It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The belief that Fallen Angels mated with human women

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, he didn't compile manuscripts. There are two families, the Alexandrian MSS (TS,TV,TA), and the Antiochian (TR).

Being that three of them agree, you go with the one that doesn't? Why?




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The sons of God sang for joy at creation. And God is omniscient remember, He knew all this would be. But we're getting off the point now, let's turn this back to Genesis 6.
Are they messengers or not? Did their job description change at some point?


No, not all are messengers to man. You have many "classes" of angels. Seraphim, Cherubim, archangels, etc. Hylel (Lucifer) was the most powerful, highest class (Cherub).



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




I only use TR. Because I only consider TR-based bibles the Word of God. The other versions had tons of verses edited out at Alexandria. Example: The last 12 verses of Mark.

Along with part of the 8th chapter of John, and countless others. I think most laymen who are serious about studying the "originals" go for the TR, considering it is the most complete. And most use Strong's as a reference tool. I still have my old Strong's, and refer to it occasionally when I need a meaning, or a root.



BRAVO!!!! I can talk with you, most people are utterly clueless about that outside of serious textual critics and historians.

Back in the day, I did some exhaustive study on manuscripts and their origins. It was quite enlightening to say the least. Of which you are obviously aware. I came to the same conclusion as you. TR.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, he didn't compile manuscripts. There are two families, the Alexandrian MSS (TS,TV,TA), and the Antiochian (TR).

Being that three of them agree, you go with the one that doesn't? Why?



No bro, the TR is the "majority text". the others are the minor texts



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, he didn't compile manuscripts. There are two families, the Alexandrian MSS (TS,TV,TA), and the Antiochian (TR).

Being that three of them agree, you go with the one that doesn't? Why?


Because of the three that agree, one of them was found in a trashcan(Westcott-Hort), and another has Origen, who was an agnostic at best, at its roots.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


I threw my NIV in the trash. lol

If I look at another version it would be the ESV for clarity with a really tough passage, but after a few months the KJB reads just fine.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, he didn't compile manuscripts. There are two families, the Alexandrian MSS (TS,TV,TA), and the Antiochian (TR).

Being that three of them agree, you go with the one that doesn't? Why?


Because of the three that agree, one of them was found in a trashcan(Westcott-Hort), and another has Origen, who was an agnostic at best, at its roots.


And Westcott and Hort were as they called it into "Spiritism". (Demon worship) No one in their right mind would let them teach a Sunday School class for kids, let alone make a Greek text to base English Bibles on.

Most people are completely ignorant to this fact.


edit on 15-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 
that's actually Doom Metal


think Black Sabbath...

Jesus gonna git you, just a matter of time...



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 



I like it... because a sword can't really come out of a mouth.


Words can though. The sword that comes out of His mouth is the Word of God, the flaming two-edged sword.
exactly... try to get a regular goer or a Catholic to understand that though and it's a different story.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 



I like it... because a sword can't really come out of a mouth.


Words can though. The sword that comes out of His mouth is the Word of God, the flaming two-edged sword.

exactly... try to get a regular goer or a Catholic to understand that though and it's a different story.


They have MUCH bigger issues than that to deal with. lol



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, not all are messengers to man. You have many "classes" of angels. Seraphim, Cherubim, archangels, etc. Hylel (Lucifer) was the most powerful, highest class (Cherub).
What was the purpose of creating different classes of angels? Why were some more powerful than others? Weren't they created before man? If so, why all the classes?



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Redheads. I think those fallen angels had a thing for redheads. Green eyed and freckled - yep. fallen angel DNA.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
So, have we determined how fallen angels had sex with human women and had offspring? How did two different species create offspring through sexual reproduction?

If they became men, why did they create hybrids through sexual reproduction? The only way an offspring could be created would be if the dna between the mother and father were compatible.

I guess another question would be, how would angels become aroused by human women? Weren't they genderless, and had no sexual organs? How would they desire to procreate?
edit on 15-4-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


The way I see it ( I don't have the holy spirit helping me btw) is that "there were giants in those days...

Who says that the giants were not animal life forms? From what I understand the fossils of sharks, alligators, and even insects were giant compared to todays descendants. That could be one reason why the flood was brought. Life was too successful. Huge plants, bugs, and critters would have made life tenuous.

It wasn't going well, it was going too good.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman
So, have we determined how fallen angels had sex with human women and had offspring? How did two different species create offspring through sexual reproduction?

If they became men, why did they create hybrids through sexual reproduction? The only way an offspring could be created would be if the dna between the mother and father were compatible.

I guess another question would be, how would angels become aroused by human women? Weren't they genderless, and had no sexual organs? How would they desire to procreate?
edit on 15-4-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)


You have to stop looking at the question in terms of "angels" being otherworldly spirit forms with no bodies. Throw dictionary.com away because they're basing their definition on something biblical and literal. You need to take the word angel for what it is; A word that was made to describe something that people at the time didn't have the mental capacity to understand.

My opinion: "Angels" were aliens which people in that time frame couldn't come up with a name for to categorize, so they did the best they could in describing them with the language that they had. Problem is, through time mankind was taught by the church, who simply wanted to control people and not educate them, that angels were other worldly spirit forms with no tangible substance nor reproductive organs .

May as well believe in fairies and Santa Clause if you ask me.




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman
So, have we determined how fallen angels had sex with human women and had offspring? How did two different species create offspring through sexual reproduction?

If they became men, why did they create hybrids through sexual reproduction? The only way an offspring could be created would be if the dna between the mother and father were compatible.

I guess another question would be, how would angels become aroused by human women? Weren't they genderless, and had no sexual organs? How would they desire to procreate?
edit on 15-4-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)

What do you think?
Kind of a rhetorical question cause the answer seems obvious.





Misinterpretation of a mortal being.


Originally posted by Aleister
Redheads. I think those fallen angels had a thing for redheads. Green eyed and freckled - yep. fallen angel DNA.
I know I do. Does that mean I'm a descendant of the USS Fallen Angel?

edit on 15/4/12 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
Who says that the giants were not animal life forms? From what I understand the fossils of sharks, alligators, and even insects were giant compared to todays descendants. That could be one reason why the flood was brought. Life was too successful. Huge plants, bugs, and critters would have made life tenuous.

It wasn't going well, it was going too good.

What I keep falling back on is that the bible says that they were heroes of old, men of renown...



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 

If they are "genderless" then how do you explain Incubus and Succubus? And what about Lot and the two "strangers" that the city folk wanted to "know"? Then there is man and woman made in the image of God, and all the other critters with Genitalia, that must have been two by two from across time and the ages in the original interstellar ARK that brought life to this planet. Where do we come off with the genitals?



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by intrptr
Who says that the giants were not animal life forms? From what I understand the fossils of sharks, alligators, and even insects were giant compared to todays descendants. That could be one reason why the flood was brought. Life was too successful. Huge plants, bugs, and critters would have made life tenuous.

It wasn't going well, it was going too good.

What I keep falling back on is that the bible says that they were heroes of old, men of renown...

I just don't combine the two. If the fossils are pre flood and they are big, then that must be the first part of the verse... and the men of renown, etc. Just my take on it.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
If they are "genderless" then how do you explain Incubus and Succubus? And what about Lot and the two "strangers" that the city folk wanted to "know"? Then there is man and woman made in the image of God, and all the other critters with Genitalia, that must have been two by two from across time and the ages in the original interstellar ARK that brought life to this planet. Where do we come off with the genitals?
If they have gender, can they mate with each other and produce offspring? If not, then why do they have genders? Next, how are they compatible with us? Is a human compatible with a chimpanzee?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join