Genesis 6:1-2 Revisited. Unredeemable

[Scribe]

[QUOTE="Hungry, post: 4304761, member: 145557"... Jesus was referring to an event in Genesis, not marriage, utter destruction. He was talking about people not realizing they were on death’s doorstep. Read it

28“It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all..[/QUOTE]

This verse about the days of Lot was a good scripture to present. There is nothing about them buying and selling, planting and building, in the scripture of the story about Sodom, and Lot, in Genesis, therefore Jesus is making a statement about what they were doing that is not necessarily taken from a verse that I can find. (Gen 19) Unless someone knows a scripture that refers to something about them buying and selling and planting and building. Where did Jesus get this from? His divine authority? Common sense assumption that was what they were doing if they were a community?
Therefore if Jesus makes a statement about what was happening in Sodom before Lot left that is not actually in the text I concede that Jesus could have been referring to what they were doing in the Days of Noah that is not something written in the text of Gen. And therefore Jesus is not necessarily interpreting Gen "sons of god taking wives of all which they chose" as the scripture that shows them marrying, but simply making a statement that men were marrying and eating and drinking as simply a common sense statement about what people were doing.

Of course I understood the main point of Matt 24 being that of not being ready for the revelation of Christ when He comes in judgment, but I assumed he was also referring to something in scripture when he described their activities before the flood. And in Lots case I am looking for a reference of them buying selling and planting and building but I have not seen it yet. If I do find it then I will return to my previous assumption, but until then I suppose that it is simply a statement Jesus is making that is common sense rather than an actual description in the text of Genesis.

 

[birdie]

Ps 8:4-5
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

5For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Thanks Scribe. In my view, this is saying that the son of Man (Jesus) was made a little lower than the believers when he was on the cross. The term angels means messengers and is a term denoting believers here, in my view.

 

[Scribe]

[QUOTE="Hungry, post: 4304761, member: 145557"... Jesus was referring to an event in Genesis, not marriage, utter destruction. He was talking about people not realizing they were on death’s doorstep. Read it

28“It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all..

This verse about the days of Lot was a good scripture to present. There is nothing about them buying and selling, planting and building, in the scripture of the story about Sodom, and Lot, in Genesis, therefore Jesus is making a statement about what they were doing that is not necessarily taken from a verse that I can find. (Gen 19) Unless someone knows a scripture that refers to something about them buying and selling and planting and building. Where did Jesus get this from? His divine authority? Common sense assumption that was what they were doing if they were a community?
Therefore if Jesus makes a statement about what was happening in Sodom before Lot left that is not actually in the text I concede that Jesus could have been referring to what they were doing in the Days of Noah that is not something written in the text of Gen. And therefore Jesus is not necessarily interpreting Gen "sons of god taking wives of all which they chose" as the scripture that shows them marrying, but simply making a statement that men were marrying and eating and drinking as simply a common sense statement about what people were doing.

Of course I understood the main point of Matt 24 being that of not being ready for the revelation of Christ when He comes in judgment, but I assumed he was also referring to something in scripture when he described their activities before the flood. And in Lots case I am looking for a reference of them buying selling and planting and building but I have not seen it yet. If I do find it then I will return to my previous assumption, but until then I suppose that it is simply a statement Jesus is making that is common sense rather than an actual description in the text of Genesis.[/QUOTE]

This is interesting:
10And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar. 11Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other. 12Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom. 13But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

I think that this description of Sodom being well watered and like the garden of the Lord (poetic I am sure) might very well be why Jesus said they were PLANTING as an activity before their destruction. Their prosperity is mentioned also in Ezek 16 49Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. So there is reason to believe that Jesus statements in Matt 24:28 about the activities of Sodom before their jugment was indeed taken from descriptions about them in the scripture and that is why he specifically stated PLANTING.

Something to think about. This is an edifying study.

 

[Scribe]

Thanks Scribe. In my view, this is saying that the son of Man (Jesus) was made a little lower than the believers when he was on the cross. The term angels means messengers and is a term denoting believers here, in my view.

The original quote was from Psalms when it was interpreted as mankind being made lower than angels. Or that angels were greater in power and might and of course they were as anyone who experienced seeing one considered it like seeing God.

However in Hebrews we have an interpretation being offered which is again that man was made lower than the angels and that Jesus became a man and was therefore made lower than the angels in his humanity.

5For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

6But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

7Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

8Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

9But we see Jesus, 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.

 

[birdie]

The original quote was from Psalms when it was interpreted as mankind being made lower than angels. Or that angels were greater in power and might and of course they were as anyone who experienced seeing one considered it like seeing God.

However in Hebrews we have an interpretation being offered which is again that man was made lower than the angels and that Jesus became a man and was therefore made lower than the angels in his humanity.

5For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

6But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

7Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

8Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

9But we see Jesus, 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.

Thanks Scribe. Yes, we simply disagree on what angels are it seems.

 

[DorothyMae]

I know this topic has been ruminated over and over but a thought hit me the other day and I have not heard it discussed.
If it actually was angels that procreated with the daughters of men then the offspring (Nephilim?) would be unredeemable since they were half men/half angel.
Jesus didn't die for the angels. How could they be judged as men?
Comments?

They are judged as angels. Standard considerably higher.

 

[crossnote]

They are judged as angels. Standard considerably higher.

And are they redeemable as men or redeemable as angels?

 

[DorothyMae]

And are they redeemable as men or redeemable as angels?

They are not redeemable. Angels are not redeemable. These creatures were considerably evil. Worse than the worst evil man.

 

[garee]

In the case of the author of Job we have to consider this reference also:
Job 38
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Since in this passage God is asking Job where was he when at the time of creation (and man was not yet created) the sons of God shouted for joy, we concede that Job was most likely referring to the same thing when he used the phrase sons of god in Job 1.

However I do not agree that this must mean that Moses meant the same thing in Gen 6. In the case of Genesis and another author Moses we have the context of Gen 4:26 when Men Seths generation began to call themselves by the name of the Lord (people of God, children of God, sons of God) Calling themselves by the name of the Lord is the context that explains the phrase in Gen 6 which is why Moses assuming the reader retained that information from Gen 4 would not need an explanation.

Thanks for the reply.

Abel was the first recorded son of God. First recorded martyr as a prophet apostle. Spreading the word to faithless Cain Cain led by the god of this world a murderer from the beginning naturally killed the misperceived (no faith) competition in order to perform the pagan foundation .Out of sight out of mind .No God in their heart.

One way to look walking by faith (believing) is that of the chosen elect as the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world redeemed by the lamb . Shouting or leaping for joy is a phrase that represent salvation The demonstration of that work was demonstrated thousands of years later. Those who walk by sight seem to make the demonstration the actual work . Making all the saints prior to it, dead .

Lying spirits (legion) have no form. They are not subject to salvation or precreation but just the opposite they appose as the spirit of error .(Legion)

As new creatures our citizenship is not of this world . Our thoughts, searching for our daily bread go up as the accuser of Brethren is there. . trying to get his foot hold in the meeting between the believer son of God and their Father, God .

This is shown by the fact that the Lord said: did you try Job, as a son of God .

Same thing happening today .The interceptor trying to get a foot hold in the mind of the believer, as a son of God .

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. And the Lord said unto Satan, (the one spirit or error ) Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Job 1:5-8

In that way it is sons of God who do pray in a hope His will be done on earth as it is if heaven.

 

[Hungry]

However I do not agree that this must mean that Moses meant the same thing in Gen 6. In the case of Genesis and another author Moses we have the context of Gen 4:26 when Men Seths generation began to call themselves by the name of the Lord (people of God, children of God, sons of God) Calling themselves by the name of the Lord is the context that explains the phrase in Gen 6 which is why Moses assuming the reader retained that information from Gen 4 would not need an explanation.

You are inferring again. The original text states, “They called on the name of the Lord (Jehovah).” Jehovah is often separated from elohim. That’s why you see, “Lord (Jehovah), God (elohim).” From what I understand means self-existing God of gods. The Genesis account states the sons of elohim (gods) took the daughters of men as wives.

the sons
בְנֵי־ (ḇə·nê-)
Noun - masculine plural construct
Strong's Hebrew 1121: 1) son, grandson, child, member of a group 1a) son, male child 1b) grandson 1c) children (pl. - male and female) 1d) youth, young men (pl.) 1e) young (of animals) 1f) sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for un- righteous men] or sons of God [for angels] 1g) people (of a nation) (pl.) 1h) of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (fig.) 1i) a member of a guild, order, class

of God
הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ (hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Article | Noun - masculine plural
Strong's Hebrew 430: 1) (plural) 1a) rulers, judges 1b) divine ones 1c) angels 1d) gods 2) (plural intensive-singular meaning) 2a) god, goddess 2b) godlike one 2c) works or special possessions of God 2d) the (true) God 2e) God

The chapter starts out with when men began to multiply upon the earth, daughters were born to them. Did Seth’s line not also multiply? Why would they be segregated? It seems clear what is actually stated. It takes far more reaching to force it to make it say what you want it to say rather than just read what it says and accept there might be hybrids. Either they are the Holy line of Seth that produced mighty men (that you explain as evil ?), or there are other beings (elohim) able to create a genetic abomination using our women. That’s something that echos through mythology.

Let me ask you, why do you think that even though we see throughout scripture heavenly messengers in the form of men, do you find it so inconceivable to accept perhaps we were made in the image of elohim...like it clearly states? Not in the image of Jehovah, but the image of elohim.

 

[garee]

They are not redeemable. Angels are not redeemable. These creatures were considerably evil. Worse than the worst evil man.

That's where I believe many error .Legion the father of lies is not a creature but apposing spirit that works in men to deny or forbid the truth, the gospel of our salvation .

He needs a creature to spread his lies. Like with Peter in Mathew 16 in order for the Lord (not seen) not the Son of man seen to rebuke the spirit .Demanding Legion to get behind Him (not seen) and not Peter (seen) .

The spirit of lies is not subject to the gospel (truth) and neither could the "man of sin" be. or previously the "serpent of sin" . Sssssssss "Thou shalt not surely die" look at me and live. Who needs faith in the things not seen ? (the fall)

Twice as one thought he repeats the law of rebuking the spirit of false pride.

1 Kings 22:22And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

The phrase in the above verse. "The Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee" was in view of Peters pride. Having just coming down from a mountain top experience fell in pride .Again the Lord working in his apostle, prophet, Jesus rebuking the spirit of lies that was working in Peter teaching peter hoe to walk by faith as the things of God..

Peter a teaching tool used to benefit us. He was forgiven of his blasphemy, seeing it was against the Son of man seen and not our unseen Father Today that kind of blasphemy has no door forgiveness .It is the unseen door by which we can be forgiven .

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Mathew 16: 22-23

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Thanks Scribe. Yes, we simply disagree on what angels are it seems.

Angels are messengers yes. But Can you show me a place where these "messengers" are naturally born human beings? And not spiritual beings who have taken human form so they can bring their message?

 

[crossnote]

They are not redeemable. Angels are not redeemable. These creatures were considerably evil. Worse than the worst evil man.

Let's take a step back. You said that they were judged as angels, if they are the offspring of men and angels, how do you know they aren't judged as men or hybrids?

 

[Scribe]

You are inferring again. The original text states, “They called on the name of the Lord (Jehovah).” Jehovah is often separated from elohim. That’s why you see, “Lord (Jehovah), God (elohim).” From what I understand means self-existing God of gods. The Genesis account states the sons of elohim (gods) took the daughters of men as wives.

the sons
בְנֵי־ (ḇə·nê-)
Noun - masculine plural construct
Strong's Hebrew 1121: 1) son, grandson, child, member of a group 1a) son, male child 1b) grandson 1c) children (pl. - male and female) 1d) youth, young men (pl.) 1e) young (of animals) 1f) sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for un- righteous men] or sons of God [for angels] 1g) people (of a nation) (pl.) 1h) of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (fig.) 1i) a member of a guild, order, class

of God
הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ (hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Article | Noun - masculine plural
Strong's Hebrew 430: 1) (plural) 1a) rulers, judges 1b) divine ones 1c) angels 1d) gods 2) (plural intensive-singular meaning) 2a) god, goddess 2b) godlike one 2c) works or special possessions of God 2d) the (true) God 2e) God

The chapter starts out with when men began to multiply upon the earth, daughters were born to them. Did Seth’s line not also multiply? Why would they be segregated? It seems clear what is actually stated. It takes far more reaching to force it to make it say what you want it to say rather than just read what it says and accept there might be hybrids. Either they are the Holy line of Seth that produced mighty men (that you explain as evil ?), or there are other beings (elohim) able to create a genetic abomination using our women. That’s something that echos through mythology.

Let me ask you, why do you think that even though we see throughout scripture heavenly messengers in the form of men, do you find it so inconceivable to accept perhaps we were made in the image of elohim...like it clearly states? Not in the image of Jehovah, but the image of elohim.

Cain went east of Eden and built the city named after his son. He was banished from the presence of the Lord which was with Adam and his camp. Seth was not in the city that Cain built. It is obvious that there was segregation between these two civilizations.

Hebrew scholars say that call on the name of the Lord or Call by the name of the Lord are both acceptable translations and the later is preferred and that is why you will see it in the KJV margin because it was important that the reader have this option to get the meaning of the Hebrew. However either translation works out to mean the same thing.

The point was that they began to identify themselves as NOT like those others in Cains camp who were not calling on the Lord. They were hostile to the Lord. This is also confirmed by the prophesy of Enoch who contended with these that spoke harsh words against the Lord and the promise of his coming in judgment with myriads upon myriads of his saints.

The reference to the sons of god seeing the daughters of men that they were fair, has a contextual connect with the daughters of Cain because in Gen 4 it mentioned daughters of Cain Adah (beautiful) and Naamah (Fair,pleasant/lovely), So again there is every reason to think that the Hebrew readers would connect both the reference to the sons of god as those who called upon the name of the Lord and the reference to the daughters of men as those who were Fair from Cains camp. Now we can only guess why they were more appealing to the sons of god than their own women, maybe it had to do with them making themselves seductive like women do today. And that last sentence is guessing and conjecture, but the rest is simple reading comprehension.

I must emphasize that the theological context of the rest of the bible supports this interpretation as we see the constant error of the godly falling into backsliding from ungodly women (Sampson, Balaam and Balak, Solomon, The Babylonian Exiles returned and marrying foreign wives,) as an object lesson to teach us to not have fellowship with the world and to live separate and holy lives as we wait for the appearing of the Lord. Nothing has changed in the Misseo Dei of God.

There is absolutely no theological context in the rest of the bible for angels having hybrid babies nor is there any object lesson or daily life application to be had.

Also, it is obvious that my interpretation is the Holy Spirit intended interpretation by the evidence of the internal witness of those who just read it.

 

[DorothyMae]

Let's take a step back. You said that they were judged as angels, if they are the offspring of men and angels, how do you know they aren't judged as men or hybrids?

Both will be judged by their deeds so what difference does it make?

 

[DorothyMae]

That's where I believe many error .Legion the father of lies is not a creature but apposing spirit that works in men to deny or forbid the truth, the gospel of our salvation .

Do you consider angels “creatures?”

He needs a creature to spread his lies. Like with Peter in Mathew 16 in order for the Lord (not seen) not the Son of man seen to rebuke the spirit .Demanding Legion to get behind Him (not seen) and not Peter (seen) .

The spirit of lies is not subject to the gospel (truth) and neither could the "man of sin" be. or previously the "serpent of sin" . Sssssssss "Thou shalt not surely die" look at me and live. Who needs faith in the things not seen ? (the fall)

You lost me.

Twice as one thought he repeats the law of rebuking the spirit of false pride.

1 Kings 22:22And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Where is false pride a spirit in there?

The phrase in the above verse. "The Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee" was in view of Peters pride. Having just coming down from a mountain top experience fell in pride .Again the Lord working in his apostle, prophet, Jesus rebuking the spirit of lies that was working in Peter teaching peter hoe to walk by faith as the things of God.

Where is this in the Bible?

Peter a teaching tool used to benefit us. He was forgiven of his blasphemy, seeing it was against the Son of man seen and not our unseen Father Today that kind of blasphemy has no door forgiveness .It is the unseen door by which we can be forgiven .

When did Peter blasphemy?

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Mathew 16: 22-23

I don’t see that scripture saying what you claim. I see no blasphemy. I see no pride.

 

[Scribe]

Do you consider angels “creatures?” You lost me.Where is false pride a spirit in there?Where is this in the Bible?When did Peter blasphemy?I don’t see that scripture saying what you claim. I see no blasphemy. I see no pride.

Careful entering into the mind of Garee-speak. It is like a maze where all the sentences have dead ends before you can figure out what they were intended to say.

 

[Hungry]

Cain went east of Eden and built the city named after his son. He was banished from the presence of the Lord which was with Adam and his camp. Seth was not in the city that Cain built. It is obvious that there was segregation between these two civilizations.

Hebrew scholars say that call on the name of the Lord or Call by the name of the Lord are both acceptable translations and the later is preferred and that is why you will see it in the KJV margin because it was important that the reader have this option to get the meaning of the Hebrew. However either translation works out to mean the same thing.

The point was that they began to identify themselves as NOT like those others in Cains camp who were not calling on the Lord. They were hostile to the Lord. This is also confirmed by the prophesy of Enoch who contended with these that spoke harsh words against the Lord and the promise of his coming in judgment with myriads upon myriads of his saints.

The reference to the sons of god seeing the daughters of men that they were fair, has a contextual connect with the daughters of Cain because in Gen 4 it mentioned daughters of Cain Adah (beautiful) and Naamah (Fair,pleasant/lovely), So again there is every reason to think that the Hebrew readers would connect both the reference to the sons of god as those who called upon the name of the Lord and the reference to the daughters of men as those who were Fair from Cains camp. Now we can only guess why they were more appealing to the sons of god than their own women, maybe it had to do with them making themselves seductive like women do today. And that last sentence is guessing and conjecture, but the rest is simple reading comprehension.

I must emphasize that the theological context of the rest of the bible supports this interpretation as we see the constant error of the godly falling into backsliding from ungodly women (Sampson, Balaam and Balak, Solomon, The Babylonian Exiles returned and marrying foreign wives,) as an object lesson to teach us to not have fellowship with the world and to live separate and holy lives as we wait for the appearing of the Lord. Nothing has changed in the Misseo Dei of God.

There is absolutely no theological context in the rest of the bible for angels having hybrid babies nor is there any object lesson or daily life application to be had.

Also, it is obvious that my interpretation is the Holy Spirit intended interpretation by the evidence of the internal witness of those who just read it.

You have to accept all of your conjecture, including Seth had a homely line, the scripture means sons who call on the name of Jehovah, not sons of elohim like it says and that we are not made in the image and likeness of elohim like it says. Everything I state is backed up 100% with what is written, not what is speculated. Then to assume your mental gymnastics is divinely inspired to satisfy your assumptions, is pure and simple intellectual dishonesty. When Christ rebuked Lucifer in the wilderness, He states, “It is written...” If it was accepted by Christ, perhaps we need to either accept it or ignore it, but not refute it.

 

[Scribe]

You have to accept all of your conjecture, including Seth had a homely line, the scripture means sons who call on the name of Jehovah, not sons of elohim like it says and that we are not made in the image and likeness of elohim like it says. Everything I state is backed up 100% with what is written, not what is speculated. Then to assume your mental gymnastics is divinely inspired to satisfy your assumptions, is pure and simple intellectual dishonesty. When Christ rebuked Lucifer in the wilderness, He states, “It is written...” If it was accepted by Christ, perhaps we need to either accept it or ignore it, but not refute it.

lexical syntactical hermeneutics take second place to the hermeneutic rule of context. First we look at context and context is more authoritative than your making a case based on the meaning of one word. A word used thousands of times in the OT and its meaning applies to heathen gods or Jehovah/Yahweh depending on context just like it does in English I might add. Words are funny things, they usually require the context of a sentence to successfully communicate their meaning. In this case I depend more on the context chapters 4-6. I suggest that it would be intellectually dishonest not to. Moving the mention of giants in the land to a different place in the text as the result of the offspring of the sons of god an daughters of men requires both mental gymnastics and adulterating the text by changing the order of the statements to fit an imagined narrative.

 

[Scribe]

You have to accept all of your conjecture,.

I didn't think that Seth's daughters were homely, I suggested that Cains daughters went out of their way to look seductive and I also admitted that was conjecture. However since the immediate response of God to their taking wives of these daughters of men was to pronounce them as Flesh, and against the Spirit and therefore to be wiped out in 120 years I think I am on logical ground to suggest that it was of an evil motive and it grieved God what they did. You interpret the evil as having something to do with angels I suppose. I interpret it as the evil being that they left off faith in God and joined the unbelieving crowd because they were lead away by the seduction of the women that made themselves to be fair to look upon (lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh.) There is no mention here of God being grieved with angels and your interpretation would make them center stars in your imagined play. The text clearly condemns man for their evil of taking wives from the daughters of men of all which they chose. Context wins every time.

If it was accepted by Christ, perhaps we need to either accept it or ignore it, but not refute it.

After realizing that Lot choose Sodom because it was like the garden of the Lord for growing things, and Jesus saying that Sodom was planting until the judgment came, I am going back to my assumption that Jesus is talking about Gen 6:2 when he said they were marrying in the days of Noah before the Flood came, and therefore Jesus is interpreting it as what men were doing before the flood came not what angels were doing, therefore ...]If it was accepted by Christ, perhaps we need to either accept it or ignore it, but not refute it.