Difference between revisions of "Seduction of Eve"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(an unusual interpretation)
(considered unorthodox)
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
This interpretation assumes that "sons of God" refers to [[angel]]s, while "daughters of men" refers to human females.
 
This interpretation assumes that "sons of God" refers to [[angel]]s, while "daughters of men" refers to human females.
 +
 +
The Unification Church cites Jude 1:6-7 as evidence that angels "sinned" via "fornication":
 +
 +
*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.
 +
*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. ([http://kingjbible.com/jude/1.htm King James Version])
 +
 +
These views are considered unorthodox within mainstream Christian thought.

Revision as of 11:29, March 12, 2008

The seduction of Eve is seen as sexual by two religious movements: Christian Identity in the US and the Unification Church, which orginated in Korea.

Some Bible interpreters regard Genesis as suggesting that angels had sex with earthly women:

"The sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose" (Gen.6:2). [1]

This interpretation assumes that "sons of God" refers to angels, while "daughters of men" refers to human females.

The Unification Church cites Jude 1:6-7 as evidence that angels "sinned" via "fornication":

  • 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.
  • 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. (King James Version)

These views are considered unorthodox within mainstream Christian thought.