Robert E. Gentet (“graduated from Concordia Seminary in the spring of 1993. I served as pastor of two Lutheran Churches”) wrote an article titled Angels Marry Women? for the Creation History site within the context of, “Nephilim, sons of God, and Genesis 6:1-5.”
He quotes that which I term the Gen 6 affair thusly:
Genesis 6:1-5:
“When men began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit will not abide in man forever, for he is flesh; his days shall be 120 years.’
“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughters of man and they bore children to them. They were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
A subsection is included that’s titled, “The ‘Sons of God’ Seen as Fallen Angels” and notes, “Angels can assume human form (Gen. 19, etc.) and when they do they appear as males” yet, there’s no indication whatsoever that, “can assume human form” rather, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
It’s odd that someone writing for a site called Creation History wrote, “The resulting children became the Nephilim –a cross between the angel world and the human species” since whatever species means isn’t biblical taxonomy, kinds are.
Gentet notes, “Some early Christian leaders taught that the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6:2 were fallen angels who had sexual intercourse with earthly women. Therefore, this ancient understanding should be viewed as legitimate.” Whatever you think of concluding, “should be viewed as legitimate” premised on, “Some early Christian leaders taught” (granting that he offered arguments that I didn’t reproduce herein) the fact is that the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian 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.
He then presents, “The Alternate View”:
#1: How does the Bible interpret the phrase “sons of God”?…
The phrase “sons of God” is, indeed, used to describe the angels of God (Job 2:1, etc.). Even in these supposed “proof” texts of Job 1 and elsewhere where angels are called “sons of God,” it is important to notice that only the righteous angels are the “sons of God”…
God’s people are reckoned as His children, His sons and daughters. In the world after the Deluge, God called forth His people and saved them from Egyptian slavery. He gave them strict laws to obey. Notice how God addressed them:
“You are the sons of the LORD your God. [For this reason] you shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your forehead for the dead. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the people who are on the face of the earth.” (Deuteronomy 14:1-2)…
He adds Isaiah 43:5-7, Hosea 1:10; 11:1, Exodus 4:22-23, and Galatians 3:26, 29.
Robert Gentet then notes:
“To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord” (Genesis 4:26).
Calling upon the name of the Lord is another way of saying they became believers in the true God. They prayed to and worshiped their Creator. It’s the story of the pre-Flood Church…
Note that as per the verse, the, “they” mentioned by Gentet are, “people” in general.
Moreover:
#2: Can All Angels Assume Human Form and Marry?
It’s true that righteous angels can, at times, assume a human, male shape and appear on earth. The interesting and overlooked point is that this is only recorded in all the Scriptures of the righteous angels. There is not one example in the Bible of an evil or fallen angel taking on the shape of a male human. Rather, the Bible often portrays evil angels as unclean animals!…
Of course, righteous angels, when God desires, can appear as male humans. However, it would be absurd to say they would (even if they could) have sexual relations with women. The Bible makes it clear that the righteous angels based in Heaven do not marry. Jesus explicitly said:
“You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they [resurrected humans] neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30).
Here is a clear statement from Christ that angels do not marry, directly contradicting the belief of some that angels marry. While Christ is not directly referring to Genesis 6 here, nevertheless, His response is clear: angels don’t marry. It takes no leap of the imagination to see what Christ would have said if He had been directly asked if the “sons of God” referred to angels marrying women before the Flood!
They don’t need to. They are not mortal. Reproduction is only necessary in the human and animal spheres because of death and the need to continually repopulate the earth. So the ability of righteous angels to sometimes appear as male humans is really no proof for interpreting the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 as evil angels.
Due to what already noted, this was a misguided series of mere assertions, a faulty premise with a faulty conclusion and misrepresenting what Jesus said.
There’s no indication whatsoever, “Angels Assume Human Form…assume a human, male shape” the problem here is actually very common: such people read about Angels looking just like human males, since that’s how they’re described 100% of the time they’re described, and artificially insert that it simply cannot be that God said what He meant and meant what He said so they merely assert that they just assume that morphology—and do so typically, if not always, due to basing their Angelology on one poorly translated modern English word by asserting that they are spirits which they clearly are not.
Thus, the fallacy runs thusly: Angels are spirits, Angels are described as looking like human males, spirits are disembodied, Angels can’t ontologically look like human males ergo, Angles assume human male bodies. That’s false since it assumes they are spirits when they aren’t and that they assume bodies when they don’t.
Thus, it’s true that, “There is not one example in the Bible of an evil or fallen angel taking on the shape of a male human” since none of them ever do.
As for, “portrays evil angels as unclean animals!” he exampled Revelation 16:13 which refers to, “coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs. For they are demonic spirits, performing signs” so that he moved the goalpost from, “evil angels” to, “unclean spirits…demonic spirits.” Yes, spirits are spirits and these are demonic: they are not Angels proper: please see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
Note that his, “it would be absurd” conclusion is not a standard but is a subjective personal preference and one based on un-biblical Angelology.
Biblical Angelology would conclude that it’s perfectly logical and bio-logical that Angels could have and had sexual relations with women since Angels look just like human males: and this answers why there were only strictly males on one side of the Gen 6 affair equation and only strictly females on the other—sons of God were all male so they needed to mate with daughters of men by definition.
Indeed, “angels based in Heaven do not marry…neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” but notice that he made the former very specific statement and quoted Jesus’ very specific statement but then watered it down without the key qualifying term when he commented, “angels do not marry” which turned a very specific restricted statement into a general all-encompassing one about all Angels in all times, all places, and all circumstances: the goalpost move was from, “based in Heaven…angels in heaven” so, “angels do not marry” regardless.
Jesus was very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying terms thus, not all Angels at all times in all places and circumstances but loyal ones in heaven which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so and not, “clear: angels don’t marry.”
As for, “if the ‘sons of God’ referred to angels marrying women before the Flood!” recall that Robert Gentet himself admitted that sons of God can refer to Angels and note something about the quote he provided, “in the resurrection they [resurrected humans]…are like angels in heaven.”
Luke 20:35-36 provides a parallel wherein Jesus is quoted thusly, “those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”
Thus, to be, “in the resurrection” is to be, “like angels in heaven” and to, “attain…to the resurrection” is to be, “equal to angels and are sons of God.”
Indeed, “They don’t need to” but some did. Indeed, “Reproduction is only necessary in…” but some did so.
And we are back to that sure, “the ability of righteous angels to sometimes appear as male humans is really no proof for interpreting the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6 as evil angels” since that’s a faulty premise.
Furthermore—and I’ll reproduce a long quote to be extra fair:
#3: II Peter 2:4 and Jude 6
Next, II Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 do not mention sexual relations between evil angels and women. Notice first II Peter 2:4:
“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment….”
Here the only clue we are given is that some of the angels “sinned” and for that reason God “cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment….”
To conclude that this is speaking of an event other than the original angelic rebellion against God is unwarranted. The assumption is that being cast into hell and committed to chains of darkness is only for certain of the evil angels. This misconception is similar to that held by some Christians today that the binding of Satan at the start of the 1,000 years in Revelation 20 restricts his work on Earth in tempting mankind. (For a fuller explanation of the 1,000 years, see the following additional article.)
Rather, this casting and committing of the wicked angels until the Day of Judgment speaks of their original offense against God. They were thrust out of Heaven as their dwelling place (Rev. 12:4). They only re-visit Heaven upon occasion, as shown in Job 1 and other scriptures. Jesus said He had seen Satan fall out of Heaven “like lightning” (Luke 10:18). Since their initial sin, Satan and his host are awaiting their ultimate doom. This does not completely restrict their evil deeds on the Earth where God sets strict bounds on their activity (see I Kings 22:19-23 for a vivid example).
The nature of that original sin of some of the angels is mentioned in Jude 6. Let’s look at Jude 6 in context, beginning verse 5:
“Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.”
Again, we must read the Bible for the specific things it says about a matter. The ancient Israelites whom God had saved out of slavery in Egypt were later destroyed in the desert – they did not enter the Promised Land because of unbelief.
“For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief” (Hebrews 3:16-19).
The Israelites ultimately failed to trust the One who had delivered them from Pharaoh and harsh slavery. They fell into complaining, gross sin, and rejection of their God-given leader, Moses.
The sin of the angels is characterized as not staying “within their own position of authority” and leaving “their proper dwelling.” What was the charge given to the angels at the creation of man? What is their responsibility towards us?
“For He [God] will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways. On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone” (Psalm 91:11-12).
And, further in Hebrews 1:13-14:
“And to which of the angels has He [God] ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’? Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?”
Scripture informs us the evil angels have exactly the opposite desire! Their whole desire is to disrupt the salvation message and belief in any way that God allows and to inflict harm upon mankind!
And thus the fallen angels have by their actions rebelled against helping mankind toward salvation. Instead, they use every device God allows to entice man into their own image of rebellion and hatred of the Creator. To say that this includes evil angels having sexual relations with women is not explicitly stated here or elsewhere unless one forces it into the Genesis 6 verses without scriptural support.
Heaven was meant to be the home of all the angels as they served their Creator’s overall purpose of redeeming fallen mankind. The devil and his host have been thrust out. They know that they will soon face their eternal fate in the lake of fire which God has prepared for them (Matthew 25:41).
Thus, the clear implication from the rest of Scripture is that the evil angels rebelled at the thought of serving mankind. And that this happened very early is shown by the fact that the devil appears in the Garden of Eden before the first sin of mankind. Here, already, Satan and his host are working against God’s original purpose for their creation. They were already against the order ( “position of authority”) given to them by their Creator in Heaven. Rather, they had become man’s foe. They sought to hinder man’s salvation in any way they were allowed. Man’s fallen nature with enmity towards God makes that an easier task.
I’ll begin with my conclusion due to that he began with, “do not mention sexual relations between evil angels and women” yet, 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. So, if they’re not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we’ve no idea to what sin they’re referring.
Thus, no, they didn’t write the Greek equivalent of, “sexual relations between evil angels and women” but did write that which I noted which is tantamount (and more informative than merely) sexual relations between evil angels and women.
Note the generic statement, “an event other than the original angelic rebellion” without telling us what the event was nor when the original angelic rebellion was—FYI: the event to which Jude and Peter pointed in pre-flood days was the original angelic rebellion.
It’s not, “cast into hell” but into Tartarus as per Peter.
And the, “only for certain of the evil angels” is for all evil angels since they are the ones who sinned, by definition, during that event.
Note that he correlates, “the binding of Satan” with, “casting and committing of the wicked angels” but those are things that happen to different categories of being since Satan isn’t an Angel, he’s a Cherub (Ezek 28).
“They were thrust out of Heaven as their dwelling place” by the already fallen Dragon—aka Satan (Rev chaps 12 and 20).
“They,” evil angels never, “re-visit Heaven” and such isn’t, “shown in Job 1…”: again, he reads about Satan and commits a goalpost moving category error by mis-categorizing him as an Angel.
As for, “The nature of that original sin…angels who did not stay…left their proper dwelling…kept in eternal chains…until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire…”
It’s too generic to assert, “The ancient Israelites…did not enter the Promised Land” since two of them did.
He decontextualizes what the Jude and Peter combo tell us and myopically claims that, “The sin of the angels is” failing to, “guard you in all your ways…bear you up…to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation” which he cherry-picked out of the various tasks that Angels perform.
“To say that this includes evil angels having sexual relations with women is not explicitly stated here or elsewhere unless one forces it into the Genesis 6 verses without scriptural support” can only be stated after forcing Jude and Peter to not place their one-time fall to pre-flood days and correlating it to sexual sin.
He mashes together the fall of Angels and Satan via, “in the Garden of Eden before the first sin of mankind. Here, already, Satan and his host” but there are no fallen host during that time: Satan fell during the Gen 3 timeline but Angels fell during the Gen 6 timeline.
Thus, there’s no indication that his host, the evil angels, “were already against the order…”
Robert Gentet then turns to:
#4: Who Were the Nephilim?
The idea of a part angel and part human creature is a strange concept. It violates one of the most basic rules of creation. Genesis One makes it clear 10 times that created things only can reproduce after their own min (Hebrew) translated as “kind.” Humans and angels are two entirely different kinds. Angels are created spirit beings of great power. Adam came directly from the dust of the Earth and Eve from Adam’s rib. And, as previously shown, evil angels only appear as unclean animals or birds, but never as men.
Thus, the result of the marriages between the” sons of God” and the daughters of men, the Nephilim, were 100% human beings. They were unique in that God said they were the “heroes of old, men of renown.” That is, they were looked up to as shining examples for others, but in a negative way. They brought the culture of the pre-Flood world down to its lowest level. This degenerative power is still true today of those anti-God people who hold sway over millions – nay, even billions – of people.
That which he finds to be, “a strange concept” is another non-standard that’s a subjective personal preference.
As for, “violates…reproduce after their own…‘kind’” due to his un-biblical Angelology he failed to realize that, again, 1) Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology, 2) we were created “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them, 3) and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”
Note that he moved from, “portrays evil angels as unclean animals” to, “evil angels only appear as unclean animals or birds” so then perhaps by portrays he meant something like states they morph into animal/bird shapes which is doesn’t.
Continuing:
Some see evidence from Numbers 13:32-33 that the Nephilim were of giant size. Here we read that the Israelite spies checking out the Promised Land said they saw the Nephilim who made them appear in their “own eyes as grasshoppers and so we were in their eyes.” However, no encounter was noted with the Nephilim once the land was entered. Those of giant size who were later seen are called Rephaim (Deuteronomy 1:28; 2:11, 20; and 9:2). It appears the spies were incorrect in their description. Their report was rejected by Moses and later they died in a plague (Numbers 14:1-38).
I 99% agree with that statement since Numbers 13:33 is merely on one single unreliable sentence from one single unreliable evil report spoken by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
As for, “Nephilim were of giant size,” the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
As for, “Those of giant size who were later seen are called Rephaim,” I’m unsure to what he’s referring to by, “later…called” nor do I know what, “giant size” is but Deuteronomy 2 refers to them as, “tall” which is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
He went on to argue:
The name Nephilim comes from a Hebrew verb root naphal meaning “the fallen ones.” This further makes sense if we are dealing with intermarriage between believers and unbelievers. The offspring were the result of believers (“sons of God”) who fell from the faith by marrying unbelieving, sensual woman. The children were reared in a hostile, anti-God atmosphere.
They epitomize the pre-Flood rebellion against the Creator. As has been true for some time in the modern world, some of the worse enemies of Christianity were reared in Christian homes or environments. They have forsaken the faith of their fathers. Like the ancient heroes of the world before the Deluge, they have often become powerful instruments in anti-God establishments and views.
Note the artificial insertion of concepts of, “believers and unbelievers” which is merely asserted and, “believers…marrying unbelieving, sensual woman” which is merely asserted.
Also, note that he asserted, “believers (‘sons of God’)” but then implies that they really weren’t believers since actually such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that’s rather odd.
He then offers some linguistics:
…we must look at why, for example, the translators of the Hebrew text into the Greek language translated what is plainly in the Hebrew as “sons of God” into “angels of God” (Gen. 6:2, LXX version)…during the third century B.C. This version was widely used during the time of the apostles and was often quoted in the New Testament.
About the same time as the LXX was being translated, the pseudepigraphical book of Enoch was also written, at least its earlier portion. It is in this earlier section of the Book of Enoch that it is written:
“It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful. And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamored of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children” (7:1-2)…
Greek and other Near Eastern mythology has parallels with the mixing of the gods and humans…some of the early Church Fathers believed…Later Church Fathers soundly rejected the idea.
1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.
He doesn’t seem to consider that, “…mythology has parallels with the mixing of the gods and humans” due to an actual historical event.
Indeed, the further time and residence got from the historical and cultural context of the original view, “Later Church Fathers soundly rejected the idea.”
To that point, he adds:
A book on Eastern Orthodox traditions (GENESIS, CREATION and EARLY MAN — The Orthodox Christian Vision) rejects the idea that angels married women before the Flood by saying:
“Some have speculated that the ‘sons of God’ were heavenly beings or angels. The Holy Fathers were aware of this interpretation and they refuted it, saying that angels cannot beget men.” [Here a footnote adds the following: “The identification of the ‘sons of God’ as angels or heavenly beings was based in part on the apocryphal book of Enoch….Some of the early Christian writers mistakenly accepted this interpretation….The first extant Christian reference to the ‘sons of God’ as descendants of Seth is in the Five Books of Chronology by the early Christian writer Julius Africanus (A.D. 200-245) (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6, p. 131). This interpretation became the consistent teaching of the Church, being set forth on theological grounds by St. John Chrysostom (Commentary on Genesis 22:6-7), St. Ephraim the Syrian (Commentary on Genesis 6:3, Hymns on the Nativity 1:48, Hymns on Faith 46:9, Hymns against Heresies 19:1-8, and Hymns on Paradise 1:11), St. John Cassian (Conferences 8:20-21), Blessed Augustine (City of God 15:23), St. Gregory Palamas (‘Topics of Natural and Theological Science’ 62), St. Athanasius (Four Discourses against the Arians 4:22), St. Cyril of Alexandria, and others.”] (page 244).
To merely generically assert, “The Holy Fathers…refuted it” is to ignore the demonstrable historical facts and/or to myopically focus on only some, “Later Church Fathers.”
Note that, “saying that angels cannot beget men” does not tell us why the thought that: my book on this subject does.
Yes, some half millennia after the LXX, 1 Enoch, Jubilees, etc., Africanus took a non-traditional view and has since been, “consistent” yet, only by some—the others noted date from the late 300s AD to thereafter.
Furthermore:
#6: “Perfect/Blameless in His Generations”
And, lastly, what about Genesis 6:9 and the statement that Noah was found to be “blameless in his generation” (ESV), “blameless among his fellow man” (Modern Language)? If this is not concerning his genetic make-up, what could it mean?
Notice how the Bible uses the term “blameless”.
“There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God, and turned away from evil” (Job 1:1).
“In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah…and he had a wife…and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless” (Luke 1:5-6).
Noah was unique in that immediately before the Flood commenced, only he was found among to be blameless. What set him apart was his faith (a living one, validated by his works).
“By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith” (Hebrews 11:7).
It had nothing to do with his genetics, but rather a faith-based relationship with his Creator that translated into good works and a godly fear. Nowhere in the entire Bible is there any mention of human/angel marriages. Time and time again the warning has to do with believers not diluting their faith by inter-marriage with unbelievers.
The issue of, “concerning his genetic make-up” is a huge issue due to pop-Nephilology. In my 2019 book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology I elucidated that while it has a genetic aspect to it, it’s a more direct reference to him being uniquely righteous.
A certain John Adolfi posted this comment to the article:
After the war in heaven which precedes the whole Sons of Go and Daughters of Men, if after seeing 1/3 of there friends turn ugly and hate God and the carnage and aftermath of their separation from heaven, after all that could you even begin to imagine 200 righteous angels, after seeing the affects of sin and the war resulting, to then decide to sin with human women? Nope.
That, “the war in heaven…precedes the whole Sons of Go and Daughters of Men” is a common view, since many place it in pre-flood and even pre-human existence or even pre-Earth’s creation days, the fact is that as per Rev 12, which is where the war is mentioned, it’s a post-Jesus’ ascension event.
Yet, indeed, it is an issue of, “Nope” since it wasn’t, “after seeing 1/3…righteous angels…decide to sin” since the 1/3 are the Angels who sinned, who fallen during the Gen 6 timeline.
The, “200” number isn’t biblical, it’s from 1 Enoch.
A certain Richard W commented:
The “Sons of God” are angels if they are not mortal. But descendants of the ancient patriarchs were also called the “Sons of God” as well as those who converted to Jesus Christ. As Paul said, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Romans 8:14)
Spirits not yet descended to Earth to take on physical bodies are angels, created by God, His sons and daughters. Spirits born into mortality become sons of God by their righteousness. Those “sons of God” in scripture who married daughters of unbelieving men lost their status as sons of God by falling away from the true God.
The story about the offspring of angels and women becoming giants is interesting but is a fabrication by a pseudepigraphical writer with an overactive imagination. Male spirit angels do not have the physical anatomy requisite to copulate with physical women!
He parallels the fallacy of, “Spirits…take on physical bodies.”
And notice how he had to torture terminology and concepts by referring to, “Male spirit” which is a contradiction in terms since by definition spirits proper are disembodied but male refer to a physical sex so that there can’t be any such thing as, “Male spirit”—unless, I suppose, we want to usage that odd terminology to refer to the spirits that once inhabited male bodies, I suppose.
And since that ends the article and the only two comments, that ends this review.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Leave a Reply