Why hasn't America returned to the Moon?

[Kol]

Enoch is inspired. The others are not. Compare commentaries by Dr. Charles and Dr. Ginsburg.

 

[Sketcher]

Enoch is inspired. The others are not. Compare commentaries by Dr. Charles and Dr. Ginsburg.

If Enoch is inspired, why is it not canonized?

 

[B®ent]

If Enoch is inspired, why is it not canonized?

If Enoch is not inspired, what does Jude quote it?

That would mean the Bible contains uninspired text...

[bible]jude 1:14-15[/bible]

 

[B®ent]

The "days" in Genesis cannot be taken literal. The closest translation we had for the original text that would make sense to people was "days". However, the Hebrew word

yôma literally means "time".

Yet it can also refer to a literal, 24-hour day. Genesis 1:16-19 strongly indicates this. Are you suggesting that prior to the fourth day, "days" were millions of years in length? That is a nice attempt to harmonize scripture with evolutionary myth, but it's not Biblical.

Hold the phone... you do realize there are reasons these books don't exist in the Bible, correct?

The Book of Enoch is quoted in the Bible. At some point, the book was lost, and remained lost for over a thousand years. While I do not believe it should be canonized, I do consider it inspired. It is, however, the only inspired book not included in the Bible.

 

[B®ent]

Oh, I believe that too.

At what point did Lucifer rebel, then? After a few weeks?
You are working with a very limited frame of time.

But you're reading into this, making assumptions, and then doctrine from those assumptions. That's very Catholic of you.

Gap Theory is doctrinal. Lunar civilization, however, is not.
I would never teach from a pulpit that angels lived on the Moon.

"were of old" simply means they existed long ago.

Incorrect. Consider Genesis 6:4, for instance.

[bible]Genesis 6:4[/bible]

Of the Nephilim, it says, "the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." How could they be "of old"? The answer is simple: these Nephilim were of (or closely resembled) the race which inhabited the Earth prior to the creation of Adam and Eve. That is why it says they "were of old."

But Young Earth Creationism does not teach that the flood destroyed the cosmos.

I know! That's why it is so obvious that YECism is wrong.

Furthermore, the Bible does not in any way teach that the cosmos were at any point destroyed.

Incorrect. Peter says,

[bible]2 Peter 3:5-6[/bible]

Peter says, "the earth standing out of the water and in the water." At what point in Noah's flood was the earth standing out of the water? Can you answer this question?

Clearly, the solar system was occupied by water ice. Logically, this would have to mean the sun was burnt out, and other worlds (Mars, etc.) throughout the solar system faced similar catastrophe.

The earth was formless and void before God created it - which is a fancy way of saying it didn't exist.

Um, wait just a minute there. In Genesis 1:1, it says God created the heavens and the earth. Are you suggesting that God didn't create the Earth before He created it?

In other words, God created the Earth in Genesis 1:1, but in Genesis 1:2, suddenly the Earth was not yet created?

That doesn't make any sense!

Furthermore, angels are spiritual beings and wars between angels need not cause any sort of physical fallout.

Angels are (or at least were) physical beings.

How could spiritual beings have sex with daughters of men?

 

[Rhododendron]

30 years have passed by since we last stepped foot on the Moon...

Why haven't we been back since?

Could it be...someone or something told us to stay away?

Because they're waiting for me to get trained up.

(even thought I'm Canadian...)

 

[Crusading_Ostrich]

While I do not believe it should be canonized, I do consider it inspired. It is, however, the only inspired book not included in the Bible.

I'm calling you out on this one. That is a load of crap and you should know it. You are picking and choosing when you say it is the ONLY inspired book not included. You seem to be forming your own views and opinions and then taking parts of the Bible to back that up. Not only is this utterly bad sholarly research, the only thing spiritual about it seems to be what you must have been drinking when you wrote it up.

 

[B®ent]

I'm calling you out on this one. That is a load of crap and you should know it. You are picking and choosing when you say it is the ONLY inspired book not included. You seem to be forming your own views and opinions and then taking parts of the Bible to back that up.

Why is Enoch quoted in the Book of Jude?

[bible]Jude 1:14-15[/bible]

To my knowledge it is the only non-Biblical book quoted in the Bible. This hints that it is an inspired (or at least historically accurate) book, despite it not being included in the Bible. Just to make myself clear, I am not proposing that we include the Book of Enoch in the Bible.

 

[Sketcher]

If Enoch is not inspired, what does Jude quote it?

That would mean the Bible contains uninspired text...

[bible]jude 1:14-15[/bible]

Paul quoted pagan poets and philosophers when preaching to the Athenians, and also in his first letter to the Corinthians:

[bible]1 corinthians 15:33[/bible]

[bible]acts 17:18[/bible]

Does this make these pagans inspired, or does it only mean that Paul was inspired when he used their words to illustrate a point?

At what point did Lucifer rebel, then? After a few weeks?
You are working with a very limited frame of time.

Before Genesis 1:1. Satan and his rebellion was a prequel to Genesis, but it did not interfere with God's creation until the bible said it did, when he tempted Eve in the Garden.

Gap Theory is doctrinal. Lunar civilization, however, is not.
I would never teach from a pulpit that angels lived on the Moon.

Your entire thesis for this thread hinges on an interplanetary band of demons coming back to earth from Planet X, and that they were once on the moon.

Incorrect. Consider Genesis 6:4, for instance.

[bible]Genesis 6:4[/bible]

Of the Nephilim, it says, "the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." How could they be "of old"? The answer is simple: these Nephilim were of (or closely resembled) the race which inhabited the Earth prior to the creation of Adam and Eve. That is why it says they "were of old."

No, that means they were big-shots in the pre-flood world. Not a pre-Adamic world.

Incorrect. Peter says,

[bible]2 Peter 3:5-6[/bible]

Peter says, "the earth standing out of the water and in the water."

At what point in Noah's flood was the earth standing out of the water? Can you answer this question?

Again, this is a wrong interpretation. In the beginning, there was only water. God formed the earth out of water, as a potter forms a pot out of clay. A literal reading of this passage does not require that any part of the earth was not deluged in the flood.

Clearly, the solar system was occupied by water ice. Logically, this would have to mean the sun was burnt out, and other worlds (Mars, etc.) throughout the solar system faced similar catastrophe.

No, because Peter says only the world was deluged. He says nothing of the sun, moon, or stars, implying that they were untouched by whatever flood he mentions.

Um, wait just a minute there. In Genesis 1:1, it says God created the heavens and the earth. Are you suggesting that God didn't create the Earth before He created it?

In other words, God created the Earth in Genesis 1:1, but in Genesis 1:2, suddenly the Earth was not yet created?

No. Verse 1 is an introduction to the chapter, nothing more (save teaching a few things about God himself). Verse 2 and following tells the story of how verse 1 came about.

Angels are (or at least were) physical beings.

How could spiritual beings have sex with daughters of men?

Did it ever occur to you that the Nephilim were not half-demons for this very reason? The "Sons of God" would represent the good men, presumably from Seth's line. The "daughters of men" would represent wicked daughters of wicked men, who seduced the good men with their outer beauty and through being yoked with unbelievers, as Solomon was to his wives, the human race fell into the darkness described in Genesis 6:5.

 

[arunma]

Why is Enoch quoted in the Book of Jude?

Probably for the same reason that Paul quoted the poet Aratus (Acts 17:28). Or do you believe that Phaenomena is an inspired poem?

 

[B®ent]

Paul quoted pagan poets and philosophers when preaching to the Athenians, and also in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Does this make these pagans inspired, or does it only mean that Paul was inspired when he used their words to illustrate a point?

Jude rightly identified the book of Enoch with the Biblical prophet Enoch. What does the Bible say about Enoch?

[bible]Genesis 5:24[/bible]

Enoch was one of the greatest men to ever walk the Earth. And yet, many Christians (such as yourself) are fixated with questioning his legacy and integrity. Quite sad, if you ask me.

Before Genesis 1:1. Satan and his rebellion was a prequel to Genesis, but it did not interfere with God's creation until the bible said it did, when he tempted Eve in the Garden.

Wrong. The Bible says:

[bible]Job 38:4-7[/bible]

ALL Angels worshiped God at the foundation of the Earth.

Your entire thesis for this thread hinges on an interplanetary band of demons coming back to earth from Planet X, and that they were once on the moon.

I am not presenting that as absolute fact.
It is, rather, my personal opinion.

No, that means they were big-shots in the pre-flood world. Not a pre-Adamic world.

How could they be "of old" if they were a new creation?

Again, this is a wrong interpretation. In the beginning, there was only water. God formed the earth out of water, as a potter forms a pot out of clay. A literal reading of this passage does not require that any part of the earth was not deluged in the flood.

Our point of disagreement is entirely a matter of interpretation.

No, because Peter says only the world was deluged. He says nothing of the sun, moon, or stars, implying that they were untouched by whatever flood he mentions.

Wrong. In 2 Peter 3:5-7, Peter contrasts the "the heavens ... of old" with "heavens and the earth, which are now." Did God destroy the Heavens and the Earth in the Noahic flood? Nonsense! Only the Earth was impacted by the Noahic flood. Therefore, Peter must be referring to an earlier event.

Peter was a Gap Theorist.

No. Verse 1 is an introduction to the chapter, nothing more (save teaching a few things about God himself). Verse 2 and following tells the story of how verse 1 came about.

Can you provide other instances of this in the Bible? I don't believe it's consistent with Hebrew style of writing, but I'll give you a chance.

Did it ever occur to you that the Nephilim were not half-demons for this very reason? The "Sons of God" would represent the good men, presumably from Seth's line. The "daughters of men" would represent wicked daughters of wicked men, who seduced the good men with their outer beauty and through being yoked with unbelievers, as Solomon was to his wives, the human race fell into the darkness described in Genesis 6:5.

Quite wrong! 'Sons of God' is translated from the Hebrew phrase, "bene elohim." Throughout the Old Testament, 'bene elohim' is translated as 'Angel'. Furthermore,

[bible]Genesis 4:26[/bible]

With the descendants of Seth, mankind began to blaspheme the name of the Lord. Adam and Eve were praising the Lord before the sons of Seth. If the sons of Seth were Godly men, then Adam and Eve were ungodly. It's just that simple.

 

[Sketcher]

Jude rightly identified the book of Enoch with the Biblical prophet Enoch. What does the Bible say about Enoch?

[bible]Genesis 5:24[/bible]

Enoch was one of the greatest men to ever walk the Earth. And yet, many Christians (such as yourself) are fixated with questioning his legacy and integrity. Quite sad, if you ask me.

Jews too. They had their reasons for not having this book in their canon, and they maintain the same things about Enoch the man as Christians do.

Wrong. The Bible says:

[bible]Job 38:4-7[/bible]

ALL Angels worshiped God at the foundation of the Earth.

At least all the angels that hadn't rebelled and been outcast - would you call Satan a "son of God" today?

Now, it is possible that Satan's rebellion came on or after Day 6, as a response to the role of mankind. This of course, is sheer speculation.

I am not presenting that as absolute fact.
It is, rather, my personal opinion.

A ridiculous and unbiblical one at that.

How could they be "of old" if they were a new creation?

I never said they were a new creation. The only new creations the Bible speaks of are Christians. The pre-flood world is clearly referenced here, and my interpretation fits nicely into this context.

Our point of disagreement is entirely a matter of interpretation.

That I will give you, and I stand by what I said before.

Wrong. In 2 Peter 3:5-7, Peter contrasts the "the heavens ... of old" with "heavens and the earth, which are now." Did God destroy the Heavens and the Earth in the Noahic flood? Nonsense! Only the Earth was impacted by the Noahic flood. Therefore, Peter must be referring to an earlier event.

No, no, no. There are no old heavens and new heavens in this passage. There are only heavens. He is speaking only of the fate of the heavens "which are now preserved by the same word" and "reserved for fire until the day of judgment." The commas in the KJV are deceiving you.

Can you provide other instances of this in the Bible? I don't believe it's consistent with Hebrew style of writing, but I'll give you a chance.

Yes. Genesis 2:4 and following. Either this is the style, or there are two contradicting stories. I believe the former, not the latter.

Quite wrong! 'Sons of God' is translated from the Hebrew phrase, "bene elohim." Throughout the Old Testament, 'bene elohim' is translated as 'Angel'. Furthermore,

[bible]Genesis 4:26[/bible]

With the descendants of Seth, mankind began to blaspheme the name of the Lord. Adam and Eve were praising the Lord before the sons of Seth. If the sons of Seth were Godly men, then Adam and Eve were ungodly. It's just that simple.

Adam and Eve WERE responsible for the fall of man, I wouldn't presume to call them godly after eating the fruit in the first place. Besides, Gen 4:26 says they were calling on the name of the Lord, not blaspheming it. Down the line, they were corrupted by wicked men who did not call on the name of the Lord.

Also, your interpretation of the "sons of God" marrying the "daughters of men" points to the theory that demons were marrying women to completely corrupt the human race, and make a Christ figure as promised in Genesis 3:15 impossible. This theory also teaches that the flood was a last resort to kill all the Nephilim, and that God learned His lesson and shackled the angels so this would no longer be possible (2 Peter 2:4-5). However, there is a small problem with this. Nephilim were found in Numbers 13:33. Big guys, also described as sons of Anak (a giant, and presumably one of these super-humans). Therefore, Numbers 13:33 and your interpretation of Genesis 6:4 cannot both be true.

 

[B®ent]

Jews too. They had their reasons for not having this book in their canon, and they maintain the same things about Enoch the man as Christians do.

Let's state some facts.

1.) Jude identifies the Book of Enoch with Enoch the Prophet;
2.) In Genesis 5:24, it says "Enoch walked with God."

If you are proposing that the Book of Enoch is utter garbage, then, in light of Jude's identification of Enoch as the author of the Book of Enoch, logically the Bible would have to be exaggerating Enoch's character. Is that what you believe?

At least all the angels that hadn't rebelled and been outcast - would you call Satan a "son of God" today?

Only insofar as Satan is an Angel, albeit a fallen one. Bene ha-'elohim (sons of God) is more descriptive of their origin than of their present spiritual state. In Genesis 6:4, for example, it says "the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them." This indicates that, despite their rebellious nature, these beings are considered sons (Angels) originating with the Father.

Consider this, for instance -

34sn The “sons of God” in the OT is generally taken to refer to angels. They are not actually “sons” of Elohim; the idiom is a poetic way of describing their nature and relationship to God.

http://www.bible.org/netbible/job1_notes.htm

The Bible says ALL Angels praised God, and I believe it.

Now, it is possible that Satan's rebellion came on or after Day 6, as a response to the role of mankind. This of course, is sheer speculation.

That is definitely a more Biblical interpretation.

A ridiculous and unbiblical one at that.

I was hoping we could have a pleasant discussion. Your appeal to insults only demonstrates a lack of confidence in your own argument.

I never said they were a new creation. The only new creations the Bible speaks of are Christians. The pre-flood world is clearly referenced here, and my interpretation fits nicely into this context.

You're missing my point. These beings are, according to the Bible, "of old." How could they be "of old" if they were new?

No, no, no. There are no old heavens and new heavens in this passage. There are only heavens. He is speaking only of the fate of the heavens "which are now preserved by the same word" and "reserved for fire until the day of judgment." The commas in the KJV are deceiving you.

Peter compares "the heavens ... of old" with "heavens and the earth, which are now." He is comparing the old heavens, which passed away, to the new heavens, which are now. Why can't you acknowledge what the Bible says?

http://www.kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html#

Adam and Eve WERE responsible for the fall of man, I wouldn't presume to call them godly after eating the fruit in the first place.

Adam and Eve repented and walked with God. Why do you insist on bashing Godly men of the Bible? First Enoch, and now Adam as well?

Your assumption that "began men to call upon the name of the LORD" with the generations of Seth is to assume that Adam and Eve never praised God. The phrase 'call upon' is either praise or it is blasphemy. In this case, blasphemy. This marks the beginning of man's downfall.

Also, your interpretation of the "sons of God" marrying the "daughters of men" points to the theory that demons were marrying women to completely corrupt the human race, and make a Christ figure as promised in Genesis 3:15 impossible. This theory also teaches that the flood was a last resort to kill all the Nephilim, and that God learned His lesson and shackled the angels so this would no longer be possible (2 Peter 2:4-5). However, there is a small problem with this. Nephilim were found in Numbers 13:33. Big guys, also described as sons of Anak (a giant, and presumably one of these super-humans). Therefore, Numbers 13:33 and your interpretation of Genesis 6:4 cannot both be true.

Actually, both could be true. It is widely held in Gap Theory camps that Satan tried to pull the same trick. This is why God commanded the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman and child. There was no other way. On the other hand, it is possible that the Bible is simply comparing these new Giants to the Giants of the Noahic world.

In your interpretation of "the sons of God,"

1.) Where did the Giants come from?
2.) Why is bene ha-'elohim also translated 'Angel'?

Lastly, I'd like to bring to your attention Jude 1:6-7...

[bible]Jude 1:6-7[/bible]

Jude is comparing the pre-Noahic flood world to the conditions of Sodom and Gomorrah. In other words, sexual immorality was rampant. Can we agree Angel-Human relations are immoral?

 

[Kol]

It amazes me how ignorant some people choose to be. Has any *one* of the people here who are so critiqueing Enoch ever *read* Enoch, or studied as to whether it is/isn't inspired?

Enoch is this:

1. A band of perverted angels came down and had sex with women. (Azazel)
2. The satans (adversaries) saw this as a chance to destroy God's plan, came down and followed suit, in order to pervert the chosen line. (Semjaza)
3. Enoch is sent to Parwain (heaven) to state a petition for the original "fallen angels". The petition is refused.
4. An angel shows Enoch how the sun, moon, seasons work.
5. He is shown a prophecy that there will one day be a Messiah.
6. The End.

All this about "lunar theory" is nice-I believe it myself-but it has nothing to do with Enoch! No one believes Enoch isn't canon! No one believes it isn't inspired! It was in the Septuigent!

The Sanhedrin removed it, and why? Because it had prophecies relating to Christ!

The people who didn't want Enoch in the Bible also didn't want Jude. So, is Jude also not inspired?

 

[Sketcher]

Let's state some facts.

1.) Jude identifies the Book of Enoch with Enoch the Prophet;
2.) In Genesis 5:24, it says "Enoch walked with God."

If you are proposing that the Book of Enoch is utter garbage, then, in light of Jude's identification of Enoch as the author of the Book of Enoch, logically the Bible would have to be exaggerating Enoch's character. Is that what you believe?

His character is not in dispute. The authenticity of the book bearing his name certainly would be - especially since no copies of the manuscript would have survived the flood.

Only insofar as Satan is an Angel, albeit a fallen one. Bene ha-'elohim (sons of God) is more descriptive of their origin than of their present spiritual state. In Genesis 6:4, for example, it says "the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them." This indicates that, despite their rebellious nature, these beings are considered sons (Angels) originating with the Father.

But it doesn't always mean that. Consider:

The Condensed Bible Cyclopedia

Matthew Henry's Commentary

The Geneva Study Bible Notes

I was hoping we could have a pleasant discussion. Your appeal to insults only demonstrates a lack of confidence in your own argument.

I am quite confident of my argument, though I will apologize for insulting you.

You're missing my point. These beings are, according to the Bible, "of old." How could they be "of old" if they were new?

You're trying to say that angels are "of old," everything else is "new," and since the KJV uses "of old" here, that the Nephilim must be angels. This is not the case. While angels are "older" than man and the rest of creation, "of old" does not necessarily mean eternity past, especially when referencing an ancient, pre-flood world.

Peter compares "the heavens ... of old" with "heavens and the earth, which are now." He is comparing the old heavens, which passed away, to the new heavens, which are now. Why can't you acknowledge what the Bible says?

I am acknowledging what the Bible says. There is no old and new heavens. Exogeet this verse in a few more credible translations.

Adam and Eve repented and walked with God. Why do you insist on bashing Godly men of the Bible? First Enoch, and now Adam as well?

Well, God had mercy on them and clothed them with skins. And they probably did repent, but I'm not going to say they were good people overall. The fact that they are the first man and woman tempts us to think they were better than they actually are; the Muslims even consider Adam to be a prophet.

Your assumption that "began men to call upon the name of the LORD" with the generations of Seth is to assume that Adam and Eve never praised God. The phrase 'call upon' is either praise or it is blasphemy. In this case, blasphemy. This marks the beginning of man's downfall.

Then why isn't it rendered "blasphemy"? It's pretty clear from the context and from commentary that this is meant "to praise" in this instance.

Actually, both could be true. It is widely held in Gap Theory camps that Satan tried to pull the same trick. This is why God commanded the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman and child. There was no other way. On the other hand, it is possible that the Bible is simply comparing these new Giants to the Giants of the Noahic world.

If that were the case, wouldn't Jews have some unavoidable drops of demon blood in them, since they couldn't avoid intermarrying with the pagans?

In your interpretation of "the sons of God,"

1.) Where did the Giants come from?
2.) Why is bene ha-'elohim also translated 'Angel'?

1) God made some people to be giants. Goliath for example. There is no Biblical evidence for him having demonic ancestry, only that he was a wicked man from a wicked tribe.

2) That's the way the Hebrews chose to portray them sometimes.

Lastly, I'd like to bring to your attention Jude 1:6-7...

[bible]Jude 1:6-7[/bible]

Jude is comparing the pre-Noahic flood world to the conditions of Sodom and Gomorrah. In other words, sexual immorality was rampant. Can we agree Angel-Human relations are immoral?

We can agree that if angel-human relations were possible, they would be immoral. However, there can be rampant sexual immorality (such as in Rome) without demons doing anything more than tempting humans to have sex with each other.

 

[Sketcher]

It amazes me how ignorant some people choose to be. Has any *one* of the people here who are so critiqueing Enoch ever *read* Enoch, or studied as to whether it is/isn't inspired?

Enoch is this:

1. A band of perverted angels came down and had sex with women. (Azazel)
2. The satans (adversaries) saw this as a chance to destroy God's plan, came down and followed suit, in order to pervert the chosen line. (Semjaza)
3. Enoch is sent to Parwain (heaven) to state a petition for the original "fallen angels". The petition is refused.
4. An angel shows Enoch how the sun, moon, seasons work.
5. He is shown a prophecy that there will one day be a Messiah.
6. The End.

All this about "lunar theory" is nice-I believe it myself-but it has nothing to do with Enoch! No one believes Enoch isn't canon! No one believes it isn't inspired! It was in the Septuigent!

The Sanhedrin removed it, and why? Because it had prophecies relating to Christ!

The people who didn't want Enoch in the Bible also didn't want Jude. So, is Jude also not inspired?

However, you won't find Enoch in a Catholic Bible. And you will find Jude.

 

[Kol]

::thinks::
I'm not sure where you are coming from, or where you are going with this. I think perhaps that there is something else going on here-that Brent is from a certain denomination, etc, and that you are from another, and that the argument being held here is a fight between those two.

I understand if, on the merits of a book not being in the KJV Bible, you then do not accept it. There is nothing in Enoch that is not elsewhere in scripture. It *does*, however, perplex me that someone would truly believe Enoch to be not canon, or not inspired. I suspect-with no insult intended to your intelligence or judgement-that you have not really studied 1 Enoch, or read the arguments for and against its supposed inspired nature. I personally see Enoch as undeniably vital and God-breathed. I just ask that you one day read the book for yourself, (as well as Jasher) and pray for discernment in this.

Peace.

 

[B®ent]

His character is not in dispute. The authenticity of the book bearing his name certainly would be

Do you also dispute the authenticity of Jude 1:14-15?

But it doesn't always mean that. Consider:

The Condensed Bible Cyclopedia

Matthew Henry's Commentary

The Geneva Study Bible Notes

These sources have injected their own theology into the text. There is nothing suggesting that Bene ha-'elohim are the descendants of Seth. Isn't it more plausible to assume that the Book of Enoch is correct -- that it is a trustworthy, second account of what transpired in those days? Have you read the Book of Enoch?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe009.htm

I am quite confident of my argument, though I will apologize for insulting you.

Thank you. You are presenting some good arguments, and I enjoy our discussion -- so long as it remains respectful.

You're trying to say that angels are "of old," everything else is "new," and since the KJV uses "of old" here, that the Nephilim must be angels. This is not the case. While angels are "older" than man and the rest of creation, "of old" does not necessarily mean eternity past, especially when referencing an ancient, pre-flood world.

If I cannot convince you of my perspective, the least you can do is explain your perspective. How, pray tell, were these beings "of old"?

I am acknowledging what the Bible says. There is no old and new heavens.

The Bible says what it says.

Exogeet this verse in a few more credible translations.

I don't read "translations" of the Bible which mutilate or remove entire passages from the text. But if you're looking for another literal translation of the verse, for the sake of comparison, consider the Young's Literal translation:

for this is unobserved by them willingly, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of water and through water standing together by the word of God, through which the then world, by water having been deluged, was destroyed; and the present heavens and the earth, by the same word are treasured, for fire being kept to a day of judgment and destruction of the impious men.

Then why isn't it rendered "blasphemy"?

The KJV translators were actually quite certain it was blasphemy, but they sought to give them the benefit of the doubt. I listened to a sermon on this exact subject some months ago (I will see about finding it for you). Simple logic dictates that it was blasphemy, however. Did not Abel not worship the Lord?

Even setting that aside for a moment, and assuming his descendants were Godly men, who says they're the sons of God?

It's pretty clear from the context and from commentary that this is meant "to praise" in this instance.

Then Abel didn't praise God?

If that were the case, wouldn't Jews have some unavoidable drops of demon blood in them, since they couldn't avoid intermarrying with the pagans?

Pagans of undefined human stock, perhaps.
Do you suppose the Israelites married Giants?

1) God made some people to be giants. Goliath for example.

There is nothing in the Bible which even hints that God made some people into Giants. The Young's Literal translation of Genesis 6:4 says, The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them -- they [are] the heroes, who, from of old, [are] the men of name.

YT is as literal as it gets. If you prefer a "modern" translation, however, I am willing to oblige. Here is the NLT of the same passage:

In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.

The Message:

This was back in the days (and also later) when there were giants in the land. The giants came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. These were the mighty men of ancient lore, the famous ones.

Etc., Etc...

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to accept what the Bible says?

There is no Biblical evidence for him having demonic ancestry, only that he was a wicked man from a wicked tribe.

This very well could be. It is quite possible the Bible is merely comparing the Giants in Canaan to the Giants of Noah's day. This is generally the interpretation I accept, but I thought it worth mentioning the other possible explanation as well.

We can agree that if angel-human relations were possible,

Which it is, because the Bible says so.

 

[B®ent]

It should also be noted that 1 Enoch is included in the Ethiopian translation of the Bible...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_god#In_the_Tanakh

 

[Kol]

Brent, do you know what Ginsburg or Moffat thought of 1 Enoch?