Faith

Yeah, that got you into hot water...

 

Norman Geisler says there are four views about the sons of God in Genesis and he said he held all four which means he's been wrong 75% of the time no matter what's correct.

 

I only know of three off the top of my head.

 

I have a saying, when in doubt, look up Spurgeon, Edwards, grandpa or great grandpa Davis. One or the other have said something about whatever in the scriptures at one time or the other...

 

God via the Holy Spirit is perfectly able to impregnate Mary because He created humanity. Notice, however, that the Holy Spirit did not take on corporeal form to have sex with Mary, as you're suggesting the angels did in Genesis 6. In terms of offspring: why do you suppose that giants have to be angel-human hybrids? Why not normal people who are just really strong, or short people no taller than Hobbits? Goliath was a giant who was killed by a rock to his forehead -- were angels continuing to fall just to sleep with Philistine women? Merely suggesting that Devil May Cry is historical isn't reason enough to believe that it is. On that point, if Jesus is correct and angels do not marry, then from where did their sexual appetites form, given they had none? How did previously asexual beings develop sexuality without further creative acts of God?

The angels are never described in Genesis 6 as fallen angels.

Procreation requires a complete human male, and a complete human female. I hate to be the guy who says, 'science tell us...', but science tells us. Unless you think the physical world is putty in the hands of any spiritual being out there (i.e., a form of Gnosticism), this just doesn't work. Either the angels become fully human and have normal children, or they stay angels. Where in Scripture do we read about angels becoming human? Nowhere. You're already giving up ground by affirming that they would need to become human to copulate with human women.

Let's look at the context, then: where are angels eating food? On that point, why assume that interacting with the physical world is only possible with physical bodies? To the latter point: Goliath was a giant, too, so what angel made a body for themselves after the flood (that you say couldn't, and was under the wrath of God)?

No, my argument is that it's not in Scripture, explicitly, or implicitly, and that there are significant difficulties, both Scripturally and scientifically, with the view. You haven't replied to anything I've said. All you've been doing is re-asserting yourself.

Hence Russell's mocking teapot. If your beliefs are not addressed in Scripture, then they are unscriptural.

 

On the face of it that's a logical fallacy, but let's examine it.

Is this attested to in Scripture other than the vague reference in Jude 6?

No: we know that they appeared human, and interacted with the physical world. We also know that they were capable of acts that we aren't, e.g., blinding the men of Nineveh. We do not know that in taking on physical form they took on human form.

Another point I keep bringing up by no one wants to address: if an angel becomes human, it cannot become an angel again, for humans cannot change their species (as angels apparently can do). Any ideas on this one?

Genesis 6 tells us why the Flood happened: mankind was evil. Mankind was not evil because of angel-human hybrids, Alex.

Conjecture isn't enough. It must be supported in Scripture, or abandoned.

 

I've never understood how anyone could find a mixed species fallen angel/human hybrid in Scripture.

The concrete transformer's in the horrible Russell Crow "Noah" movie were utterly ridiculous.

 

I'm on the "not angels" side of the question.

 

For real, because there are plenty of references in the Old Testament where, e.g., the children of God are clearly human, not angelic. Consider also the connection between 'sons of God' and Jesus qua the 'Son of God', who is also the 'Son of Man'. In Galatians 3 Paul refers to Christians as children of God through Christ, so to suggest that because, e.g. Job uses the phrase 'heavenly beings' (i.e. 'sons of God'), that Moses obviously meant the same in Genesis 6, isn't the tightest reasoning. But even this popular suggestion has issues. For example, in Job 1 the 'sons of God' are not referred to as fallen angels, and while that's true of Genesis 6, it would be odd not to mention it, if indeed some kind of angelic fall occurred. So, we're not, in fact, looking at a one-to-one comparison, if the sons of God in Genesis 6 are rebellious, but the songs of God in Job 1 aren't. Do you suppose that it's accurate to continue to call rebellious angels 'sons' of God, if it's not appropriate to refer to those who reject Jesus as children of God? I don't.

Based on what?

It does if we're suggesting procreation. That either requires (1) completely human anatomy, or (2) compatibility between angelic anatomy and human anatomy. We know that (2) is impossible because angels are a different species than humanity, and per Jesus, don't marry. Angels are, as far has been revealed to us, asexual, agender, spiritual beings. To suggest that they procreated with human women requires that they have fantastic control over the physical creation, or God created angels with this capacity for no reason, or God gifted the angels this capacity at some point after their creation. You can argue another alternative from silence, but it's not my hangup -- it's yours, because you have to account for how 'it' works when humans and angels cross breed.

In the same vein, we have to be careful what we sneak into the text. Aaron was talking about giants, earlier, but that's not a feature of Genesis 6.

Reality says exactly this. Do you really think angels became sorta-kinda human, genetically engineered the physicality they took on to be compatible with human women, and then went on their merry way? Human existence isn't something a being, spiritual or not, assumes and discards at will. And again, no one has accounted for why an alien species would find human women attractive. Why would they? This kind of thinking is Origen's view of the fall, applied to angels. It's a view you'd reject immediately if it were applied as Origen applied it, so why allow it here so easily? You appealed earlier to Colossians 2.8, so where's that concern for worldly philosophy now? I've brought up quite a number of points to Aaron, and now here as well, but I'm not getting much by way of reply. Why is that, do you think?

It clearly says why in Genesis 6:

5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.
6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

Why? Because previously people had begun calling on the name of the Lord. Genesis 4:

26 To Seth also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to invoke the name of the Lord.

You tell me what's more likely: Noah was righteous (i.e., righteous relative to the world around him) because he had an awareness of God and heeded that inbuilt consciousness, or because Noah's family line wasn't corrupted by angelic expats? The former.

What well formed doctrines are built on 'conjecture and faith' (in the sense you're using it to refer to the fallen angel view of Genesis 6)?

Go for it, but if you do, reply to what I'm saying above.

 

To discuss the view, clearly. I am not interesting in proving you wrong, or myself right. I am interested in whether we are justified in conjecturing that 'sons of God' in Genesis 6 refers to angels. In other words, I am interested in doing theology.

As to why I mentioned the New Testament: why shouldn't I? Your premise is that throughout the Old Testament, 'sons of God' always refers to angelic beings. You're arguing from the unity of Scripture, and if that's the case, then why would we ignore the New Testament . (e.g., Luke 20)? Are you suggesting a shift in the language - does 'sons of God' mean one thing in the Old Testament, but another in the New Testament? If so, then why? The authors of the New Testament were writing out of a knowledge of the Old Testament, so on what grounds do we say, 'yes to this, no to that'? If it's an Old Testament / New Testament distinction, then why not a distinction between the different genres of the Old Testament? Why not a distinction between genres, further broken down between authors? Why not divide each book according to time period -- language evolves over time, does it not (which is the implication of excluding the New Testament), but who is to say that isn't the case within the Old Testament itself? Did Moses mean the same thing as the author of Job?

Based on what (information)? It's obviously incomplete because it's conjecture, but what is it that provides a foundation for the conjecture?

It is at this point that you would provide a counter argument. I am indeed writing as if my view is the correct one, so show me that it is not:

- Why would angels find human women attractive? We are different species. When Vulcans first encountered humans they complained about the smell. Why wouldn't angels? Humans are messy, more so in the ancient world.
- If angels do not marry (per Jesus), which means they do not procreate, then where did they develop sexuality (e.g., arousal, a sexual appetite, and so forth)?
- We know that procreation is a complex, involved, complicated process. By what means did angels become trans-species human? Partly human? Pseudo-human? Why, in becoming trans, did they retain the ability to turn back (in reference to other angelic appearances in the Old Testament)?
- Where in Scripture do we read about angels manipulating the physical universe to their will?
- If these are angels in Genesis 6, why are they referred to as the 'sons of God', when clearly they aren't (just as we aren't children of God until we are through faith in Jesus)?
- Why isn't the reference back to Genesis 4.26 a compelling point?
- To Aaron's point: the Nephilim were said to occupy the promised land, so were angels still breeding with humans during the Exodus, and thereafter? If not, then why do we take the descriptions of giants in the Old Testament as an authoritative description of the Nephilim in Genesis?

You've mentioned your logic, but you haven't stated it (yet).

The notion is that angels lusted after the daughters of men, just as in the Origenal fall we grew bored and lusted for things outside of God's will for us. It's heresy sneaking in a few chapters later than it had hoped (which is not to say that anyone who thinks the 'sons of God' in Genesis 6 are heretics, just not well read on the view). We don't need to know much about angels to examine the view. What does Scripture say? No where are angels shown to be able to become actually human (humans don't, for example, have the ability to blind a town). What do we know of the physical creation? That it was specially created by God, with humans as in His image - what does this say about humanity as 'in His image', re: the supposed ability of angels to take on this image at will? What do we know of human procreation? Why are rebellious angels referred to as 'sons of God' if this is a title reserved for the faithful? I am arguing that angels are spiritual beings, and never presented in Scripture as anything but, aren't Q, and are essentially ontologically constrained as we are. You're and others are arguing that Scripture doesn't say it, so anything is possible. I'm asking you to take that 'anything is possible' and compare it to what we do know, to then see if it's still reasonable to conjecture the 'anything'. I say that it isn't. I'm not Gnostic: the spiritual is not superior to the physical, such that one descends from spirit into flesh for corruption. You're not Gnostic either, but this is conjecture you're entertaining.

Again, it says in verse 5: 'every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.' Do you suppose that this situation can only arise from angelic cross-species breeding with humans? The human race does terrible things every day, so has that breeding continued, or is there another reason (i.e., sin, separation from God, etc.)?

Yes, because so far I am providing an argument for my view, and no one is refuting it in the slightest. If you expect me to interact with your 'big one', I expect you to interact with what I've been saying. Otherwise, all you're doing is reasserting yourself, and that thing called 'theology' that a lot of people like to talk about remains undone.

Conjecture as far as this view of Genesis 6 goes is predicated on a couple verses in Genesis, Job, Jude, etc., supported by external references to 1 Enoch, Jubilees, Philo, Josephus, etc. You'd dream for 5 - 15% conjecture on this one - more like 98%. ECT has been the historical consensus for millennia, and has been discussed and debated at length for just as long. This view of Genesis 6, for as long as it's been around, qualifies as historical fiction by comparison.

 

Vulcans don't think humans smell.

They think they smell weird.