Dare I Ask...

[Joshua-777]

Shiloh, the "sons of God" were NOT the righteous line of Seth. If you believe it is, please back it with scripture.

One of the only other references to the Sons of God in the O.T. is in the book of Job, and in the context used in Job it apears to be angels.

Job 1:6-7

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. 7 And the LORD said to Satan,

[Guest shiloh357]

Actually the term "sons of God" is translated into angels, or the sons of Adam, I have heard both translations, the book of Enoch, Holds to the Angels being the sons of God for Gen 6:1-4, which the book of Enoch is quoted in the book of Jude 1:6-7, also believed to be referenced in 1 Peter 20-24,

The book of Enoch is not reliable particularly as a means of interpretting the Bible. Only in certain contexts is "sons of God" a reference to angels. You cannot make a case that requires EVERY case to be a reference to angels.

The fact that the book of Jude was quoted in Jude and possiblly alluded to by Peter is really irrelavent. Paul quoted from pagan philosphers. We would not start giving pagan writings spiritual authority on that basis.

In the scriptures, we do see that they have the appearance of man, which would suggest that they might have a sexual orientation, though they are not given in marriage, does not mean that they lack parts, there is no scriptures that say that they have no sexual orientation.

That really makes my point, though.

When a view is really based on ONE passage available to suppport a belief (such as angels marrying and procreating), then that should tell you that it is unbiblical. EVERY true biblical teaching has the characteristic being developed through several passages in both Old and New Testaments. Since that quality is not present in this particular belief, that is a chief indicator that the passage is being misunderstood.

[Guest shiloh357]

I am really tired of discussing this topic.

You are Christians. Ask God to show you what is true and what is false in all of this discussion and trust Him to do so. I will do the same. In faith God can show us the truth on this.

I am simply tired of discussing this.

Antiaging, we have already been to God about this, and you know just enough about the Bible to be dangerous. Your view has been tested and discovered to be false. You are not teaching the truth and are not open to the truth. You are peddling a false teaching, and not biblical truth.

[Joshua-777]

The book of Enoch is not reliable particularly as a means of interpretting the Bible. Only in certain contexts is "sons of God" a reference to angels. You cannot make a case that requires EVERY case to be a reference to angels.

But it is the only reference to the Context of that verse, There is no where in the O.T. where it says that the Sons of God, Except in one passage in job, Which can be a case, as it is with such a wide range of subjects, to understand a verse, look at all the relating verses, because there is only one verse in the old testament, that uses the term "sons of God" in the same sense, It would lean more towards a relation with the Sons of God, in Genesis.

The fact that the book of Jude was quoted in Jude and possiblly alluded to by Peter is really irrelavent. Paul quoted from pagan philosphers. We would not start giving pagan writings spiritual authority on that basis.

But is the book of Enoch pagan? many of the Jews around Jesus' time believed the book of Enoch to be truth. And In Jude, it was quoted as truth, not as pagan philosophy.

That really makes my point, though.

When a view is really based on ONE passage available to suppport a belief (such as angels marrying and procreating), then that should tell you that it is unbiblical. EVERY true biblical teaching has the characteristic being developed through several passages in both Old and New Testaments. Since that quality is not present in this particular belief, that is a chief indicator that the passage is being misunderstood.

No passages says angels cannot procreate, It says the Angels are not given into marriage. The quality is not present in both interpretations of this passage, One thing we do see though, that angels do have a likeness with man in appearance Like Jacob wrestled with an angel.

I do believe it is possible for the Sons of God, to be fallen angels.

I am not saying that I am right in this belief, I could very well be wrong. Which if I am wrong I seek to be proven wrong, so that I may know the truth.

[Massorite]

Does anyone think that these are altars of the human mind by fallen angels? ...I am including posession, and the Fatima incident with this... I assume the angels, light or dark are not just sitting idol... but I NEVER>>> draw my own conclusions,,, Im almost embarrassed to ask... But I see the world different since being saved, and learning God's word, Like thunderstorms, UFO stories, Paranormal Phenomena, etc... I never pretend to know for sure, None of us can... But these are subjects that almost seem like they are there in my quiet-time/prayer/meditations... I think about how God;s realm plays into His will being done, as welll as Satans opposition and mockery of all things thereof... I guess I daydream alot, but I guess it is good that I am always including God in my thoughts right?..

Anyhhow, just like I compare world events, phillosephy, & history to all of God's word(that is, to see right through all the nonsense,) These contemplations...All that we dont understand, weigh heavily on my mind... I do not need proof... Nor do I seek it... But God's word reveals these thoughts to me I guess you would say... I believe it is important to see the possibilities in Satans mockery of all God does , before trusting the answers of intellects, like men of science, and so on... I have even thought of writting a book on how to see Satan enrouted in everything, in order to be left behind for those who dont know why they are left behind... There is so much our modern-day know-it-alls take for granted in their so-called evidence, just in all that is said & UNSAID in the Bible... Has anyone ever contmplated these possibilities? ... I am satisfied with what I do/dont understand,...I just feel like I am on the outside looking in now, world and individual situations... Curses, and blessings , God's will/Satans agenda, and so forth... It is not so enjoyable when you realize all the possibilities, and the desperation of all the souls that need the gospel because they do not realize the reality after here and now is not here and now any longer....

[Joshua-777]

Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Enoch 7:1-3

1It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful.

2And when the angels, (3) the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.

Now as for Enoch

heres an artical I found about the book of Enoch

The Book of Enoch was extant centuries before the birth of Christ and yet is considered by many to be more Christian in its theology than Jewish. It was considered scripture by many early Christians. The earliest literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The early second century "Epistle of Barnabus" makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian (160-230 C.E) even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Church even added the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after Christ. This and many other books became discredited after the Council of Laodicea. And being under ban of the authorities, afterwards it gradually passed out of circulation.

At about the time of the Protestant Reformation, there came to be a renewed interest in the Book of Enoch which had long since been lost to the modern world. By the late 1400's rumors began to spread that somewhere a copy of the long lost Book of Enoch might still exist. During this time many books arose claiming to be the long lost book and were later found to be forgeries.

The return of the long lost Book of Enoch to the modern western world is credited to the famous explorer James Bruce, who in 1773 returned from six years in Abyssinia with three Ethiopic copies of the lost book. In 1821 Richard Laurence published the first English translation. The famous R.H. Charles edition was published in 1912. In the following years several portions of the Greek text surfaced. Then with the discovery of cave 4 of the Dead Sea Scrolls, seven fragmentary copies of the Aramaic text were discovered.

There are scholars who believe the Book of Enoch was published before the Christian era by some great unknown of Semetic race, who believing himself to be inspired in a post-prophetic age, borrowed the name of an antediluvian patriarch to authenticate his own enthusiastic forcast of the coming Messiah. The Book of Enoch is divided into five basic parts, but it is the The Book of Parables (37-71) which gives scholars the most trouble for it is primarily concerned with a figure called "the messiah"; "the righteous one"; "the chosen one" and "the son of man."

The Book of Enoch Chapter 46:1-2 [1] There I beheld the Ancient of days whose head was like white wool, and with him another, whose countenance resembled that of a man. His countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels. Then I inquired of one of the angels, who went with me, and who showed me every secret thing, concerning this Son of man; who he was; whence he was; and why he accompanied the Ancient of days. [2] He answered and said to me, This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness belongs; with whom righteousness has dwealt; and who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed: for the Lord of spirits has chosen him; and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in everlasting uprightness."

I think that the book of Enoch has a little more truth to it, than pagan philosophy.

[None]

Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Enoch 7:1-3

1It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful.

2And when the angels, (3) the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.

Now as for Enoch

heres an artical I found about the book of Enoch

The Book of Enoch was extant centuries before the birth of Christ and yet is considered by many to be more Christian in its theology than Jewish. It was considered scripture by many early Christians. The earliest literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The early second century "Epistle of Barnabus" makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian (160-230 C.E) even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Church even added the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after Christ. This and many other books became discredited after the Council of Laodicea. And being under ban of the authorities, afterwards it gradually passed out of circulation.

At about the time of the Protestant Reformation, there came to be a renewed interest in the Book of Enoch which had long since been lost to the modern world. By the late 1400's rumors began to spread that somewhere a copy of the long lost Book of Enoch might still exist. During this time many books arose claiming to be the long lost book and were later found to be forgeries.

The return of the long lost Book of Enoch to the modern western world is credited to the famous explorer James Bruce, who in 1773 returned from six years in Abyssinia with three Ethiopic copies of the lost book. In 1821 Richard Laurence published the first English translation. The famous R.H. Charles edition was published in 1912. In the following years several portions of the Greek text surfaced. Then with the discovery of cave 4 of the Dead Sea Scrolls, seven fragmentary copies of the Aramaic text were discovered.

There are scholars who believe the Book of Enoch was published before the Christian era by some great unknown of Semetic race, who believing himself to be inspired in a post-prophetic age, borrowed the name of an antediluvian patriarch to authenticate his own enthusiastic forcast of the coming Messiah. The Book of Enoch is divided into five basic parts, but it is the The Book of Parables (37-71) which gives scholars the most trouble for it is primarily concerned with a figure called "the messiah"; "the righteous one"; "the chosen one" and "the son of man."

The Book of Enoch Chapter 46:1-2 [1] There I beheld the Ancient of days whose head was like white wool, and with him another, whose countenance resembled that of a man. His countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels. Then I inquired of one of the angels, who went with me, and who showed me every secret thing, concerning this Son of man; who he was; whence he was; and why he accompanied the Ancient of days. [2] He answered and said to me, This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness belongs; with whom righteousness has dwealt; and who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed: for the Lord of spirits has chosen him; and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in everlasting uprightness."

I think that the book of Enoch has a little more truth to it, than pagan philosophy.

Many people think so as well.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

The fact that the book of Jude was quoted in Jude and possiblly alluded to by Peter is really irrelavent. Paul quoted from pagan philosphers. We would not start giving pagan writings spiritual authority on that basis.

But is the book of Enoch pagan? many of the Jews around Jesus' time believed the book of Enoch to be truth. And In Jude, it was quoted as truth, not as pagan philosophy.

That is not the point. The point is just because a book is quoted in a certain place does not automatically give the rest of its contents validity. Furthermore, just because some Jews believed in it, is not a basis determining cannonicity.

No passages says angels cannot procreate, It says the Angels are not given into marriage. The quality is not present in both interpretations of this passage, One thing we do see though, that angels do have a likeness with man in appearance Like Jacob wrestled with an angel.

Jesus said the angels are not given in marriage, and yet Gen 6:1-4 clearly states that the sons of God married the daughters of men.

Here is the problem: Everything presented that the sons of God are angels, is based on assumption. It is assumed they are fallen angels. It assumes that the term sons of God is the antithesis of the terms "daughters of men." Based on that assumption, the sons of God are seen as not human and the daughters of men are seen as human. Thus, the "giants" are seen as angelic/human hybrids and it is something that is not supported by ANY corroborating passage of Scripture. Nothing being purported can be supported by any other biblical text. The fact that you have to go outside the Bible should tell you something.

Theology should never be based on assumptions or extrabiblical texts.

[Joshua-777]

QUOTE

The fact that the book of Jude was quoted in Jude and possiblly alluded to by Peter is really irrelavent. Paul quoted from pagan philosphers. We would not start giving pagan writings spiritual authority on that basis.

But is the book of Enoch pagan? many of the Jews around Jesus' time believed the book of Enoch to be truth. And In Jude, it was quoted as truth, not as pagan philosophy.

That is not the point. The point is just because a book is quoted in a certain place does not automatically give the rest of its contents validity. Furthermore, just because some Jews believed in it, is not a basis determining cannonicity.

No passages says angels cannot procreate, It says the Angels are not given into marriage. The quality is not present in both interpretations of this passage, One thing we do see though, that angels do have a likeness with man in appearance Like Jacob wrestled with an angel.

Jesus said the angels are not given in marriage, and yet Gen 6:1-4 clearly states that the sons of God married the daughters of men.

Here is the problem: Everything presented that the sons of God are angels, is based on assumption. It is assumed they are fallen angels. It assumes that the term sons of God is the antithesis of the terms "daughters of men." Based on that assumption, the sons of God are seen as not human and the daughters of men are seen as human. Thus, the "giants" are seen as angelic/human hybrids and it is something that is not supported by ANY corroborating passage of Scripture. Nothing being purported can be supported by any other biblical text. The fact that you have to go outside the Bible should tell you something.

Theology should never be based on assumptions or extrabiblical texts.

The verse where it says the we will be like the Angels in heaven, concerning marriage, does not mean that genesis can't be fallen angels, I am not trying to base my opinion on this matter on assumption, but On both interpretations, it is an assumption. Enoch was considered truth in the early church, and Jude quotes it, so there must be some truth to it.

thus, the "giants" are seen as angelic/human hybrids and it is something that is not supported by ANY corroborating passage of Scripture. Nothing being purported can be supported by any other biblical text. The fact that you have to go outside the Bible should tell you something.

But It's the same with the Sons of God, being the sons of Adam, there is no corroborating verses, If there is, please show me, I would rather be proven wrong, than be wrong thinking I am right.

[None]

Antiaging, I'm sorry some people were rude to you, I know you aren't trying to "peddle" anything, only to find answers to the questions you have. No one on this earth has all the answers. No one. We're not going to find all the answers in the 66-book canon, only more questions. I'm very happy to see that there are people who read outside of the Bible. God is still alive today and is speaking through many different mediums, not just one book.

Nebula, to answer your question,

Luke 20:34-38

34)Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.

35)But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age

and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage,

36)and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels.

They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection.

37)But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise,

for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'

38)He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."

It is only after we are resurrected that we become children of God, according to Jesus' Words.

When we "can no longer die" which cannot happen until after resurrection.

And the angels, the ones who fell from their place, were no longer bound to this law that happens after God considers us worthy, so they did as they pleased and married who they pleased. They had already condemned themselves and were living in sin. Their bodies no longer had the eternal life given to those worthy of the resurrection. Just as Adam's sin caused his body to begin to die, so did the fall of the angels to their bodies. Might be why they decided to reproduce with Adam's daughters.