How would any of you here view Cryptozoology then?

[makesends]

The angels who visited Lot and were desired by the men of the city of Sodom (Gen 19)...

Those angels were physical beings....and being angels also had supernatural abilities.
The angels ate...something a spiritual being can't really do.
The angels were able to grab Lot and bring him into the house...then supernaturally blind the men outside.
Later on the angels seized Lot and his wife and his two daughters by the hand....once again demonstrating physicality.

But as to physical evidence...if Lot cut their hair would their hair have remained after they left?
If the angels stepped in the mud would they not leave footprints?

Let's just say that it is possible for angels (or whatever paranormal beings) are / were indeed able to produce offspring by human wives. How does that imply that Genesis 6 is referring to exactly that? It doesn't.

At best, (if assumed to be possible) it can only show that that is one interpretation available to us. It cannot show that Genesis 6 means what you claim it means.

 

[Arial]

That's all I need to read. You're wrong.

have a nice day.

By all means, don't read the scriptures given to support what I said, lest they point out that it may be you who is wrong.

 

[CrowCross]

Let's just say that it is possible for angels (or whatever paranormal beings) are / were indeed able to produce offspring by human wives. How does that imply that Genesis 6 is referring to exactly that? It doesn't.

Why can't a physical angel...as demonstrated by Lots encounter...not be able to produce offspring with humans?

As to Gen 6 it is a scaled down version of Enoch 6. Have you ever read Enoch 6? (click on the link)

Are you saying Noah couldn't have had a copy of Enoch on the ark? That it couldn't have survived the flood? There is no way Moses could have read it and mentioned it in Gen 6?

At best, (if assumed to be possible) it can only show that that is one interpretation available to us. It cannot show that Genesis 6 means what you claim it means.

My interpretation isn't "my" interpretation. It's been around for a long, long, long time.

What is the Gen 3 "seed war"?

 

[Arial]

Why can't a physical angel...as demonstrated by Lots encounter...not be able to produce offspring with humans?

"Why can't" means that what follows is pure speculation. However, the Bible tells us that they can't. They neither marry nor are given in marriage. Since the purpose of marriage is populating and filling the earth, what do you think it means that angels do not marry? Eating and taking on human form does not = being able to produce offspring with humans. There was a command given to all life forms at creation. Like produces offspring with like? That is how it is perfectly designed by God and angels and humans are not like each other. They are different species of life. That is why we never see and there is no possibility of ever seeing a cohorse, or a piheep, or a dat.

As to Gen 6 it is a scaled down version of Enoch 6. Have you ever read Enoch 6? (click on the link)

On the contrary. Enoch 6 is imaginative (meaning it is only imagined and btw borrowed from surrounding Greek cultures and their mythological hybrid gods the product of a god mating with a human woman)

Evidence:

​

Language: mostly Aramaic (the common Jewish vernacular of the time).
Earliest layers: likely written in the 3rd century B.C., perhaps even late 4th.

Probable authors:

• Priestly scribes or visionaries opposed to the Jerusalem hierarchy.
• They drew on Genesis 5–6 (the Enoch genealogy and the “sons of God” episode) and expanded it with revelatory visions, heavenly journeys, and cosmic judgment scenes.

Purpose:
To explain why evil entered creation and why divine judgment was inevitable—and to comfort the faithful that God still ruled history despite corrupt earthly powers.

• Source: Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Penguin, 2011).
• So
• Source: James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 2nd ed. (Eerdmans, 2010).
• Source: Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Jewish Publication Society, 1994).
• urce: Emanue
• Source: John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Eerdmans, 2016).
• l Tov, Textual CEmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed., 2012).riticism of the HebrewJames C. VanderKam & Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (20Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (rev. ed., 2011).02). Bible (Fortress Press, 2012).
• The Qumran library included many Aramaic texts, and 1 Enoch (in Aramaic) is one of the principal examples of what scholars call parableptical / pseudepigraphal literature preserved in the Qumran caves. Bible Odyssey
• The 4QEnoch fragments are often dated to the Hasmonean period (i.e. a few centuries B.C.), which gives a terminus ante quem (latest possible date) for parts of 1 Enoch. The Dead Sea Scrolls+1
• Some fragments do not match the later fully preserved Ethiopic Enoch exactly; they show variant readings or partial overlap. Internet Archive+1

Are you saying Noah couldn't have had a copy of Enoch on the ark? That it couldn't have survived the flood? There is no way Moses could have read it and mentioned it in Gen 6?

Noah couldn't have had a copy of something that wasn't written until the third century B.C. and 1 Enoch written in Aramaic would make it impossible for the book to have been written before the flood. Remember, all peoples spoke one language before Babel. The earliest Aramaic documented appears around the 10th-9th centuries B.C.

 

[CrowCross]

"Why can't" means that what follows is pure speculation. However, the Bible tells us that they can't. They neither marry nor are given in marriage. Since the purpose of marriage is populating and filling the earth, what do you think it means that angels do not marry? Eating and taking on human form does not = being able to produce offspring with humans. There was a command given to all life forms at creation. Like produces offspring with like? That is how it is perfectly designed by God and angels and humans are not like each other. They are different species of life. That is why we never see and there is no possibility of ever seeing a cohorse, or a piheep, or a dat.

Here's the verse.....Matt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Let's cut to the chase....Where are the angels at in the verse? Hint, I highlighted it in red.

Now, where are the fallen angels of Gen 6? Answer....not in heaven.
Now, Jude said.....And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day...... There were some angels that left their first estate...habitation...that is left heaven where there is no marriage and came to earth where there is marriage.

The inspired Peter told us:
2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them deep into hell, placing them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5 if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, among the eight;

The angels of the ancient world...destroyed by the flood...the Gen 6 world. The world where the angels left home, came to earth, got married and sinned with human women...and according to both verses are currently in everlasting chains of darkness.

I trust you stand corrected.

 

[CrowCross]

Eating and taking on human form does not = being able to produce offspring with humans. There was a command given to all life forms at creation. Like produces offspring with like? That is how it is perfectly designed by God and angels and humans are not like each other. They are different species of life.

They may be a different species...but are they the same kind in DNA?
Tigers and lions are different species but they can breed together.

It's kinda funny you would use the argument angels and humans are not like each other...Some angels seem to be pretty close to humans.

Heb 13:2 Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.....some angels can be so close to humans you can meet an angel and not even know it. Even the men of Sodom wanted the angels that were at Lots house.

 

[CrowCross]

Noah couldn't have had a copy of something that wasn't written until the third century B.C. and 1 Enoch written in Aramaic would make it impossible for the book to have been written before the flood. Remember, all peoples spoke one language before Babel. The earliest Aramaic documented appears around the 10th-9th centuries B.C.

That's like telling me the epic of Gilgamesh is true and the bible is false because we have copied older than know copies of Genesis.
Or saying the english translations are bogus because the original language was Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew.

With all due respect the best you can say is that the earliest copy of Enoch we have was "published" in the 3rd century B.C., perhaps even late 4th.
it's obvious the "origination" date is wrong considering Moses spoke of it using an earlier translation.

 

[Arial]

That's like telling me the epic of Gilgamesh is true and the bible is false because we have copied older than know copies of Genesis.
Or saying the english translations are bogus because the original language was Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew.

The original documents of Enoch were in Aramaic. You do know that they can age these things right? English copies of the Bible are translations of documents that exist as are translations in other languages. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew. That does not mean that 1 Enoch in Aramaic is a translation from an unknown pre flood universal language. How would they know how to translate it?

But maybe what you said makes sense. I kind of have to guess at what you said since "we have copied older than know copies of Genesis" makes no sense to me at all. Perhaps you could clarify?

With all due respect the best you can say is that the earliest copy of Enoch we have was "published" in the 3rd century B.C., perhaps even late 4th.

Published? What do you mean?

Moses spoke of it using an earlier translation.

Moses never spoke of using any translation. I would like you to show me where he did? I don't think you understand where Moses got the information he delivered to the descendants of Jacob from. It was given to him by God, not Enoch. If it was given by Enoch, it would not be the word of God and would have no authority at all.

 

[Arial]

Now, where are the fallen angels of Gen 6? Answer....not in heaven.
Now, Jude said.....And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day...... There were some angels that left their first estate...habitation...that is left heaven where there is no marriage and came to earth where there is marriage.

Do you see how much you read your interpretations into the Bible? Things that are not there? It does not say they came to earth. It says they were kept in eternal chains.
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—

The opposite of coming to earth. And even if they did, do they then cease to be angels? Jesus said "like the angels in heaven" because that is where angels are, not because angels become not angels if they leave heaven. And you missed that part of my post or at least the point of it, that God decreed and ordained like to produce like and things that are not alike to not be able to reproduce.

it's obvious the "origination" date is wrong considering Moses spoke of it using an earlier translation.

I am positive that the experts in the necessary fields are much more careful about what they are doing than simply presupposing something (as you did) and then dating a document according to the presupposition. They actually had the tools and skills to do the work properly. Where does the word of God ever say that Moses spoke of using an earlier translation. He would not have been able to make heads or tails out of it if there was one that was over 1000 years old and everyone spoke that language and then after God confused the languages, every family branch developed their own language.

 

[Arial]

They may be a different species...but are they the same kind in DNA?
Tigers and lions are different species but they can breed together.

They are classified as different species, because the act different from each other, but they are of the same family (Felidae-cats). And the interbreeding produces sterile offspring with rare exceptions.

You don't even know if angels, as spirit beings have DNA, let alone if it is the same as ours. Why make stuff up? And they certainly are not of the same kind as us---human.

It's kinda funny you would use the argument angels and humans are not like each other...Some angels seem to be pretty close to humans.

That doesn't mean they are like humans or that they are human. So, what's your point?

Heb 13:2 Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.....some angels can be so close to humans you can meet an angel and not even know it. Even the men of Sodom wanted the angels that were at Lots house

So what?

 

[CrowCross]

You don't even know if angels, as spirit beings have DNA, let alone if it is the same as ours. Why make stuff up?

I don't. I simply quote the bible...provide the verses. Considering the angels produced offspring with humans the DNA is obviously compatable.

I find it amazing how bitter you get over this topic. If you disagree that's fine.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Let's just say that it is possible for angels (or whatever paranormal beings) are / were indeed able to produce offspring by human wives. How does that imply that Genesis 6 is referring to exactly that? It doesn't.

Why can't a physical angel...as demonstrated by Lots encounter...not be able to produce offspring with humans?

That doesn't answer what I said, there. I said that, supposing it WAS possible... it still doesn't prove that that is what Genesis 6 means. You are sidestepping my point.

 

[CrowCross]

makesends said:
Let's just say that it is possible for angels (or whatever paranormal beings) are / were indeed able to produce offspring by human wives. How does that imply that Genesis 6 is referring to exactly that? It doesn't.

That doesn't answer what I said, there. I said that, supposing it WAS possible... it still doesn't prove that that is what Genesis 6 means. You are sidestepping my point.

I thought it answered it. Oh well.

 

[Arial]

I don't. I simply quote the bible...provide the verses. Considering the angels produced offspring with humans the DNA is obviously compatable.

That is backwards reasoning. Gen 6 does not actually say that angels produced offspring with humans. It is not the Bible at face value that you believe, it is a statement made in 1 Enoch---that author's interpretation of Gen 6. And having believed that, you then say that is what the Bible is saying. What would be proper would be to adhere to what was brought back to Christianity with the Reformation. Sola scriptura. Instead you start with your conclusion----angels have DNA and that DNA is compatible with human DNA because the Bible says that they did so. But the Bible does not say that. Whoever wrote 1 Enoch said so, and that was long after the Jew had the book of Genesis.

I find it amazing how bitter you get over this topic. If you disagree that's fine.

Bitter: (of people or their feelings or behavior) angry, hurt or resentful because of one's bad experiences or a sense of unjust treatment.

Since none of that applies to me or anything I have said or the way in which it was said, I assume that is yet another projection. I am merely contending for the faith and coming against false teachings even as Paul encouraged Timothy to do with what was likely one of the same false teachings that was invading the church at Ephesus.

 

[CrowCross]

That is backwards reasoning. Gen 6 does not actually say that angels produced offspring with humans.

yes it does....read Gen 6 where the sons of God (angels according to Job) had offspring with human women.

It is not the Bible at face value that you believe, it is a statement made in 1 Enoch---that author's interpretation of Gen 6.

Yes. It's an interpretation of Enoch 6 by Moses when he wrote Gen 6.

And having believed that, you then say that is what the Bible is saying. What would be proper would be to adhere to what was brought back to Christianity with the Reformation.

Yes, brought back after being removed from the common theology.

Sola scriptura. Instead you start with your conclusion----angels have DNA and that DNA is compatible with human DNA because the Bible says that they did so. But the Bible does not say that. Whoever wrote 1 Enoch said so, and that was long after the Jew had the book of Genesis.

Once again you resort to SPECULATION.

Bitter: (of people or their feelings or behavior) angry, hurt or resentful because of one's bad experiences or a sense of unjust treatment.

Since none of that applies to me or anything I have said or the way in which it was said, I assume that is yet another projection. I am merely contending for the faith and coming against false teachings even as Paul encouraged Timothy to do with what was likely one of the same false teachings that was invading the church at Ephesus.

{Mod edit. Violation of 2.1 and 2.2. Address the post. Don't insult the poster. Warning points applied}

 

[Arial]

yes it does....read Gen 6 where the sons of God (angels according to Job) had offspring with human women.

Do we really need to go over this again? It has been demonstrated multiple times with sources given that even though sons of God likely refers to angels in Job, scripture does not always apply it to angels but sometimes to godly men. Furthermore, you have ungodly angels being called sons of God which is antithetical to all of Scripture. Not only that but scripture tells us the angels that left their assigned (angels are given assignments as God's messengers as per Scripture) place were locked up in chains. It nowhere tells us that they copulated or were able to copulate with human women. You simply choose to ignore all evidence that proves you are wrong and continue to believe something that is outside the word of God. In order to do so you simply say that Moses was quoting from a writing that would have been in an undecipherable to him language. You choose to ignore that evidence too. You have provided not evidence here or in the other thread. All you have provided is your belief of choice and then say that the Bible agrees with you. It does not. I don't know why there are those who cling to a false teaching no matter how much evidence is presented that proves it to be false. But it is a very common thing.

Yes. It's an interpretation of Enoch 6 by Moses when he wrote Gen 6.

The evidence that you choose to turn a blind eye too proves that to be impossible. It shows a simple preference for external drama and sensationalism over the word of God. That also shows up in the interpretation of eschatology by looking at outward information found in the world to interpret Scripture.

Yes, brought back after being removed from the common theology.

A partial sentence quote for the deliberate purpose of isolating it from its context and used to mean something else and apply to something else. Egregious posting.

Once again you resort to SPECULATION.

Giving evidence and presenting a case based on that evidence is not speculation. Failing to ever give any evidence but only a preferred view that comes from external to the Bible sources is preferring speculation. All sorts of wild but quite dramatic and exciting sub speculations have come from it. Bigfoot might be a human/ angel hybrid still living after the flood. The unholy union corrupted human DNA. Angels have DNA. Angels can't marry and produce unholy offspring in heaven, but they can when they get thrown down to earth. Angels got thrown down to earth. Demons are the spirits of the dead giants. Giants are a hybrid being. There is no end to the drama we can speculate and focus on for the sake of a more lively and interesting Christianity. Something more than Christ and him crucified.

Just saying.

 

[CrowCross]

Do we really need to go over this again? It has been demonstrated multiple times with sources given that even though sons of God likely refers to angels in Job, scripture does not always apply it to angels but sometimes to godly men. Furthermore, you have ungodly angels being called sons of God which is antithetical to all of Scripture. Not only that but scripture tells us the angels that left their assigned (angels are given assignments as God's messengers as per Scripture) place were locked up in chains. It nowhere tells us that they copulated or were able to copulate with human women. You simply choose to ignore all evidence that proves you are wrong and continue to believe something that is outside the word of God. In order to do so you simply say that Moses was quoting from a writing that would have been in an undecipherable to him language. You choose to ignore that evidence too. You have provided not evidence here or in the other thread. All you have provided is your belief of choice and then say that the Bible agrees with you. It does not. I don't know why there are those who cling to a false teaching no matter how much evidence is presented that proves it to be false. But it is a very common thing.

The evidence that you choose to turn a blind eye too proves that to be impossible. It shows a simple preference for external drama and sensationalism over the word of God. That also shows up in the interpretation of eschatology by looking at outward information found in the world to interpret Scripture.

A partial sentence quote for the deliberate purpose of isolating it from its context and used to mean something else and apply to something else. Egregious posting.

Giving evidence and presenting a case based on that evidence is not speculation. Failing to ever give any evidence but only a preferred view that comes from external to the Bible sources is preferring speculation. All sorts of wild but quite dramatic and exciting sub speculations have come from it. Bigfoot might be a human/ angel hybrid still living after the flood. The unholy union corrupted human DNA. Angels have DNA. Angels can't marry and produce unholy offspring in heaven, but they can when they get thrown down to earth. Angels got thrown down to earth. Demons are the spirits of the dead giants. Giants are a hybrid being. There is no end to the drama we can speculate and focus on for the sake of a more lively and interesting Christianity. Something more than Christ and him crucified.

Just saying.

Your points have been shown to be speculation, shallow and incorrect.

As you concluded with..."Something more than Christ and him crucified."...Yes, that is the reason for the Gospels.
But you fail to understand there is more. After the fall of man....Satan tried to prevent mans salvation.

I hit some of the highlights in this thread....Seed wars.

 

[Arial]

Your points have been shown to be speculation, shallow and incorrect.

As you concluded with..."Something more than Christ and him crucified."...Yes, that is the reason for the Gospels.
But you fail to understand there is more. After the fall of man....Satan tried to prevent mans salvation.

I hit some of the highlights in this thread....Seed wars.

That post breaks rules 2.1 and 2.2 again. It is also speculating about what I know and don't know and slandering me by saying historical evidence given by me is speculation (which annihilates any definition of speculation). It also assumes that if someone doesn't believe the same thing you do then you know more than they do. That is a logical fallacy. You first need to prove what you think you know by giving evidence. And that has not been done in any of the threads you are involved in on this subject. That qualifies all your posts as speculation, not mine..