agentsands77
New member
I can't resist commenting on this. The traditional reading of the passage is that fallen, sinful angels had relations with women. So I can't see how this objection works.WillKill4Food said:As they cannot get married, it would be a sin for an angel to have sexual relations with a woman, and thus, the angel would be spiritually crippled by sin.
That doesn't mean squat, though. Sure, it's informed by contemporary scholarship, but that doesn't necessarily mean the contemporary scholarship is right. The best interpretations (like the very excellent English Standard Version) render it "Sons of God" in both places to remain faithful to the original term and thereby allow for the ambiguity of meaning rather than doing the interpretive work for the reader.WillKill4Food said:While often translated as sons of God, most modern translations correct the error to show that the "sons of God" are simply godly men when used in Genesis, but in Job the phrase signifies "angel."
At any rate, the Genesis passage is one of the most cryptic passages in the Bible for which any of the suggested interpretations has problems. It's probably best not to argue about it, and just allow for the range of possible meaning.