Angels can procreate

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Mem

Mem

Senior Member
#401
Sep 23, 2014
7,227
2,205
113
#401
The_Watchers_2017 said:
They believed they could have sex with them:

5 And they called out to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have relations with them!”

וַיִּקְרְא֤וּ אֶל־לוֹט֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְרוּ ל֔וֹ אַיֵּ֧ה הָאֲנָשִׁ֛ים אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֥אוּ אֵלֶ֖יךָ הַלָּ֑יְלָה הוֹצִיאֵ֣ם אֵלֵ֔ינוּ וְנֵדְעָ֖ה אֹתָֽם׃
And they shouted to Lot and said to him, “Where are the ones who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may be intimate with them.”


They want to have Relations or be Intimate with them. They clearly believe these are MEN who can be used for sex.
Click to expand...
And these men struck them blind so that they couldn't even find the door.

Anyway, the argument generated by the op is "can angels take on the physical material form of men..." which carries an underlying implication that, since there are examples of angels appearing as men, that every angel has this ability and can do so at will even for their own selfish purposes. There's something about that logic that I don't quite follow even if I'm not sure what the term for the particular fallacy is. Generalization, I think.

And the proof text of "sons of God" noticing the daughters of men doesn't work as a proof text either since it isn't clear if there are instances where either angels and/or men are referred to as sons of God where the context provides clues. It's too vague.
 
Mem

Mem

Senior Member
#402
Sep 23, 2014
7,227
2,205
113
#402
Mem said:
And the proof text of "sons of God" noticing the daughters of men doesn't work as a proof text either since it isn't clear if there are instances where either angels and/or men are referred to as sons of God where the context provides clues. It's too vague.
Click to expand...
Is there any translation that explicitly claims that angels looked upon women and seduced them? Otherwise, it's just the serpent seed doctrine redux.
 
JohnB

JohnB

Well-known member
#404
Jul 31, 2022
2,078
456
83
Calif
#404
Clayman said:
Exactly and this is way God tells us. There was Anakim in Canaan in those days when the Hebrews came into the land of Canaan. Its the same thing as in Gen 6

There were giants on the earth in those days and also afterwards When the Sons of Seth married the descendants of Cain.

The whole reason for the verse is so we can know the Nephilim are not the specific result of these unions for they were already there existing beforehand in those days.
Click to expand...
By the way, there is no mention of marriages between the line of Seth and the line of Cain being a sin. GOD never said the lines were to be kept seperate.
 
JohnB

JohnB

Well-known member
#405
Jul 31, 2022
2,078
456
83
Calif
#405
JohnB said:
Seth and Cain were both human. There is nothing in there to say that the line of Seth was more holy than the line of Cain. Two human lines do not make giants because of their beliefs.
Click to expand...
There was also no law or commandment saying the lines should not mingle. Not like when GOD told the Hebrews not to marry any Canaanites.
 
Mem

Mem

Senior Member
#406
Sep 23, 2014
7,227
2,205
113
#406
JohnB said:
There was also no law or commandment saying the lines should not mingle. Not like when GOD told the Hebrews not to marry any Canaanites.
Click to expand...
Just wondering, hypothetically of course but, if you were restricted from posting about sex, for let's say 3 1/2 weeks, when would we hear from you again? and what would be the choice of subject?
 
JohnB

JohnB

Well-known member
#407
Jul 31, 2022
2,078
456
83
Calif
#407
Mem said:
Just wondering, hypothetically of course but, if you were restricted from posting about sex, for let's say 3 1/2 weeks, when would we hear from you again? and what would be the choice of subject?
Click to expand...
I've already posted on helping the poor and needy. I encourage Christians to have a cooler of drinks and snacks in their car to hand out to those on the street needing help. It's building up treasures in heaven. I've also told people to prepare if our economy collapses. I have 2 solar panels, a 300 w power supply and USB battery packs. I'll be able of charge my phone, tablet and laptop. I will also have some lights in my house. Also keep extra food and water to help your family and friends.
 
Mem

Mem

Senior Member
#408
Sep 23, 2014
7,227
2,205
113
#408
JohnB said:
I've already posted on helping the poor and needy. I encourage Christians to have a cooler of drinks and snacks in their car to hand out to those on the street needing help. It's building up treasures in heaven.
Click to expand...
Ok, just wanted to make sure you weren't ruminating. It isn't healthy since it detracts from the living your life as provided you.
 
CS1

CS1

Well-known member
#409
May 23, 2012
13,111
4,374
113
#409
Omegatime said:
The problem that people cannot accept is a spirtual being mating with flesh and blood even tho the scriptures are clear. I had the same concern but Psalms 82 is dealing with angels and taling about the angels dying like men. This means the angels took on flesh and blood when they came to earth. They became cursed
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that those who say they are biblical choose to take one verse in the whole bible and make a doctrine out of it. And do so at the expense of the whole context of the chapters found in Genesis 6 and 7.

Many will try to add and make the context of Job 1:6 to that of Gen 6 and 7. That God, in some way, could not be clear in saying he was destroying the world because of what Man has done and their sin God hated. The reason why "people" cannot accept spiritual being mating with human beings is because the bible doesn't say that. It is assumed. Those who want to see it will ignore the words of Jesus and the Normative of how the word of " sons of God " is used in the very word of God. Adding to more foolishness, the topic turns into sex because it is unedifying and unbiblical and takes away from what Gen 6 & 7 really is saying.
 
JohnB

JohnB

Well-known member
#410
Jul 31, 2022
2,078
456
83
Calif
#410
Then the people began to multiply on the earth, and daughters were born to them. The sons of God saw the beautiful women and took any they wanted as their wives. Genesis 6:1

People were already multiplying on the earth BEFORE the Sons of GOD appeared. The Sons of GOD here, are not part of the people group multiplying, they are a different group. It appears they infected the gene line.
 
iamsoandso

iamsoandso

Senior Member
#411
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#411
JohnB said:
Then the people began to multiply on the earth, and daughters were born to them. The sons of God saw the beautiful women and took any they wanted as their wives. Genesis 6:1

People were already multiplying on the earth BEFORE the Sons of GOD appeared. The Sons of GOD here, are not part of the people group multiplying, they are a different group. It appears they infected the gene line.
Click to expand...
Show us your genealogy and prove to us your not genetically descended from them...
 
CS1

CS1

Well-known member
#412
May 23, 2012
13,111
4,374
113
#412
JohnB said:
Then the people began to multiply on the earth, and daughters were born to them. The sons of God saw the beautiful women and took any they wanted as their wives. Genesis 6:1

People were already multiplying on the earth BEFORE the Sons of GOD appeared. The Sons of GOD here, are not part of the people group multiplying, they are a different group. It appears they infected the gene line.
Click to expand...
Well, the problem is the English translation from the Hebrew. sons of god have a semantic range of meanings which one is also: gods, angels, and men, aka human beings. That being known, we must use the word the best fits with the context with in the sentence, verse, paragraph, or chapter provided in the text.

So if you replace the sons of God to mean angels instead of earthly men, the chapter makes no sense at all. It would have God destroying the earth over the action of spiritual beings instead of what the sin of men was doing. As the chapter tells us the reason God judged that generation. In addition, it makes Jesus' words of Noah's generation meaningless because God would no reason to judge men for what angels did.

One more point is that the created beings can move outside of God's ordination or things, and the creation animals after their "kind" would be able to mate with other types. Birds with fish, cats with dogs, men with angels. THIS IS THE SAME KIND OF PERVERSION we see today in the context of transgender. A lying devil making a mockery of God's Creation. As men of the word give in to seducing spirits and are deceived to believe a lie.
 
CS1

CS1

Well-known member
#413
May 23, 2012
13,111
4,374
113
#413
JohnB said:
Then the people began to multiply on the earth, and daughters were born to them. The sons of God saw the beautiful women and took any they wanted as their wives. Genesis 6:1

People were already multiplying on the earth BEFORE the Sons of GOD appeared. The Sons of GOD here, are not part of the people group multiplying, they are a different group. It appears they infected the gene line.
Click to expand...
that is not correct. First off, The Book of Beginnings doesn't provide the full-time frame or all that happens between generations

Genesis 5 says :


5 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.

After this, the genealogy says only men, human beings, and verses 1-2 establish the normative.



This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.

There is no possibility of an angel or the devil changing that which God created. And set to be Mankind

You must see the full context of chapters 5 to 7 in Genesis.
 
JohnB

JohnB

Well-known member
#414
Jul 31, 2022
2,078
456
83
Calif
#414
CS1 said:
Well, the problem is the English translation from the Hebrew. sons of god have a semantic range of meanings which one is also: gods, angels, and men, aka human beings. That being known, we must use the word the best fits with the context with in the sentence, verse, paragraph, or chapter provided in the text.

So if you replace the sons of God to mean angels instead of earthly men, the chapter makes no sense at all. It would have God destroying the earth over the action of spiritual beings instead of what the sin of men was doing. As the chapter tells us the reason God judged that generation. In addition, it makes Jesus' words of Noah's generation meaningless because God would no reason to judge men for what angels did.

One more point is that the created beings can move outside of God's ordination or things, and the creation animals after their "kind" would be able to mate with other types. Birds with fish, cats with dogs, men with angels. THIS IS THE SAME KIND OF PERVERSION we see today in the context of transgender. A lying devil making a mockery of God's Creation. As men of the word give in to seducing spirits and are deceived to believe a lie.
Click to expand...
Nowhere does it even imply they were of the line of Seth or Cain. Calling one group "people" and the other group "Sons of GOD" sets them apart. They are not the same group. Angels can take human form. GOD was judging men for thinking evil all the time, not because of any physical appearance.
 
JohnB

JohnB

Well-known member
#415
Jul 31, 2022
2,078
456
83
Calif
#415
CS1 said:
that is not correct. First off, The Book of Beginnings doesn't provide the full-time frame or all that happens between generations

Genesis 5 says :


5 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.

After this, the genealogy says only men, human beings, and verses 1-2 establish the normative.



This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.

There is no possibility of an angel or the devil changing that which God created. And set to be Mankind

You must see the full context of chapters 5 to 7 in Genesis.
Click to expand...
Only one line of genealogy is followed. The line corrupted by the fallen angels was not in the line for Jesus genealogy. It appears Noah was the ONLY line that was not corrupted.
 
iamsoandso

iamsoandso

Senior Member
#416
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#416
CS1 said:
Well, the problem is the English translation from the Hebrew. sons of god have a semantic range of meanings which one is also: gods, angels, and men, aka human beings. That being known, we must use the word the best fits with the context with in the sentence, verse, paragraph, or chapter provided in the text.

So if you replace the sons of God to mean angels instead of earthly men, the chapter makes no sense at all. It would have God destroying the earth over the action of spiritual beings instead of what the sin of men was doing. As the chapter tells us the reason God judged that generation. In addition, it makes Jesus' words of Noah's generation meaningless because God would no reason to judge men for what angels did.

One more point is that the created beings can move outside of God's ordination or things, and the creation animals after their "kind" would be able to mate with other types. Birds with fish, cats with dogs, men with angels. THIS IS THE SAME KIND OF PERVERSION we see today in the context of transgender. A lying devil making a mockery of God's Creation. As men of the word give in to seducing spirits and are deceived to believe a lie.
Click to expand...

Yep sort of like Genesis 3:15 https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/3-15.htm where a seed https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2233.htm means that if someone doesn't believe Jesus was born of the flesh after reading his genealogies in Matthew and Luke this is an Antichrist but then again if it is the seed of that Serpent in Genesis 3:15,,,well that's not flesh that's spiritual right?
 
CS1

CS1

Well-known member
#417
May 23, 2012
13,111
4,374
113
#417
CS1 said:
that is not correct. First off, The Book of Beginnings doesn't provide the full-time frame or all that happens between generations

Genesis 5 says :


5 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.

After this, the genealogy says only men, human beings, and verses 1-2 establish the normative.



This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.

There is no possibility of an angel or the devil changing that which God created. And set to be Mankind

You must see the full context of chapters 5 to 7 in Genesis.
Click to expand...

When God called man and made them male and female, it was so, and nothing could change that. The bird cannot be with a lion
violating the word of God to think angels, in their actions, can make God establish creation and go outside of the order of what God said or created them to do by being able to Procreate? That makes the God of the Bible weak and His word not absolute. The created can do what God did not create them to do in the first place.
 
R

rain

New member
#418
May 13, 2023
3
2
3
#418
It seems a lot of this thread is based on the assumption that when (if) we go to heaven, that we will still be like we are now. Are we not refined, with all ungodly natures removed? Some, having so much removed in fact that they appear to enter in naked and ashamed?

Also, name one place in God's Word where there is anything female in heaven.
It says that to all who believe it is given the right to become SONS of God.

I'm guessing that the saints are gonna be sort of androgynous. Beyond the animal carnality of sex.
And finally, let's not forget that the true purpose of sex is procreation. We have come to ignore that and use it for pretty much everything else instead.
Is there a need for saints to procreate?
 
CS1

CS1

Well-known member
#419
May 23, 2012
13,111
4,374
113
#419
JohnB said:
Nowhere does it even imply they were of the line of Seth or Cain. Calling one group "people" and the other group "Sons of GOD" sets them apart. They are not the same group. Angels can take human form. GOD was judging men for thinking evil all the time, not because of any physical appearance.
Click to expand...

Read chapter five, and nowhere does it say that we cannot add in what we think. If the Bible is silent on it, we are to be also. What we do know is God judged MEN for sin in chapters 6 and 7 of Genesis.
 
CS1

CS1

Well-known member
#420
May 23, 2012
13,111
4,374
113
#420
JohnB said:
Only one line of genealogy is followed. The line corrupted by the fallen angels was not in the line for Jesus genealogy. It appears Noah was the ONLY line that was not corrupted.
Click to expand...

the context is the sin of men, not angels
 
You must log in or register to reply here.