Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

Matt 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”


From the beginning, the will of God was One man and One woman.....The book of Gen.4 shows the taking of "extra" wives, without approval of the Lord. They just did whatever they wanted...thats what caused the flood.

19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah....this was the first time we see it.


After the flood, the Lord allowed it as "conditional" for Israel only(as a welfare system in type, not for indulgence). Prior to that, Abraham did it against the will of God and we can see the negative results of his failure.


Prax.....do you honestly believe you can lay in bed with multiple women as your wives and it not be a sin?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

Well thats interesting, you mean you deny the Giants of Caanan now? I bet king Saul was a Pygmy...LOL.

Think about what you guys believe...if we are shorter by 1/4th of an inch every 100 years in reverse, how tall would have Jesus been?...Think of the implications of your assertions. Noah would have been a LILLIPUTIAN...LOL


Maybe your angel babies fully grown were actually only 6' tall, and Noah was a midget, making a Cubit only 8" inches and the Ark was really only 1/3rd the size we now think it was...



This post is what you are reading about..... For most people, contemporary buildings do not prompt similar claustrophobic concerns. The reason for this difference, as many people have correctly guessed, is that modern humans are taller than those from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In fact, over the last 150 years the average height of people in industrialized nations has increased approximately 10 centimeters (about four inches).,,,,,Now if you continually reverse this number every 150 years, how tall was Abraham?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Wow, that was long and we still ended up with a virgin who bore Jesus Christ.

No we didn't in Is 7:14. What are you reading because what I posted confirms that the Hebrew word does NOT mean a virgin.

You must not really be reading my posts

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

"The vast majority of Strong’s misuse incidences are not malicious. Nor are they heretical. They are typically just errors. Please don’t attack someone for simply using Strong’s in an improper way; but still, let’s not make errors! We need to correct someone properly."

http://www.armchair-theology.net/bib...rdance-part-2/

Not being Malicious does not make then somehow not wrong. They are "misuse incidences" as per that quote.

They are ERRORS. This is what I have been trying to get you all to understand

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sean

Well thats interesting, you mean you deny the Giants of Caanan now?

You need to read more carefully. I said ARCHEOLOGY. I did not say "I deny X".

Archeology has found little to no traces of Giants. Probably because there were not that many. Most people were NOT giants

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Not being Malicious does not make then somehow not wrong. They are "misuse incidences" as per that quote.

They are ERRORS. This is what I have been trying to get you all to understand

I agree with the article that Strong's misuse incidences are not heretical.

And I did like this part of the article.

How To Properly Use Strong’s Concordance

How To Use Strong’s: Step By Step
1 Rule and 4 Guidelines – Weighing the Factors
http://www.armchair-theology.net/bib...s-concordance/

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No we didn't in Is 7:14. What are you reading because what I posted confirms that the Hebrew word does NOT mean a virgin.

You must not really be reading my posts

Yea, we pretty much did.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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."

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I agree with the article that Strong's misuse incidences are not heretical.

And I did like this part of the article.

Yes but they are still ERRORs...MISUSE.

No Biblical scholar would use Strongs for anything other than finding a word in the KJV

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yea, we pretty much did.

I don't know if you are being serious or just pretending to be obtuse. But that did not say it MEANS virgin. it says

can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin


Because a virgin is a young woman. The word can refer to any young woman without specifying a virgin. In the case of the example, which was NOT Is 7:14

Translators ASSUMED the word Virgin there because the servant of Isaac was there to find a wife for his masters son.

But what WE were discussing was what the word actually MEANS and translation.

If you had continued reading you would have saw this

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."

Clearly you are selectively reading what you want and then pretending what I've posted agrees with you and Strongs.

What you miss over and over is all Strongs is doing is listing how the KJV translated a word whereas my sources are telling you what the word REALLY means as well as How it has been used.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't know if you are being serious or just pretending to be obtuse. But that did not say it MEANS virgin. it says

can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin


Because a virgin is a young woman. The word can refer to any young woman without specifying a virgin. In the case of the example, which was NOT Is 7:14

Translators ASSUMED the word Virgin there because the servant of Isaac was there to find a wife for his masters son.

But what WE were discussing was what the word actually MEANS and translation.

If you had continued reading you would have saw this

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."

Clearly you are selectively reading what you want and then pretending what I've posted agrees with you and Strongs.

What you miss over and over is all Strongs is doing is listing how the KJV translated a word whereas my sources are telling you what the word REALLY means as well as How it has been used.

You are right, it can sometimes refer to a "virgin".

Using the same Hebrew word, "almah" or "haalmah" (5959) you have several translations using "virgin" for these scriptures:

Genesis 24:43
Exodus 2:8 (at least once)
Proverbs 30:19
Isaiah 7:14
Song of Songs 1:3
Song of Songs 6:8