The belief that Fallen Angels mated with human women

It can be interpreted in Genesis 6:4 that Fallen Angels lusted after human women and mated with them, and their offspring became heroes of renown. Also, according to the Book of Enoch, this same idea is repeated. I would like to discuss these beliefs in this thread.

First, I suppose we need to know what an angel is. According to dictionary.com an 'angel' is "one of a class of spiritual beings; a celestial attendant of God. In medieval angelology, angels constituted the lowest of the nine celestial orders (seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominations or dominions, virtues, powers, principalities or princedoms, archangels, and angels)."

Dictionary.com goes on to explain a 'spiritual being' as "an incorporeal being believed to have powers to affect the course of human events".

It then explains 'incorporeal' as "not corporeal or material; insubstantial."

So, it then seems that an angel would be an immaterial being, who is a celestial attendant of god, and is believed to have powers to affect the course of human events.

According to the bible, 1/3 of these celestial, immaterial beings somehow rebelled against the loving god and creator of the universe. They became fallen angels.

Though they are genderless, and without male reproductive organs, they somehow lusted after human women, and desired to mate with them. How is this possible? IMO, it would be like human men all lusting and desiring to mate with chimpanzees. Next, is it possible that these fallen angels had male reproductive organs? Were there also female angels with reproductive organs? If so, could they mate with each other and produce angelic offspring? If not, why did they have reproductive organs?

Next, it is said that they no longer were angels, but they became human men. Did none of them become human women? If not, why not? After this, they mated with human women and had offspring. These offspring are the ones who were an abomination to god. They were heroes of old, men of renown. Some even say they were giants, or some kind of hybrid beings called Nephilim.

If angels became human men who were compatible with human women in such a way that offspring could be born, why were they hybrid, abnormal offspring? If their dna was compatible with human dna, why weren't their offspring normal humans? How could hybrids be born from sexual reproduction? If these angels retained their own dna, though they became human, how would they be compatible with human women? It would be like a man becoming a chimpanzee but retaining his own dna, then mating with chimpanzees and having offspring. It wouldn't work, because the dna would not be compatible through sexual reproduction. One other possibility would be genetic manipulation.

Now, if genetic manipulation is the answer, then no sexual reproduction is needed, nor is lusting to mate with human women necessary. It would mean that these angels had some form of technology to extract human women dna, and their own dna and splice it together and possibly reinserting this combination back into the woman to give birth to it. If that is the case, where did these angels get their instruments to do these experiments? Did they fashion them from dirt? Do they have a factory that makes them? Can they create things out of thin air like their god?

This explains the whole dinosaur thing.

Originally posted by ValentineWiggin
This explains the whole dinosaur thing.

So dinosaurs were heroes of old, men of renown?

Genesis 6 is what talks about the Nephilim,

The KJV reads like this;

Genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

A more literal rendering of this verse, reads like this (This is the CLV version, what a couple words changed by me)

Genesis 6:4 "Now the distinguished (Nephilim) come to be in the earth in those days,
and, moreover, afterward, coming are those who are sons of the Elohim (God),
to the daughters of the humans, and they bear for them.
They are the masters, who are from the eon (eternity, outer realms), mortals with the name."



I think a lot of ancients (The mesoamerican and early mesopetamian) were visited by these beings, and many of the barbaric religions of say, the aztecs, were started by these "descended" masters.....

Theres some really interesting vids and websites out there explaining the Nephilim

It does not actually say "fallen angels" in Genesis.
That idea comes from later books written in the early Christian era.
"Sons of God" is what Genesis says, along with "daughters of men", so there is a dichotomy between god-like, and human-like people, and is most likely to do with branches of the family from Adam and Eve, where you have sons of Cain, and sons of Seth, and maybe even sons of Abel, if he had lived long enough to have had children before being murdered. This section (about intermarrying) comes right after the introduction of this idea of the descendants of Seth beginning to call upon the name of The Lord, so it could be really talking about a custom of naming their children after whatever name they had for god, so in a way, these so named individuals could be considered the sons of god.

Originally posted by Iason321
Genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

The way I see it ( I don't have the holy spirit helping me btw) is that "there were giants in those days, and also after that" is speaking that there were giants before the flood, and after the flood....which there were according to the bible. And, imo, it is saying that those giants came because of the union of the sons of god and daughters of men. Yes, I could be wrong.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
It does not actually say "fallen angels" in Genesis.
That idea comes from later books written in the early Christian era.
"Sons of God" is what Genesis says, along with "daughters of men", so there is a dichotomy between god-like, and human-like people, and is most likely to do with branches of the family from Adam and Eve, where you have sons of Cain, and sons of Seth, and maybe even sons of Abel, if he had lived long enough to have had children before being murdered. This section (about intermarrying) comes right after the introduction of this idea of the descendants of Seth beginning to call upon the name of The Lord, so it could be really talking about a custom of naming their children after whatever name they had for god, so in a way, these so named individuals could be considered the sons of god.

Do you agree or disagree with the Book of Enoch? Next, why did these offspring become heroes of old, men of renown if they were normal humans?

reply to post by Hydroman

I think it was ET Beings, not Angels. And it wasn't "a lust for sex" like religion says it was, it was Genetic Experiments with Human Beings and Themselves to produce a Hybrid Being. For a slave labor force. Well, now, we are like them.

reply to post by Hydroman


(Folds hands and prays)

Dear, Jesus,

Please let me be the first one to post this, in this thread.

Originally posted by autowrench
I think it was ET Beings, not Angels. And it wasn't "a lust for sex" like religion says it was, it was Genetic Experiments with Human Beings and Themselves to produce a Hybrid Being. For a slave labor force. Well, now, we are like them.

Where are these E.T. beings? If they were here and present at one time, for all to see, where did they go? What made them go in to hiding?

fallen angels??

what are these things?
seriously

reply to post by Hydroman


I don't know but it is a great question. I think it is interesting that the Bible in many ways seems to parallel or draw from Greek mythology.

n the literary Trojan War of the Iliad, the Olympic gods, goddesses, and demigods fight and play great roles in human warfare. Unlike practical Greek religious observance, Homer’s portrayals of them suited his narrative purpose, being very different from the polytheistic ideals Greek society used. To wit, the Classical-era historian Herodotus says that Homer, and his contemporary, the poet Hesiod, were the first artists to name and describe their appearance and characters.[4] In Greek Gods, Human Lives: What We Can Learn From Myths, Mary Lefkowitz discusses the relevance of divine action in the Iliad, attempting to answer the question of whether or not divine intervention is a discrete occurrence (for its own sake), or if such godly behaviors are mere human character metaphors. The intellectual interest of Classic-era authors, such as Thucydides and Plato, was limited to their utility as "a way of talking about human life rather than a description or a truth", because, if the gods remain religious figures, rather than human metaphors, their "existence"—without the foundation of either dogma or a bible of faiths—then allowed Greek culture the intellectual breadth and freedom to conjure gods fitting any religious function they required as a people.[5][6]

In The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, psychologist Julian Jaynes uses the Iliad as a major supporting evidence for his theory of Bicameralism, which posits that until about the time described in the Iliad, humans had a much different mentality than present day humans, essentially lacking in what we call consciousness. He suggests that humans heard and obeyed commands from what they identified as gods, until the change in human mentality that incorporated the motivating force into the conscious self. He points out that almost every action in the Iliad is directed, caused, or influenced by a god, and that earlier translations show an astonishing lack of words suggesting thought, planning, or introspection. Those that do appear, he argues, are misinterpretations made by translators imposing a modern mentality on the characters.en.wikipedia.org...[7]

They don't have anything to do with each other and yet demi-Gods exist in both stories of early man, in the Bible and in Greek Myths.
They recount a time when there clearly was this "other" or GODS, (from the heavens came) on the planet. It is interesting to note psychologist Julian Jaynes evidence for his theory of Bicameralism above. I am in the camp that believes some kind of "other" maybe others (Gods) did roam the earth or something that early man identified as GODS. I do not think the idea of GOD is a trick to enslave people. It may actually have been the case though. I do think the Bible is heavily edited and acts as a human tool to take advantage of the belief many people have in God.

reply to post by windword


Then I pose the same question to you. Where are these E.T.s? If they were present here, for all to see, why did they go in to hiding?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by ValentineWiggin
This explains the whole dinosaur thing.

So dinosaurs were heroes of old, men of renown?

I said this half jokingly, half seriously.

I had a preacher, back in the days in which I attended church, who believed this passage to mean the offspring of Angels and Humans were dinosaurs (giants). Take that as you will, I always thought it was an interesting perspective at least.

reply to post by Hydroman


I'm no expert on this, and it's been a long time since I had the patience to sit down and read the book of Enoch, but weren't they called "The Watchers" that are above?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Hydroman

 

I'm no expert on this, and it's been a long time since I had the patience to sit down and read the book of Enoch, but weren't they called "The Watchers" that are above?

Yeppers.

reply to post by Hydroman

Do you agree or disagree with the Book of Enoch? Next, why did these offspring become heroes of old, men of renown if they were normal humans?

Enoch advocates a belief in the de-creation of the Earth which I do not support.
"Men of renown", I think it says.
The OT contradicts itself, and this is one example, where supposedly here is a history of Earth before the flood, then it acts as if there was never a flood, otherwise why would you see people after the flood somehow descended from these people who were supposedly eradicated by the flood?
I have to see Genesis as a collection of stories which overlapped and were inconsistent for making a single story, so people would take them as individual stories, one at a time, and not be concerned that they don't smoothly go along with the other stories found before or after, on the roll of the scroll.

Originally posted by ValentineWiggin
I said this half jokingly, half seriously.

I had a preacher, back in the days in which I attended church, who believed this passage to mean the offspring of Angels and Humans were dinosaurs (giants). Take that as you will, I always thought it was an interesting perspective at least.

I suppose crocodiles could be part human then if that is the case?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Enoch advocates a belief in the de-creation of the Earth which I do not support.
"Men of renown", I think it says.
The OT contradicts itself, and this is one example, where supposedly here is a history of Earth before the flood, then it acts as if there was never a flood, otherwise why would you see people after the flood somehow descended from these people who were supposedly eradicated by the flood?
I have to see Genesis as a collection of stories which overlapped and were inconsistent for making a single story, so people would take them as individual stories, one at a time, and not be concerned that they don't smoothly go along with the other stories found before of after, on the roll of the scroll.

It IS interesting that after the flood, Moses's scouts discover a remnant of giants that are so big it makes the scouts feel like grasshoppers compared to them.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by ValentineWiggin
I said this half jokingly, half seriously.

I had a preacher, back in the days in which I attended church, who believed this passage to mean the offspring of Angels and Humans were dinosaurs (giants). Take that as you will, I always thought it was an interesting perspective at least.

I suppose crocodiles could be part human then if that is the case?

If you go by his theory then yes, I suppose that could be true. I will dig around in scripture later and try to remember his particular sermon on this.