The lies about gen 6

[RLT63]

Can angels be married and have sex?

Apparently they can according to Genesis 6

 

[ewq1938]

I already showed the verses.

You didn't post a single verse showing angels changing their form to come to the Earth. No scripture describes that because it doesn't happen. An angel looks the same in heaven as they do on Earth.

 

[RLT63]

No they can't Paul explains that below

1 Corinthians 15:40
There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.

Doesn't answer the question

 

[Matthias]

Why not?

 

[RLT63]

Because it says in the NT that they cannot reproduce.

Where?

 

[RLT63]

Satan.

If you are going where I think you are going with this, if he possessed a snake, and the snake got another snake pregnant that they wouldn't have little satan snakes. On the other hand, if he appeared to become a snake (the only thing we really have in scripture is that he can appear as an angel of light) his, umm, "utilities" wouldn't be operable. We know not even know if he has utilities. If he possessed a man, which has been known to happen, then that man could certainly reproduce. That is not what we are talking about here.

Angels cannot create human DNA, only God can.

Then why were the children of the Sons of God called Nephilim or giants? What made them mighty men of valor?

 

[RLT63]

You didn't post a single verse showing angels changing their form to come to the Earth. No scripture describes that because it doesn't happen. An angel looks the same in heaven as they do on Earth.

Hebrews 13:2 Also the angels who delivered Lot from Sodom looked like men. The Sodomites wanted to have relations with them. Genesis 19:5

 

[Cassandra]

Apparently they can according to Genesis 6

And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” (Luke 20:34-36)

 

[RLT63]

And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” (Luke 20:34-36)

That doesn't address my post. That is talking about angels in Heaven not fallen angels and it says they don't it doesn't say they can't.

 

[RLT63]

.

I have what Jesus said
“At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30).

That's talking about the Angels in Heaven not fallen ones and it says they don't marry it doesn't say they can't

 

[RLT63]

There were many many who began with the Lord, and then started taking on wives of unbelievers, (Solomon for example) and look what happened.

It makes perfect sense to me.

It makes no sense . Why would marrying an unbeliever make your children Nephilim or giants? Why would they be mighty men of valor?

 

[No Pre-TB]

But for teh Cherub- that was his name,

The word for lucifer isn’t a proper name. It’s describing the King of Babylon’s authority.

Who else but Satan will literally fall from heaven?

You see the King of Babylon and still are focused on the title, light bringer. You’re doing the same thing you accuse others of: Not looking at the entire context and adding to it. Is the context about Satan? Is God talking to Satan? Is God about to punish Satan? Do you want to hear what countless others have said?

Who else but Satan could ascend into heaven like he did in Job

Do you not understand OT poetic language? You missed the end of the story of this King when it says,

22For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.

Not Satan, but Babylon, it’s King and all their wicked. Context is key!

 

[RLT63]

No. The OP is correct.
Can you provide any Biblical proof for what you say?

The way i see it is God created the ability for kinds to have offspring.
Man is not an angel--the DNA would be different, if they even have DNA

Angels do not reproduce--if they did God would surely let us know, instead of guessing. I don't think God gave them seminal fluids (sorry folks) that would be the same as human stuff, if he gave them any at all.

Why was it stopped at the Flood? Why isn't it going on anywhere on the Earth with the exception of Hollywood movies?

It happened again after the flood. It was stopped by what it says in Jude 1:6
Mischievous Angels or Sethites?: Textual Controversy: – Chuck Missler – Koinonia House

 

[RLT63]

The word for lucifer isn’t a proper name. It’s describing the King of Babylon’s authority.


You see the King of Babylon and still are focused on the title, light bringer. You’re doing the same thing you accuse others of: Not looking at the entire context and adding to it. Is the context about Satan? Is God talking to Satan? Is God about to punish Satan? Do you want to hear what countless others have said?


Do you not understand OT poetic language? You missed the end of the story of this King when it says,

22For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.

Not Satan, but Babylon, it’s King and all their wicked. Context is key!

Who was the power behind the King? It's clear who it's talking about.

 

[RLT63]

they were joined only by consent without sex
They sacrificed a lower good of sex for a higher good of bringing our salvation

Do what?

 

[RLT63]

(Cute avatar!) Yes, there are many instances of "angels as messengers" in scripture...but they don't have sex with humans.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon - angels (ἄγγελος)

Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:24, 27; Luke 9:52; Mark 1:2; James 2:25. [From Homer down.]
2. In the Scriptures, both of the Old Testament and of the New Testament, one of that host of heavenly spirits that, according alike to Jewish and Christian opinion, wait upon the monarch of the universe, and are sent by him to earth, now to execute his purposes (Matthew 4:6, 11; Matthew 28:2; Mark 1:13; Luke 16:22; Luke 22:43 [L brackets WH reject the passage]; Acts 7:35; Acts 12:23; Galatians 3:19, cf. Hebrews 1:14), now to make them known to men (Luke 1:11, 26; Luke 2:9ff; Acts 10:3; Acts 27:23; Matthew 1:20; Matthew 2:13; Matthew 28:5; John 20:12f); hence, the frequent expressions ἄγγελος (angel, messenger of God, מַלְאָך) and ἄγγελοι κυρίου or ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ.

They are subject not only to God but also to Christ (Hebrews 1:4ff; 1 Peter 3:22, cf. Ephesians 1:21; Galatians 4:14), who is described as hereafter to return to judgment surrounded by a multitude of them as servants and attendants: Matthew 13:41, 49; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 24:31; Matthew 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7, cf. Jude 1:14.

Single angels have the charge of separate elements; as fire, Revelation 14:18; waters, Revelation 16:5, cf. Revelation 7:1; John 5:4 [R L]. Respecting the ἄγγελος τῆς ἀβύσσου, Revelation 9:11, see Ἀβαδδών,

3. Guardian angels of individuals are mentioned in Matthew 18:10; Acts 12:15. 'The angels of the churches' in Revelation 1:20; Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18; Revelation 3:1, 7, 14 are not their presbyters or bishops, but heavenly spirits who exercise such a superintendence and guardianship over them that whatever in their assemblies is worthy of praise or of censure is counted to the praise or the blame of their angels also, as though the latter infused their spirit into the assemblies; cf. DeWette, Düsterdieck [Alford] on Revelation 1:20, and Lücke, Einl. in d. Offenb. d. Johan. ii., p. 429f, edition 2; [Bp. Lightfoot on Philip., p. 199f]. διά τούς ἀγγέλους that she may show reverence for the angels, invisibly present in the religious assemblies of Christians, and not displease them, 1 Corinthians 11:10. ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις in 1 Timothy 3:16 is probably to be explained neither of angels to whom Christ exhibited himself in heaven, nor of demons triumphed over by him in the nether world, but of the apostles, his messengers, to whom he appeared after his resurrection. This appellation, which is certainly extraordinary, is easily understood from the nature of the hymn from which the passage ἐφανερώθη ... ἐν δόξῃ seems to have been taken; cf. Winer's Grammar, 639f (594), [for other interpretations see Ellicott, at the passage]. In John 1:51 (52) angels are employed, by a beautiful image borrowed from Genesis 28:12, to represent the divine power that will aid Jesus in the discharge of his Messianic office, and the signal proofs to appear in his history of a divine superintendence. Certain of the angels have proved faithless to the trust committed to them by God, and have given themselves up to sin, Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4 (Enoch c. vi. etc., cf. Genesis 6:2), and now obey the devil, Matthew 25:41; Revelation 12:7, cf. 1 Corinthians 6:3 [yet on this last passage cf. Meyer; he and others maintain that ἄγγελοι without an epithet or limitation never in the N. T. signifies other than good angels]. Hence, ἄγγελος Σατᾶν is tropically used in 2 Corinthians 12:7 to denote a grievous bodily malady sent by Satan.

See δαίμων; [Sophocles' Lexicon, under the word ἄγγελος; and for the literature on the whole subject B. D. American edition under the word Angels — and to the references there given add G. L. Hahn, Theol. des N. T., i., pp. 260-384; Delitzsch in Riehm under the word Engel; Kübel in Herzog edition 2, ibid.].

THAYER’S GREEK LEXICON, Electronic Database.
Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006, 2011 by Biblesoft, Inc.
All rights reserved. Used by permission. BibleSoft.com

The Sons of God are the same that appeared before God in Job when Satan was among them. They took wives of the daughters of men. This resulted in their children being called Nephilim or giants. They were the mighty men of valor. That's why it says Noah was perfect in his generations. His DNA had not been corrupted by this unholy union of fallen angels and women. That is why God wiped everyone out with the flood. It happened again after the flood. It was stopped by what it says in Jude 1:6 .The Israelites wiped out the ones that remained after the flood. Read about Og whose bed was 13 feet long and 6 feet wide. Deuteronomy 3:11
Mischievous Angels or Sethites?: Textual Controversy: – Chuck Missler – Koinonia House

 

[No Pre-TB]

Who was the power behind the King? It's clear who it's talking about.

Yes it’s clear, it says the King of Babylon. How do you interpret Ezekiel 28?

2Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man

Or this:
12Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

This is again, language used to figuratively describe the King of Tyre where’s previously it described the King of Babylon in Isaiah 13. Two different kings, both subjected to being removed from power because they exalted themselves above all. Look what one says about the King of Tyre:

Ethbaal, or Ithobal, was the prince or king of Tyre; and being lifted up with excessive pride, he claimed Divine honours.

Neither of them speak of Satan, a devil, dragon or any such thing. Satan was a murderer from his beginning, not afterwards.

 

[RLT63]

Yes it’s clear, it says the King of Babylon. How do you interpret Ezekiel 28?

2Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man

Or this:
12Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

This is again, language used to figuratively describe the King of Tyre where’s previously it described the King of Babylon in Isaiah 13. Two different kings, both subjected to being removed from power because they exalted themselves above all. Look what one says about the King of Tyre:

Ethbaal, or Ithobal, was the prince or king of Tyre; and being lifted up with excessive pride, he claimed Divine honours.

Neither of them speak of Satan, a devil, dragon or any such thing. Satan was a murderer from his beginning, not afterwards.

It speaks of the power behind the king. Obviously the king was not in Eden and never walked among the stones of fire

 

[No Pre-TB]

It speaks of the power behind the king. Obviously the king was not in Eden and never walked among the stones of fire

You realize Lucifer is not a proper name right? The word is light bringer. Otherwise by you thinking it’s a personal name are making Jesus the devil; since he is the light bringer. If you have time, please take a look at this link. Perhaps it will explain it in an easier way. Here is a copy of the original in the vulgate.

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.

Notice lucifer is not capitalized, nor used as anything but light bringer.

Is "Lucifer" the Devil in Isaiah 14:12? - The KJV Argument against Modern Translations | Bible.org

 

[RLT63]

You realize Lucifer is not a proper name right? The word is light bringer. Otherwise by you thinking it’s a personal name are making Jesus the devil; since he is the light bringer. If you have time, please take a look at this link. Perhaps it will explain it in an easier way. Here is a copy of the original in the vulgate.

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.

Notice lucifer is not capitalized, nor used as anything but light bringer.

Is "Lucifer" the Devil in Isaiah 14:12? - The KJV Argument against Modern Translations | Bible.org

He is also called the morning star or day star. It's all referring to Satan