Nephilim -Mark 12:25

[PaulSacramento]

I see that sons of God refer to angels that will fall. And even shown in one sentence. I refer to Genesis 6: the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

Let me specifically address what you said above.

Here's what I think you are saying...
The angels were not yet fallen when they saw that the "daughters of men" were beautiful.
But they fell when they actually married the "daughters of men".
Am I understanding that correctly?

Here's the problem I see with trying to parse the text that way.
I think we would both agree that physical sexual desires by angels towards humans is, at the very least, not natural... especially for spirit beings (and we aren't even addressing the issue of whether or not procreation between angels and humans is even possible).
Therefore, if an angel were to have unnatural sexual desires for a human being, those unnatural desires would be evidence that the angel manifesting those desires towards humans is already fallen and in rebellion against God.

Which brings me back again to my fundamental premise that Scripture never refers to fallen angels as "sons/children of God".

I think that it was the desire that caused the fall and not the fall that caused the desire.
If we take Ezekiel as referring to Satan:
Ezekiel 28:15 ESV
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you.

Satan, as an example, was blameless until something caused him to rebel ( pride) and then he fell from grace.
I don't think he fell from grace and THEN rebelled, know what I mean?

[RickD]

I see that sons of God refer to angels that will fall. And even shown in one sentence. I refer to Genesis 6: the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

Let me specifically address what you said above.

Here's what I think you are saying...
The angels were not yet fallen when they saw that the "daughters of men" were beautiful.
But they fell when they actually married the "daughters of men".
Am I understanding that correctly?

Here's the problem I see with trying to parse the text that way.
I think we would both agree that physical sexual desires by angels towards humans is, at the very least, not natural... especially for spirit beings (and we aren't even addressing the issue of whether or not procreation between angels and humans is even possible).
Therefore, if an angel were to have unnatural sexual desires for a human being, those unnatural desires would be evidence that the angel manifesting those desires towards humans is already fallen and in rebellion against God.

Which brings me back again to my fundamental premise that Scripture never refers to fallen angels as "sons/children of God".

I think that it was the desire that caused the fall and not the fall that caused the desire.
If we take Ezekiel as referring to Satan:
Ezekiel 28:15 ESV
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you.

Satan, as an example, was blameless until something caused him to rebel ( pride) and then he fell from grace.
I don't think he fell from grace and THEN rebelled, know what I mean?

So, you think a good angel, following after God, would have an unnatural sexual desire for a woman?

Not to mention the fact that angels are spiritual beings, not physical. And not to mention secondly, that afaik, the only instances of angels taking on the physical appearance of a human in scripture, are good angels doing God's will for a specific purpose. There's nothing in scripture that backs up the idea that angels can take on the appearance of humans whenever they wish.

If anything, since the only angels in scripture that take on human appearance, were to do God's will in specific instances, doesn't that give more weight to the argument that angels can change to a physical human form only when God allows them to for His will?

[DBowling]

I think that, like the rest of the passages that state "ALL" the land and the "WHOLE" world and so forth, the writer was "exaggerating" to make a point.

I don't think we have to appeal to the literary form of exaggeration here.

I think we can look to the Scriptural context to understand the scope of what "all the land" and "whole world" is referring to.

[PaulSacramento]

I think that, like the rest of the passages that state "ALL" the land and the "WHOLE" world and so forth, the writer was "exaggerating" to make a point.

I don't think we have to appeal to the literary form of exaggeration here.

I think we can look to the Scriptural context to understand the scope of what "all the land" and "whole world" is referring to.

Same thing with the statement that all man thought ONLY to do evil ( paraphrasing).

[Mallz]

The angels were not yet fallen when they saw that the "daughters of men" were beautiful.
But they fell when they actually married the "daughters of men".
Am I understanding that correctly?

Here's the problem I see with trying to parse the text that way.
I think we would both agree that physical sexual desires by angels towards humans is, at the very least, not natural... especially for spirit beings (and we aren't even addressing the issue of whether or not procreation between angels and humans is even possible).
Therefore, if an angel were to have unnatural sexual desires for a human being, those unnatural desires would be evidence that the angel manifesting those desires towards humans is already fallen and in rebellion against God.

Which brings me back again to my fundamental premise that Scripture never refers to fallen angels as "sons/children of God".

Contemplating sinning isn't the same as sinning, right? Angels were tempted and I believe it was more than just a desire for sexual relations. satan, a son of God, wasn't satan until he fell. Likewise the angels being talked about in Genesis, are sons of God, until they fell, with the passage giving reason for falling. And remember, marriage is = to coming into a woman.

For who/what is being referred to with sons of God. I would have to 'delve' again because I forget my conclusion if it refers to fallen angels, or angels in a pre-fallen state. Regardless, I still remembering the Hebrew/Aramaic being more categorical about the terms use, and think I remember it being used while referencing a fallen being (I'll have to give evidence on that).

I guess I fundamentally disagree with the premise that there is a big difference with how God punished the people "in the land" in Genesis 6-9 and how he has responded to wickedness elsewhere in Scripture

In one he destroyed the world with the flood. He didn't in other places. Post-flood he used surgical precision through his people to kill off the nephilim and their remnants.

Luke 3:38
Adam is explicitly referred to as a "son of God"

This is a NT passage. I'd like an OT one.

120 years was how much time they had left before His judgment, not their max life span.

Genesis 6: 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.

I'm not saying you're wrong. But I don't see this scripture saying that? And the reference to His spirit? Could you elaborate more on why you draw that conclusion?

So, you think a good angel, following after God, would have an unnatural sexual desire for a woman?

Would a good angel, following God, ever fall? This statement doesn't make any sense to me. It wouldn't allow the fall for satan or any other angel.

Not to mention the fact that angels are spiritual beings, not physical. And not to mention secondly, that afaik, the only instances of angels taking on the physical appearance of a human in scripture, are good angels doing God's will for a specific purpose. There's nothing in scripture that backs up the idea that angels can take on the appearance of humans whenever they wish.

Scripture backs up that angels have the potential. And angels have taken on real physical form. Or do you not agree with that? Fallen spirits do many things God doesn't want, I don't see why this is a special exception. Hebrews 13:2 also shows that potential angels have.

If anything, since the only angels in scripture that take on human appearance, were to do God's will in specific instances, doesn't that give more weight to the argument that angels can change to a physical human form only when God allows them to for His will?

No, I don't see it being applicable. I see scripture giving evidence that angels can take on physical form. There's no reason to believe fallen angels can't do the same thing, nor any evidence that they somehow are no longer allowed to. And if we really want to get technical, all fallen angels are doing God's will as He allowed them to fall and incorporated them into His eternal plan.

[DBowling]

The angels were not yet fallen when they saw that the "daughters of men" were beautiful.
But they fell when they actually married the "daughters of men".
Am I understanding that correctly?

Here's the problem I see with trying to parse the text that way.
I think we would both agree that physical sexual desires by angels towards humans is, at the very least, not natural... especially for spirit beings (and we aren't even addressing the issue of whether or not procreation between angels and humans is even possible).
Therefore, if an angel were to have unnatural sexual desires for a human being, those unnatural desires would be evidence that the angel manifesting those desires towards humans is already fallen and in rebellion against God.

Which brings me back again to my fundamental premise that Scripture never refers to fallen angels as "sons/children of God".

Contemplating sinning isn't the same as sinning, right? Angels were tempted and I believe it was more than just a desire for sexual relations. satan, a son of God, wasn't satan until he fell.

But angels and humans are very different creatures.
Humans are physical beings
Angels are spirit beings

Humans are already fallen and have a sin nature that naturally gives them sinful desires
Angels do not have a sin nature (but they do have a will that has the potential to rebel against God)

The weakness I see in your argument is your assertion that it is possible for an angelic spirit being to have unnatural physical desires towards a human without already being in a fallen state.
Not meaning to get gross here, but that is kind of like a human being sexually attracted to an animal.
The unnatural wicked desire itself is a sign of a serious moral problem.

And then there are always the words of Jesus in Mat 5:28.

Likewise the angels being talked about in Genesis, are sons of God

Please give me a reference where angels of any type are referred to as "sons/children of God" in Genesis.

For who/what is being referred to with sons of God. I would have to 'delve' again because I forget my conclusion if it refers to fallen angels, or angels in a pre-fallen state. Regardless, I still remembering the Hebrew/Aramaic being more categorical about the terms use, and think I remember it being used while referencing a fallen being (I'll have to give evidence on that).

You are probably thinking of Job 2:1
Some use Job 2:1 to assert that a fallen Satan is referred to as a "son of God"
Except that Job 2:1 doesn't actually say that at all.

I guess I fundamentally disagree with the premise that there is a big difference with how God punished the people "in the land" in Genesis 6-9 and how he has responded to wickedness elsewhere in Scripture

In one he destroyed the world with the flood. He didn't in other places.

I'll defer to an article by our host site
The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says It Must be Local
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

Luke 3:38
Adam is explicitly referred to as a "son of God"

This is a NT passage. I'd like an OT one.

I'm struggling a bit with the concept of dismissing Divinely inspired Scripture because it is in the NT.
I think it is significant that Divinely inspired Scripture does explicitly refer to a pre-Flood person as a "son of God"... even if it is in the New Testament

But here's a passage from the Old Testament for you:
God's chosen people of Israel are referred to as sons of the Lord your God in Deut 14:1-2.

So Deut 14:1-2 and Luke 3:38 both refer to God's covenant people in the Old Testament as children of God.

And broken record time... Scripture never refers to fallen angels anywhere in Scripture as "sons/children of God", in either the Old Testament or in the New Testament.

[neo-x]

I think that Mallz's basic assertion is correct. Whether or not angelic being can or can't reproduce. The passage can mean sons of gods as angels who fell by their lust for women on earth. I don't see a proper refutation of that point.

And to add to that while I also don't think that Angels and humans married. It seems possible that the Author thought so. And hence a divine judgment like a global flood was needed. Otherwise the whole story doesn't make much sense. It's too dramatic.

[PaulSacramento]

Angel may be spirit beings in heaven ( MAY be) but we know they have a material form, indistinguishable from humans, on Earth ( if they choose?).
Hebrews 13:2

[PaulSacramento]

You are probably thinking of Job 2:1
Some use Job 2:1 to assert that a fallen Satan is referred to as a "son of God"
Except that Job 2:1 doesn't actually say that at all.

We discussed this and there is enough to warrant that "The Satan" that accompanies the Sons of God in Job can just as easily be one of them as being WITH them.

The text allows for both interpretations.

[DBowling]

You are probably thinking of Job 2:1
Some use Job 2:1 to assert that a fallen Satan is referred to as a "son of God"
Except that Job 2:1 doesn't actually say that at all.

We discussed this and there is enough to warrant that "The Satan" that accompanies the Sons of God in Job can just as easily be one of them as being WITH them.

The text allows for both interpretations.

But the simple fact that the text "allows for both interpretations" by definition means that it cannot be used as the only Scriptural basis for either interpretation.

[PaulSacramento]

You are probably thinking of Job 2:1
Some use Job 2:1 to assert that a fallen Satan is referred to as a "son of God"
Except that Job 2:1 doesn't actually say that at all.

We discussed this and there is enough to warrant that "The Satan" that accompanies the Sons of God in Job can just as easily be one of them as being WITH them.

The text allows for both interpretations.

But the simple fact that the text "allows for both interpretations" by definition means that it cannot be used as the only Scriptural basis for either interpretation.

Correct, unless an EXPLICIT statement is made ( The Word is God in John 1 for example), verses that can have multiple interpretations SHOULD not be used to make explicit statements OR doctrine for that matter.

[B. W.]

You are probably thinking of Job 2:1
Some use Job 2:1 to assert that a fallen Satan is referred to as a "son of God"
Except that Job 2:1 doesn't actually say that at all.

We discussed this and there is enough to warrant that "The Satan" that accompanies the Sons of God in Job can just as easily be one of them as being WITH them.

The text allows for both interpretations.

But the simple fact that the text "allows for both interpretations" by definition means that it cannot be used as the only Scriptural basis for either interpretation.

Correct, unless an EXPLICIT statement is made ( The Word is God in John 1 for example), verses that can have multiple interpretations SHOULD not be used to make explicit statements OR doctrine for that matter.

If you use this rule then John 3:16 cannot be trusted nor Romans 10 - whosoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved...

Call how - believe how - not explicit and open to interpretation as is Genesis 1:1,2,3,4
-
-
-

[B. W.]

Scientists build 'synthetic embryos'

You know I find it absolutely amazing the human scientist are more brilliant and smarter and far more intelligent that fallen angels in manipulating DNA, blending two species of DNA together, etc and so forth and that angels cannot do this despite the high intelligence the fallen cherub (satan) has as mentioned in the bible in Ez 28:11-19... that they had to have physical act of sexual procreation involved in order to corrupt the human gene pool instead of being smart enough to modify human DNA....

Next,I also find it ironic how in Revelation 12:7,9 that Satan is identified as leading angel and how he appears in the book of Job not as an angel, rather strange isn't?

Then this

Question: "What are cherubim? Are cherubs angels?"

and...

Dictionary.com defines Cherubium - cherub
cher·ub
noun
plural noun: cherubim

...a winged angelic being described in biblical tradition as attending on God. It is represented in ancient Middle Eastern art as a lion or bull with eagles' wings and a human face, and regarded in traditional Christian angelology as an angel of the second highest order of the ninefold celestial hierarchy

So I guess in order for the Sethite or Human Leader view to be true of Gen 6:1-4 then the Satan cannot be an angel ...

Wow, how explicit do I need to be?

Add to this the the phrase, that old serpent from old - dragon, is an expressive symbol of cunning, not necessarily a real snake or dragon in order to describe the diabolic cunning intelligence of the fallen Cherub known as the Head Adversary why people, human being who are far smarter than any fallen angel could ever be, as proven by human scientist manipulation human DNA that people are far smarter than angels, can't see this is amazing as well.

Of course I am politely pointing out that Human beings are not smarter nor wiser than any angel especially the one Mentioned in the bible we call the head Satan... whom God nick named the serpent of old, that old dragon...
-
-
-

[DBowling]

So I guess in order for the Sethite or Human Leader view to be true of Gen 6:1-4 then the Satan cannot be an angel ...

You are playing with straw men there...

Scripture refers to humans who are God's covenant people as "sons/children of God"
Scripture refers to angels in service to God as "sons/children of God"

No one in this thread is denying those Scriptural facts.

However, there is another Scriptural fact that is inconvenient for the angel/hybrid theory.
Scripture uses all kinds of terms to refer to fallen angels and a fallen Satan (again no one is disputing that), but Scripture never uses the term "sons/children of God" to refer to fallen angels.

Why?
Jesus tells us why in John 8.

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
I think that Mallz's basic assertion is correct. Whether or not angelic being can or can't reproduce. The passage can mean sons of gods as angels who fell by their lust for women on earth. I don't see a proper refutation of that point.

If I understand Mallz' point, he's conceding that 'sons of God' cannot refer to fallen angels. What he's saying, is that in Genesis 6, 'sons of God' is referring to "good" angels before they fell.
So, let's look at the text in question:

Genesis 6 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were [a]beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

So if I understand what Mallz is saying, he's saying that the angels who hadn't fallen yet, saw that the human women were beautiful, and took them as wives.

And Mallz, please correct me if I'm not accurate in what I think you're saying. This makes no sense to me, given what the text actually says. Good angels who have not fallen, desire unnatural relations with women, does not make any sense.

Neo wrote:
And to add to that while I also don't think that Angels and humans married. It seems possible that the Author thought so. And hence a divine judgment like a global flood was needed. Otherwise the whole story doesn't make much sense. It's too dramatic.

So, you don't believe the story happened as written, yet if it didn't happen as written, it doesn't make sense. Got it!