh. You sir, have run fully in circles, attacking each bit without reference to preceding arguments, showing an inability to comprehend simple arguments, exercises in logic, or a total short term memory loss.

Huh? Lemmi help you here:
Man no marry... man can't marry?
No man can marry, mean no woman?
Nice rebut there sir, glad this study has brought out such nice, well thought out biblical studies to come back and correct something with "huh?" Good argument, you prove your inability to keep up.

1) What did the other angels do that made them fall into devils? As stated before, they could have rebelled with Satan. As shown before, you are wrong
The word "mighty" there denotes a "warrior." <-- you only address one point of 3, what about renown and more difficult, "of old". Why would seth+cain make warriors anyway, what's your backing?
Where does the Bible say He did? <-- where is it if He didn't? I backed up mine, where is your backing?
Well, following your logic, fallen angels and their offspring are kinda like vampires. Water is their sunlight. :roll <-- straw man returns, this time as a 6 year old kicking shins and crying "no no"
It isn't used for angels only post-flood. <--- that would mean it's used for angels pre-flood, with the only time it being used is the target verse, meaning YOU JUST SAID I AM RIGHT!!!! the ONLY time it's used PRE-FLOOD, is GEN 6, what we are TALKING about. SO answer me this sir... did you just say I was right, or did you just show that no matter what I say, because you "feel" you are right, you'll just dis-agree without thinking? You're so pwned on this one

Maybe they were spiritual beings who couldn't have physical relations with humans? <--- are you saying spirits can't have physical relations with humans? Watch out silly willy, how did Mary get Jesus!?!


So the rest of his arguments continue the same... repeats of nothing, no spiritual back up. I'm sorry for anyone who had to read this, and this is out of the norm for me to even respond, but I did it to set a small example:

This is not some watered down, what I think the bible says, opinion post, to be so ridiculed with half thoughts and ramblings. I gave biblical quotations, verse references, thought out logical steps, questions and answers, showing many possibilities and being open to them all and exploring all options. It is insulting, to say the least, to have someone simply cut out what they don't want, twist what they want, make up what they want, and then act like they proved something. Work was done on this study, and I said right away:
I tried my best to cover any argument, by all means yell away if you find some hole I left
I was not challenged on missing something
I was not challenged on changing something
I was not challenged on needing references
I was not challenged on mis-interpretation

Instead, Will, you gave un-thought out childish responses which I showed above, prove you could neither keep up, understand, or even show a basic level of understanding on the topic. Your response had biblical errors, you found none in my post. Your response had illogical arguments, you found none in my post. Your response misrepresented my views, which you then used to attack my views, a "straw man". Your response likened my arguments to fairy tales, yet you show a lack of understanding of biblical reality.

I only respond this way, simply because I would like intelligent arguments against my post, not some childish vampire rambling and "because I think so" proof. I am not flaming you, nor attacking you, I am defending my position, my post, and your utter disrespect for well thought out work. Next time, just put "I disagree" instead of making a fool of yourself.

Now, for your question: Did Noah have Devil DNA in him?
First, I point out, for fun, you're building a straw man.
Seriously though, I will pay you the respect you failed to show me, and respond with Bible.
Gen 4:26 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.
This verse, implies that the blood line of Seth, down to Noah, followed God. One person, Enoch, never died, his walk with God was so strong (Gen 5:24, 6th generation from Adam, born 622 years or so from creation)
You could make the argument, that a God following people, wouldn't mix with non-pure bloods... but you would argue this huh?
ok, have some bible
Verse 9 of chapter 6, says that Noah was PERFECT in his generations. OH? What's perfect mean? Does it mean some angel DNA slipped in? Maybe only 1/100? 1/1000? Nope, Angles who are not allowed to marry, mixing with humans, would be seen as wicked by God. Even a small amount of this would be seen as a perversion of the blood God created. It would not say "perfect" if it wasn't.

Lol, ok Will, if you're mad, I'm sorry, lets go to private message though if ya wanna work things out. If you have real arguments, post away

[Will]

Maybe they were spiritual beings who couldn't have physical relations with humans? <--- are you saying spirits can't have physical relations with humans? Watch out silly willy, how did Mary get Jesus!?!

No, I'm not mad. And I can go much further in this discussion, I was just getting you to try to clarify some things so I know precisely how to address. However, I will go no further until you recant the above heretical MORMON doctrine. God did not have physical relations with Mary. To suggest otherwise is heresy. Please recant.

Furthermore, there is no "y" at the end of my name.

[qwerty guy]

Ok willy. I see you wanna just have flamming fun... shame shame...

Here's my recant:

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

It was the Holy Ghost that came willy.... God's spirit...

Never said it was physical. I like how you snipped my post though, only showing my response to what you had said about spirits having relations... tisk tisk, dig your hole deeper, call me more names

[Will]

Ok willy. I see you wanna just have flamming fun... shame shame...

Here's my recant:

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

It was the Holy Ghost that came willy.... God's spirit...

Never said it was physical. I like how you snipped my post though, only showing my response to what you had said about spirits having relations... tisk tisk, dig your hole deeper, call me more names

I'm not sure that you know what flaming is. I asked you nicely to stop calling me "Willy." Stop. Now. Furthermore, your above quote proves that you were trying to establish a connect between the ability of angels to have physical relations, and Mary having physical relations with God in order to become pregnant with Christ. If that's not what you meant, you need to be more clear. And if it's not what you meant, retract what you said and make yourself more clear. YOU DID say it was physical. Here is your exact quote:

are you saying spirits can't have physical relations with humans? Watch out silly willy, how did Mary get Jesus!?!

Either you don't know how to draw a connect properly, or you're purposely being obtuse and are a heretic in disguise on this forum. I hope it's the former. I'm not the one name-calling here, you are.

[qwerty guy]

It's this simple....
If a spirit, cannot effect the physical, then you CANNOT have Mary receiving Jesus. It was the Holy Spirit, as I pointed out, that visited Mary so she would be with the child Jesus.
I seriously hope you are not looking at this in some perverse way, I am NOT saying that the Holy Spirit had RELATIONS with Mary
SOMETHING physical HAD to happen though, or you would NOT have a PHYSICAL change in Mary producing a child. Mary herself was not even aware of anything that had happened, so this is not some physical interaction of perversion like you seem to be implying.

Now if you're just confused, FINE, consider this making myself clear:
Jesus was born of a VIRGIN, NO sexual contact was made
JESUS was born of a PHYSICAL body, FROM a PHYSICAL body
It was the Holy Spirit that visited Mary, thus, a SPIRIT caused a PHYSICAL change.

Now, that being said, it's clear from your earlier arguments, that no, you are not confused, you just simply cannot agree with what I see in Gen 6, you cannot argue with what I said, so you attack what ever you can.

I said it before, you wanna be low brow, keep it private so others don't have to see this junk. You couldn't do that though, you're too proud. I said earlier, I'm not dogmatic about this Gen Chap 6 thing, obviously you are. I said devils took wives of women, you act like I'm saying it takes works to be saved. You're messed up.

I hope you're just having a bad day or something and this isn't your normal. I'm going to stop arguing with a fool though before people think I'm one too. Say what you want, have all the posts you want, but don't you dare go crossing this line again of spitting off your twisted garbage to accuse me of such gross perversions. How do you even think that way......

[matie-k]

uhhh...just a reminder - This ISN'T the ffforum. :amen: