kland, I answered you twice already and spent lots of time on it. Really I don't want to fuss about this. Like Jesus answered to the disciple question concerning the born blind "who sinned"? Jesus answered them, that that wasn't the issue. For me, I see the same thing here, the issue is not who has done wrong.

However, if you want to share something with everyone, please do so, and I'm interested in your respond also.

I find this is just skirting the issue and side tracking the discussion.
Surely you realize there are laws that won't allow open cross breeding between all animals. Just because there can be crossbreeding among the different horses types, or among the different cat types, still does not somehow erase the fact that nature has laws in place beyond which there can be no cross breeding.


Also you are side stepping the issue we started out with.

The amalgamation which occured back in preflood times was sin so great that it required a flood to clean it up.
SIN --

The chance happening of zebra mating with a horse would hardly fall into that category.
There was SIN -- an abomination so great that it caused massive confusion in the species.

These confused species which God did not create were destroyed in the flood.

I don't believe this amalgamation was something that happened naturally.
It required "ingenious methods".

This morning, I wanted to put some term on this by going over this study and taking notes. I like to use the interlinear and write down all hebrew codes in my Bible and then check the codes in the Hebrew dictionary and concordances looking at their roots and other occurance in the Bible.

As I was doing that I saw two things:

1. Now I understand why you ask that question, kland. In gn 6:5 it says that "God saw the wickedness of man".

I think what you were saying is that if it were an almalgamation of angels X Man, then this word would differ. However, not necessarily for if the crossing of angels and man produced sterile offsprings, then the concern of the Lord is really the affect of these offsprings upon the earth population. So that point is not really strong. Plus the fact that the Bible is written for the salvation of man and the concern of the Lord is towards saving man.

2. This one is quite strong as an indication of the possibility that their might be an amalgamation of angels X man. It is found in Gn6:3
That word "also" jumped at me this morning. When I had transcribed all the codes two days ago in my Bible, the code/word H1571-"also" wasn't in my interlinear. So it didn't register. However, I grab my interlinear again and check the scribles against the scribles of the Blue Letter Bible online; and sure enough the 1571 scribles is in my interlinear but combined with the 7683 scribles and was worded differently in my interlinear. My interlinear and the Blue Letter Bible both have the same Masoretic Text, but at times they differ in the wording usage of the scribles.

So here it is : God says "My spirit shall not always stive with man, for that he also is flesh."

God is comparing men with whom??? Probably with the angels, right? The angel fell first in heaven. The problem of sin started in heaven. So there's a comparison here with some other form of creatures that is comparible to man. Animals does not fit in this category because they don't have the ability to reason and choose like man and angels does.

So here is an overview of what Genesis 6 says :

v.2: talks about some crossing

v.3: compares two created beings with free choice and seeing that God Spirit was not going to strive

v.4: talks about the children of this crossing and their influences

v.5: talks about the level of wickedness of all men

v.6: God SIGH

v.7: God takes responsibility

Amalgamation?

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/12-01-2010/111621-sheep_human_face-0

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Since I did not see the answer and since you said, "the issue is not who has done wrong", I would say you did not? You did spend a lot of time talking about man's wickedness, though.

Regarding Do you think man did something wrong? Or do you think no one did anything wrong according to that verse? Or maybe tell me again who the Sons of God were and the daughters of men.

It does sound like you are defining "species". In this, I was only confronting your statement about different species mating as it was written. But what was the issue I was skirting? Was it whether what Ellen White said was ambiguous?

Kland, I wish you spoke in a different manner. First, the way you pose your questions are trickeries. I don't appreciate this and does not invite the spirit of fellowship(a sin? -- check out Lev 6:2 -- another gem I got this morning). I didn't want to make a fuss and did respond to you 3 times, and this post being the 4th. Another thing, you are not my teacher, nor my head. We are to be taught by God. I ask you to share your thoughts, but you keep on giving me this type of treatment. I wasn't going to answer you, however for the sake of sharing truth as I stumble on another gem this morning and as it's relating to this, so I will share for those who have ears.

Sorry, but I fully don't understand your question here. Anyway, I think by sharing the gem, I might answer your question.

I looked up all the occurances of H7683 in the Bible. In Gen 6:3 it is used in combination of H1571 and written as one word in the Mesoretic Text. The KJV kind of did a little mess with this translation. Howerver, they did preserve the meaning.

So the KJV in their translation of the mesoretic text into "he also is flesh", they used 3 Hebrew words
1 : H7683(meaning erring unintentionally however translated here as "flesh")
2 : H1571(also)
3 : H1320(flesh). the root word is 1319(tidings) -- to be fresh (i.e. full, rosy, cheerful) It's usage meaning is annouce a message, bring news or to bear tidings.

So when I looked at the meaning of the word H7683 in context employed through the Bible, I was surprised that it's meaning was to err(or to sin, or go astray) unintentionaly, or ignorantly. I went and review the offering services and I thought that in Lev 4 & 5 there was some offerings for the sins of ignorance and some other for the sins committed intentionally. All of these passages here describing all the different offerings are for sins of ignorance: Lev 4:2,13,22,27; Lev5:2,3,4,15,17. It's a little unclear if Lev 6 is an expansion of what's written in Lev4 or 5. But are all sins that can be attoned for are sins of ignorance???? Anyway, there's a need for me to dig deeper here.

However, as to in reference to Gen 6:3 it is talking of sins(errings of the flesh) of ignorance. So the level of wickedness(to do think evil continually)that was on the earth before the flood, were sins of ignorance.

So I reflected on that Moses wrote this and made that specific distinction for he understood the sin problem. Sin is a result of not knowing God. You can't trust someone you don't know.

So for sure, the issue is not about "who done wrong" or "who sinned". The issue is that God's Character might be revealed. That's why this Great Controversy exist, because the Character of God needed to be revealed to secure eternal life for all(including the angels). Only through trusting in someone we fully know, that sin will never surface again.

Like Jesus explained to His disciples: In the born blind, the works of God was manifested in him by not only in opening physcial sight, but by receiving and proclaiming the spiritual sight of believing in the only begotten Son of God. So the blind man becomes a walking testimony or witness. To testify of the works of God can go in both ways, either by receiving the ONLY Son of God, of by rejecting Him. Either will have a works and both works, either good or wicked will manifest or witness the works of God.

For the time of the flood, the works of God was a manifestation in the wicked people and angels , showing :
1. to what degree and how fast "a flesh" can become entirely wicked in all their thoughts continually.
2. how one person is vulnerable to the influence to another.
3. how the effect of degree of wickedness had on the animals
3. how the wickedness had such a consequencial destructive effect on the crust of the earth and the water expanse that shield the entire earth.
4. how all this destruction was a consequence of not entering into a relationship with God, the only life giver.
5. how God relates with all of this with a SIGH
6. how God takes full responsibility
7. how God saved one family and the species of the animals, so the Great Controversy may continue in revealing His Son to save all.

Sorry, no trickeries intended. I'm asking a straightforward question, and you have spoken about the sinfulness of man, sins of the flesh, also is flesh. That's all well and interesting. Not sure how amalgamation relates to it. However, I'm still asking a simple question. Maybe you say it's not relevant. Why isn't it?

Here's the dialog:

How is what I'm asking any "trickeries"? I don't understand. We were speaking of amalgamation between fallen angels and man. You say the wickedness of man is great. But, I don't see what that has to do with fallen angels marrying man. Others besides me disagree with you on that. I'm only asking you to support that idea. You used verse 2, as main support of that idea.



Do you think verse 2 has nothing to do with causing God to get upset, just kind of like a footnote?

Right after the sons of God taking wives of whomever they chose, it says, "And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."

Now maybe the "and" is supplied, but the thought isn't. Why did verse 3 come right after verse 2 if it's not connected. And if it is connected, then the issue is very much indeed about who did wrong. Hence my question. Maybe my thoughts are questions. Maybe my questions are answers? I don't know. We each are different.

Whether they knew God or not does not yet enter into it. Why did they not know God -- Isn't it because of verse 2?

The only way I can see you answer it is that the Sons of God sinned. (Is it only obvious to me?) If they sinned, why is God punishing the victims? (which, by the way, would give a bad view of God, though some may have it) If God is not punishing the victims, then maybe the sons of God are not angels. And, why are fallen angels called "Sons of God"? Do you see why the questions need to be addressed? Otherwise, I don't see how those verses can support your view of amalgamation.

Kland, I have answered your single question 4 times (if not 5) and you failed to even share with me why my answer where unsatisfactory until the 5th round and only share what your thoughts then. You did not come straight forward with me, as you pretend. I'm not going to dwell on it and will just tackle your answers and other questions below.
see post #122932, that post address that question directly. God is not upset, the Bible says he SIGH. see also 2nd half of post#122873.

I see verse 3 very connected with Verse 2 and I have elaborated this in detail in both post#122903 and 122932. HOwever for the sake of trying to make things clearer to you, I quote what was posted with additional comment below.

I believe Genesis verse 1 through 7 are connected. We see that 2 and 4 are directly connected as v.4 is talking about the children of the crossing(amalgamation) in v.2 So V.3 is between those two connected verse.

Here are the verses 1-6 with a brief summary given in post #12203:

Here is what I said in post #122903 about how verse 3 connects with verse 2:

Two points to draw from this comparison :
1. The fact that God is comparing the state of the unintentional-erring-flesh of the angels with the state of the unintentional-erring flesh of man in verse 3, it is because they are very similar. God is recognizing that His spirit is not going to reside with man very long, because of some similarity with the angels. Similarity in their "fallen state" and both are created beings, with freechoice, and it could also encompass the similarity of the influence of the greath deception which was elaborated in heaven. Verse.4. stresses that these children born from this crossing/amalgamation of v.2 where men of renown which means of great influence. It all blends in.

2. Another thing to draw from the word "also" when comparing the fallen state of the angels with that of man, is because it is acknowledging an incidence that was already experienced in heaven. Now the fallen angels that believed satan are well equiped with tested arguments and logics with the experience in heaven, and are ready to influence the "fallen men" with it. It had such an impact that it took how many years? Probably very much less than 600 years to have all men on earth to the point that all their thoughts where "continually evil". Another strong point that links all text together. It's been 5000 since the flood, and we have not come to that level of wickedness because we do not have "men of renown" like existed in the pre-flood from that amalgamation.
Lack of knowledge of God is one great underlying reason for the spread of sin. I'm sure I don't need to expand on this.
Yes, the angel did sin which is described in the Bible as an "unintention-sin" and so "Also" did man sin. However,is it the the real issue, and is it where we should focuss? Jesus gives us light on that and I have expanded on that in post #122932.
I don't see it as God is punishing. This and many other texts in the Bible can be viewed as "God punish" or not. It is a great debate as it splits any believers in half. I join the half that don't believe in that type of God. I have elaboraged on this in post #122932 When our view of sin is very superficial,then we tend to view God as He punish the sinner. But how can you love a God that punishes/destroys a sinner that "sin-unintentionally"?

I don't see your reasonning here. Can you elaborate?
That's how the Bible address the angels as "sons of God" in Job 1:6; Job 2:1; and Job38:7 There's no other verses in the OT than those.
I'm not here to push this view. I said at the very beginning when I express this that I wasn't going to make a fuss and these where thoughts when I made this study. I kept on in this thread, just to be courteous with you and tried to answer your one question.

Have you considered there may be a language barrier?
Ooops, another question.
I'm not exactly sure what you said right above, but my first impression is that the previous comment you complained that I didn't share my thoughts, whereas now you are complaining that I did share my thoughts. Second impression makes me think that may not be what you are saying. Which causes me to think you may not be understanding me nor I you. No?

I have talked to others about this same idea. I came right out and told him that this had nothing to do with what he was saying. He got offended. So, rather than me tell you what it says, I ask you why you think the way you do. There may be a possibility that I'm not thinking of something. I think the verses show the Sons of God did wrong. Therefore, they receive the results. Now if you think man did wrong, then I'm willing to hear you out to see how that fits. Hence why I ask you to explain what you mean rather than say, you are wrong and I am the instructor to tell you what to think and there is no variance in thinking. Which is what you accused me of.

I do think you are wrong, but am willing to keep an open mind to hear you out. Your criticism makes it hard, but will consider it a language barrier issue. So, with that background basis, I will attempt to show what I feel are the problems in us understanding each other.



Ok, substitute in sigh.
Do you think verse 2 has nothing to do with causing God to sigh, just kind of like a footnote?

However, in my copy, 6087 means, to carve, worry, pain, anger, hurt, vex, worship.... I think a good interpretation would be, Man's sin carved the Lord's heart.


Good. So we agree the verses are connected.

This is where I see a difference between our two approaches. You say unintentional erring. I say in verse 2, there was intentional erring. That's why I asked who did wrong. There was intentional wrong being done in verse 2, which showed the results in the following verses. You say no intentional wrong? How so? (No "trickeries", I want to hear how you view there is no wrong in verse 2).

It seems to me that you are saying that there were fallen angels and fallen man and they unerringly did whatever fallen angels and man do and God sighed, wiped the slate clean and hoped things will turn out better? That the ones who did wrong were the offspring and the original ones did no (accountable) wrong in marrying one another.

But, I have a question. If they did no wrong in marrying each other, how could the offspring have done any wrong. You said God sighed. Maybe they didn't do any wrong? If so, can we do wrong today?

Another question. Why did he destroy man, but not the angels?

Another question. Why aren't these fallen angels marrying men today?

H7683:

While some versions don't seem interpret that word, the above versions do. Do you think these two could be an adequate interpretation? In man's erring, in man's sinful ways, he is indeed flesh, skin, dust of the ground and will rot if not maintained by the life giver.

Which calls for more questions. If the offspring result was of unintentional sin, then why are they blamed? Not their fault. Can sin be unintentional? (I recall Paul's words about without the law, there is no sin) "Unintentional" sin? I'd have to see more support of that.

The biggest issue I see here is verse 2. Did someone do wrong in it. I say yes. You say no. Nothing else makes sense to me, either the following verses, nor what you say, if that wasn't the result of what was done in verse 2. I see this as the real issue it was written. If you do your own thing, if you don't follow God, you will reap the results of God being absent in your life. This isn't about angels who don't marry, but this is about man willfully using no self control. That's the way I see it and see the same message repeated throughout the Bible, including not being yoked to non-believers repeated in both the old and the new testaments. People who should be followers of God, mingled with the heathen and adapted their ways. God was forced away, after attempting to reach them for 120 years, and the flood resulted from God no longer protecting them. If the angels caused this problem, then why did God no longer protect the victim, man? But, if man received the result, then maybe it's not angels, but righteous man indulging in their selfish desires? Do you think that might be the possibility of those days where the righteous looked at the heathen and took wives of them?

Esau took heathen wives. It grieved Isaac and Rebekah.