maklelan wrote:An absolutely ludicrous and ignorant attempt to uphold an outdated an uninformed dogma. Let's look at some of the assertions made in your little article:
The first thing we need to confirm is that angels are not sexual beings. Jesus addressed this in Luke 20:34-36 when he answered the question from the Sadducees (who do not believe in the resurrection or Angels). Jesus said "The children of this world marry, but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (referring to heaven & the new earth), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are children of God, being the children of the resurrection" (Compare with Matthew 22:29-30 and Mark 12:24-25)
By looking at this statement, we find that Christ taught that the angels do not take part in sexual activity.
The fact that a text written almost one thousand years later says angels don't get married means angels don't take part in sexual activity? Does this mean homosexuals didn't engage in sexual activity in the United States until recently? WHat utter nonsense. But it gets worse:
In Genesis 6:2-6, we see that it refers to "the sons of God". Many have been confused about the identity of these "sons of God". This section of Scripture has puzzled and perplexed a great number of scholars and Bible students for centuries. Some immediately assume the "sons of God" must be fallen angels, but we have already discovered that the Bible teaches that this can't be talking about angels since they don't even have sex with each other, which means that they certainly don't have sexual intercourse with human beings either! It is true that the book of Job uses the phrase "sons of God" in connection with angels, but that is the only book in the whole Bible where this can be found.
Wrong on several accounts. First, it never connects them with angels, it just makes perfectly clear that they are divine and not human. That they have to be angels derives only from the presupposition that they can't be gods. Silly. Next, it's not the only book where they are demonstrably divine. The same is the case in Gen 6:2-4; Deut 32:8, 43; Ps 29:1; 82; 89:6-7. The phrase also does not puzzle or perplex scholars these days. It's only confusing for those who presuppose that it cannot refer to gods.
It's dangerous to build a belief on just one portion of the Bible;
Unless it is about angels not getting married. In that case, go nuts, right?
You need to compare Scripture with Scripture in order to get the whole meaning and idea of a certain teaching or principle.
Or you can use common sense and study the historical, political, ideological, and literary contexts in which the statements were made. That's how we understand the language, after all.
The phrase "sons of God" is used many times in the Bible to refer to men, but more specifically, God's followers here on earth (see Hosea 1:10).
Actually Hos 1:10 uses a different phrase entirely, "sons of the living God (el)." It's an entirely different context and an entirely different phrase.
In Luke 3:38, Adam is called "the son of God" and throughout the new Testament, Christians are referred to as "the sons of God".
Yes, the authors of the New Testament had to reinterpret the scripture. They weren't perfectly consistent, though, were they? 2 Pet 2:4-5 very clearly interprets the beings as angels. Uh-oh. I already linked you to Alexander's article on the rabbinic interpretations of Gen 6:2-4. I suggest you go read it before you pretend to start pontificating on any of this.
So since the "sons of God" are the people on earth that serve and follow the Lord, it would make sense that "the sons of men" or "the daughters of men" could be a title for the wicked people that don't serve God.
Using a separate and entirely distinct context to overrule the immediate and obviously guiding context is what we call eisegesis.
In Genesis 11:5, those who had rebelled against God to build the tower of Babel were called "the sons of men" (NASB & RSV) or "the children of men" (KJV). In the Psalms, the wicked enemies of David were sometimes called "the sons of men" (Psalm 4:2 & Psalm 57:4). Other times, this phrase was used for the human race in a general sense, but it was a title for the wicked in certain cases.
That's because "son of X" meant "member of category X." Thus "sons of the prophets" were prophets, "sons of men" were men, and "sons of God" were gods. You source is also stretching even further by assuming that "sons of X" can just arbitrarily be extended to cover "daughters of X."
If we read Genesis and the story of how sin entered this world, we find that the sons of God are those who are faithful to God and His plan for salvation, from Adam to Abel and down to Seth. On the other hand, the sons and daughters of men are those who are the children of Cain.
So Enoch and Methuselah were wicked?
The judgment pronounced upon the earth was against "man" (verses 3 and 5). God would not punish man because of something the angels had done.
Maybe you should read some of the scholarship on this.
It's also interesting to note that the original Hebrew word "Nephilim" which is translated "giants" in this verse can simply mean "a bully or tyrant" (Strong's Concordance).
That's not true at all. The word means "fallen ones," and Strong's is for people who don't know Greek or Hebrew. It's pretty much useless for actual linguistic or lexicographical research.
Angels are in nature superior to men, for the psalmist says that man was made "a little lower than the angels" (Psalm 8:5).
Actually Ps 8:5 says "lower than the gods (elohim)." The "angels" reading comes from the Greek mistranslation, which also happens to be where you get "giants" from the word Nephilim.
This is now the third alternative explanation of Gen 6:2-4 you've burped up, and you've not been able to respond to a word of my concerns. Anything further?
