sort by best latest
Rod Martin Jr says
This answer sums up pretty much everything I was going to say. Great answer from the Judeo-Christian perspective.
You really read your Bible. I met many people who did not pick up on that there were two creations of man. I agree with ElleBee, well answered from a Biblical perspective.
- See all 2 commentsHide extra comments
Darrell Roberts says
He is most definitely a male entity.
Who wrote the Bible?
The Bible is written with the use of anthropomorphism - ascribing human form or attributes to a nonhuman thing or being. This is done to help us understand God. God is a spirit John 4:24
Charles Hilton says
Where in Genesis is there mention of angels mating with humans? The bible states that angels are only set in motion when they are doing God's work, psalm 103:20, 1 peter 1:12, 1 peter 3:22, 2 peter 2:11
Genesis 6:2 - 6:4 is one of the most enigmatic passages in the Bible, that mentions the "sons of God" mating with the "daughters of men" and having children by them who were giants, aka Nephilim.
Also, see Num.13:32-33 and the Book of Enoch.
Thank you for providing the scriptures, but there are no mention of angels in either of those passages; they both mention giants, but giants aren't angels and the sons of God are men. Gen 6:1-7 tells of that.
Some translations read 'giants' others read 'Nephilim', which were fallen angels. The Septuagint and Codex Vaticanus used the word 'Angels' for that passage. Medieval Jews edited 'angels' out.
I have searched and have only come across the words giants or nephilim with the annotation that defines it as a giant. The bible is really good at explaining itself and when it wants to say that someone is a spirit, has a spirit, is an angel, it does
Actually, the Bible is very ambiguous in places, and the story of the Nephilim is just one example. Why would it say "the daughters of men," but, not "the sons of men"? And how would mere mortals produce giants?
There is some ambiguity in the bible, but that 'open for interpretation' mindset dissipates the more you study it and get to know the word. God doesn't change and his desires for our lives will never change. Heb 13:8. Gal 3:26 for "sons of God"
Actually, I have studied it---extensively. I'm a former fundamentalist Baptist; now lapsed Catholic who no longer believes the Bible to be God's word just because it claims to be. Any book can make that claim and many do.
I'd call Robert Wadlow & John Rogan giants. Mortals also produce little people. No other book has statistically stood up to the Bible in terms of things that it claims and proof that it happened. 2 Timothy 3:16-17. What do you think is God's word
You can't claim a book to be perfect just because it claims itself to be; and cherry-picked quotes from said book are NOT proof of its infallibility.
As for proofs and claims, the Bible fails miserably, as do all religious texts.
This is why I asked what you believe is God's word. Because if that scripture says it is and you disagree, you must have another source you rely on. And while studying the Bible, were you applying what it said to your life? Doing what it said?
If there is 'God's' word, it is nature. Indigenous peoples saw God all around them and they learned about God from creation. Anything more leads to abuse. Humans existed long before civilizations and books. What was 'God's word' then?
I agree with Charles the Bible is a bit ambiguous in some instances. I also agree that the "Sons of God" were the angels. I use to study the Bible diligently until I found the Bhagavad-Gita. I hope you both get a chance to read the Gita. :)
The people in the Bible didn't read a book to know God, he physically walked, talked, provided for them. I agree that nature is an excellent example of God. Even the way the human body works. Darrell Roberts, what's the gita?
- See all 14 commentsHide extra comments
God man "man" in His own image, but God is not Homo sapiens. God made Adam later. And Adam of the Garden was not Adam of Earth. See Genesis 5:2 for clarification.
Read Genesis 1:26-27 Notice the word "He."
It is erroneous to take the book of Genesis literally. Even the Church regards the creation story as allegory.
And dismissing allegory puts God in a literalist straight-jacket and deprives believers of valuable insights.
What Church Charles?
There is only one unified Christian Church that I would Capitalize---the original Christian Church; the Catholic Church.
Understand now. So you are reading fro the Catholic Bible?
The only difference between the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible is that the then self-appointed Protestant Pope, Martin Luther, disapproved of certain books and had them removed. Other than the Apocrypha, they're both the same.
I've never read the Catholic Bible, What about purgatory and other things that are not in the King James Version?
- See all 8 commentsHide extra comments