The sons of God
 

I believe that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 are fallen angels, as in the context of Job 1:6 ; 38:7, and not "Sethites". Why do some teach the sons of God in Gen.6 are Sethites, and the "daughters of men" are Cainites - thanks

One of the themes in the Bible is the problems with intermarriage or yoking up of believers with unbelievers. I believe this is the first example of it. The NT also teaches that angels do not intermarry - yet Genesis 6 specifies that the sons of God intermarried with the daughters of men. Chapter 4 clearly showed that Cain's line was overall ungodly and the godly remnant was found in Seth's line.

The Bible uses the term "son of God" in four senses:

1) Jesus, the only begotten Son of God.
2) Adam, the son of God (Luke 3) - created directly by God.
3) Angels, sons of God - created directly by God.
4) Believers - recreated or renewed spiritually by God.

I think that the overall context shows that sons of God can very much be referring to saved people in the line of Seth:

Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Chapter five goes on to describe his godly lineage - then six shows what happens when they compromise and intermarry.

But in the Old Testament, sons of God refer to angels in every instance, and they are not the "sons" of any man. Every reference to angels in the Bible in both testaments, are male, to say that they are "sexless", would mean that they would be neither male nor female. Matt. 22:30 isn't saying that they're not capable of sexual relations at all, it says, "but are as the angels of God IN HEAVEN". Only New Testament believers after Calvary are born again by the Spirit of God as a result of receiving Jesus Christ as their Saviour ( John 1:12) and becomes a new creature ( 2 Cor 5:17). Everyone born after Adam was made in image, and in his likeness, not God's because of the fall. When Adam is called a son of God in Luke 3, that was before he fell.

And you would be dead wrong to believe that. Look at this verse:

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

A good a godly line of Sethites, breeding with human women (regardless of their tribe), do NOT produce "giants" no more than evil Canites, breeding with human women. There was something of great note different here!

The resulting spawn, these "men of renown" as the Scriptures calls them, were something not of human with human DNA mixing, even though they are called "men" in that passage. When angels appeared in the Bible they appeared as men:

Judges 13:6 Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name:

The phrase "...sons of God came in unto the daughters of men..." clearly sets the description daughters of men against something that was not a human man. Good people don't father physical giants just because they are more moral or godly.

Read the passage a little more clearly - the giants were there BEFORE the event in chapter six happened. The giants were not a result of the sons of God intermarrying with the daughters of men. If you base your understanding of that passage on something you overlooked, your conclusion is no doubt going to be off.

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The first part of verse four says these giants were already in the earth - the second part describes who the children of the sons of God and daughters of men were.

Wrong again. Perhaps take a bit of your own advice here.

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Don't let the phrase "and also after that" throw you off. This refers to the seed that continued past the flood of which I'm sure you are familiar. The text allows in those days to cover from the conception through the delivery as well as the maturity of these "mighty men."


Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

There's no mention of sons of God in any "overall context." But there sure is a mention of "Seth's godly line" being called men.

sons of God in the Old Testament ALWAYS refers to Angels (or the Angel of the Lord).

sons of God in the New Testament ALWAYS refers to born again believers.

Besides, even if Genesis 6 were the exception, and it referred to sethites, why would this produce giants as offspring, if they were just men. Seems like someone doesn't want to believe the Bible as it stands.

Good Point!

"This refers to the seed that continued past the flood of which I'm sure you are familiar."

How did they survive the flood and were around until at least the days of Joshua?

Fallen angels again (however, this time God uses genocide of the Anakims instead of a worldwide flood, to rid the world of their filthy blood)

Could you clarify, please?

Their genes possibly made it through the flood on the ark, probably through a wife of one of Noah's boys.

bumped to top - topic resurfaces :bump:

Giants existed before the union of "sons of God" and "daughters of men". The verse cannot be more simple. "and also after that"

Is it OK to copy my posts re: sons of God vis a vis nephilim that I put under the flying Scroll thread? I wonder if brother Brandon could copy appropriate posts to son's of God thread? But these issues all overlap. Maybe we need a new thread. Maybe something like "Fallen Angels/demons/aliens/ufo phenomenon/strong delusion". Lol.

It's not that simple, BT. I have read it three different ways.

1)The way you just read it (and there is no evidence anywhere else in scripture that would support your reading, and the structure of the sentence doesn't support your reading, either)

2) the common reading that it means also after those days (described in Gen 1-2) there were giants after that. As for this second more common reading, we don't need this verse to tell us that the nephilim continued after this because other scriptures relating to the Jews driving out the inhabitants of the promised land make it clear enough. And I think you are right that this verse isn't saying what is usually attributed to it.

3)a third (and I think correct) reading is that in the sentence segment "and also after that" the word "that" refers back to the preceding part of the sentence as well as to the next section directly after the comma "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them". The word "after" refers to "the same became the mighty men of old, men of renown".

What is 'that" referring to? It's referring to the account of the sons of God coming in to the daughters of men, and they bare children to them.

What is the "after that" referring to? It's referring to these "same" who became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

No big deal, but I think this thread belongs under Bible studies and not doctrine.

I agree that "Studies" is a better spot, but this is an old thread resurrected. Perhaps Brandon can transfer it, if needed. There is a doctrinal aspect to it, because if one believes that angels have the power to propagate, and teaches so, that is doctrine, unbiblical though it is, IMO.

Friends, I do have a lengthy study thread going about GIANTS, Sons of God (angels) and Daughters of Men By Bob Deffinbaugh, Th.M. (yes I think they did breed) and the antediluvian creatures called the NEPHILIM (which means fallen ones), tons of information, you can check that out at the link below, and don't miss the last page posts 51 and 53, regarding the interlocking, precision cut stone structures of Puma Punku in Bolivia:
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=896

Brother, I'm in a hurry here at the moment but will expand on my answer shortly. But the popular notion that angels fell and made wives of humans and had children that were giants is untenable as it is found in Jewish fables, and also that these giants would have no sin nature because the sin nature in mankind is passed on through the male, not the woman. Jesus Christ was sinless and had to be, thus in order for that to happen He would have had to have had no human father but God. He had God's blood, all humans have their father's blood and their mother's flesh, the blood systems in a baby are separate from the one of their mother. The CSriptures say these giants were "men of renown" and in order for them to be men they would have to have human fathers in order that the sin nature be passed on.

Grace and peace

Tony

Brother, the reference that he is called a "son of God" being "before he fell" is one I don't understand. He did not reproduce sons and daughters till after he fell, and as you say is made in God's image and therefore get's that name, but without human fathers the mighty men of old, the giants, would therefore have to be born with no sin nature since the sin nature of all humanity is passed from Adam to all his descendants. These giants also could not die were they not Adam's descendants:

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Grace and peace

Tony

In the Bible ANGELS are CALLED MEN (Gen 18:1-2, 19:1-11), so the fact they were called "men" is really moot and has no bearing on what they were. The strange "nature" of these creatures was unusual, and probably one reason why the Lord was determined to remove every last one of them from the earth, not to mention for the trouble they likely caused.

Nor can it be claimed that they were not offspring of angels because they LOOKED LIKE MEN, because we know that angels can easily assume a human-like form, and that their sex is always masculine (not "SEXLESS"). The writer to the Hebrews mentions that angels can be entertained without man’s knowing it (Hebrews 13:2). Angels must be convincingly like men; the homosexuals of Sodom were very capable of judging sexuality, and they were attracted by the ‘male’ angels who came to destroy the city (Genesis 19:1, especially verse 5).

So we can see that angels are CALLED MEN, and they APPEAR AS MEN in the Bible.

Whatever "nature" they had or did not have, the Bible does define the term ‘the sons of God’ for us.

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them (Job 1:6).

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came among them to present himself before the Lord (Job 2:1).

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:7, cf. Psalm 89:6; Daniel 3:25).

1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
1Ti 4:7 But refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

An old Jewish fable brother. Another found among the Jews is the "Lilith" fable, Adma's demon wife picked up in the Captivity in Babylon, and the fable Satan had sexual relations with Eve and produced Cain. The sin-nature of humanity is passed through the male seed rather than the woman, as evidenced by Christ's sinless nature.

II Cor. 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

In order that these "...men..." be born of women would mean that with Adam out of the picture as "father", then they would have to have no sin nature.

Gen. 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

These men of renown are not named, it's my position these men were Zeus, Apollo, Mars, the "gods" of many ancient civilizations who were actually men worshipped in later years as gods. They were mighty, renowned, and I don;t see the Scriptures speaking of them necessarily in a negative light or pointed out, the whole earth was corrupt.

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Like the "gap" theory, the whole contention, debate, and discussion of this is not one I see as profitable, at least for me.

II Cor. 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Grace and peace brother Parrish.

Tony

First of all brother, if you're going to claim you saw UFO's, you might want to reconsider the whole "fable" thing a little. Second, if you're going to pin up Bible verses, make sure they are in context and applicable. NONE OF THOSE verses are about angels or giants or anything related to the biblical teaching on the Nephilim, which is held by men who are stronger in the scriptures than both of us. I agree it's not a huge issue, but it should not be dismissed as a "fable" because that seems like an ignorant reaction and you are not ignorant.

Now SINCE YOU MENTIONED JEWS...

Here is an interesting article on the "Sons of God," also draws a distinction between the Nephilim and Giborem... I'm sure of there was a "Jewish fable" here he would have smelled it out long before some of us closed our eyes and refused to see the truth on the issue...

Sons Of God... Sethites Or Fallen Angels?
"The following article is only a portion of a Biblical study on Demonology: The Doctrine of Fallen Angels- Dr. A.G. Fruchtenbaum. Dr. Fruchtenbaum is a Messianic Jewish believer and founder of http://www.ariel.org in San Antonio Texas. He comes from a family line of Levite Priest (father and grandfather) and has knowledge of scripture that is just uncanny, nonetheless having become a believer in Christ at a young age, his father threw him out of the house for converting from Judaism to Christianity at the age of 17 or 18..."
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/fo...er&f=23&t=1327

Well I think we can agree that is possible, at least in theory.
But it's only theory, and so I don't see a right or wrong here... so back to the "issue"...

Tony, there are THEORIES, SPECULATION, and FABLES, but when the dust settles, the King James Bible CLEARLY DEFINES the term ‘the SONS OF GOD’ for us. You're always wanting to examine the SCRIPTURE, you of all people should know this...

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them (Job 1:6).

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came among them to present himself before the Lord (Job 2:1).

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:7, cf. Psalm 89:6; Daniel 3:25).

Brother, I am convinced that if you "study this out" with an open mind you will see that the Giants, Nephilim, along with the related "ims" including the Zamzummims, Rephaim, Emims, Anakims, Horims, etc. etc, (and their descendants) are woven fairly well through the early portions of the Bible, and may very well have been a much larger part of the violence, destruction and DNA problems that REQUIRED the near TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the ENTIRE POPULATION OF MANKIND and ANIMALS in Genesis, and led to MORE TOTAL EXTERMINATIONS of certain populations in other points in history after the flood.

"And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence THROUGH THEM; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." Gen 6:13

Note, the context of the passage above is the Nephilim. The Biblical picture is not one of a "few" or a "handful" of these "rare" creatures, but ENTIRE POPULATIONS of these giants, can you say "LAND OF THE GIANTS?"...

And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession. (That also was accounted A LAND OF GIANTS: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims;
A PEOPLE GREAT, AND MANY, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them..." Deu 2:19-22

"But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against THE PEOPLE; for they are stronger than we. And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, THE LAND, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and ALL THE PEOPLE WE SAW IN IT are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." Numbers 13:32-33

Ancient art from Babylon is very revealing. This sculpture I believe is supposed to be Nimrod, the mighty hunter. Notice he is a giant, and is holding a full grown lion with one hand. He also has 6 fingers, and 6 toes on his hands and feet.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/Winman/AB.jpg

And here is a sculpture of a man with wings. Could this mean this man was the offspring of angels and man?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/Winman/A.jpg

If we're going to study this topic, I wish we could avoid the one sentence arguments.
If simple pronouncements about the topics obvious "unbiblical" standing is all that's necessary then why don't you explain why scholars and serious bible students have hotly debated this issue from time immemorial. Early Bible scholars and historians tended to hold the view that the sons of God in Gen 6 were fallen angels. Josephus believed the sons of God in gen 6 were fallen angels and also wrote about the bones of the giants, which he believed were the offspring of angels and human women, still shown in his day.

For starters,
Jesus did not say angels cannot procreate. He said the angels OF GOD IN HEAVEN do not procreate. He doesn't even say the heavenly angels can't procreate but that they do not procreate.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

The angels of God in Heaven is one of 3 subsets of angels.

The second subset are the fallen angels that are not imprisoned.

The third subset are the fallen angels that are reserved in chains because they kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation. Note the comparison of the angels transgression in 1:6 to Sodom and Gomorrha's transgression in 1:7, in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh.

Jude
1:6 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.

1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

1 Peter
3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Interesting reference to Noah's day. Christ preached unto the spirits in prison who were disobedient in the days of Noah! Hmmm.

2 Peter
2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds; 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

This only scratches the surface. I'm going to spend time going over all the material that Bros. Parrish compiled. There has been a lot of written about this subject. I'd like to come to a better understanding. I believe that some people can't or won't face this issue head on because it touches upon human procreation and it's too disturbing for them to contemplate.

Okay, first of all, the whole thing about the angels being sexless is flat out wrong. They are all males. Every angel is a man, and the book of Revelation points that the clearest.

Rev 21:17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.

If there are no angels that are women, they obviously aren't going to be marrying each other since marriage is sexual and is clearly spoken of as being between man and woman. We all become sons of God, not sons and daughters. The verses in Job and wherever else in the Old Testament say sons not daughters.

I don't believe that we have to get out sin nature from our father. I think that it comes from having Adamic flesh.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus was tempted like we are yet without sin. If He didn't have old Adam in Him like we do then this verse seems awfully vain. In fact, how was he even tempted to sin if He didn't even have it in Him?

I agree with sister Greenbear, that Jude and Peter are giving reference to the sons of God that came and fornicated with human women. I also agree with whoever said that the after that is not saying that there were giants before and then after, but is saying that after the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, those men became mighty men.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Look at the sentence structure.

...and also after that,...

After what?

....when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bare them children to them,...

What about them?

...the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The semicolon is used to separate two independent clauses which carry their own subject, but are closely related. The after that is not referring to the subject of the previous sentence but of what follows after it. At least that's what I think he was trying to say. It's 4 in the morning and I'm passed due for sleep.

No while we know Satan as a male what would he be, male man. male ox. male lion or male eagle? Just a thought as the Bible teaches Angels are males. what sex would cherubim s and seraphim's be? most likely they are male but what type of male?

If I remember correctly, wasn't Satan a Cherub? Reptiles aren't represented by the 4 cheribim.

Female was only made for man and not by direct creation but from man's rib. Are there any scriptures (or lack of) that would make you question what sex cheribims and seraphims are?

I think the type of male that cherubims and seraphims fall under is the angelic order.

[QUOTE=kevinvw;21085]

kevinvw,

Thank you for pointing this out. This is so important. This notion that our sin nature comes down through the fathers blood, if true, means that Christ could not become the propitiation for our sins because He could not have been tempted in every way as we are. And He could not be our faithful high priest. I see this idea of Jesus having God's blood, not human blood, as worse than a cunningly devised fable. I see it as a doctrine of anti-christ. If anyone disagrees I want to know where I am wrong so please let me know.

Hebrews
I'll go with the Word of God on this one rather than "fables" of father's blood and mother's flesh, and the quoting of passages of scripture that have nothing to do with the topic, and the careless disregard for passages that have everything to do with this topic. This is, of course, only IMHO.

Brother Win, are we supposed to base a Bible teaching, or even a speculation, on something that's "supposed" to be this or that? I have a little second cousin who was born with two thumbs, does that make her the offspring of demonic angels? Are we to assume being born with extra digits, toes, fingers, arms, which I believe and I stand corrected, is called being "polydactyl", a sign someone was sired in the past by a fallen angel? Catholics burned polydactyls for that reason, as a female infant in India was born with four arms was declared the Goddess Kali.

The second picture is most certainly in error, Biblical angels do not have wings.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

Mary, mother of Jesus, was "Adamic flesh". Did Christ have a sin nature then? No, Christ had no sin nature because His Father was God, not Joseph, where the din nature of man was passed onto Jesus's half-siblings however. and where the offspring of our alleged fornicating angel of Genesis 6 would also have no sin nature with no human father.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

Bro. Tony, I'm going to have to say that you're flat out wrong about your presumptions that Christ had no sin nature. I don't know of any scriptures that support your position but I do know that the book of Hebrews definitely says that Jesus was like us being tempted to sin, and was made perfect through obedience. You can have your Jesus that never was tempted and doesn't know what it's like to have the natural man nagging at Him all the time, and I will take the Jesus of the Bible that overcame the natural man and the devil put them down every time, who will also help me to do the same because He experienced it Himself.

Exactly what is the sin nature? The NIV mentions it, but it is not in the word of God (KJV). Where did the sin nature originate and how does it get passed down? Do you sin because you have a sin nature? If the sin nature was passed down to you and you sin because you have a sin nature how can you be held accountable for your sin since you sin because of the sin nature which was passed down without your knowledge? We say homosexuals are in error when they say they were born that way, but we turn around and say people sin because they were born with a sin nature :confused:. BTW I'm not defending homosexuality and they weren't born that way. Like every other sinner they chose it I suspect sin nature like spiritual death made its way into modern teaching via the polluted stream of reformation theology.

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (James 1:14-15)

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. (Galatians 5:16-17)

I'm not trying to hijack the thread but we need to believe what the Bible says and teaches and not modern pop theology. Our problem is our flesh and our flesh is not the sin nature because there is no such thing. If there was the Bible would teach it. Spiritual death and sin nature are rooted in the Calvinistic teaching of total depravity.

I get the feeling Tony can't accept that the sons of God of Genesis 6 are angels because it is beyond his understanding. Its definitely beyond my understanding, but I accept it because it is clear Bible teaching.

Tony

I never meant to imply that we should base Bible teaching on ancient art. I didn't say anything like that, and I am surprised you took it that way.

The art is what it is. The Bible tells us of Nimrod, and the first photo was identified as an ancient Babylonian sculpture of Nimrod. They show him as a giant and a hunter. It is what it is.

I do not know who the second sculpture was, but it also appears to be a giant with wings. Now, the wings could have simply been symbolic, I don't know. But we have been discussing the topic that some believe angels took women as wives before Noah's time. I myself believe that is possible from the scriptures.

Another interesting thing about the 2nd photo is the object in the man's right hand. If you ask me, that looks just like a classic flying saucer. Or maybe just a sweet potato. :>)

You can say angels never took physical form, but that is not what the Bible tells me.

Gen 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

Lot could see these angels and asked them to tarry and "wash your feet". They also ate unleavened bread. So the Bible tells me angels can indeed take on physical reality when needed.

No where have I ever seen a reptile recorded in a description of a Cherubim either. but why are you thinking that a cherub is a reptile? because of the serpent and dragon of the Bible.

is a cherub and Cherubim the same?

sounds like a far fetch guess that Lucifer was a reptilian order. if the four cherubim around the throne all have the same description applied to them it would follow that the one that covereth would be of the same class not different.

The word cherubim isn't in the Bible, but the plural of cherub is cherubims.

The Bible says we were dead and had to be made alive, and that we by nature fulfilled the lust of the flesh and were the children of wrath.

We are said to be dead in the trespasses and sins, and Peter tells us that it is the Holy Spirit that quickens us. The Holy Spirit gives us the new birth that quickens our spirit. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jesus had both births simultaneously. He was born of water (physically) and of blood (God's blood, spiritually). He never walked after the flesh because He had the power of God, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have. Just like we can walk after the lusts of the flesh even though we have been born of the Spirit and have been covered in God's blood, but through the Spirit of God we can overcome our flesh, the same as Jesus did and we are told that Jesus will help us do it.

Not everything is spelled out letter for letter or word for word.