Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Point taken. I am simply saying that NONE of us are the final authority. Besides, Prax HATES and continually condemns the KJV, which is ridiculous in my opinion. I'm not going to be lost having that as my main reading source.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Well Prax often quotes the KJV, if he really hated the KJV, he would not quote it all, but would avoid quoting like the plague. Me thinks you are exaggerating a little bit.

If Prax reads this post, please tell us if you really hate the KJV, come on be sincere, and confess your true feelings about the KJV.

No love here.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I didn't notice that. He went first and spoke on and on and on uninterrupted before James White gave his piece.

The KJV is based on a flawed Text in an outdated languages based on a flawed understanding of Koine
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...69&postcount=5

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The TEXT of the KJV is flawed. It's called the Received Text or the Textus Recepticus. It is flawed

The NKJV is a better translation
The ESV is based on a better Text

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The KJV is a last resort for me if I don't have a NKJV or an ESV
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...73&postcount=6

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

If it makes you happy, I can try harder to never capitalize "son"...you know what, ever mind. I don't care what you think

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

If it makes you happy, I can try harder to never capitalize "son"...you know what, ever mind. I don't care what you think

Yes you do.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

The part in bold is WHY I like the NET bible. It brings out the deeper meaning most translations and most people miss

For example most people tend to read Gen 19:24 and see two LORDS

The NET bible brings out the grammar better
Gen 19:24 Then the Lord rained down sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah. It was sent down from the sky by the Lord.

Notice that this rendering also translates the term "heaven" as "Sky". Often times other translations never translate the word as Sky even though Sky is meant.

They tend to all follow the KJV leading in many respects

Whereas other translations erroneously translate Hades as "Hell", the NET transliterates it as Hades. Now everyone can see what the actual word is...not hell, not the lake of fire, not tartarus but Hades

You can learn a lot about the bible by reading the NET bible alone with the translational notes about the grammar and why they translated something they way they did

We covered an example in Jude. It's all about grammar, it really is.

Did you read the link yet or the info I posted? The NET bible is not a Dynamic or a Standard Equivalence. It's more of a hybrid between the two

No other bible translation I have found attempts to translate idioms and figures of speech that would not make sense to us otherwise, like the NET.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

Because you put the examples in quotes I could not see them and respond

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.

The KJV is not a translation from the Hebrew word. The actual Hebrew word means "young maiden"

So the NET is more accurate there. It doesn't mean that young woman was NOT a virgin but the word itself just does not mean "virgin". It can obviously refer to a young woman who still is a virgin. So in this respect the NET bible did not bow to pressure and mistranslate it to satisfy our doctrinal bias.

You can learn a lot by reading the NET and the translational notes. The NET is a faithful translation of the Hebrew. Had it been translated from the Greek Septuagint things would be different

26 tn Traditionally, "virgin." Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Mat_1:23 in connection with Jesus' birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ's virgin birth. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one's view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected.

Though the Hebrew word used here, עַלְמָה ('almāh), can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen_24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun עֶלֶם ('elem, "young man"; cf. 1Sa_17:56; 1Sa_20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated "young woman."

The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century b.c., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word παρθένος (parthenos), which does mean "virgin" in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa_7:14 in Mat_1:23.

Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew's usage of the Greek term παρθένος (parthenos) clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

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.

This has NOTHING to do with translation. Nearly ALL bibles today are based on an older body of greek Manuscripts that don't have THEOS there but instead have Hos.

And the word manifested means Revealed.
(BBE) And without argument, great is the secret of religion: He who was seen in the flesh, who was given God's approval in the spirit, was seen by the angels, of whom the good news was given among the nations, in whom the world had faith, who was taken up in glory.

(CEV) Here is the great mystery of our religion: Christ came as a human. The Spirit proved that he pleased God, and he was seen by angels. Christ was preached to the nations. People in this world put their faith in him, and he was taken up to glory.

(ESV) Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

(GNB) No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion: He appeared in human form, was shown to be right by the Spirit, and was seen by angels. He was preached among the nations, was believed in throughout the world, and was taken up to heaven.

(ISV) By common confession, the secret of our godly worship is great: In flesh was he revealed to sight, Kept righteous by the Spirit's might, Adored by angels singing. To nations was he manifest, Believing souls found peace and rest, Our Lord in heaven reigning!

(RSV) Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

(RV) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sean

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?

No where in the bible is multiple wives a sin. Many Patriarchs had multiple wives. Abraham had two wives.

The term "Given in marriage" refers to women being given as brides. Marrying and eating are not sins.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by obriencp

Sean, you are trying to connect unrelated things. Thermodynamics has nothing to do people getting weaker or shorter. In fact, people are getting taller. I just read something that said the average height of a person has grown 4 inches in the last 150 years. Genetics adapt to what is more advantageous for survival. Using thermodynamics to say people are getting smaller is flat out wrong.

You are correct, in fact archeology has shown that humans in those days were relatively short compared to us today

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

This is a bogus appeal to authority.
For people more knowledge that any of us, have other views than don't agree with us, Some of those people believe in the Trinity and other false doctrines.

Just because Doctor So and So says there is a trinity, I should I then believe in the trinity, since he is far more knowledgeable than I am or perhaps ever will be?

I didn't respond because I thought it was just a personal attack tied in with the other about me intentionally capitalizing Son. She did something like that previously too where she attributed motive to me

One reason I thought it was pointless was I quoted LOT of people smarter than me that AGREED with me and disagreed with these guys...no mention of that right?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Well Prax often quotes the KJV, if he really hated the KJV, he would not quote it all, but would avoid quoting like the plague. Me thinks you are exaggerating a little bit.

If Prax reads this post, please tell us if you really hate the KJV, come on be sincere, and confess your true feelings about the KJV.

As far as Translations go, I don't like the KJV. I prefer others.

The KJV was translated into a language nobody uses anymore except Shakespearean actors and wanna be prophets

It also was translated at a time when our knowledge of ancient Greek was not as good as it is today