The following discussion took place due to the Quora site question: Could there be descendants of fallen angels today?
A certain Paul Manning, self-identified as, “A keen Bible student,” replied
The idea of fallen angels has its origins in the rather salacious fiction known as the Book of Enoch but many people have been convinced—without evidence—that it is supported in the Bible.
It’s popularity can thus be put down to none other than the human desire for corruption and intrigue among celestial beings. If the story was in the Bible we could safely consign the entire gospel message to the scrapheap because the implication would be that God’s trusted immortal servants are as corruptible as any human being, thus no proclamation from heaven could be relied on.
The bemusing aspect of the whole charade is that for centuries highly qualified scholars have failed to correctly interpret the ancient idiom “fallen from heaven” as an astrological term but choose to read it as commentary on events for which they have to manufacture the backstory.
In his Book of the Watchers, Enoch fills in what he imagines to be the missing details from Genesis 6, another trap for those who without batting an eyelid, boldly lay charges of spiritual wickedness on the doorstep of heaven itself.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”
Paul Manning
Using a passage in Job to interpret Genesis 6 is an interesting tactic to give you a quick answer.
The argument that Peter and Jude speak of angelic misdemeanor is a huge assumption given that aggelos is a Greek word carried over into English. Again, it gives you a quick answer without disturbing the truth out of its muddy puddle.
Ken Ammi
Using a passage in Job to interpret Genesis 6 is an application of hermeneutics.
I’m unsure whence you got the concept of “misdemeanor”: misdemeanors traditionally don’t get you eternally condemned. Nor do misdemeanors serve as premise for a flood.
Yet, it’s not an assumption but that which both Jude and Peter told us about the sin of Angels.
Paul Manning
So that went over your head.
Peter and Jude spoke of leaders who went astray, and cited Old Testament examples. There is no such example of angels doing anything, so you cite Peter as proof that your version of Genesis 6 is true, then cite Gen 6 as proof the other way, in blatant circular reasoning. I informed you that aggelos is not limited to God’s messengers but you don’t seem interested in anything that gets in the way of your good story.
Aggelos means messenger or envoy, and the Old Testament reference is clear because of their notable fate.
Ken Ammi
Peter and Jude spoke of leaders who went astray, and cited the Old Testament example of the Angels who went astray.
Who were the Gen 6 and Job 38:7 sons of God?
By “fate” did you mean “feat”?
Paul Manning
Hi Ken, the sons of God in Genesis 6 were the descendants of Seth and Job 1 refers to God’s angels. Peter and Jude cite the rebellion of Korah from Numbers 16.
Ken Ammi
Well, that “the sons of God in Genesis 6 were the descendants of Seth” is a late-comer of a view based on myth, prejudice and which only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).
I didn’t ask about Job 1 but, sure, plus 2 and 38.
I’m unaware that Korah engaged in sexual sin.
Paul Manning
Korah’s sin was an example of judgment on rebellious teachers usurping authority. Jude covers the same ground, dealing with false teachers coming into the ecclesia who badmouth the apostles, deny the true Christ and preach licentious doctrines. He specifically mentions Korah.
Both Peter and Jude mention that these leaders ‘revile angelic majesties’ which implies they teach the crass novel, the Book of the Watchers as if it were true. That is where the ‘sons of God’ is taken to mean God’s angelic host, entirely without evidence. The ‘Enoch’ book was a bestseller because people love that kind of thing.
The two genealogies are in chapters 4 and 5. Context is important in Bible interpretation. Did it not occur to you that there were just two major tribes in those days separated by some distance overland?
Ken Ammi
Yes, he “specifically mentions Korah” and specifically mentions Angels and the sin of the two specify one key difference: there’s no indication of sexual sin in the Korah scenario but there is regarding Angels.
I’ve no idea how you jumped from “Both Peter and Jude mention that these leaders ‘revile angelic majesties’” that that this “implies they teach the crass novel, the Book of the Watchers as if it were true”: that’s not an implication, that’s an inference and an unviable one.
It’s flummoxing that you asserted, “‘sons of God’ is taken to mean God’s angelic host, entirely without evidence” after having admitted, “Job 1 refers to God’s angels.”
Indeed, “The ‘Enoch’ book was a bestseller because people love that kind of thing” and it’s Bible contradicting folklore form centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch”
What make you think that only exclusively males from one of the “major tribes” married only exclusively females from the other and what was so very wrong about it that it served as the premise for the flood?
Paul Manning
Korah is an example of “gainsaying” and usurping authority which was the problem in the ecclesias Peter and Jude had to address.
Peter and Jude refer to wayward leaders who ‘revile angelic majesties’. One can’t say specifically what reviling he refers to, but it is certain that the ‘Watchers’ story is a long, detailed, and fictional blasphemy against heaven itself.
Peter mentions aggelos, so whether he means divine or human is open to interpretation. “Angels”, in English, suggesting God’s host, is entirely supposition.
You should not be flummoxed by my criticism of scholars who insist that ‘sons of God’ must must be interpreted according to Job 1 usage. It must be interpreted according to context. The context of Genesis 4-6 has not a single mention of angels but is linked to the previous chapters which provides the genealogy of the sons of Adam, and states that they “called upon the name of the Lord”.
Ken Ammi
Korah is only one of the many things mentioned by Jude and Peter so I’m unsure why you’re fixated on him.
You just merely asserted that the overwhelming of Christians for millennia, including the earliest ones for centuries, held to “fictional blasphemy against heaven itself” are you thereby condemning them all to eternal damnation based on an issue that doesn’t even make it to secondary?
“Peter mentions aggelos, so whether he means divine or human is” made clear by that he and Jude combined place their sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual since which fits the Genesis 6 affair.
As for, “The context of Genesis 4-6 has not a single mention of angels” you’re just missing that in that case, “sons of God” is an a.k.a. for Angels.
You bypassed, “there’s no indication of sexual sin in the Korah scenario but there is regarding Angels.”
You bypassed, “I’ve no idea how you jumped from ‘Both Peter and Jude mention that these leaders ‘revile angelic majesties’’ that that this ‘implies they teach the crass novel, the Book of the Watchers as if it were true’: that’s not an implication, that’s an inference and an unviable one.”
You bypassed, “What make you think that only exclusively males from one of the ‘major tribes’ married only exclusively females from the other and what was so very wrong about it that it served as the premise for the flood?”
Paul Manning
Korah is only one of the many things mentioned by Jude and Peter so I’m unsure why you’re fixated on him.
Not fixated; your red herring/adhominem. (Considering our discussion so far, your comment is hilarious).
You just merely asserted that the overwhelming of Christians for millennia, including the earliest ones for centuries, held to “fictional blasphemy against heaven itself” are you thereby condemning them all to eternal damnation based on an issue that doesn’t even make it to secondary?
The blasphemous accusation against angels of God continues to this day based on an the most popular of two possible interpretations of scripture. You have a choice. #2 You brought damnation into it, not me.
“Peter mentions aggelos, so whether he means divine or human is” made clear by that he and Jude combined place their sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual since which fits the Genesis 6 affair.
That’s funny because you invoke an ‘order of mention’ rule to establish it yet Jude places the event after the Exodus, just where it should be if he refers to Numbers 16.
As for, “The context of Genesis 4-6 has not a single mention of angels” you’re just missing that in that case, “sons of God” is an a.k.a. for Angels.
That is an assertion. You can’t create a rule of interpretation to cover all contexts. ‘Sons of God’ is also an a.k.a for believers.
You bypassed, “there’s no indication of sexual sin in the Korah scenario but there is regarding Angels.”
There is no sexual sin listed in Genesis 6:1–5. The offenders in v 2 ‘took wives’ which is not an offence unless there is a caveat; specifically marrying outside their believing community. Angels are never implicated either before or after the event. The sin in Genesis 6 is listed as ‘wickedness’ and ‘evil thoughts’, but one can assume the general run of murder, robbery, oppression, bisexuality, and beastiality were on show.
You bypassed, “I’ve no idea how you jumped from ‘Both Peter and Jude mention that these leaders ‘revile angelic majesties’’ that that this ‘implies they teach the crass novel, the Book of the Watchers as if it were true’: that’s not an implication, that’s an inference and an unviable one.”
Explain why it is unviable. “Watchers” happens to be blasphemous against the angels and lewd at the same time. There are subtle links in the letters to that book. The leaders Jude refers to are ‘ungodly men’ marked out for condemnation. It isn’t stated exactly what they taught.
You bypassed, “What make you think that only exclusively males from one of the ‘major tribes’ married only exclusively females from the other and what was so very wrong about it that it served as the premise for the flood?”
The record says that the offenders ‘saw’ that these women were ‘beautiful’. Of course they were males, it is only their identity in dispute. You now have to answer why angels waited until this time to ‘see’ that women (all?) were ‘beautiful’, and explain why they, as immortal beings (who neither marry nor are given in marraige) came under the spell of sexual desire.
You are the one who has asserted that this brought the flood, whereas we already know that wickedness and anarchy was rife on Cain’s side of the border, and that there were Nephilim there.
Genesis 6 informs us that those two different worlds came together snuffing out any remaining righteousness.
Ken Ammi
Friend, please don’t argue just to argue and observing (which I’m about to prove correct) that you’re fixated on him isn’t a red herring/adhominem by definitions.
I appealed to Jude to for the contextual reason that he (and Jude) reference sinful Angels (and tell us the when and why of their sin). You fixate on Korah exclusively and ignored, “Jesus Christ…James…God the Father…certain people…ungodly people…God…Master and Lord, Jesus Christ…Jesus…people out of the land of Egypt…angels who did not stay within their own position of authority…Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities…glorious ones…the archangel Michael…the devil…Moses…The Lord…animals…Cain…Balaam…clouds…winds…trees…autumn…waves…foam…Enoch…Adam…the Lord…holy ones…grumblers, malcontents…loud-mouthed boasters…the apostles…our Lord Jesus Christ…scoffers…the Spirit…beloved…the Holy Spirit…God…Lord Jesus Christ…God, our Savior…Jesus Christ our Lord,” etc.
And, you neglected to tell me why you think that Korah engaged in sexual sin. It is the Jude text that corelates the sin of Angels to sexual sin.
So, what does your pastor think about you maliciously and ignorantly condemning hundreds of thousands of Christians through the centuries to eternal damnation based on as issue that isn’t even secondary?
Clearly, Peter wrote chronologically, Jude didn’t: what of it? There’s no logical nor hermeneutical requirement to write chronologically. You’re still left with having to ignore Peter just because what he said, under inspiration, doesn’t fit your man-made tradition.
Indeed, “‘Sons of God’ is also an a.k.a for believers” and “Sons of God” is also an a.k.a. for non-human beings.
You still bypassed, “jumped from ‘Both Peter and Jude mention…’” to that this, “implies they teach the crass novel, the Book of the Watchers as if it were true.”
I’ve no idea what you mean by, “‘Watchers’ happens to be blasphemous against the angels”: Watchers is just an a.k.a. for Angels.
Okay, I see what you’re saying: you’re merely asserting that there were no “beautiful” Sethie women.
I don’t have to, “answer why angels waited until this time to ‘see’ that women (all?) were ‘beautiful’” since they saw that when they saw it. You might as well answer as to why Sethite males waited until this time to see that Sethite women weren’t beautiful but Caininte women were. But, pray tell, when was, “this time”?
See, you’re not only prejudice against the character of Sethites and Cainites, you’re also prejudice again their appearance.
I’m unaware of how, “immortal beings…came under the spell of sexual desire” is any sort of issue since humans are immortal beings and come under the spell of sexual desire on a regular basis. As for Angels, “neither marry nor are given in marriage” please stop manipulating Jesus’ words, especially after having been corrected.
What makes you merely assert, “we already know that wickedness and anarchy was rife on Cain’s side of the border”?
“Genesis 6 informs us that those two different worlds came together snuffing out any remaining righteousness”: indeed, well said, sinful Angels and humans.
Paul Manning
Sorry I can’t follow your reasoning.
Ken Ammi
I’m starting to understand why you hold to a late-comer of a view that’s a man-made tradition.
How about just answering the question then?
That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply