Bible verse by verse

[_LittleNipper]

In the Old Testament scripture I quoted, those slave girls were formerly headed for HELL. As a slave girl to an Israelite family they at least stood a chance at a secure eternity and perhaps not put their faith and trust in manmade idols --- so I imagine God had other plans for them. I don't appreciate your choice of words to describe my Lord. You may wish to reconsider your position as I find that it will only lead to a dead end.

"...slave girls were formerly headed for HELL. As a slave girl to an Israelite family they at least stood a chance at a secure eternity..."

So by that "logic" I guess you believe that the slavery of Africans in the US was a good thing because even though they were stolen from their homes and treated like cattle they had the the chance to learn about Jesus...so it was all worth it, right?

Well, let's look at it another way. The nation of Israel exists today, much as it does, as a result of the rise of Third Reich. God has a way of turning evil around for His honor & glory. And actually, many Southerners were firmly against "negroes" being taught to read. It was the push of Christian ethics and a desire for everyone to be able to read the Bible that such beliefs were largely ignored.

[_son of Ishmael]

Once again you side stepped a direct question.

[_LittleNipper]

Once again you side stepped a direct question.

Once again, you seem not to understand a very God centered answer. Was it right for Sarah to give Abraham her slave girl, Hagar, so that Gods promise would be fulfilled? Yet, did not God bless Ishmael as He did Isaac?

[_son of Ishmael]

Once again you side stepped a direct question.

Once again, you seem not to understand a very God centered answer. Was it right for Sarah to give Abraham her slave girl, Hagar, so that Gods promise would be fulfilled? Yet, did not God bless Ishmael as He did Isaac?

My original question was about god's position on slavery and had nothing to do Abraham, Sarah, or Hagar. You don't seem to be able to answer straight-out questions do you?

[_maklelan]

Genesis 6:1
>NET© God’s Grief over Humankind’s Wickedness 6:1 When humankind 1 began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born 2 to them, 3
NIV© 6:1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,
NASB© 6:1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,
ESV© 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,
NLT© 6:1 Then the people began to multiply on the earth, and daughters were born to them.
MSG© 6:1 When the human race began to increase, with more and more daughters being born,
BBE© 6:1 And after a time, when men were increasing on the earth, and had daughters,
NKJV© 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,
NRSV© 6:1 When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them,
KJV© 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
The Hebrew text has the article prefixed to the noun. Here the article indicates the generic use of the word אָדָם (’adam): “humankind.”

All definite articles are prefixed to nouns, and the article in no way whatsoever indicates any generic use of the word. That's just ludicrous. The indicator of its generic nature is the plural pronominal suffix. Are you just copying and pasting footnotes from the NET Bible? That's about the worst collection of pseudo-academic footnotes I've ever found. Be aware, I'm not going to be friendly to them.

2 tn This disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) is circumstantial to the initial temporal clause. It could be rendered, “with daughters being born to them.”

A disjunctive is a conjunction that indicates some kind of separation or division. It has nothing whatsoever to do with SV(O) word order. What we have here is past time narrative sequence, and it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on anything I've brought up.

For another example of such a disjunctive clause following the construction וַיְהִיכִּי (vayÿhiki, “and it came to pass when”), see 2 Sam 7:1.

That's not one word in Hebrew.

3 tn The pronominal suffix is third masculine plural, indicating that the antecedent “humankind” is collective.

4 sn The Hebrew phrase translated “sons of God” (בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, bÿne-ha’elohim) occurs only here (Gen 6:2, 4) and in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7.

But this is the only place where it occurs with the definite article. It also appears in Deut 32:8 and 43, but only in the original versions, preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls. We also have the phrase בני אלים occurring in Ps 29:1 and 89:6.

There are three major interpretations of the phrase here. (1) In the Book of Job the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings. In Gen 6 the “sons of God” are distinct from “humankind,” suggesting they were not human. This is consistent with the use of the phrase in Job. Since the passage speaks of these beings cohabiting with women, they must have taken physical form or possessed the bodies of men. An early Jewish tradition preserved in 1 En. 6-7 elaborates on this angelic revolt and even names the ringleaders. (2) Not all scholars accept the angelic interpretation of the “sons of God,” however. Some argue that the “sons of God” were members of Seth’s line, traced back to God through Adam in Gen 5, while the “daughters of humankind” were descendants of Cain. But, as noted above, the text distinguishes the “sons of God” from humankind (which would include the Sethites as well as the Cainites) and suggests that the “daughters of humankind” are human women in general, not just Cainites. (3) Others identify the “sons of God” as powerful tyrants, perhaps demon-possessed, who viewed themselves as divine and, following the example of Lamech (see Gen 4:19), practiced polygamy. But usage of the phrase “sons of God” in Job militates against this view. For literature on the subject see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:135.

That's a nice and outdated reference with no real information. The most common interpretation by far among scholars that have lived anytime in the past fifty years is that these were simply lower level deities. This is the most common interpretation because it is correct. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Ugaritic texts provide so much additional literary, linguistic, and ideological context that the interpretation of the phrase is really beyond question. For some legitimate scholarship on the subject, see the following:

P. S. Alexander, “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6,” JJS 23 (1972): 60–71

D. Clines, “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode,” 33–46

D. L. Peterson, “Genesis 6:1–4, Yahweh and the Organization of the Cosmos,” JSOT 13 (1979): 47–64

L. Eslinger, “A Contextual Identification of the bene ha’elohim and benoth ha’adam in Genesis 6:1–4,” JSOT 13 (1979): 65–73

R. Hendel, “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4,” JBL 106.1 (1987): 13–26

H. S. Kvanvig, “Gen 6,1–4 as an Antediluvian Event,” SJOT 16 (2002): 79–112

Hendel, “The Nephilim Were on the Earth,” 11–34

A. T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1–4 in Early Jewish Literature (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 51–95

S. Fockner, “Reopening the Discussion: Another Contextual Look at the Sons of God,” JSOT 32 (2008): 435–56

C. M. Kaminski, “Beautiful Women or ‘False Judgment’? Interpreting Gen 6:2 in the Context of the Primeval History,” JSOT 32 (2008): 457–73

H. S. Kvanvig, Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, and Enochic. An Intertextual Reading (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 274–310

5 tn The verb form יָדוֹן (yadon) only occurs here. Some derive it from the verbal root דִּין (din, “to judge”) and translate “strive” or “contend with” (so NIV), but in this case one expects the form to be יָדִין (yadin). The Old Greek has “remain with,” a rendering which may find support from an Arabic cognate (see C. Westermann, Genesis, 1:375). If one interprets the verb in this way, then it is possible to understand רוּחַ (ruakh) as a reference to the divine life-giving spirit or breath, rather than the Lord’s personal Spirit. E. A. Speiser argues that the term is cognate with an Akkadian word meaning “protect” or “shield.” In this case, the Lord’s Spirit will not always protect humankind, for the race will suddenly be destroyed (E. A. Speiser, “YDWN, Gen. 6:3,” JBL 75 [1956]: 126-29).

6 tn Or “forever.”

This has nothing to do with my comments.

[_maklelan]

Numbers 25:1-18 And the "sons of God" (Israel) begin to be enticed by the "daughters of man" (Moabites).

This doesn't match any of the three options you provided for the interpretation of this verse in your previous response to me. It's also completely ridiculous. Absolutely nothing anywhere in the Bible or the Hebrew language suggests "sons of God" here refers to Israel, or the "daughters of man" refers to the Moabites.

[_LittleNipper]

Genesis 6:1
>NET© God’s Grief over Humankind’s Wickedness 6:1 When humankind 1 began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born 2 to them, 3
NIV© 6:1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,
NASB© 6:1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,
ESV© 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,
NLT© 6:1 Then the people began to multiply on the earth, and daughters were born to them.
MSG© 6:1 When the human race began to increase, with more and more daughters being born,
BBE© 6:1 And after a time, when men were increasing on the earth, and had daughters,
NKJV© 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,
NRSV© 6:1 When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them,
KJV© 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
The Hebrew text has the article prefixed to the noun. Here the article indicates the generic use of the word אָדָם (’adam): “humankind.”

All definite articles are prefixed to nouns, and the article in no way whatsoever indicates any generic use of the word. That's just ludicrous. The indicator of its generic nature is the plural pronominal suffix. Are you just copying and pasting footnotes from the NET Bible? That's about the worst collection of pseudo-academic footnotes I've ever found. Be aware, I'm not going to be friendly to them.

2 tn This disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) is circumstantial to the initial temporal clause. It could be rendered, “with daughters being born to them.”

A disjunctive is a conjunction that indicates some kind of separation or division. It has nothing whatsoever to do with SV(O) word order. What we have here is past time narrative sequence, and it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on anything I've brought up.

For another example of such a disjunctive clause following the construction וַיְהִיכִּי (vayÿhiki, “and it came to pass when”), see 2 Sam 7:1.

That's not one word in Hebrew.

3 tn The pronominal suffix is third masculine plural, indicating that the antecedent “humankind” is collective.

4 sn The Hebrew phrase translated “sons of God” (בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, bÿne-ha’elohim) occurs only here (Gen 6:2, 4) and in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7.

But this is the only place where it occurs with the definite article. It also appears in Deut 32:8 and 43, but only in the original versions, preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls. We also have the phrase בני אלים occurring in Ps 29:1 and 89:6.

There are three major interpretations of the phrase here. (1) In the Book of Job the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings. In Gen 6 the “sons of God” are distinct from “humankind,” suggesting they were not human. This is consistent with the use of the phrase in Job. Since the passage speaks of these beings cohabiting with women, they must have taken physical form or possessed the bodies of men. An early Jewish tradition preserved in 1 En. 6-7 elaborates on this angelic revolt and even names the ringleaders. (2) Not all scholars accept the angelic interpretation of the “sons of God,” however. Some argue that the “sons of God” were members of Seth’s line, traced back to God through Adam in Gen 5, while the “daughters of humankind” were descendants of Cain. But, as noted above, the text distinguishes the “sons of God” from humankind (which would include the Sethites as well as the Cainites) and suggests that the “daughters of humankind” are human women in general, not just Cainites. (3) Others identify the “sons of God” as powerful tyrants, perhaps demon-possessed, who viewed themselves as divine and, following the example of Lamech (see Gen 4:19), practiced polygamy. But usage of the phrase “sons of God” in Job militates against this view. For literature on the subject see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:135.

That's a nice and outdated reference with no real information. The most common interpretation by far among scholars that have lived anytime in the past fifty years is that these were simply lower level deities. This is the most common interpretation because it is correct. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Ugaritic texts provide so much additional literary, linguistic, and ideological context that the interpretation of the phrase is really beyond question. For some legitimate scholarship on the subject, see the following:

P. S. Alexander, “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6,” JJS 23 (1972): 60–71

D. Clines, “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode,” 33–46

D. L. Peterson, “Genesis 6:1–4, Yahweh and the Organization of the Cosmos,” JSOT 13 (1979): 47–64

L. Eslinger, “A Contextual Identification of the bene ha’elohim and benoth ha’adam in Genesis 6:1–4,” JSOT 13 (1979): 65–73

R. Hendel, “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4,” JBL 106.1 (1987): 13–26

H. S. Kvanvig, “Gen 6,1–4 as an Antediluvian Event,” SJOT 16 (2002): 79–112

Hendel, “The Nephilim Were on the Earth,” 11–34

A. T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1–4 in Early Jewish Literature (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 51–95

S. Fockner, “Reopening the Discussion: Another Contextual Look at the Sons of God,” JSOT 32 (2008): 435–56

C. M. Kaminski, “Beautiful Women or ‘False Judgment’? Interpreting Gen 6:2 in the Context of the Primeval History,” JSOT 32 (2008): 457–73

H. S. Kvanvig, Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, and Enochic. An Intertextual Reading (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 274–310

5 tn The verb form יָדוֹן (yadon) only occurs here. Some derive it from the verbal root דִּין (din, “to judge”) and translate “strive” or “contend with” (so NIV), but in this case one expects the form to be יָדִין (yadin). The Old Greek has “remain with,” a rendering which may find support from an Arabic cognate (see C. Westermann, Genesis, 1:375). If one interprets the verb in this way, then it is possible to understand רוּחַ (ruakh) as a reference to the divine life-giving spirit or breath, rather than the Lord’s personal Spirit. E. A. Speiser argues that the term is cognate with an Akkadian word meaning “protect” or “shield.” In this case, the Lord’s Spirit will not always protect humankind, for the race will suddenly be destroyed (E. A. Speiser, “YDWN, Gen. 6:3,” JBL 75 [1956]: 126-29).

6 tn Or “forever.”

This has nothing to do with my comments.

You may wish to see the following: http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/questions/50.html

[_LittleNipper]

Deuteronomy 2:1-37 Moses, speaking of the children of Israel proceeds to describe their trip: Israel turned back and set out toward the wilderness along the route to the Red Sea. They made their way around the hill country of Seir. The Lord instructed the Israelites to pass through the territory of their relatives the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir. They would be afraid, but are not to be provoked to war. God give Esau the hill country of Seir as his own. Israel is to pay them in silver for any food or water. The Lord God has blessed Israel in all the work of their hands. He has watched over their journey through this vast wilderness. These forty years the Lord God has provided and they lacked nothing. So the Israelites passed through that land and turned from the Arabah road, which comes up from Elath and Ezion Geber, and traveled along the desert road of Moab.

The Lord says not to harass the Moabites or provoke them to war, for God give Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession. The Emites used to live there—a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. Like the Anakites, they too were considered Rephaites, but the Moabites called them Emites. Horites used to live in Seir, but the descendants of Esau drove them out, destroying the Horites before settling in their place ---- exactly as Israel did in the land the Lord gave them as their possession.

The Lord said to take up camp and cross the Zered Valley. Thirty-eight years passed from the time Israel left Kadesh Barnea until crossing the Zered Valley. By then, an entire generation of fighting men had died, as the Lord had said. The Lord’s hand was against them until he had completely eliminated that generation from the camp. With the last of these fighting men among the people had died, the Lord said that Israel is to pass by the region of Moab at Ar. When Israel came to the Ammonites, they were not to harass them or provoke them to war. Israel was for not give you any land belonging to the Ammonites. God give it as a possession to the descendants of Lot. This too was considered a land of the Rephaites, who once live there; but the Ammonites called them Zamzummites. 21 They were a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. God destroyed them from before the Ammonites, who drove them out and settled in their place --- just as God had done for the the descendants of Esau, who lived in Seir. God destroyed the Horites from before them. They drove them out and have lived in their place to the time of Moses. As for the Avvites who lived in villages as far as Gaza, the Caphtorites coming out from Caphtor and destroyed them and settled in their place.

God tells Israel to set out and cross the Arnon Gorge. See, God given has committed into Israel's hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his country. They begin to take possession of it and engage him in battle. God begins to put the terror and fear of Israel on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports and will tremble and be in anguish because of Israel. From the Desert of Kedemoth Moses sent messengers to Sihon king of Heshbon offering peace and saying, “Let us pass through your country. We will stay on the main road; we will not turn aside to the right or to the left. Sell us food to eat and water to drink for their price in silver. Only let us pass through on foot— as the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir, and the Moabites, who live in Ar, did for us—until we cross the Jordan into the land the Lord our God is giving us.”

Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let Israel pass through. God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into Israel's hands. When Sihon and all his army came out to meet Israel in battle at Jahaz, the Lord God delivered him over and Israel struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. Israel took all his towns and completely destroyed them—men, women and children. The livestock and the plunder from the towns captured, Israel carried off for themselves. From Aroer on the rim of the Arnon Gorge, and from the town in the gorge, even as far as Gilead, not one town was too strong. The Lord our God gave Israel all of them. In accordance with the command of God, they did not encroach on any of the land of the Ammonites.


Young's Literal Translation (YLT)


1 `And we turn, and journey into the wilderness, the way of the Red Sea, as Jehovah hath spoken unto me, and we go round the mount of Seir many days.

2 `And Jehovah speaketh unto me, saying,

3 Enough to you -- is the going round of this mount; turn for yourselves northward.

4 `And the people command thou, saying, Ye are passing over into the border of your brethren, sons of Esau, who are dwelling in Seir, and they are afraid of you; and ye have been very watchful,

5 ye do not strive with them, for I do not give to you of their land even the treading of the sole of a foot; for a possession to Esau I have given mount Seir.

6 `Food ye buy from them with money, and have eaten; and also water ye buy from them with money, and have drunk,

7 for Jehovah thy God hath blessed thee in all the work of thy hands; He hath known thy walking in this great wilderness these forty years; Jehovah thy God [is] with thee; thou hast not lacked anything.

8 `And we pass by from our brethren, sons of Esau, who are dwelling in Seir, by the way of the plain, by Elath, and by Ezion-Gaber; and we turn, and pass over the way of the wilderness of Moab;

9 and Jehovah saith unto me, Do not distress Moab, nor stir thyself up against them [in] battle, for I do not give to thee of their land [for] a possession; for to the sons of Lot I have given Ar [for] a possession.'

10 `The Emim formerly have dwelt in it, a people great, and numerous, and tall, as the Anakim;

11 Rephaim they are reckoned, they also, as the Anakim; and the Moabites call them Emim.

12 And in Seir have the Horim dwelt formerly; and the sons of Esau dispossess them, and destroy them from before them, and dwell in their stead, as Israel hath done to the land of his possession, which Jehovah hath given to them;

13 now, rise ye, and pass over for yourselves the brook Zered; and we pass over the brook Zered.

14 `And the days which we have walked from Kadesh-Barnea until that we have passed over the brook Zered, [are] thirty and eight years, till the consumption of all the generation of the men of battle from the midst of the camp, as Jehovah hath sworn to them;

15 and also the hand of Jehovah hath been against them, to destroy them from the midst of the camp, till they are consumed.

16 `And it cometh to pass, when all the men of battle have finished dying from the midst of the people,

17 that Jehovah speaketh unto me, saying,

18 Thou art passing over to-day the border of Moab, even Ar,

19 and thou hast come near over-against the sons of Ammon, thou dost not distress them, nor stir up thyself against them, for I do not give [any] of the land of the sons of Ammon to thee [for] a possession; for to the sons of Lot I have given it [for] a possession.

20 `A land of Rephaim it is reckoned, even it; Rephaim dwelt in it formerly, and the Ammonites call them Zamzummim;

21 a people great, and numerous, and tall, as the Anakim, and Jehovah destroyeth them before them, and they dispossess them, and dwell in their stead,

22 as He hath done for the sons of Esau, who are dwelling in Seir, when He destroyed the Horim from before them, and they dispossess them, and dwell in their stead, unto this day.

23 `As to the Avim who are dwelling in Hazerim unto Azzah, the Caphtorim -- who are coming out from Caphtor -- have destroyed them, and dwell in their stead.

24 `Rise ye, journey and pass over the brook Arnon; see, I have given into thy hand Sihon king of Heshbon, the Amorite, and his land; begin to possess, and stir up thyself against him [in] battle.

25 This day I begin to put thy dread and thy fear on the face of the peoples under the whole heavens, who hear thy fame, and have trembled and been pained because of thee.

26 `And I send messengers from the wilderness of Kedemoth, unto Sihon king of Heshbon, -- words of peace -- saying,

27 Let me pass over through thy land; in the several ways I go; I turn not aside -- right or left --

28 food for money thou dost sell me, and I have eaten; and water for money thou dost give to me, and I have drunk; only, let me pass over on my feet, --

29 as the sons of Esau who are dwelling in Seir, and the Moabites who are dwelling in Ar, have done to me -- till that I pass over the Jordan, unto the land which Jehovah our God is giving to us.

30 `And Sihon king of Heshbon hath not been willing to let us pass over by him, for Jehovah thy God hath hardened his spirit, and strengthened his heart, so as to give him into thy hand as at this day.

31 `And Jehovah saith unto me, See, I have begun to give before thee Sihon and his land; begin to possess -- to possess his land.

32 `And Sihon cometh out to meet us, he and all his people, to battle to Jahaz;

33 and Jehovah our God giveth him before us, and we smite him, and his sons, and all his people;

34 and we capture all his cities at that time, and devote the whole city, men, and the women, and the infants -- we have not left a remnant;

35 only, the cattle we have spoiled for ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we have captured.

36 `From Aroer, which [is] by the edge of the brook Arnon, and the city which [is] by the brook, even unto Gilead there hath not been a city which [is] too high for us; the whole hath Jehovah our God given before us.

37 `Only, unto the land of the sons of Ammon thou hast not drawn near, any part of the brook Jabbok, and cities of the hill-country, and anything which Jehovah our God hath [not] commanded.

[_son of Ishmael]

My original question was about god's position on slavery and had nothing to do Abraham, Sarah, or Hagar. You don't seem to be able to answer straight-out questions do you?

Bump,

Still waiting for a straight answer as to whether Little Nipper's version of god approves or disapproves of slavery....

[_maklelan]

You may wish to see the following: http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/questions/50.html

An absolutely ludicrous and ignorant attempt to uphold an outdated an uninformed dogma. Let's look at some of the assertions made in your little article:

The first thing we need to confirm is that angels are not sexual beings. Jesus addressed this in Luke 20:34-36 when he answered the question from the Sadducees (who do not believe in the resurrection or Angels). Jesus said "The children of this world marry, but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (referring to heaven & the new earth), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are children of God, being the children of the resurrection" (Compare with Matthew 22:29-30 and Mark 12:24-25)

By looking at this statement, we find that Christ taught that the angels do not take part in sexual activity.

The fact that a text written almost one thousand years later says angels don't get married means angels don't take part in sexual activity? Does this mean homosexuals didn't engage in sexual activity in the United States until recently? WHat utter nonsense. But it gets worse:

In Genesis 6:2-6, we see that it refers to "the sons of God". Many have been confused about the identity of these "sons of God". This section of Scripture has puzzled and perplexed a great number of scholars and Bible students for centuries. Some immediately assume the "sons of God" must be fallen angels, but we have already discovered that the Bible teaches that this can't be talking about angels since they don't even have sex with each other, which means that they certainly don't have sexual intercourse with human beings either! It is true that the book of Job uses the phrase "sons of God" in connection with angels, but that is the only book in the whole Bible where this can be found.

Wrong on several accounts. First, it never connects them with angels, it just makes perfectly clear that they are divine and not human. That they have to be angels derives only from the presupposition that they can't be gods. Silly. Next, it's not the only book where they are demonstrably divine. The same is the case in Gen 6:2-4; Deut 32:8, 43; Ps 29:1; 82; 89:6-7. The phrase also does not puzzle or perplex scholars these days. It's only confusing for those who presuppose that it cannot refer to gods.

It's dangerous to build a belief on just one portion of the Bible;

Unless it is about angels not getting married. In that case, go nuts, right?

You need to compare Scripture with Scripture in order to get the whole meaning and idea of a certain teaching or principle.

Or you can use common sense and study the historical, political, ideological, and literary contexts in which the statements were made. That's how we understand the language, after all.

The phrase "sons of God" is used many times in the Bible to refer to men, but more specifically, God's followers here on earth (see Hosea 1:10).

Actually Hos 1:10 uses a different phrase entirely, "sons of the living God (el)." It's an entirely different context and an entirely different phrase.

In Luke 3:38, Adam is called "the son of God" and throughout the new Testament, Christians are referred to as "the sons of God".

Yes, the authors of the New Testament had to reinterpret the scripture. They weren't perfectly consistent, though, were they? 2 Pet 2:4-5 very clearly interprets the beings as angels. Uh-oh. I already linked you to Alexander's article on the rabbinic interpretations of Gen 6:2-4. I suggest you go read it before you pretend to start pontificating on any of this.

So since the "sons of God" are the people on earth that serve and follow the Lord, it would make sense that "the sons of men" or "the daughters of men" could be a title for the wicked people that don't serve God.

Using a separate and entirely distinct context to overrule the immediate and obviously guiding context is what we call eisegesis.

In Genesis 11:5, those who had rebelled against God to build the tower of Babel were called "the sons of men" (NASB & RSV) or "the children of men" (KJV). In the Psalms, the wicked enemies of David were sometimes called "the sons of men" (Psalm 4:2 & Psalm 57:4). Other times, this phrase was used for the human race in a general sense, but it was a title for the wicked in certain cases.

That's because "son of X" meant "member of category X." Thus "sons of the prophets" were prophets, "sons of men" were men, and "sons of God" were gods. You source is also stretching even further by assuming that "sons of X" can just arbitrarily be extended to cover "daughters of X."

If we read Genesis and the story of how sin entered this world, we find that the sons of God are those who are faithful to God and His plan for salvation, from Adam to Abel and down to Seth. On the other hand, the sons and daughters of men are those who are the children of Cain.

So Enoch and Methuselah were wicked?

The judgment pronounced upon the earth was against "man" (verses 3 and 5). God would not punish man because of something the angels had done.

Maybe you should read some of the scholarship on this.

It's also interesting to note that the original Hebrew word "Nephilim" which is translated "giants" in this verse can simply mean "a bully or tyrant" (Strong's Concordance).

That's not true at all. The word means "fallen ones," and Strong's is for people who don't know Greek or Hebrew. It's pretty much useless for actual linguistic or lexicographical research.

Angels are in nature superior to men, for the psalmist says that man was made "a little lower than the angels" (Psalm 8:5).

Actually Ps 8:5 says "lower than the gods (elohim)." The "angels" reading comes from the Greek mistranslation, which also happens to be where you get "giants" from the word Nephilim.

This is now the third alternative explanation of Gen 6:2-4 you've burped up, and you've not been able to respond to a word of my concerns. Anything further?