It seems that Angels were created in finite numbers without the ability to reproduce. The Genesis 6 wives were earth women. For the fallen angels to have children with them would mean possessing an earth man to uses their sexual organs.
Asked
Active
Viewed 1,957 times
0
-
Do they, did they or can they? Because if it’s “do they” the answer is no, currently they don’t, they are too afraid. And the other assumption you make is that they have to possess a human’s body or possess a human body, they already have a body, they don’t need another body. – Nihil Sine Deo Sep 30 '21 at 23:10
-
Try searching for related questions on a specific to biblical text. Then, you can ask questions about texts without the question already asked. Here is an example of a question already asked: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/66497/we-are-told-about-nephilim-in-num-1332-33-why-might-some-interpret-them-as/66499#66499 – Perry Webb Oct 02 '21 at 13:56
-
Another example: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/56581/will-everyone-be-gender-neutral-in-heaven-and-if-so-does-that-mean-that-sex-wa/56614#56614 – Perry Webb Oct 02 '21 at 14:03
4 Answers
2
What Jesus said here seems to indicate that the angels don't have the capacity to reproduce.
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Matt. 22:30, ESV)
For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Mark 12:25, ESV)
The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, 36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34–36, ESV)
Basically the argument is if the angels don't marry, would God give them the ability to bisexually procreate? Why would God create them with a desire they couldn't fulfill? Most certainly God wouldn't expect them to be promiscuous.
Perry Webb
- 20,235
- 3
- 29
- 75
-
1Good answer - "Sons of God" is an allusion to the OT idea that YHWH was the "Father" of them all Deut 14:1, 32:6, 18, Jer 31:9, Mal 1:6. – Dottard Sep 30 '21 at 21:38
-
Jesus says they don’t marry, there is NO indication that they cannot procreate or that they don’t have the ability to inseminate. A single person is not also infertile. Granted to reproduce in God’s understand is to also be married but that doesn’t exclude the ability to procreate. Heavenly beings are all male and have no female counter part. That doesn’t mean they have no genitals it means they have no female equivalent to copulate with. – Nihil Sine Deo Sep 30 '21 at 23:01
-
-
“don't have the capacity” note marriage doesn’t seem to indicate lacking capacity/ability – Nihil Sine Deo Oct 01 '21 at 00:05
-
-
Please don't answer off-topic questions that don't ask about Biblical passages. – curiousdannii Oct 02 '21 at 06:07
1
This is very hard to argue using biblical reference points. There are the verses quoted in the other answers concerning marriage - but arguably this does not discount reproduction.
Reproduction requires seed. And if you accept the Genesis 6 account as angels procreating with earth women, then that may? provide basis for further arguments.
The other point is that there are no (OK, one possible/dubious/disputable in Isaiah) accounts of ‘female’ angels. So that’s a *possible argument against it.
Then there is Revelation 12 - Michael and his angels vs the Dragon and his angels … how did these ‘angels’ become theirs?
But, bottom line, there is no way to conclusively argue any position - but worse, those taking either position could sit there reasonably comfortably without necessarily needing to argue away contrary points of view - as their foundation is not ‘seen’ as solid.
Dave
- 8,090
- 1
- 7
- 25
-
I don't think it's difficult to find Biblical reference points. I could have provided multiple other texts, but feel it is best to keep the answer simple. When one knows the Bible well, it's much easier to see the connections among the various truths to be found in it. – Polyhat Sep 30 '21 at 21:26
-
1Hi Dave, as an experienced user of the site we'd really appreciate your help in Voting to Close questions like this which clearly violate the BH.SE on-topic guidelines, rather than answering them, which encourages more low-quality questions. – Steve can help Oct 01 '21 at 10:44
0
The old English translation of the Genesis 6 passage lends itself to some unfortunate misunderstandings. The Bible is clear, in Jesus' words no less, that angels do not marry.
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Matthew 22:30, KJV)
And the Bible never mentions angels as male, female, husbands, wives, children, or babies. As you suggest in the question, angels do not reproduce.
But in Genesis 6, the KJV translation says:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (Genesis 6:1-2, KJV)
This expression "sons of God" is a reference to the Godly men, which were those of the line of Seth. They chose to marry worldly women, and it was this that corrupted their morals and those of their children.
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Romans 8:14, KJV)
Polyhat
- 6,144
- 1
- 8
- 35
-
I do not know why this was down voted - a perfectly good answer. I have upvoted to balance it out. +1. – Dottard Sep 30 '21 at 21:35
-
The Sethite hypothesis is a 2nd century AD fabrication that was popularized by Augustine in the 4th century AD not on principle or Biblical backing but merely on theological biased objections – Nihil Sine Deo Sep 30 '21 at 23:07
-
-
Please don't answer off-topic questions that don't ask about Biblical passages. – curiousdannii Oct 02 '21 at 06:07
-
@curiousdannii It asked about a Biblical passage (Genesis 6) and was therefore "on-topic" per your rules. – Polyhat Oct 02 '21 at 07:48
-
@Polyhat It's not really about Genesis 6. It just mentions it in passing. – curiousdannii Oct 02 '21 at 08:04
-
@curiousdannii You are the moderator, not me. It's your prerogative to enforce rules per your standard of judgment; I have my own standard, however, as to which questions I will answer. My purpose here is to help people learn the truth via sound Biblical hermeneutics. I do not answer questions that, in my judgment, were asked merely to be provocative and not asked in sincerity. The recent question about angels' genitals was one such that I ignored. But I do not see it my place to judge the quality of each question. I'm here to help answer. Please don't ask me to moderate in your stead. – Polyhat Oct 02 '21 at 08:13
-
@Polyhat - Actually, BH.SE follows a community site model, which works the opposite way round from how you describe it. Site Moderators are "exception handlers", and should intervene as little as possible. As users gain experience on the site by creating good questions and answers, they earn 'rep' and associated privileges for moderating the site. With your help, off-topic questions get flagged and closed, bad content gets flagged, and so the site is built on the community rather than one or two biased individuals (like me) :) – Steve can help Oct 11 '21 at 12:03
-
It's really not about judging quality. The site on-topic guidelines are very clear - in this case the question isn't about '① the history of that biblical text itself or ② the meaning of that biblical text either in context or through a process of arriving at a particular interpretation of it are off-topic.' It's just a wider topical question that isn't really addressed by the passage in any meaningful way. It's not that the question is bad, but rather that it doesn't fit with the site guidelines. – Steve can help Oct 11 '21 at 12:09
-
@SteveTaylor I appreciate your perspective. As regards moderation, I simply don't have the energy for it. I've been a forum moderator on other sites. It's a thankless job. I'd far rather leave that part to others here. If my contributions are unappreciated without involving myself in the operation of the site more directly, I may prefer to back away. It may be that in some future moment I'll feel more energetic; but now is not that moment. To me, this is a leisure-time activity, not a job. You're doing well here, though; thank you, and keep it up! – Polyhat Oct 12 '21 at 07:31
-
Sure, that's okay - as you say, moderation has its challenges! Feel free to contribute as much or as little as you'd like to the site in every respect - at the end of the day the site is a community, not a workplace, as you say :) But as an experienced user you're fairly well aware of the site's on-topic guidelines, so if you could at least not encourage off-topic questions by answering them, that would perhaps be a good opportunity to positively contribute to the site without expending additional time or energy. – Steve can help Oct 12 '21 at 07:52
-
@SteveTaylor As anyone viewing this question can see, three "experienced" members all answered it. I saw it as on-topic. I expect they did, too. I will not be drawn into a debate on the nitty gritty of the rules. If my idea of "on topic" differs from that of the moderators, how could the difference even be reconciled? Again, I'm here to help people find hermeneutically sound answers to their sincere Bible questions. I saw this as a sincere and legitimate question, and it was most certainly linked to Bible passages, albeit the rules don't actually require a Bible passage. Enough said. – Polyhat Oct 12 '21 at 08:10
-
Any of you would have been welcome to add your votes to Close the question or keep it Open, or to Reopen it afterwards, but nobody did - the only three users who voted understood it to be in breach of the site guidelines. The on-topic guidelines were created before I joined this site and define the bounds of this SE - this gives us a common yard-stick to go by. Generally, any question closed today would likely have been closed five years ago - the Close reasons are specifically designed to help with this. – Steve can help Oct 12 '21 at 08:23
0
This question is almost certainly too broad.
Can heavenly beings procreate? Do they have the capacity to inseminate a human female?
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”” Genesis 3:15
Genesis speaks prophetically of a time that the heavenly beings will have offsprings.
What are heavenly beings?
“Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.” Psalm 8:5
A heavenly being is just a little higher than a human. The distinction is that they are natural and above the natural or supernatural. So they can interact with nature and operate above the laws of nature
“There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.” 1 Corinthians 15:40
There are only two types of bodies, natural or earthly and heavenly or supernatural bodies.
So the heavenly beings in Genesis 6 did not need to take on bodies of humans, they had bodies and they had seed/DNA. As such all they had to do was abandon their place in the heavens and forcibly impregnate a human woman.
“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—” Jude 1:6
If this doesn’t answer your question please let me know or if I need to connect the dots more also let me know.
Nihil Sine Deo
- 9,044
- 7
- 38
- 83
-
1Hi Nihil - yes, this question was clearly off-topic for a few different reasons. Please do Vote to Close any questions that don't meet the on-topic guidelines of the site. – Steve can help Oct 01 '21 at 10:42