ufo,s

#4
He's right about the language issues of the Genesis passage. In the entire Old Testament, the Hebrew for "Sons of God" used there is always used for the angels. It makes for a somewhat uncomfortable interpretation.

The sons of Cain / daughters of Seth idea came later on. It does seem to have issues. Not just with the use of the words themselves, but with the idea of the Nephilim, and the use of the words "giants" just a bit later on. That word is really a transliteration of the Greek "gigantes," which means "the Earth born."

It puts an interesting spin on Jude 6, the angels which "kept not their first estate." The Greek used here means dwelling place, and can refer to a physical body.

Overall, it is an interesting theory, and I think it is possible. I do not say that it must be true. I think that we may find errors in the theory, but there just may be something to this.
 
#5
this explains why there was a legion in 1 man in Christs day.to leave your body to take anothers.like BOdy popping.you sell your soul another posseses your body maybe.there is scripture from Christ talking about the room being swept etc,the state of that man worse than starting.
 
#6
He's right about the language issues of the Genesis passage. In the entire Old Testament, the Hebrew for "Sons of God" used there is always used for the angels. It makes for a somewhat uncomfortable interpretation.

The sons of Cain / daughters of Seth idea came later on. It does seem to have issues. Not just with the use of the words themselves, but with the idea of the Nephilim, and the use of the words "giants" just a bit later on. That word is really a transliteration of the Greek "gigantes," which means "the Earth born."

It puts an interesting spin on Jude 6, the angels which "kept not their first estate." The Greek used here means dwelling place, and can refer to a physical body.

Overall, it is an interesting theory, and I think it is possible. I do not say that it must be true. I think that we may find errors in the theory, but there just may be something to this.
I'd also like to add that another interpretation of this passage in Genesis is that it was evidence of demonic inhabitation...it doesn't make any sense either since the word used is wives...that word is never used for anything but having intercourse with to produce offspring. and a wife has rights, and responsibilities that a concubine (used for the same purpose) does not share these rights.

Genesis 6

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4There 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.
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
I'm a literalist. If the Bible says that the Sons of God (Angels) took wives from the daughters of men (human women) and they had incredible children...I believe it. It is WHY God had to send the flood. No explanation from man will change this, and there is no other explanation in the Bible.

Why is it that we can believe that a donkey (who'se vocal cords aren't made for human speech) spoke to its master, but we can't believe that Angels can procreate with humans?
 

Pastor Gary

Senior Moderator and Staff Trainer
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Staff Trainer
#8
Michael - just remember that nothing is 'unidentified' when it comes to God's infinite knowledge. :)
 
#9
just read this,was banned so didn,t get the chance.it is interesting how the angels took the women from men.so does this mean all angels were male.?or just the fallen ones.?