Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Ok, then where did the giants came from?
for we do know that there were giants in the earth in ancient times.

please explain the existence of giants.

It does not tell us where they came from. They were just there in the land in those days. In fact, the text does not say they were the children of the sons of God and daughters of men. They were incidentally around in those days, likely from one of the many, many lines of Seth that later resulted.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Fine, it's your choice how you see it. Apparently, 27 various Bible translations think that it does mean virgin.

And every Lexicon I have posted does NOT say it means Virgin. They all say it refers to a young girl and is the feminine form of the word for a young man

Which proves my point about the NET bible being more accurate

Many MANY Translations often follow tradition when it comes to translation

A case in point is Mark 16:16 where Newer translations were leaving this out because it's not in the oldest texts

But because of pressure they began to include it back in with a footnote

Another convention the follow is not Translating or transliterating the name of God Yhwh but instead use LORD. Even the NET bible does this.


Another bible translation I like that does not is the Lexham English Bible

They follow tradition with regards to Alma and render it as virgin. They are doing that because of the Matthew quote

The NRSV does not
NRSV | ‎Is 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

Nor the RSV
RSV | ‎Is 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el.

It's not a mistranslation. Its a literal translation

[Pressing-On]

Well, you caress that translation. Sleep with it under your pillow. Put it in your hip pocket. It's all good.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

You just quoted the scripture.........How can you not believe that angels did not have relations with the daughters of men?????

I would use Enoch, but every time I do I get flack.

Jesus flat-out said marriage is not done amongst angels. What more do we need?

Enoch's book is so stupid i can not begin to describe it. It says angels built the ark. Crazy stuff.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Jesus flat-out said marriage is not done amongst angels. What more do we need?

Enoch's book is so stupid i can not begin to describe it. It says angels built the ark. Crazy stuff.

The Angels in heaven, not those "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness"

I thought it was the rock monsters who built the ark, Russell Crowe needs some explaining to do.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Jesus flat-out said marriage is not done amongst angels. What more do we need?

Enoch's book is so stupid i can not begin to describe it. It says angels built the ark. Crazy stuff.

Yeah, Jude probably shouldn't have quoted it, calling it prophesy.

(Oh here we go.... Long treatise on the way about how Jude didn't actually quote the Book of Enoch. Or something.)

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Yeah, Jude probably shouldn't have quoted it, calling it prophesy.

(Oh here we go.... Long treatise on the way about how Jude didn't actually quote the Book of Enoch. Or something.)

Actually Timmy, the book of Enoch was generally false doctrine with just a smidgin of known truth.(as is the rest of the Apocrypha) just like the book of Mormon is these days. This is why it has been rejected as the Word of God.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Jesus flat-out said marriage is not done amongst angels. What more do we need?

Enoch's book is so stupid i can not begin to describe it. It says angels built the ark. Crazy stuff.

We aren't talking about angels in heaven. Jesus specifically says the angels in heaven

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sean

Actually Timmy, the book of Enoch was generally false doctrine with just a smidgin of known truth.(as is the rest of the Apocrypha) just like the book of Mormon is these days. This is why it has been rejected as the Word of God.

Yet Jude and Peter both quote from it

[shag]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yet Jude and Peter both quote from it

What is your stance on the accuracy of it...some true some untrue?
(Off in nowadays translation, but the original was accurate?)