Genesis 6:1-4, Sons of God, Giants in the earth, (Nephilim) are not angles who had relations with daughters of men!

[biblelesson]

There are multiple copyists errors. Here’s one example:
2Sa 15:7 - And it came to pass after forty years, that Absalom said unto the king,I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron.

If you have studied the Bible then you know that David only reigned for forty years so this is obviously an error

One thing you have not considered in your studies is Archaic language.

after (adv., prep.)​

Old English æfter "behind; later in time" (adv.); "behind in place; later than in time; in pursuit, following with intent to overtake" (prep.), from of"off" (see off (adv.)) + -ter, a comparative suffix; thus the original meaning was "more away, farther off." Compare Old Norse eptir "after," Old Frisian efter, Dutch achter, Old High German aftar, Gothic aftra "behind;" also see aft. Cognate with Greek apotero "farther off," Old Persian apataram"further."

I would say the the word after was used to mean:

1) “later in time” meaning close to the end of 40 years.

2) or, later than in time, again very close to the end of David’s 40 year reign

Not saying I’m right, but I’m careful to say there are errors in the Bible.

 

[BPPLEE]

One thing you have not considered in your studies is Archaic language.

after (adv., prep.)​

Old English æfter "behind; later in time" (adv.); "behind in place; later than in time; in pursuit, following with intent to overtake" (prep.), from of"off" (see off (adv.)) + -ter, a comparative suffix; thus the original meaning was "more away, farther off." Compare Old Norse eptir "after," Old Frisian efter, Dutch achter, Old High German aftar, Gothic aftra "behind;" also see aft. Cognate with Greek apotero "farther off," Old Persian apataram"further."

I would say the the word after was used to mean:

1) “later in time” meaning close to the end of 40 years.

2) or, later than in time, again very close to the end of David’s 40 year reign

Not saying I’m right, but I’m careful to say there are errors in the Bible.

There are copyist’s errors in the King James Bible. Many have to do with different numbers being given for the same thing for instance how many stalls did Solomon have? 40;000 or 4,000? 1Kings4:26 and 2Chronicles 9:25

Biblical Criticism: The Reality of Copyists' Errors

From time to time, a person reading the Bible will come across names or numbers in two or more passages that seem to contradict each other. What, how and why?

helpmewithbiblestudy.org

 

[biblelesson]

There are copyist’s errors in the King James Bible. Many have to do with different numbers being given for the same thing for instance how many stalls did Solomon have? 40;000 or 4,000? 1Kings4:26 and 2Chronicles 9:25

I can see right away that 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles are describing two different type of stalls, used for diffrent reasons.

2 Chronicles 9:25 KJV says “stalls for horses”

1 Kings 4:26 KJV says “stalls of horses”

“for” and “of” have different English meanings.

Here is an explanation from kjvtoday.com

Did Solomon have “40,000” or “4,000” stalls in 1 Kings 4:26? - March 23, 2022 by Lana Vrz

Some translations (e.g. NIV, NLT) change “40,000” to “4,000” in 1 Kings 4:26 due to a perceived scribal error. 2 Chronicles 9:25, which appears to be a parallel account, says “4,000”. Along with the KJV, the NKJV, NASB, ESV and HCSB uphold the inspired Hebrew text which says, “40,000”.

The two passages describe different types of stalls

1 Kings 4:26 says:

“Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen”.

2 Chronicles 9:25 says:

“Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen”.

The two verses do not contradict because they describe different types of stalls. The stalls in 1 Kings 4:26 were “of horses” which were used for chariots and by horsemen. Nothing in this verse says that these stalls were for the chariots. On the other hand, the stalls in 2 Chronicles 9:25 were for “horses and chariots”. Such a stall to house both horses and chariots would not have been as numerous as stalls to house just horses because there is always a smaller ratio of chariots to horses. In fact, 2 Chronicles 1:14 says there were 1,400 chariots. Hence it makes sense that there would be less of these stalls that were capable of storing both horses and chariots.

Whereas 2 Chronicles 9:25 describes the purpose of the stalls (i.e. “stalls for….”), 1 Kings 4:26 describes the purpose of the horses (i.e. “horses for….”). In saying that the purpose of the horses was for Solomon’s “chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen” (interpreting the “twelve thousand horsemen” as part of the conjunctive list belonging with “chariots”), 1 Kings 4:26 effectively links the horses to items of which we know the numbers. If these horses were for 1,400 chariots (2 Chronicles 1:14) and 12,000 horsemen, the number of horses would have been considerably large. Even with the conservative assumption of 2 horses per chariot and 1 horse per horseman, the number of horses needed for 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen is 14,800 horses. If there were one horse on reserve (a spare) per every horse on duty, that would already be 29,600 horses. Hence, 40,000 stalls would have been a reasonable number to accommodate this many horses.

In conclusion, there were 40,000 stalls that were for housing horses, and 4,000 stalls that were for storing horses and chariots. The two numbers could be harmonized if each of the 4,000 stalls with the space to house a chariot had 10 subdividing stalls for individual horses.

 

[BPPLEE]

I can see right away that 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles are describing two different type of stalls, used for diffrent reasons.

2 Chronicles 9:25 KJV says “stalls for horses”

1 Kings 4:26 KJV says “stalls of horses”

“for” and “of” have different English meanings.

Here is an explanation from kjvtoday.com

Did Solomon have “40,000” or “4,000” stalls in 1 Kings 4:26? - March 23, 2022 by Lana Vrz

Some translations (e.g. NIV, NLT) change “40,000” to “4,000” in 1 Kings 4:26 due to a perceived scribal error. 2 Chronicles 9:25, which appears to be a parallel account, says “4,000”. Along with the KJV, the NKJV, NASB, ESV and HCSB uphold the inspired Hebrew text which says, “40,000”.

The two passages describe different types of stalls

1 Kings 4:26 says:

“Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen”.

2 Chronicles 9:25 says:

“Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen”.

The two verses do not contradict because they describe different types of stalls. The stalls in 1 Kings 4:26 were “of horses” which were used for chariots and by horsemen. Nothing in this verse says that these stalls were for the chariots. On the other hand, the stalls in 2 Chronicles 9:25 were for “horses and chariots”. Such a stall to house both horses and chariots would not have been as numerous as stalls to house just horses because there is always a smaller ratio of chariots to horses. In fact, 2 Chronicles 1:14 says there were 1,400 chariots. Hence it makes sense that there would be less of these stalls that were capable of storing both horses and chariots.

Whereas 2 Chronicles 9:25 describes the purpose of the stalls (i.e. “stalls for….”), 1 Kings 4:26 describes the purpose of the horses (i.e. “horses for….”). In saying that the purpose of the horses was for Solomon’s “chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen” (interpreting the “twelve thousand horsemen” as part of the conjunctive list belonging with “chariots”), 1 Kings 4:26 effectively links the horses to items of which we know the numbers. If these horses were for 1,400 chariots (2 Chronicles 1:14) and 12,000 horsemen, the number of horses would have been considerably large. Even with the conservative assumption of 2 horses per chariot and 1 horse per horseman, the number of horses needed for 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen is 14,800 horses. If there were one horse on reserve (a spare) per every horse on duty, that would already be 29,600 horses. Hence, 40,000 stalls would have been a reasonable number to accommodate this many horses.

In conclusion, there were 40,000 stalls that were for housing horses, and 4,000 stalls that were for storing horses and chariots. The two numbers could be harmonized if each of the 4,000 stalls with the space to house a chariot had 10 subdividing stalls for individual horses.

What about the other examples? Not that your refute is probable.

 

[biblelesson]

What about the other examples? Not that your refute is probable.

Eight years old” or “Eighteen years old” in 2 Chronicles 36:9?​

Kjvtoday.com
April 4, 2022 by Lana Vrz

“Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD. ” (2 Chronicles 36:9, KJV)

The KJV follows the Masoretic reading. Most modern translators speculate that the Masoretic text is in error, seeing that 2 Kings 24:8 says Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign. However, there is no error in the Masoretic text. Jehoiachin became co-regent with his father Jehoiakim over Judah at age eight (2 Chronicles 36:9) and became the ruler “in Jerusalem” at age eighteen (2 Kings 24:8). The young age at which Jehoiachim became co-regent is not surprising, since his father’s interest would have been to secure an heir in the face of imminent Babylonian invasion. Jehoiachin’s co-regency of ten years corresponds perfectly with his father Jehoiakim’s reign of eleven years (2 Chronicles 36:5). Moreover, as soon as the Babylonian invasion looms into the picture, Chronicles begins to use the phrase, “king over Judah and Jerusalem” (2 Chronicles 36:4, 10). The phrase is never used in Kings or in Chronicles prior to the Babylonian invasion. Prior to the Babylonian invasion, there was no need to differentiate the king of Jerusalem from the king of Judah. However, as the Babylonians came and instituted their rule, the king of Jerusalem was no longer the default king of the rest of Judah. Thus, Chronicles begins to use the phrase “king over Judah and Jerusalem” to indicate a ruler who reigned over both Jerusalem and Judah. This point is significant in regards to ascertaining the total length of Jehoiachin’s time in office. Although 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9 say that he reigned “in Jerusalem” for three months, that does not exclude the possibility of him co-reigning over Judah for the past ten years. Since his father was the sole regent over Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar’s regime (2 Kings 24:1), Jehoiachin did not have authority over Jerusalem despite having co-regency over Judah. The seeming contradiction between 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9 is a testament of the confusing political scene of the time rather than an error in the Masoretic text.

 

[biblelesson]

@BPPLEE
I would stop reading sites like helpmewithbiblestudy.org. They are providing incorrect information because they themselves are not taking the time to examine all of scripture before they say there are errors.

Why look for errors in the Bible when God and the Holy Spirit are the authors. The Bible is not man’s word, it’s God’s word.

If man had the right to question the Bible, then don’t you think man would have the right to question God? But if man does not have the right to question God, then we cannot question His word.

God does not make mistakes, and was in full control of His word when it was translated by King James. Other translations were not ordained translations, and have omitted certain words and changed meanings. The original kjv bible warns us that there are those that will come later and do this very thing, try and change the word of God.

I would be careful disregarding what came first.

 

[BPPLEE]

@BPPLEE
I would stop reading sites like helpmewithbiblestudy.org. They are providing incorrect information because they themselves are not taking the time to examine all of scripture before they say there are errors.

Why look for errors in the Bible when God and the Holy Spirit are the authors. The Bible is not man’s word, it’s God’s word.

If man had the right to question the Bible, then don’t you think man would have the right to question God? But if man does not have the right to question God, then we cannot question His word.

God does not make mistakes, and was in full control of His word when it was translated by King James. Other translations were not ordained translations, and have omitted certain words and changed meanings. The original kjv bible warns us that there are those that will come later and do this very thing, try and change the word of God.

I would be careful disregarding what came first.

You’ve seen other examples. Only the original texts were infallible. The KJV is not.

 

[BPPLEE]

Apologetics: How Can the Bible be Inerrant if Copyists Made Mistakes? - Timothy Paul Jones

How can the Bible be inerrant if there are variations among the manuscripts and even between different accounts of the same events? That’s the question we’ll explore together in this post. How Can We Have the Word of God If Some of the Words Are Different? I slumped in an unpadded pew...

www.timothypauljones.com

 

[biblelesson]

Apologetics: How Can the Bible be Inerrant if Copyists Made Mistakes? - Timothy Paul Jones

How can the Bible be inerrant if there are variations among the manuscripts and even between different accounts of the same events? That’s the question we’ll explore together in this post. How Can We Have the Word of God If Some of the Words Are Different? I slumped in an unpadded pew...

www.timothypauljones.com

How are you able to follow the word of God if you say you are finding errors?

And if you really believe you are finding errors, how do you determine the correct information? How do you know what’s right?

And if you are able to determine the right and wrong of scripture, where does God come in seeing that He has given you that power?

And if God has given man the right to determine what is right and what is wrong in His own word, then how can He judge man? And considering He said He sent His word and healed them, Psalms 107:20 KJV, how can the word heal man if God’s word is fallible?

And if you believe you have that right, then you might as well move God off His throne because He did not know what He was doing, and his commandment to not change his word, Revelation 22:18-19 KJV, Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV, has no strength to it?

Also, not only is this a practice of questioning God, but gives no consideration to the work of the Holy Ghost, and I pray it’s not considered blaspheme of the Holy Ghost, Matthew 12:31-32 KJV, but it looks like it.

2 Peter 1:21 KJV, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

If I were you, I would be careful! I would follow God, not question God. Because when you spend so much time questioning the Bible, it’s an indication you want to find fault with God, not man.

Because if you really believed God, you would not be doing this because you would have too much respect for Him and fear!

You may have allowed the wrong people to steer you in the wrong direction!

You can always ask God to help you see if you are being guided wrong, He will let His children know. He loves us and sends His Spirit.

May God bless you and guide you! May he open our eyes and our mind to His truth! May we walk in Christ guided by the Holy Spirit to produce fruit - the Fruit of the Spirit, that we may stand holy before the Lord.

May God smile on you and bless you abundantly!

 

[BPPLEE]

How are you able to follow the word of God if you say you are finding errors?

And if you really believe you are finding errors, how do you determine the correct information? How do you know what’s right?

And if you are able to determine the right and wrong of scripture, where does God come in seeing that He has given you that power?

And if God has given man the right to determine what is right and what is wrong in His own word, then how can He judge man? And considering He said He sent His word and healed them, Psalms 107:20 KJV, how can the word heal man if God’s word is fallible?

And if you believe you have that right, then you might as well move God off His throne because He did not know what He was doing, and his commandment to not change his word, Revelation 22:18-19 KJV, Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV, has no strength to it?

Also, not only is this a practice of questioning God, but gives no consideration to the work of the Holy Ghost, and I pray it’s not considered blaspheme of the Holy Ghost, Matthew 12:31-32 KJV, but it looks like it.

2 Peter 1:21 KJV, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

If I were you, I would be careful! I would follow God, not question God. Because when you spend so much time questioning the Bible, it’s an indication you want to find fault with God, not man.

Because if you really believed God, you would not be doing this because you would have too much respect for Him!

You may have allowed the wrong people to steer you in the wrong direction!

You can always ask God to help you see if you are being guided wrong, He will let His children know. He loves us and sends His Spirit.

May God bless you and guide you! May he open our eyes and our mind to His truth! May we walk in Christ guided by the Holy Spirit to produce fruit - the Fruit of the Spirit, that we may stand holy before the Lord.

May God smile on you and bless you abundantly!

Thank you. I believe God inspired the original authors of the scriptures by the Holy Spirit and those texts are infallible. Unfortunately we don’t have them anymore and I don’t believe the KJV is divinely inspired.

 

[biblelesson]

Thank you. I believe God inspired the original authors of the scriptures by the Holy Spirit and those texts are infallible. Unfortunately we don’t have them anymore and I don’t believe the KJV is divinely inspired.

Well, just think about where you were over 400 years ago in 1611 when King James took on the task of translating the Bible, where around 50 scholars, were appointed in 1604 by King James to do the work. So it took seven years to accomplish the work.

The translation process was well organized and stringent, and checked and double checked, and triple checked and quadrupled checked. Now you have people today questioning these scholars. And, you are not considering the fact that you are not a scholar, nor do you have the abilities these people had, and therefore you are no match for the 50 who were appointed. Yet you look up a resource from other people who have the nerve to question these scholars work!

Another issue I’m sure you probably never considered. It has to do with a Kings authority. God chose a King to translate His word because all Kings are appointed by God, Daniel 2:21 KJV, Romans 13:1-2 KJV, and have the same power and authority God has, but on earth, therefore a King has the ability to authorize the Bible here on earth to where the power of God moves and operates through his word as it spreads throughout the world. This is why the King James Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.

All of those people who decided to re-translate the Bible were in violation of God’s ordinance, questioned His King, and were not authorized by God to do so, as they had no power to do so, nor were they guided by the Holy Spirit, as they are men under the same word of God as we are, and all scripture apply to them as well. However their arrogance made them believe the Bible did not apply to them and that they had the right to change the word of God authorized by His King. These are those the Bible is speaking of in Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV, and Revelation 22:18-19 KJV.

Don’t get yourself caught up with their punishment!

 

[BPPLEE]

Well, just think about where you were over 400 years ago in 1611 when King James took on the task of translating the Bible, where around 50 scholars, were appointed in 1604 by King James to do the work. So it took seven years to accomplish the work.

The translation process was well organized and stringent, and checked and double checked, and triple checked and quadrupled checked. Now you have people today questioning these scholars. And, you are not considering the fact that you are not a scholar, nor do you have the abilities these people had, and therefore you are no match for the 50 who were appointed. Yet you look up a resource from other people who have the nerve to question these scholars work!

Another issue I’m sure you probably never considered. It has to do with a Kings authority. God chose a King to translate His word because all Kings are appointed by God, Daniel 2:21 KJV, Romans 13:1-2 KJV, and have the same power and authority God has, but on earth, therefore a King has the ability to authorize the Bible here on earth to where the power of God moves and operates through his word as it spreads throughout the world. This is why the King James Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.

All of those people who decided to re-translate the Bible were in violation of God’s ordinance, questioned His King, and were not authorized by God to do so, as they had no power to do so, nor were they guided by the Holy Spirit, as they are men under the same word of God as we are, and all scripture apply to them as well. However their arrogance made them believe the Bible did not apply to them and that they had the right to change the word of God authorized by His King. These are those the Bible is speaking of in Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV, and Revelations 22:18-19 KJV.

Don’t get yourself caught up with their punishment!

You believe what you have been taught and if that works for you good. I don’t share your beliefs about the KJV

 

[biblelesson]

You believe what you have been taught and if that works for you good. I don’t share your beliefs about the KJV

God bless you! He guides me, you, and all of us to the truth!

 

[BPPLEE]

God bless you! He guides me, you, and all of us to the truth!

Thank you. May he bless you and guide you in your studies. Your knowledge shows that you spend a lot of time in the Word.

 

[FredVB]

What mutations then? Genesis 6:4 KJV, “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

Giants in this verse is speaking about status. The last sentence in the verse explains who these giants are: mighty men, men of renown. When the sons of God (who descended from Adam), married daughters born of the sons of God, their children became giants in the earth, that is, some became mighty men, men of renown. If you look at history, you will see there were mighty kingdoms and mighty cities with rulers on earth at that time before the flood.

Mighty men - before the flood
Nimrod - built Nineveh - ancient Mesopotamia
The ten Antediluvian kings
City of Enoch - built by Cain’s son
Babylonian kingdoms
(there are other mighty men - cities and kingdoms)

Adam was considered the son of God, Luke 3:38 KJV, so wouldn’t those men born after him be also called sons of God?

God created man, and however, those girl babies born were called daughters of men.

It’s just a matter of using our God given reasoning to interpret these versus guided by the Holy Spirit.

God bless!

The understanding that giants were born to the sons of God that came unto the daughters of men is one understanding of that passage, but the passages do not actually say that, nothing does, from the Bible, and nothing shows conclusively sons of God had to be angelic being that came down to mate, or anything other than some among the people on earth at the time, and I can understand that they were distinct in being called sons of God by having continued a faith in God from that time men started calling on God, but they fell away from pursuing any godliness with going to any women of the daughters of men. That does not mix and was very offensive to God. Worldliness does not mix with godliness. So I understand still that when this was happening, giants were being born, and there is not reason for me to assume they had to be born to the sons of God who fell away then, or only to them. It is explained with mutations that would have been starting, some time after the fall certainly, and certainly with more than giantism resulting, but with other mutations too. It is thinking of more than what the Bible actually says. But you are doing exactly that too. Your understanding is not shown to be superior to my understanding, there is not biblical support to show your understanding is right.

Since there are things in the Bible from which different ways to understand are possible, and those don't determine godliness or the gospel with which any of us are saved in Christ, those are not essentials over which to divide. No believers are going to agree on absolutely everything when they check.