Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | are there female amgels? | Matt 22:30 | azurelaw | 214363 | ||
Dear carlygrips, Welcome to the forum. Hope the below information is helpful for you. Shalom Azure ************ The Bible does not necessarily support the gender of angels being male or female. Whenever gender is specifically “assigned” to an angel in Scripture, it is male (Genesis 19:10-12; Revelation 7:2; 8:3; 10:7). However, this does not necessarily indicate that angels are male. Matthew 22:30 seems to indicate that angels are “sexless,” without gender: “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” If angels do not procreate, there is no need for gender, at least not in the sense of human gender distinctions. In a similar manner, God always refers to Himself in masculine language, although God is neither male nor female. He just uses masculine language because it more adequately describes who He is and what He does, especially in the patriarchal cultures in which the Bible was written. If angels do have a gender, in some form, Scripture would indicate that they are predominately or universally male. It is more likely that angels are genderless, just as God is, and that masculine language is just used to describe them and their role in serving God. Source: http://gotquestions.org/angels-male-female.html |
||||||
2 | Gen 6: 2; angels are "sons of God" ???? | Matt 22:30 | asilra | 214393 | ||
On one hand I tend to believe angels are androgenous, but in gen 6: 2 "...the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose." I was taught that the "sons of God" were angels and that this passage accounted for Goliath's giant size. This raises a question for me, Why does God blame man/woman so severely since it would be thought that the sons of God would be more accountable for their actions when compared to man. Humanity at this point reminds be of an infant, controlled by what feels good/bad, easily swayed by others, and still learning about him/herself and the environment thru trial and error. It seems God was rather harsh and definitely impatient when it came to his creation. I suppose the above question may be more rhetorical than not but I would appreciate anybody's further thoughts on this. Thank God for Jesus. |
||||||
3 | Gen 6: 2; angels are "sons of God" ???? | Matt 22:30 | BMyers | 214396 | ||
There is debate on what the "sons of God" means. I've attached the notes from Bible below. Notes from my ESV Study Bible: The identity of both groups is uncertain, and various solutions have been advocated, although none has gained universal support. Various scholars have proposed that the “sons of God” are (1) fallen angels (cf. Job 1:6; some, however, suggest that this contradicts Mark 12:25, though the reference in Mark is to angels in heaven; see also 2 Pet. 2:4–5; Jude 5–6); or (2) tyrannical human judges or kings (in the ungodly line of Lamech, possibly demon-possessed); or (3) followers of God among the male descendants of Seth (i.e., the godly line of Seth, but who married the ungodly daughters of Cain). |
||||||
4 | Gen 6: 2; angels are "sons of God" ???? | Matt 22:30 | stjohn | 214401 | ||
Hi aslira, Welcome to the forum! Personally, I don't know why people read that the offspring were "The Nephilim" or giants. If we read it carefully, we see that it says: The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, AND ALSO AFTERWARD, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (CAP'S) are mine for emphasis. So you see the Nephilim (which may not even mean giants) were already in the land, because it says "afterward", "the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them" And the children of these "people" were simply, "mighty men who were of old, men of renown." It does not say they were Nephilim. Whoever or whatever the Nephilim were, they were not their children. I think this is perhaps one of the most misunderstood verses in the Bible. But, people being people, it seems that most people, want to believe the fantastic. Just my two cents. John |
||||||