God told Satan I would put emnity between the SEED of Satan and the seed of the woman. The SEED of Satan is Genesis 6. The Hebrew version is correct over the mistranslated English.
Satan is spirit and has no seed.
God told Satan I would put emnity between the SEED of Satan and the seed of the woman. The SEED of Satan is Genesis 6. The Hebrew version is correct over the mistranslated English.
So why did God say he did?Satan is spirit and has no seed.
Job 1:6To which of the angels did God at any time call his sons?
Not only are all angels in scripture males, but angels have also appeared in the likeness of men in scripture. Do men have weiners? If you hiked up an angel's robe (or whatever he was wearing), what would you expect to find? Something that resembles a Ken doll?Why would angels have a wiener?

Is that according to the express will of God??? Yes, yes, of course it is!God and 2 angels looking like 3 men to Abraham
The evil men did not know that the "men" they wanted to rape were angels sent by the express will of God.Even the men in Sodom wanted to have sex with the 2 angels that looked like men.
There is zero Biblical record of any angel appearing as a human being aside from the express will of God.
Is that according to the express will of God??? Yes, yes, of course it is!
Not sure what or who your remark is aimed at since you did not quote anyone.
Really doesn't matter because the verse says Abraham saw 3 men and we learn later in the chapter it's God and 2 angels. But bottom line is angels can look like men.The evil men did not know that the "men" they wanted to rape were angels sent by the express will of God.
And who said they couldn't?Really doesn't matter because the verse says Abraham saw 3 men and we learn later
in the chapter it's God and 2 angels. But bottom line is angels can look like men.
One question: does Heiser accept the pseudo graphical non-canonical book(s) of Enoch as inspired?I think Genesis 6 records the occurrence of some very strange things.
I think that if you look at Genesis 6 and conclude, "Nothing strange here", that is a hard position to defend. Many fine Christian people hold that position, that nothing strange is going on. However, if we really dig deeply into that passage, and supporting passages, I think it becomes a very hard position to defend, and it's a position which, ultimately, relies on what I feel are very weak arguments.
I would refer people to works by Dr. Michael Heiser, an extremely well respected scholar of ancient Hebrew, and one of the top scholars in the field before he went home to be with the Lord.
I think this is all I'll add to this thread.
I have good Christian friends on both sides of this, and it's not the most important issue for debate.
: )
God Bless
.
One question: does Heiser accept the pseudo graphical non-canonical book(s) of Enoch as inspired?
Thank you maxwel... I did look him up but I could not find a definitive answer to that question, although I did see he had a lot of material talking about Enoch, which is part of why I wondered... that, and some do accept Enoch as inspired, and among those that do, it's probably a high percentage that believe the angels' theory...He does not consider it inspired.
He does however consider it an insightful historical book, that informs us about Jewish thought and culture of the 2nd temple period.
(This is the traditional Protestant view.)
Also, I don't necessarily agree with all of his views on everything... but he's a very serious scholar, and his works have greatly influenced current Christian scholarship on these issues.
.
The Bible doesn't say the angels before Abraham and Lot looked like men according to the express will of God.And who said they couldn't?
The point I was making is that there is zero Biblical record of angels manifesting as men aside
from THE EXPRESS WILL OF GOD. It seems your comprehension failed to absorb that part.
Thank you maxwel... I did look him up but I could not find a definitive answer to that question, although I did see he had a lot of material talking about Enoch, which is part of why I wondered... that, and some do accept Enoch as inspired, and among those that do, it's probably a high percentage that believe the angels' theory...
I have always believed this to be the case.
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
However I have come to doubt this theory now as i've actually read the book of Enoch and it contradicts the Bible in some details, not to mention just doesn't "sound right" Doesn't sound like its from the spirit of God. I can discern that its not. You may disagree thats fine but that is where we must agree to disagree.
Jesus says: Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
How could angels coming down and fornicating with women work if this is the case?
Is there any credible alternative explanation? In the OT, "sons of God" most often means angels, doesn't it?
Help a brother out here.
I have always believed this to be the case.
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
However I have come to doubt this theory now as i've actually read the book of Enoch and it contradicts the Bible in some details, not to mention just doesn't "sound right" Doesn't sound like its from the spirit of God. I can discern that its not. You may disagree thats fine but that is where we must agree to disagree.
Jesus says: Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
How could angels coming down and fornicating with women work if this is the case?
Is there any credible alternative explanation? In the OT, "sons of God" most often means angels, doesn't it?
Help a brother out here.