I will not be divulging with whom I had the following discussion since it didn’t take place on the interwebs but via private email exchanges. Yet, it’s still worth posting anonymously in case someone may gain from it in terms of how such discussion can go.
I, Ken Ammi, commenced the interaction by contacting and anonymous him, noting:
I pray I find you well.
In the name of sharpening iron with iron, just wanted to let you know that I posted a review of the subject article:
And article I’m keeping out of this since it would let the cat out of the bag.
The reply was—without a single word of pleasantries and in bold (all bold in that which follows is by anon):
Not one verse in the entire OT where the Hebrew word “adam” is used is it referring to angels but to men of flesh:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h120/kjv/wlc/0-1
God did not create angels with flesh and DNA that can procreate with humans but your free to believe as you wish!
Beginning with sarcasm, I replied:
I’m pleased to be in touch with you as well.
I’m unsure what, “the Hebrew word ‘adam’” has to do with, “referring to angels but to men of flesh.”
As for, “God did not create angels with flesh and DNA that can procreate with humans” well, that’s an assertion and the biblical fact is that Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
Anon’s reply:
I am well aware that angels appear as men and can eat as these passages prove but there is not one verse that so much as hints that angels can procreate:
Genesis 18:2 & 8 and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself to the earth,…..(8) And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
Hebrews 13:2 Forget not to show love unto strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
There are some apostates out there claiming the serpent had sex with Eve so I would assume they also believe he had sex with Eve in the garden immediately after he deceived her as she was already naked:
Genesis 3:1 & 10 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?…..(10) And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
The insanity runs pretty deep down that rabbit hole!
Ken Ammi
Rabbit hole…………more like a serpent hole ;o)
Yet, I’m unsure it’s very deep.
It’s not that, “angels” merely, “appear as men and can eat” but that such is how they are, ontologically.
Also, we were created “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them.
Indeed, Genesis 18:2 & 8 and Hebrews 13:2 aren’t about that Angels can procreate.
That’s based on Gen 6, with Job 38 as support, and pinpointed by a Jude and 2 Peter 2 combo.
As for, “the serpent had sex with Eve” well, for one, Satan’s not an Angel, he’s a Cherub and, no worries, I wrote a five volume set of books again that:
Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. I: Considering Some Issues Which Encircle the Theory
Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. II: Considering Zen Garcia’s Claims
Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. III: Considering the Claims of Various Promulgators of this Theory
Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. IV: Considering the Claims of White Supremacist Promulgators of this View
Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. V: Considering Mysticism and Occultism: from Jewish to Gnostic
Anon:
You poor souls forget who is in control of ALL wombs so that not once has any fallen angel been allowed to impregnate a human!:
1 Samuel 1:5-6 but unto Hannah he gave a double portion; for he loved Hannah, but Jehovah had shut up her womb. (6) And her rival provoked her sore, to make her fret, because Jehovah had shut up her womb.
Job 31:14-15 What then shall I do when God riseth up? And when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? (15) Did not he that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?
Psalms 139:13-16 For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother’s womb. (14) I will give thanks unto thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Wonderful are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well. (15) My frame was not hidden from thee, When I was made in secret, And curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. (16) Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; And in thy book they were all written, Even the days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was none of them.
Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb: I am Jehovah, that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth (who is with me?);
Isaiah 49:5 And now saith Jehovah that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, and that Israel be gathered unto him (for I am honorable in the eyes of Jehovah, and my God is become my strength);
Isaiah 49:5 And now saith Jehovah that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, and that Israel be gathered unto him (for I am honorable in the eyes of Jehovah, and my God is become my strength);
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.
Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.
Luke 1:31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Romans 4:19 And without being weakened in faith he considered his own body now as good as dead (he being about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb;
Galatians 1:15 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace,
I suggest you study why it is that species do NOT interbreed:
As it should be obvious to anyone with two functioning brain cells that angels do NOT and can NOT breed with flesh as they are spirits!:
Hebrews 1:13-14 But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet? (14) Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?
All angels stand by the throne of the Father whether the fallen to His left or the righteous to His right waiting to be sent forth by the Father as ministering spirits:
1 Kings 22:19-23 And Micaiah said, Therefore hear thou the word of Jehovah: I saw Jehovah sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. (20) And Jehovah said, Who shall entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner; and another said on that manner. (21) And there came forth a spirit, and stood before Jehovah, and said, I will entice him. (22) And Jehovah said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also: go forth, and do so. (23) Now therefore, behold, Jehovah hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets; and Jehovah hath spoken evil concerning thee.
Ken Ammi:
Most interesting.
Are you claiming that God causes MILLIONS of women to get pregnant with unwanted babies, and causes MILLIONS babies to die in the wombs of “natural” causes, and causes MILLIONS of abortions, causes MILLIONS of women to suffer and/or die from all sorts of womb related problems, etc.?
As for, “not once has any fallen angel been allowed to impregnate a human!” well, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
Why would they only be missing THE key features of the male anatomy?
We were created “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind”—“species” isn’t biblical taxonomy, “kinds” are so please don’t ignore God’s Word just to attempt to make point, especially one that commits a category error.
Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.
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.”
As it should be obvious to anyone who has studied God’s Word to include the linguistics involved: Angels did and could breed with flesh as they are NOT spirits!: that’s a common misconception based on a man-made tradition and some wrongly translated English versions.
In case you’re unaware, Heb 1 was quoting Ps 104:4 and then playing off of it, see here for how many English versions rightly have it that God makes them, “winds” nor, “spirits” and so ministering, “winds” not, “spirits”:
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm%20104%3A4
I counted 45 versions vs. 12 and what’s important is that the difference in translation isn’t just about flipping a coin, is that, “winds” is in keeping with the context of Ps 104 which, “spirits” isn’t so it fits the narrative’s context which is about constant appeals to natural phenomena.
As for 1 Kings 22, you’re inserting, “Angel” into what the text merely has as, “spirit.”
Anon:
It is up to God as to how and what a person is born with or without:
John 9:2-3 And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? (3) Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
I suggest you study the underlying Hebrew here:
Psalms 8:4-5 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him? (5) For thou hast made him but little lower than God, And crownest him with glory and honor.
And here:
Psalms 104:4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
Hebrews 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h4397/kjv/wlc/0-1
I now understand why you cling to the “LXX” as it not on the same authority as the Hebrew!
Ken Ammi
It’s odd, you seem to reply to less and less of what I write every time you email me: I’m unsure that’s a good idea.
It’s not just about, “what a person is born with or without” but whether they’re born at all. So yes, you claim that God causes MILLIONS of women to get pregnant with unwanted babies, and causes MILLIONS babies to die in the wombs of “natural” causes, and causes MILLIONS of abortions, causes MILLIONS of women to suffer and/or die from all sorts of womb related problems, etc.
I didn’t realize you were some sort of extremist Calvinist.
Being generic is also not helpful in terms of, “the underlying Hebrew” of Psalms 8:4-5.
As for Psalms 104:4, been there, done that so, again, I’m unsure what you mean when you make vague statements.
I’m unsure how I’m clinging to the LXX and I’m the one who urged you to consider that the Hebrew of Psalm 104 and Hebrews 1 should be translated as “winds” as per the context as, again, 45 versions rightly have it.
So, back to one of the issues you decided to sidestep: what was the pre-flood sin of Angels?
Anon:
I am no Calvinist but that does NOT mean I do not believe our Father is absolutely sovereign over all of His creation:
Nowhere in Genesis 6:1-4 is an “angel” once mentioned as committing any sin but “men”(Hebrew ~ H120 ~ Adam) is continuously at fault but you clearly refuse to agree with this:
Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men(Hebrew~adam) began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them,
Genesis 6:2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men(adam) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose.
Genesis 6:3 And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not strive with man(adam) for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.
Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim(men of renown) were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God(Seth’s lineage who were not to commingle with those God drove out just like Israel was told not to marry any foreigners) came in unto the daughters of men(Hebrew~adam), and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
I am not going down that road of fantasy!
Ken Ammi:
I would have thought that “absolutely sovereign over all of His creation” is to be a “Calvinist” but that may be a different discussion about what being absolutely sovereign means: such as your assertion that God personally and specifically, on a case-by-case basis, purposefully causes MILLIONS of women to get pregnant with unwanted babies, and causes MILLIONS babies to die in the wombs of “natural” causes, and causes MILLIONS of abortions, causes MILLIONS of women to suffer and/or die from all sorts of womb related problems, etc.
Interestingly, I literally just emailed someone noting this:
“Now, being bilingual I can tell you that languages are what they are and as much as words have meaning language is tentative and malleable–recall my example of Michael Jackson’s usage of the word, “Bad.” So any one thing can be referred to in various ways and any one word, term, phrase can refer to various things–as annoying and confusing as that may be.”
So, “Nowhere in Genesis 6:1-4 is an ‘angel’ once mentioned” isn’t relevant since, “sons of God” is another way to refer to them.
And so, the exclusive male sons are juxtaposed with exclusively female daughters: of God and of men.
Where there really no attractive female Sethites and no attractive male, “those God drove out”?
And who were, “those God drove out” anyhow?
But I get your meaning that you claim that males in Seth’s lineage were such terrible sinners that their sin (what sin was that?) served as the premise for the flood.
Angels, Nephilim, and humans are all referred to as man/men so it’s a non-issue to write “adam” after the text’s reference to, “men.”
And yes, I’m still tracking those issues and questions you avoid.
Anon:
All it took to curse the entire human race was for Eve to pull a piece of fruit off a forbidden tree and eat it and convince Adam to also eat it!
There is not one verse that even hints that angels are sons of God unless one jumps to an unprovable conclusion with this verse:
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
But lets ignore this verse because it does not fit the narrative:
Psalms 82:6 I said, Ye are gods, And all of you sons of the Most High(God).
I ran many youth groups over the years and it often amazed me how many young women would chase the “bad boy” choosing them over a good looking hard working young man that was interested in them but didn’t get a look cause they weren’t “cool” enough :o(
Yes angels, nephilim, and humans are all referred to as man/men but it clearly is an issue if if not one of those places where angels are referenced but the Hebrew word “adam” is not used in that reference but only “‘îš”:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h376/kjv/wlc/0-1
Your failing to recognize the difference between “adam” of “flesh”:
Genesis 6:3 And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.
And a “spirit” that can manifest as a man yet not have flesh and bones:
Luke 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having.
Hebrews 13:2 Forget not to show love unto strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
Ken Ammi
Well, there are various issues such as that the Bible isn’t about Angelology so we can’t expect many details from it.
I noted that, “Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that ‘sons of God’ can refer to non-human beings.”
So that’s a good place to start.
The Angel view explains why it was only exclusively male sons of God on one side of the Gen 6 equation and why only exclusively female daughters of men on the other.
Then there’s the issue you never touched about 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.
I’m afraid that, the Hebrew word “adam” is a non-issue since Angels are not adams/earth-men and of course the focus of Gen 6 is humans: the entire Bible’s main focus is humans, it’s an anthropological text and not an Angelology text.
Gen 6:1-4 is merely the premise and then the rest of it is about humans—just as is every text, eventually.
I’m unsure why you asserted, “‘spirit’ that can manifest as a man yet not have flesh and bones” just before quoting Jesus referring to, “hands and my feet” yet, “a spirit hath not flesh and bones” but, “ye behold me having” them.
And that ended it 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.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.