F
Someone's pejorative question above: "if angles [sic] can masquerade around on earth as mere men, then how do we know who is and who isn't a genuine human?" reminded me of God's good word "Let brotherly love continue. Don't forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels" Heb 13:1-2. Acts 12:15.
"Jesus himself could have been an impostor." My goodness! Lord Jesus, have mercy on this person. Jesus is God and Man.
Often throughout Old and New Testaments the Son is called Another Angel or the Angel of God in many translations. Meaning
"Messenger." But He is not and "cannot be" an angel. Heb 2:5-18 contrasts the Son and angels. Since the dear Hebrew believers to whom Hebrews was written over-appreciated angels, perhaps from fallen traditional Judaism.
Following the text of Genesis 6, "men began to multiply on the face of the earth." That IS human reproduction.
Marriage (in contrast to demonic "gay marriage," lol). "And daughters were born to them." (Of course.)
So to understand the next phrase---"the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and
they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose"----to refer to men multiplying (again) is redundant. Illogical.
Unnecessary. Additionally, the phrase "sons of God" here is in contrast to the word "men" (and "daughters of MEN
following). Emphasizing the distinctive groups interacting. Fallen angels with women (there are not female angels).
If "the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them" refers to human marriage (yet again),
then this is further unnecessary, and even ridiculous---from a writing standpoint----redundancy. Furthermore if
"they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown" refers to human marriage,
then all human boys were "nephilim...men of renown." I suppose even Noah's children, in the gentle poster's interpretation.
"The wickedness of man was great in the earth" Gen 6:5. This is a separate clause from 1-4. The text of 1-4 doesn't depend
on the context of 5-7. Rather, if anything, in plain and normal reading (which the Bible is), the text 6:5-7 uses or partially
depends on the context of 6:1-4. Part of the "wickedness of man" IS the nephilim. The offspring of the illegal mixture of
angels with women. Because the giants, the nephilim, ARE men. "These were the might men who were of old, men of renown," twice using the word "men."
That the sins of (fallen) angels are implied along with the discussion of the sins of men, in Genesis 6, shouldn't surprise
nor be alien to, a reader of Genesis. In chapter 3 of Genesis, the serpent (and cherubim) are both mentioned. Later with
the Bible's help we realize the serpent is Satan, Lucifer, an angel, even the top angel, an archangel, who leads the
universal rebellion against the Most High. And his further sins, and judgment, are included in the record of Adam's and Eve's
sin and judgment in Genesis 3. It's not an alien concept that the angelic rebel against God and his angelic followers
would seek to corrupt and ruin mankind to the uttermost in the universal war which is Genesis (and the rest of the Bible).
Because, mankind is Godkind. Acts 17:28-30; Gen 1:26. We're made in the image of God to contain God. Gen 2:9, 16-17;
Jn 20:22; 3:3, 6; 4:10; 7:37-39; 14:10, 17-20; Rm 9:23; 2 Cor 4:7; etc.
The poster's statement "When angels appeared as humans in the bible it was to communicate to God's people God's purpose,"
might make one think to ask: When in the Bible do angels Not appear as humans? (Other than Satan incarnating as a
serpent.) For purposes of that question, one could exclude all the examples where it is Christ who is labelled with the
translation "angel." Since in function He was (and is) the Word of God, but in fact He is not an angel.
Lastly, a poster's opinion that "For God to allow angles [sic] to become men for the lustful purposes of fallen angles falls outside of God's character," makes no sense. Since God has allowed the entire rebellion in the first place.
"Jesus himself could have been an impostor." My goodness! Lord Jesus, have mercy on this person. Jesus is God and Man.
Often throughout Old and New Testaments the Son is called Another Angel or the Angel of God in many translations. Meaning
"Messenger." But He is not and "cannot be" an angel. Heb 2:5-18 contrasts the Son and angels. Since the dear Hebrew believers to whom Hebrews was written over-appreciated angels, perhaps from fallen traditional Judaism.
Following the text of Genesis 6, "men began to multiply on the face of the earth." That IS human reproduction.
Marriage (in contrast to demonic "gay marriage," lol). "And daughters were born to them." (Of course.)
So to understand the next phrase---"the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and
they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose"----to refer to men multiplying (again) is redundant. Illogical.
Unnecessary. Additionally, the phrase "sons of God" here is in contrast to the word "men" (and "daughters of MEN
following). Emphasizing the distinctive groups interacting. Fallen angels with women (there are not female angels).
If "the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them" refers to human marriage (yet again),
then this is further unnecessary, and even ridiculous---from a writing standpoint----redundancy. Furthermore if
"they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown" refers to human marriage,
then all human boys were "nephilim...men of renown." I suppose even Noah's children, in the gentle poster's interpretation.
"The wickedness of man was great in the earth" Gen 6:5. This is a separate clause from 1-4. The text of 1-4 doesn't depend
on the context of 5-7. Rather, if anything, in plain and normal reading (which the Bible is), the text 6:5-7 uses or partially
depends on the context of 6:1-4. Part of the "wickedness of man" IS the nephilim. The offspring of the illegal mixture of
angels with women. Because the giants, the nephilim, ARE men. "These were the might men who were of old, men of renown," twice using the word "men."
That the sins of (fallen) angels are implied along with the discussion of the sins of men, in Genesis 6, shouldn't surprise
nor be alien to, a reader of Genesis. In chapter 3 of Genesis, the serpent (and cherubim) are both mentioned. Later with
the Bible's help we realize the serpent is Satan, Lucifer, an angel, even the top angel, an archangel, who leads the
universal rebellion against the Most High. And his further sins, and judgment, are included in the record of Adam's and Eve's
sin and judgment in Genesis 3. It's not an alien concept that the angelic rebel against God and his angelic followers
would seek to corrupt and ruin mankind to the uttermost in the universal war which is Genesis (and the rest of the Bible).
Because, mankind is Godkind. Acts 17:28-30; Gen 1:26. We're made in the image of God to contain God. Gen 2:9, 16-17;
Jn 20:22; 3:3, 6; 4:10; 7:37-39; 14:10, 17-20; Rm 9:23; 2 Cor 4:7; etc.
The poster's statement "When angels appeared as humans in the bible it was to communicate to God's people God's purpose,"
might make one think to ask: When in the Bible do angels Not appear as humans? (Other than Satan incarnating as a
serpent.) For purposes of that question, one could exclude all the examples where it is Christ who is labelled with the
translation "angel." Since in function He was (and is) the Word of God, but in fact He is not an angel.
Lastly, a poster's opinion that "For God to allow angles [sic] to become men for the lustful purposes of fallen angles falls outside of God's character," makes no sense. Since God has allowed the entire rebellion in the first place.
