Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sean

Ok Prax, I think you are just pulling my leg...you know how genetics works.

There are natural modifications that occur every generation. It is just the opposite of evolution. Things get smaller and weaker.....This is known in science as part of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.(left on their own, all things that exist, deteriorate)....These folks NATURALLY began to get smaller and live shorter lives, yet the Giants would have to rid themselves of any runts in the family. They no doubt, had an agenda to separate themselves and stay a tribe of large people.


Prax.....we have not got YOUR take on this yet.....How do you think the GIANTS in the land of caanan happened to be there...2 short people cannot genetically produce GIANTS unless the gene is in them already(from prior family genetics)...

You said they are Pure Bred. If you meant Inbred well that's another story. Supposedly humans were inbreeding since Adam and Eve had children

How could there have been a purebred lineage from Noah up to David if they were all Inbred after Noah?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sean

Yes sir, just like us...if we backslide into immorality, we give up our right of being "sons of God" and become "children of Satan"

Yeah...not like we do. I don't believe people backslide over night.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It's interesting to note that God calls Israel, "my son, even my firstborn". Exodus 4:22.

I would assume those that didn't want to follow Him were not His sons.

The text does not specify. In fact God dealt with Israel as a son even when they were sinning

This is how God deals with believers

Heb 12:5 And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons, "My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when you are rebuked by Him;
Heb 12:6 for whom the Lord loves He chastens, and He scourges every son whom He receives."
Heb 12:7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons, for what son is he whom the father does not chasten?

Pro 3:11 My son, do not despise the chastening of Jehovah; nor be weary with His correction;
Pro 3:12 for whom Jehovah loves He corrects, even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights.

However the title "Sons of God" was never applied to Israel

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The text does not specify. In fact God dealt with Israel as a son even when they were sinning

This is how God deals with believers

Heb 12:5 And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons, "My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when you are rebuked by Him;
Heb 12:6 for whom the Lord loves He chastens, and He scourges every son whom He receives."
Heb 12:7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons, for what son is he whom the father does not chasten?

Pro 3:11 My son, do not despise the chastening of Jehovah; nor be weary with His correction;
Pro 3:12 for whom Jehovah loves He corrects, even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights.

However the title "Sons of God" was never applied to Israel

The Bible never capitalizes sons.

How is the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 any different than the "sons of Jacob" in Genesis 35:5 or the "sons of Leah" in Genesis 35:25 or the "sons of Levi" in Genesis 46:11 or the "sons of Merari" in Exodus 6:19 or sons of Kolath, Eliab, Mahli.....?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Actually a lot of translations would translate that "it is nothing" which is confusing where as the NET would translate it's intentional meaning into English as "you are welcome"

Here are the Translation principles of the NET bible
https://bible.org/netbible/end.htm

Im more interested in accuracy than prose. If I wanted an elegant style or prose Id read just the KJV

How can "it is nothing" be confusing?

It's the dumbing down of education. People are too impatient to study. They want someone to do that for them.

There is a vast difference if reading "obey" and "keep". "Keep" has more depth and that is being lost in the dynamic equivalents, IMO. I prefer the formal equivalence over the dynamic as my main reading source.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The Bible never capitalizes sons.

That wasn't the point and I did not say it did.

How is the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 any different than the "sons of Jacob" in Genesis 35:5 or the "sons of Leah" in Genesis 35:25 or the "sons of Levi" in Genesis 46:11 or the "sons of Merari" in Exodus 6:19 or sons of Kolath, Eliab, Mahli.....?

That is besides the point. The bible never uses "Sons of God" with respect to Israel or any other human in the OT unless Gen 6 is an aberration

I already showed how "sons of God" or "son of a God" are used in the semitic thinking.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

How can "it is nothing" be confusing?

It's the dumbing down of education. People are too impatient to study. They want someone to do that for them.

There is a vast difference if reading "obey" and "keep". "Keep" has more depth and that is being lost in the dynamic equivalents, IMO. I prefer the formal equivalence over the dynamic as my main reading source.

"We don't normally say 'it is nothing'" in English.

We speak English. You are comparing Spanish to English. If the bible was translated that way, it would be incoherent.

Did you follow that link?
3. Form of Translation
No translation can ever achieve complete formal equivalence.1 Even a translation which sometimes reflects Hebrew and Greek word order at the expense of English style has to resort to paraphrase in some places. On the other hand, no translation achieves complete dynamic equivalence2 either. Thus this translation, like every other, ends up somewhere between the two extremes. These considerations are reflected by the following specific qualifications:

• In vocabulary and grammatical forms every attempt has been made to reflect the different styles of the different authors of the Bible. Paul’s letters should not sound like John’s or Peter’s or that of Hebrews in the English translation where possible.
• The level of English style is formal (not, however, technical) except in passages where somewhat more informal style would be more in keeping with the content. In general the use of contractions (“don’t,” “isn’t”) has been avoided, except in quoted speech.
• The language of average adults had priority. The translation attempts to use good literary style but is not overly formal or embellished.
• The translation is intended to be understandable to non-Christians as well as Christians, so liturgical language or Christian “jargon” has been avoided.
• Archaisms have also been avoided (e.g., “letter” was used instead of “epistle” in the NT). This includes the absolute avoidance of “thou” and “thee,” since there were no distinctions in the original Hebrew or Greek between pronouns used to address people and those used to address Deity. On a related note, pronouns which refer to Deity are not capitalized for this same reason.
• Long, complicated sentences in the original languages have been broken up into shorter sentences more acceptable in contemporary English. However, an attempt has been made to maintain the connections present in the original languages wherever possible.
• Idiomatic expressions and figurative language in the original languages have been changed when they make no sense to a typical modern English reader or are likely to lead to misunderstanding by atypical modern English reader. The literal reading has been placed in a note giving a brief explanation (a translator’s note).
• Nouns have been used for pronouns where the English pronoun would be obscure or ambiguous to a modern reader. This has been indicated in a note.
• Questions expecting a negative answer have been phrased to indicate this to the English reader.
• Clearlyredundant expressions such as “answered and said” have been avoided unless they have special rhetorical force in context. The literal reading is frequently indicated in a note.
• Introductory expressions like “verily, verily” have been translated idiomatically, the single ἀμήν as “I tell you the truth” and the double ἀμήν (peculiar to John’s Gospel) as “I tell you the solemn truth.”
• Introductory particles like ἰδού (“behold”) have been translated to fit the context (sometimes “listen,” “pay attention,” “look,” or occasionally left untranslated).
• Use of quotation marks (which did not exist in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) conforms to contemporaryAmericanEnglish usage.
• The basic unit of translation is the paragraph. Verse numbers are included in boldface type. Poetry is set out as poetry.
• Greek historical presents have been translated by English simple past tenses since English has no corresponding use of the present tense.
• In places where passive constructions create ambiguity, obscurity, or awkwardness in contemporary English, either the agent has been specified from context or the construction has been changed to active voice in the English translation, with an explanatory note.
• Ellipses have been filled out according to current English requirements (e.g., 1 John 2:19). This is normally explained in a note.
• Proper names have been standardized in accordance with accepted English usage.
  
  The Net bible isn't dumbed down.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That wasn't the point and I did not say it did.


That is besides the point. The bible never uses "Sons of God" with respect to Israel or any other human in the OT unless Gen 6 is an aberration

I already showed how "sons of God" or "son of a God" are used in the semitic thinking.

It is the point, you keep capitalizing "sons" as though that gives your view more credence.

And no, it isn't beside the point concerning all the other "sons of ...".

If He calls Israel His son, Israel would be the "sons of God".

You can sight whatever you want, people more knowledgeable than you have other views that don't agree with yours.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

"We don't normally say 'it is nothing'" in English.

We speak English. You are comparing Spanish to English. If the bible was translated that way, it would be incoherent.

Did you follow that link?
3. Form of Translation
No translation can ever achieve complete formal equivalence.1 Even a translation which sometimes reflects Hebrew and Greek word order at the expense of English style has to resort to paraphrase in some places. On the other hand, no translation achieves complete dynamic equivalence2 either. Thus this translation, like every other, ends up somewhere between the two extremes. These considerations are reflected by the following specific qualifications:

• In vocabulary and grammatical forms every attempt has been made to reflect the different styles of the different authors of the Bible. Paul’s letters should not sound like John’s or Peter’s or that of Hebrews in the English translation where possible.
• The level of English style is formal (not, however, technical) except in passages where somewhat more informal style would be more in keeping with the content. In general the use of contractions (“don’t,” “isn’t”) has been avoided, except in quoted speech.
• The language of average adults had priority. The translation attempts to use good literary style but is not overly formal or embellished.
• The translation is intended to be understandable to non-Christians as well as Christians, so liturgical language or Christian “jargon” has been avoided.
• Archaisms have also been avoided (e.g., “letter” was used instead of “epistle” in the NT). This includes the absolute avoidance of “thou” and “thee,” since there were no distinctions in the original Hebrew or Greek between pronouns used to address people and those used to address Deity. On a related note, pronouns which refer to Deity are not capitalized for this same reason.
• Long, complicated sentences in the original languages have been broken up into shorter sentences more acceptable in contemporary English. However, an attempt has been made to maintain the connections present in the original languages wherever possible.
• Idiomatic expressions and figurative language in the original languages have been changed when they make no sense to a typical modern English reader or are likely to lead to misunderstanding by atypical modern English reader. The literal reading has been placed in a note giving a brief explanation (a translator’s note).
• Nouns have been used for pronouns where the English pronoun would be obscure or ambiguous to a modern reader. This has been indicated in a note.
• Questions expecting a negative answer have been phrased to indicate this to the English reader.
• Clearlyredundant expressions such as “answered and said” have been avoided unless they have special rhetorical force in context. The literal reading is frequently indicated in a note.
• Introductory expressions like “verily, verily” have been translated idiomatically, the single ἀμήν as “I tell you the truth” and the double ἀμήν (peculiar to John’s Gospel) as “I tell you the solemn truth.”
• Introductory particles like ἰδού (“behold”) have been translated to fit the context (sometimes “listen,” “pay attention,” “look,” or occasionally left untranslated).
• Use of quotation marks (which did not exist in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) conforms to contemporaryAmericanEnglish usage.
• The basic unit of translation is the paragraph. Verse numbers are included in boldface type. Poetry is set out as poetry.
• Greek historical presents have been translated by English simple past tenses since English has no corresponding use of the present tense.
• In places where passive constructions create ambiguity, obscurity, or awkwardness in contemporary English, either the agent has been specified from context or the construction has been changed to active voice in the English translation, with an explanatory note.
• Ellipses have been filled out according to current English requirements (e.g., 1 John 2:19). This is normally explained in a note.
• Proper names have been standardized in accordance with accepted English usage.
  
  The Net bible isn't dumbed down.

There are just some things that need to have the deeper meaning. Just a couple of items off the top of my head, and I am sure there are some good things in the NET, but these two things I don't like at all. I have found some things I don't like in the NLT and the NKJV as well.

I use other translations for a reference source, but I don't use them for my main reading source.

Isaiah 7:14 (NET)
14 For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:14 (KJV)

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

16 And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation:

He was revealed in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.


1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Prove it. So you're saying the Righteous Sons of God fornicated?

How can GIVEN in MARRIAGE refer to fornication? Marriage is not fornication.... Thats crazy

The Phrase "Given in marriage" refers to girls being "given away" in marriage. It follows our tradition of the father "giving away" the bride

"Given in marriage" comes from 1 Greek word

WordStudy
ekgamízō; fut. ekgamísō, from ek (G1537), out, and gamízō (an alternate form of gamískō [G1061]), to give in marriage. To place out in marriage, to give in marriage as a father does with his daughter (Mat_22:30; Mat_24:38; Luk_17:27; 1Co_7:38).

1Co 7:38 So then he who gives in marriage does well. But he who does not give in marriage does better.

Of course it does Prax, but in Gen. the "men that began to call on the name of the Lord" fell into a lifestyle of "multiple wives", which were ALSO... given in marriage. POLYGAMY(If I had 5 daughters and gave them ALL to 1 man, it is still "giving in marriage") .....That is the "big sin" we see in Gen that Jesus was referring to in Matt. 24

God is NOT into seeing a man fulfilling his lust laying around with a harem of women....1 Cor. 10: 8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.


Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. 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.(notice MEN....plural), these were the "sons of God" Gen. 6 is referring to...

NOW THESE FOLKS OBVIOUSLY BACKSLID TO BE DESTROYED IN THE FLOOD....RIGHT? Where else does it mention in Gen., to cause these Godly folks to perish that are found in the above verse?