Results 1 - 16 of 16
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | Makarios | 108057 | ||
Greetings EdB, No, Angels do not procreate. Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35 Therefore, their number remains the same. "And if it does how do you know new ones aren't created (born or otherwise) to replace the ones that might die or become fallen angels?" This is sheer speculation on your part, and Scripture does not even begin to mention such a possibility. "Why is (it) impossible for them to have sexual relations with humans?" 1) Their nature is different. (Eph. 3:10; Col. 1:16) 2) They do not marry. (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35) 3) Angels worship God (Neh. 9:6; Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 1:6) 4) Angels obey God (Ps. 103:20; Matt. 6:10; Luke 11:2; 1 Peter 3:22; 2 Peter 2:11; Jude 6) We base these beliefs on the Bible. Or, perhaps you feel that "sons of God", which is a phrase that every Bible version since the Vulgate includes, should be changed to the single word "angels" instead? Makarios |
||||||
2 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | EdB | 108172 | ||
Makarios Sir I reread the last paragraph of this post and you do me an injustice. Let me ask what brought that about? I merely asked where New Creature got their facts and suggested alternatives. As for the proof you offer, I have responded to it but let me recap. Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35 These verse say nothing about the ability of angels to procreate or not. They simply say angels don't marry perhaps they are all male. You then quiet definitively said therefore their numbers remain the same. What if God decided to create more angels and didn't tell you? Don't you see you can't make such a statement as fact? Your right is was sheer speculation on my part but so was yours. The you give 4 points why is not possible for them to have sex. Point 2 we have talked about. Point 1,3,4 does not address fallen angels, nor does it address whether angels can procreate or not. Your last paragraph to me is a cheap shot. Many many respected and well thought of theologians consider the possibility the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 could be angels, fallen or otherwise. Your attempt to demean me and that fact by suggestting we change the Bible is uncalled for. If you read my note to the orginal question I offered both possibilities and emphasised the point that who the sons of God were was not of importance. What was important was what followed after. I never suggestted that I thought son of God were angels, I merely was making the point we simply don't know. I'm sorry if that offened you in some way but I don't see where you last paragraph was called for because of it. EdB |
||||||
3 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | Makarios | 108297 | ||
Greetings Ed, You write a post that sheds doubt on the fact that angels do not procreate, and you say that I do you an injustice? I know that you asked New Creature about his facts, and I am standing up for New Creature in his place, if that need be so. I am ready to go to battle on this issue, and my mind is set. I will not be changing my mind, and I will not 'agree to disagree' either. I believe that you are very clearly in the wrong regarding the nature of angels if you hold that angels procreate. I strongly disagree with you on how you interpret Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:35. But let me also say this to you - that there is no Scripture verse in the entire Bible that would give you any support in leading anyone to believe that angels, at any time or at any event, could procreate. As for what if God decided to create more angels? Well, my friend, you have introduced the speculation by saying those exact words "What If". None of my posts on the subject of Genesis 6:4 have ever (not once) said the words "what if". Therefore, you are clearly dabbling in nothing but speculation. And there is no way for you to prove that my point of view is speculative in any way. In that regard, you must concede, since my view does not violate any portion of Scripture whatsoever. No, Ed. My last paragraph was not a so called "cheap shot." It is the truth, and it drives home my point to you. You say many respected theologians consider the possibility that the sons of God in Gen. 6:2 could be angels? Then perhaps we should change the words to 'angel'. No, I am not attempting to 'demean' you by any means. But I am showing you the error of this understanding, and I am determined to drive home my point. I will not even consider the absurdity that angels are being spoken of in Genesis 6:2. Makarios |
||||||
4 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | EdB | 108313 | ||
Makarios You say "You write a post that sheds doubt on the fact that angels do not procreate, and you say that I do you an injustice?" Yes you do because whether you want to admit it or not scripture simple does not say Angels do or do not procreate. For you to state emphatically that it does, does both me and you an injustice. This is not a new invention of mine but rather accepted theology in many circles, the fact you disagree is okay but unless you can show scripture that clearly states angels are incapable of procreation you stand on nothing. Consider 2 Peter 2:2-6 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; [3] and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. [4] For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; [5] and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; [6] and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; Notice the context Peter is talking about sexual immorality here and throws in verse 4 talking about the special punishment some angels have already received . Now we know not all the fallen angels aren’t in Tartaros because we understand them to be Satan’s demons. Why are some enchained and others not? EdB |
||||||
5 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | Makarios | 108316 | ||
Greetings Ed, 2 Peter 2:2-6 does not, in any way, prove that angels can procreate. In no way is Peter associating sexual immorality with angels. He simply says, "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;".. What Peter IS saying in these verses, is that if God would not spare His own angels who rebelled against Him, and did not spare the ancient world when the flood came, then He will not spare those who live today, who follow in sin and unrepetance. In no way does Peter associate sexual immorality with the rebellion of the angels. So I say yet again: There is no Scripture that you could provide, or hope to provide, that would show that angels are capable of procreation. Makarios |
||||||
6 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | EdB | 108321 | ||
Makarios Consider what is say before you answer so quickly. Are all fallen angels in Tartaras? I think not. We understand them to be the demons of Satan. so why were these Angels singled out/ I have no idea but again context suggest it may have been sexual in nature. May have been! All I'm saying is scripture does not totally rule out the possibility that the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 was angels. While I seriously doubt they were, scripture does not shut that door completely. Therefore no one should infer that scripture eliminates that possibility. EdB |
||||||
7 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | Makarios | 108326 | ||
Greetings Ed! When I answer, I do not answer as "quickly" as it may seem to you, my friend. :-) No, I do not believe that a "sexual" sin would have been responsible for the angels rebelling against God and turning into demons. I believe that the angels that rebelled against God did so out of pride (Isaiah 14:14). I believe that it was pride that killed their relationship with God. I do not believe that angels have bodies of sin, as we do, that would make them susceptible to such 'bodily sins' as lust. And I believe that there is nothing in Scripture that would prove this- that angels also have bodies of sin, as we do. Makarios |
||||||
8 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | EdB | 108331 | ||
Makarios Slow down and read what I say. You understood what I said to mean something I never meant. I quote "No, I do not believe that a "sexual" sin would have been responsible for the angels rebelling against God and turning into demons. I never said that or inferred it. Your absolutely right pride is what took them down. I was talking after they fell. Angels apparently can eat, they apparently can be touched. The men of Sodom actually lusted after them. So they must be able to take some form. Slow down my brother I'm not saying your wrong. I'm simply stating the fact that nothing in the Bible eliminates with certainty that angels weren't the sons of God spoken about in Genesis 6:2. While I don't believe that they were none of us can honestly say the Bible clearly eliminates this possibility. EdB |
||||||
9 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | Makarios | 108333 | ||
Greetings Ed, I have already considered all of what you say. But the simple fact of the matter is, is that you cannot make the 'leap' to procreation from the fact that the Bible does mention that certain angels took the shape of men. And I believe that to do so would be to clearly in the area of speculation. Makarios |
||||||
10 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | EdB | 108338 | ||
But since the Bible doesn't say one way or the other to say not would also be the same leap of speculation EdB |
||||||
11 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | Makarios | 108343 | ||
Greetings Ed, For you to make the "leap" that angels can procreate because they can assume shape is so much more of a leap than I saying that angels cannot procreate, because I cannot find such an occurrence in God's Holy Word, and I am, in fact, told otherwise about their nature and being. Makarios |
||||||
12 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | EdB | 108354 | ||
Okay, what do you want me to say? Unless you can prove the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 weren't angels then all your doing is speculating also. And we are faning the wind. EdB |
||||||
13 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | Makarios | 108357 | ||
Greetings Ed, All I need is to read the verse. Makarios |
||||||
14 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | EdB | 108368 | ||
Okay | ||||||
15 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | Makarios | 108371 | ||
Okay as in "agreement"? | ||||||
16 | Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | EdB | 108381 | ||
Makarios I could never agree that the Bible says angels can't procreate. EdB |
||||||