While it is not physically possible for an angel (fallen or otherwise) to mate with a human it is possible for a human to be demon possessed. I have seen instances of this happening. It is believed that These fallen angels possessed men or women (possibly both) with the intent of having them mate in order to produce superhuman offspring. The resulting offspring would have been the "giants" of the old testament. There is a second instance of this happening after the flood as there are several tribes: Anakims, Rephidims and a couple other tribes all with the same meaning as Nephilim. It is believed that this would have been the source of giant men such as Goliath of Gath who is believed to have be close to eleven feet tall in modern day measurements. Obviously in greek mythology you have the instance of heracles (or hercules in roman mythology). The fact that he was susceptable to violent rages and possessing great strength means that his father or mother could have been possessed by a demon at the time of intamacy. Please do not get me wrong and assume I am talking about modern day big men. Most of them are only seven feet tall at the most and their strength is the result of body building.
2006-07-16 04:17:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by West Coast Nomad 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
Most commentators say that they are fallen angels although some argue that they don't believe that an angel could mate with a human and produce offspring and they try to claim that the "sons of God" are the line of men descended from Seth while the daughters of men come from the line of Cain.
Those who say that they are fallen angels point out that in the old testament angels are referred to as the sons of God and they back up their theory with this passage from Jude.
Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day-- 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
2006-07-16 10:59:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by Martin S 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is wide speculation on this and it is no wonder that you might be confused. My study Bible says that they were the Godly sons of Seth who intermarried with the daughters of men from the ungodly line of Cain. The sons of God cannot be angels because Jesus clearly taught that angels cannot marry or reproduce. Any idea of aliens has to be equated with fallen angels, and as our Lord has stated they cannot marry or reproduce. Demons are in the same class as fallen angels.
2006-07-16 11:01:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by Preacher 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
This passage has two reasons for being.
First is to once again stress the importance of following the one true God.The main focus of the ENTIRE Old Testament is to convince people that there is only one God, NOT a plethora of them cluttering up the cloud cover.
Second is a warning to believers, in this case, the Hebrews, for the menfolk NOT to lust after "foreign" women. In effect, the author is saying: YOU are the sons of God, the Chosen People. Stay the heck AWAY from unbelievers. ESPECIALLY their womenfolk. Their ways are strange and NOT blessed or sanctioned by God's laws. They can and will lead you away from the true God. They are NOT GOOD FOR YOU!
And they illustrate this point with yet another plagiarism from "The Epic of Gilgamesh".
I suspect, that at the point in time this author penned his caveat, the priests of the Hebrew nation were wrestling with the problem of how to keep the Hebrew men from marrying NON-Hebrew women and importing false worship into Jerusalem. Probably didn't work, cause if they're agonna, they're agonna and the only way to stop them for absolute sure is to kill them. And THAT'S not a viable solution, unless you want your nation to go under from lack of population.
2006-07-16 11:03:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Granny Annie 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Look, take a monkey add some alien DNA and you get a human, that human creates more humans to serve the alien that live the good life. POOR people do not rule the earth do not write books about God, they have been modifying God to suite the people they rule over, we are mere servants to them
2006-07-16 11:00:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by man of ape 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is a very good question and one of little mysteries in the Bible.
In the OT, the term "bene Elohim" (sons of 'God') is never used to describe humans, but is used to describe supernatural beings who are above man but subservient to 'God'.
Hebrews 1:5, "For to which of the angels did God EVER say 'You are my Son; today I have
become your Father'." Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son."
In fact this verse makes it clear that God does not refer to his angels as "Sons."
Moses married an Ethiopian woman, so God had no problem with interracial unions.
The only "races" the Bible refers to are Jew and Gentile.
2006-07-16 23:11:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
the major misconception begins at translating it as "sons of god" to begin with. The hebrew word used there, elohim, while also used for G-d, is a common word for general people of import. For example, judges are called elohim. Also, moses is described as a elohim. So, we see that the word just indicates importance (which is certainly applicable to G-d). Thus, when trying to understand the meaning of the passage and faced with two options, either the nobility or children of heaven/earth hybrids, I think it's clear why many see it as referring to the nobility.
2006-07-16 12:49:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
"Mixed marriages (Gen_6:2): The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain: They took them wives of all that they chose. But what was amiss in these marriages? (1.) They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair, which was all they looked at. (2.) They followed the choice which their own corrupt affections made: they took all that they chose, without advice and consideration. But, (3.) That which proved of such bad consequence to them was that they married strange wives, were unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2Co_6:14. This was forbidden to Israel, Deu_7:3, Deu_7:4. It was the unhappy occasion of Solomon's apostasy (1Ki_11:1-4), and was of bad consequence to the Jews after their return out of Babylon, Ezr_9:1, Ezr_9:2. Note, Professors of religion, in marrying both themselves and their children, should make conscience of keeping within the bounds of profession. The bad will sooner debauch the good than the good reform the bad. Those that profess themselves the children of God must not marry without his consent, which they have not if they join in affinity with his enemies."
2006-07-16 11:04:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by BrotherMichael 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took
THE SONS OF GOD ARE THOSE WHO KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD, AS THE NT SAYS THROUGH OUT ITS PAGES, THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN ARE THE PEOPLE WHO DID NOT KNOW GOD OR WHAT IS CALLED PAGENS.
1jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
2006-07-16 11:01:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by His eyes are like flames 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
the most common explanation is that the sons of god are noblemen and the daughters are commoners -- there was a mixing of the classes.
2006-07-16 10:56:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by rosends 7
·
0⤊
0⤋