Because of the angels

I keep hoping, but it never happens.

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

I married a female angel!

Lacy

 

Yeah, me too. She's always up in the air harpin' about something!

(Thanks Singing Cop, now I'm going to have to give account for that one)

 

For about three words you were doing good there, James.

One day I'm gonna have to have a long talk with that boy.

lacy

 

Could I have your addresses I would like to send your wives a memo.

 

Well, there goes one of our best 'pickup lines'... ["Did it hurt when you fell down from heaven"]

 

I don't follow your argument. Elohim (which is plural) is used to refer to THE one true God all throughout the Old Testament. In fact, the third Hebrew form in the Bible is Elohim--as in "In the beginning, God created." The Hebrew form that Strong's says is the singular of Elohim (Eloah) is used much, much less frequently in the OT. I'm not up on the recent scholarship on this term, but BDB says that Eloah is probably a singular form inferred from Elohim instead of the other way around.

 

They are also capable of taking on human form. Do I really need to cite examples? There are plenty.
</font>[/QUOTE]That doesn't mean they can have relations or reproduce. Taking on the appearance of humans or taking on human form -- whatever that may mean -- does not give evidence they can have relations with human women.

Re Gen. 6 -- I don't think it says that the union produced giants. It just says giants were there in those days. Pretty thin support for saying these were fallen angels having relations with women, in my book.

 

Good grief, give me a break! What a string of typical male type postings!

You really find the idea of a fallen angel appealing? That's what we're discussing (though I don't think it's angels). Don't answer - please! It's rhetorical!

 

Marcia;
Please don't clump me in with those statements.