Are giants the offspring of angels and humans?

[Dino246]

Because if they had sex organs they would want to have sex.

If we apply your (very flawed) reasoning, then human children all "want to have sex". You really ought to rethink that one!

It would be cruel for God to give angels sex organs and not allow marriage

Nowhere in Scripture are we told that God does not "allow" marriage among angels. It just tells us that the angels in heaven don't marry. Don't misrepresent the words of Scripture.

marriage, which is the only sanctioned relationship for sex.

Marriage is the only relationship among humans that is sanctioned for sex. Further, God prohibits sex between different 'kinds'. Animals have sex without being married, and nothing in Scripture suggests that God has a problem with it.

By this we can deduce that they do not have sex organs

Streeeeeetch.

No, we can't. That's a non sequitur.

Try sticking closer with what Scripture says, and don't bother speculating where Scripture is silent.

 

[Dino246]

That's exactly how I regard the angels with wieners hypothesis

You're welcome to your opinion, even it if leaves large gaps in your theory.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

You're welcome to your opinion, even it if leaves large gaps in your theory.

Maybe you go to far in trying to tie unrelated things together.

 

[Dino246]

All of that developed when the people were scattered at Babel and lost a unified vision of the revelation of redemption that was given to the sons of God, starting with Adam through Noah, that was then passed on the other side of the flood to Abraham via Shem and possibly Noah when he moved to Haran, that is just south of the Ararat mtns where Noah disembarked. Jewish tradition says that Abraham studied under Shem, whose lifespan was concurrent with Abraham's by well over a hundred years.

The descendants of Noah knew of the revelation and had a unified vision of it as they began to build Babel. When they were scattered they developed their own mythologies based on this revelation. That's why we see elements of the redemption story in many unrelated ancient cultures. How Roman and Greek mythologies specifically developed I have no idea.

Mhmm... exactly. Given that "you have no idea", perhaps you should consider mine instead of outright rejecting it as "silly, perverse, and deviant from the spirit of scripture". Heavenly entities procreating with human women resulting in "men of renown" is exactly what the Greek and Roman mythologies describe. Gee... where have we seen that idea in the Bible?

 

[Dino246]

Maybe you go to far in trying to tie unrelated things together.

Maybe you go too far in describing these things as unrelated. Their alignment is about as good as you're going to find among ancient beliefs.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Mhmm... exactly. Given that "you have no idea", perhaps you should consider mine instead of outright rejecting it as "silly, perverse, and deviant from the spirit of scripture". Heavenly entities procreating with human women resulting in "men of renown" is exactly what the Greek and Roman mythologies describe. Gee... where have we seen that idea in the Bible?

There's nothing substantive about your angels with wieners hypothesis. It's all based on angels of God being changed to sons of God in the Masoretic Text.

Just as an intellectual exercise to test your hypothesis, assume angels of God in Job is correct. I think you will find your entire argument is built on speculation. Also consider the possibility that instead of the bible informing Greek and Roman mythologies, the Masoretic Text in this case was informed by unbiblical traditions. What you're basing your argument on postdates the LXX by nearly 1000 years which provided a lot of opportunity for textual modification to satisfy tradition. Masoretes derives from the word "masorah" , which means"tradition;"

 

[John146]

Are angels sons of God?

Not according to the Bible no . read this section of Hebrews if you do that you’ll have a hard time not hearing it

“hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. ( his son )

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son?”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭1:2, 4-5‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Jesus is the son and his name was inherited a better and greater name than angels because none has ever been called his son.

“But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool? ( he said that to his son )

Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭1:13-14‬ ‭KJV‬‬

the children are the hiers of thier parent angels are spiritual ministers sent to minister to them

“But we see Jesus, ( the son ) who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; ( jesus became one of the children man not angels ) that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, ( the son made like the children ) that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭2:9-10, 14-17‬ ‭KJV‬‬

I think that of you read that section of scripture Hebrews chapter one and two it pretty much clears up the question rather thoroughly making a very clear and pronounced difference between Gods children and Gods angels


p.s. The closest verse to saying anything even close is when it says men will become like angels in the resurrection not marrying or giving in marriage[/QUOTE]

I know the passage well and its connection, however a careful look at the reading in Hebrews includes the word “begotten” noting that none of the angels are begotten sons of God. That’s an important doctrine of Jesus. The seed born to Mary would be God’s seed not of Joseph. Again, angels are sons of God, but not begotten of God. Big difference.

Concerning the creation, mornings stars are angels that are part of the sons of God shouting for joy. No son of Adam has been created yet.

Job 38:
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

 

[John146]

"My" thoughts must credit the late Dr. Michael Heiser who in turn credits a large number of scholars who did the original research.

Deuteronomy 32:8 tells us this:

When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

There are two problems with this: at the time God divided the nations (Genesis 11), the sons of Israel did not exist; and, many of the source manuscripts say "sons of God" not "sons of Israel".

So, because the people reject God, He gives them over and sets non-human entities (bene Elohim) in charge over them. Instead of faithfully administering their charges, they corrupt them and set themselves up as gods over those nations. The nations in turn worship those entities as their gods. Meanwhile, the one true God chooses Abram as the progenitor of His people Israel.

These gods are mentioned by name all over the Old Testament: Moloch, Asherah, Ba'al, etc. I hold (lightly) that these were (are) real non-human entities created by God that rebelled against His authority, perhaps along with Lucifer. They have real power as shown by the false signs done by the Egyptian wizards, but their power is nothing compared to that of God Himself.

In Psalm 82:6-7, God pronounces judgment on them:

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Their defeat was established at the cross, but their influence remains through pagan religions and practices.

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

 

[Dino246]

There's nothing substantive about your angels with wieners hypothesis.

I have no such hypothesis. I will not demean people I respect with such vulgar characterization.

It's all based on angels of God being changed to sons of God in the Masoretic Text.

It aligns very well with all the relevant Scripture and non-biblical writings.

Just as an intellectual exercise to test your hypothesis, assume angels of God in Job is correct. I think you will find your entire argument is built on speculation.

Your idea of an "intellectual exercise" lacks the critical element of "exercise". There's nothing to test here.

Also consider the possibility that instead of the bible informing Greek and Roman mythologies, the Masoretic Text in this case was informed by unbiblical traditions. What you're basing your argument on postdates the LXX by nearly 1000 years which provided a lot of opportunity for textual modify to satisfy tradition. Masoretes derives from the word "masorah" , which means"tradition;"

You're missing something important: 2 Peter and Jude aren't part of the Masoretic text.

I'm not going to debate this further with you until you do some homework. Obtain and read Dr. Heiser's The Unseen Realm. If that's too much for you, at least read the simplified version, Supernatural.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

You're missing something important: 2 Peter and Jude aren't part of the Masoretic text.

You're just making the assumption those 2 are related to Genesis 6. I don;t see any connection

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I have no such hypothesis. I will not demean people I respect with such vulgar characterization.

I call it the angels with wieners fallacy

 

[Dino246]

You're just making the assumption those 2 are related to Genesis 6. I don;t see any connection

Read the book.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Here's another possibility that avoids the angels with wieners fallacy. Bene haElohim literally means sons of the gods. Could that be referring to the ungodly seed of Adam who worshiped the gods, ie angels, rather than YHWH? It actually makes Genesis 6:1-7 flow together very nicely. HaElohim is used in Exodus to refer to all other gods but YHWH

And Jethro said, Blessed be the LORD, who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. Now I know that YHWH is greater than all the gods (האלהים): for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them. Exodus 18:10-11​

 

[posthuman]

Jesus says: Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

does marrying and being given in marriage have nothing to do with anything other than producing offspring?

in the context of this saying, there was nothing about having babies or doing specific things that would result in babies. it was about a woman being uniquely joined to a man in a certain kind of relationship.

it may not be the case that this saying angels ((likewise humans in the resurrection)) are incapable of physical intimacy; that might be us reading something into it that isn't being addressed at all - such that there is no contradiction here whatsoever to Genesis 6 being understood the way it naturally reads.

 

[John146]

does marrying and being given in marriage have nothing to do with anything other than producing offspring?

in the context of this saying, there was nothing about having babies or doing specific things that would result in babies. it was about a woman being uniquely joined to a man in a certain kind of relationship.

it may not be the case that this saying angels ((likewise humans in the resurrection)) are incapable of physical intimacy; that might be us reading something into it that isn't being addressed at all - such that there is no contradiction here whatsoever to Genesis 6 being understood the way it naturally reads.

Biblical marriage is the physical relation of two becoming one flesh. Nothing magically happens when modern day couples stand before a preacher and say vows.

 

[JMH]

First of all, I have also read what purports to be the book of Enoch, and I have similarly discerned that it is not from the Spirit of God. That said, there very well may have been a Holy Spirit inspired book of Enoch sometime in the past, but what we have today is not it (imo).

As to your angels question, notice what Jesus said in the passage of scripture that you quoted.

Mat 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

The answer to your question might be found in the "in heaven" part.

In other words, contrast that with what was said here:

Jde 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.

There are angels of God in heaven, and there are also angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation. The latter have been reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Peter gives us a little more information about this latter group of angels.

2Pe 2:4
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

How did these angels sin, and what does it mean that they kept not their first estate (beginning, commencement, principality), but left their own habitation?

Is it possible that they sinned by leaving heaven in order to procreate with the daughters of men here on earth?

Personally, that is what I believe. In any case, this is a specific set of angels who are being held in chains, and it does not pertain to all fallen angels, of which Satan is one himself.

wow, so if you believe angels would of procreated with humans then you would have to also believe that God Himself permitted that to happen which He would never allow. The angles who were casted out were casted out as the result of the Archangel Satan rebelling against God and leading to a war, not because of procreating. c'mon.

 

[JMH]

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.

the seed of Satan....could of sworn we are all children of wrath and condemned already when born into the world...

 

[JMH]

Giants have lived into modern times... so are demons still reproducing with human women? Or is there some other explanation? It seems to me there are a great many mutations in the genetic makeup of mankind, none of which require demons reproducing with humans as the only viable explanation.

when did God stop being Sovereign? no demon mated with a human, there were no giants either.

 

[JMH]

A few thoughts…

Sons of God and angels aren’t necessarily the same thing (so all the restrictions on angels are irrelevant). “Angel” is a role, not a species.

Just because angels don’t marry in heaven doesn’t mean they can’t, nor that they are physically unable to reproduce with humans.

The most common alternative interpretation is that the “sons of God” were descended from Seth while the “daughters of men” were descended from Cain. This fails miserably to explain the existence of giants.

Greek, Roman, and pagan mythology is surprisingly consistent with the idea of “divine” beings procreating with humans. Perhaps it isn’t so mythical.

When did God stop being Sovereign...

 

[John146]

When did God stop being Sovereign...

Define what you mean by sovereign since the term is not found in scripture.