The belief that Fallen Angels mated with human women

Originally posted by Jameela

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

No idea honestly. Perhaps someone else does.

How do you explain the clearly two separate and different creation stories in the bible?

No, the brief is in chapter 1, the details are in chapter 2. Newspapers write front page articles like this all around the world.

Also who was the sons of Adam and Eve marrying?

Dinosaurs? Who do you think? Their sisters, nieces, cousins, 2nd cousins..

remember these are Holy people, close to God, and it is a sin to commit incest in the bible, yet it is never mentioned they were guilty of incest, not once

Because the commandment to not do it wasn't until after the Exodus in Egypt.

Also how to you explain the term Sons of God? It is explained in the bible that a 'son of' something is a follower of that thing.. example: "Jesus saith unto them, If ye were the sons of Abraham, ye would do the works of Abraham." also in the Book of Exodus Israel as a people is called "God's son", using the singular form because they followed the commandments of God, also, in Hosea Israel is called the "Sons of the living God"

I guess you're referring to Genesis 6. "Bene Ha'Elohim" is a term used for angels. The Septuagint uses the term Aggelos in Genesis 6. The Book of Enoch says "Bene Ha'Elohim" is angels.

Apparently then, according to the bible, a "Son of God" is someone who follows the commandments of God

And refers to angels is certain contexts, like when the "sons of God sang for joy" when the world was created.

Therefore, in taking wives from among humans (possibly the ones in the first creation story?), they have disobeyed a commandment of God, thereby falling into a category of persons that were "fallen" because they disobeyed God.

Not unprecedented.

first, the book of enoch is not even in the bible, you cannot use non biblical accounts, if that were the case I could use the Quran or wikopedia for that matter.

second, they are related twice. I postulate twice was for a reason, because they were two separate events

Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


These are two accounts, not one... and a Son of God is Anyone who follows the commandments of God, whether they are also called (or act as) messengers is another thing, it is still those who follow the commands of God


And it is possible that I agree, that incest among the second group of humans is what was commanded, and they broke this command by having marriages among the first group of humans... there are still two groups of humans, one created before the other.

The question would be why would animals have been created twice, the answer would be a catastrophic event sometime past, which only a few survived...we have is historical evidence to a world wide catastrophic event, and no need to take any biblical account, the question is was there more than one Adam. I believe the bible says yes, because it clearly relates two accounts.


Did you know the word Adam does not mean first man? It means earth, it relation to Adam it would mean from earth.

reply to post by Jameela

first, the book of enoch is not even in the bible.

I didn't say it was. But Jews wrote it and it's another evidence that they use the term Bene Ha'Elohim to refer to angels. Jude quoted from it in his epistle also, so if the Lord's brother can refer to it in the NT I don't think either one of us will go straight to Hell.

Seriously.

Did you know the word Adam does not mean first man?

HUH? Man is adam in Hebrew. ----> אדם

If ''other beings'' did not mated with humans, then who the hell was the father of those dead guys?

www.youtube.com...

I am not asking you, Noturtypical, you already know the answer.

Those dead things had a brain up to 3 times the size of ours. How intelligent and avdanced do you think their fathers were?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


and what are Maalik (angels)? They are followers of the commands of God who also act as messengers for God at His behest yes?

This CAN refer to humans as the priests are referred to as angels of God.

"For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger (angel) of the LORD of hosts."

Malachi gives to the priest the title which belongs to the lowest order of the heavenly spirits, as having an office akin to theirs; as Haggai does to the prophet, Haggai 2:11. as an extraordinary "messenger"(angel) of God


Therefore angels can be human according to the bible. There is nothing saying that "Bene Ha'Elohim" cannot refer to human beings. In fact, there is a LOT in the bible stating they can be.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


'Adama' is earth, 'adom' is red and Adam literally means man. They're all spelled the same way in Hebrew but have different pronunciations.

MAN has the root from earth, referring to how He was created.

reply to post by Hydroman


just on a hunch....

anyone ever try applying the verses of the bible to the verses of the bible and then read what it says?

Originally posted by ILikeStars
reply to post by Hydroman

 

just on a hunch....

anyone ever try applying the verses of the bible to the verses of the bible and then read what it says?

It is what I am doing, using the bible to interpret the bible

reply to post by Jameela


It's "MAL'AK" and that means "messenger". "Bene Ha'Elohim is literally, "sons of God"

Aggelos is Greek for "angels".

The Septuagint (LXX) translates Genesis 6 as "aggelos".

Sons of God = angels

Originally posted by ILikeStars
reply to post by Hydroman

 

just on a hunch....

anyone ever try applying the verses of the bible to the verses of the bible and then read what it says?

I can quote 2 of them that if you only follow those you'll be an alcoholic in a few years.

A thimble-full of Hermeneutics prevents an ocean-full of comprehension errors.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It was the sons of God who supposedly mated with human woman, I explained the meaning of sons of God from the Bible which explains sons of God to refer to those who follow the commands of God, I explained that angel means messenger and does in many instances refer also to human being who not only follow the commands of God but also gives a message from (or of God) to the people...(such as with priests)

All of this is in the bible, and using the bible to explain the bible you find that what is referred to as Sons of God in that verse can refer to humans and not some non human entity.

With two separate creation accounts what you find here is a distinct possibility of two groups of humans and they were not allowed to mate with one another (for whatever reason that we have lost in time)

To say it is Angels from heaven who disobey God is a stretch of the imagination and not taking meanings of words and other verses into account. It is only looking at those particular verses and taking them at exact literal and basing your decisions upon that alone without looking elsewhere in the bible for more realistic interpretation.

reply to post by Jameela


And I explained Hebrew and Greek to you.

Guess that's all irrelevant?

I'll go with the interpretation of the 70 greatest Hebrew scholars in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah who translated Genesis 6 as "Aggelos" when they made the Septuagint in 270 BC.

No offense.

All of this is in the bible, and using the bible to explain the bible you find that what is referred to as Sons of God in that verse can refer to humans and not some non human entity.

What do you think the Septuagint is? Christ used it when He taught in the synagogues.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Better not to accept anyone's interpretation and translation of the original...Best to know the original yourself and trust what you have learned, after learning it well.

When you accept scholars interpretation over scriptural you have lost.

Originally posted by Jameela
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Better not to accept anyone's interpretation and translation of the original...Best to know the original yourself and trust what you have learned, after learning it well.

When you accept scholars interpretation over scriptural you have lost.

Jesus quoted the Septuagint. If it's good enough for the Lord to use, why not me?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


www.kjvtoday.com...

There is much debate whether Jesus used the Septuagint, I do not believe He ever did, I believe He used the Masoretic texts. You can examine the link above at will.

Then ask why would Jesus (as) the Messiah (as) use a translation of the original? Did He not know the original? Did the common people of the day speak in Greek or Aramaic?

I postulate He, in fact, used the Hebrew and relayed it thusly to the people.

reply to post by Jameela

There is much debate whether Jesus used the Septuagint, I do not believe He ever did, I believe He used the Masoretic texts. You can examine the link above at will.

The Messoretic Text (MT) was a product of the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD. Jesus died in 32 AD.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I am going by what would most be considered Masoretic, as the Qumran scrolls are more in line with the Masoretic than with the Septuagint, even though there appeared much diversity there was approximately 60% of the texts found that were in line with Masoretic with some disagreeing with both and a much smaller percentage agreeing with the Septuagint.

Perhaps scholars can more easily make the Septuagint fit with what they believe and/or want you to believe and old hebrew cannot be twisted so easily.

Remember, Jesus (as) did not have nice things to say about people who followed every word from scholars' mouth instead of learning for themselves....

I would learn from the Hebrew and never once a translation! I am positive Jesus (as) was smarter than me, we learn from the original first, then translate it to the language of the people. This is in any language, you never learn from a translation because when you do you are taking someones word for the meaning therein, hence, you are taking your entire religion from someone, instead of from the text..aka Gods Word.

Apparently God's word way back when was not Greek. The blind leading the blind.

Originally posted by ILikeStars
just on a hunch....

anyone ever try applying the verses of the bible to the verses of the bible and then read what it says?

Not sure what you mean, could you give an example?

Angelic Human Race
I believe im a Angelic human and ive been visited 3 times in my life by these beings..peace,sugarcookie1

reply to post by sugarcookie1


Let's mate and see if we can produce a hybrid.