PART ONE
Peterjames0510 said:
#1) Only ONE Critical Text manuscripts use the term 'angel' and at that, David Daniels showed that the one text was tampered.
I wouldn't accept the teachings of David Daniels, nor would his statements about a text being tampered with be authoritative since he is a kjoa who believes that all the modern versions have been tampered with.
Peterjames0510 said:
The rest of the manuscripts (including manuscripts I really don't believe are God's word)
Here you show yourself to also be kjvoa.
In the interest of not derailing the thread, the topic of validity or not of the kjo claims will not be discussed by me.
Peterjames0510 said:
..do not go so far as you do to say angel. Only ONE document hints that the Sons of God are angels
I have found three verses from the kjv Bible that indicate that "the sons of God" are speaking of angels.
KJV Job 1:6 "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them."
These sons of God could not be speaking of men or the godly sons of Seth or of Cain. They are angels, of the angelic class- demons.
KJV Job 2:1 "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD."
This is similar to (1:6).
KJV Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
This verse is stating that the morning stars and the sons of God are all angels, not men.
Both “the morning stars” and “sons of God” refer to angels, a figure of speech called a Hebrew parallelism.
These therefore show that the "sons of God" from Genesis 6:2 are angels. I will give an important point why.
KJV Gen.6:1-2 "Now when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them,
2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took as wives whomever they chose. "
The men had daughters. The "sons of God" saw that the daughters of men.."
#1. What is the point of saying "the daughters of men" while the sons of God are not called "the sons of men."?
From the context it can be understood that the "sons of God" are not human while it says that the daughters are of men.
If the sons of God are human then why would it say that they saw the daughters of men. Does any man look at a beautiful woman and say "There's a pretty daughter of man!"
The answer would be no. However, to make a distinction in contrast of the sons of God not being of the same class of being.. it says that "they saw the daughters of men".
#2. Which means that each instance of these verses Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 in correlation with Gen.6:2 show that there are two different classifications of beings being spoken of in the latter text.
#3. And therefore it means that the teaching that "the sons of Seth" are "the sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 is incorrect.
#4. If the sons of God are the godly sons of Seth, then there is no explanation for the result of the intimate relationship being the Nephilim human + divine.. Giants.