I think the temptation in the wilderness was on Christ's mind for a very long time. When he teaches the apostles to pray much of it goes right back to the temptation in the wilderness. And when he prays at Gethsemane, he goes back to part of it: "not my will, but your will".


(Let's hope the table formatting works)

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,  your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.	Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
Give us today our daily bread.	"If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one	"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone." 7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'

Thank you for clearing up my original question!

Nice and helpful table. Have you anymore insight into how the use of "an" makes the statement conditional in MT 10:23? I think cavst provided a good explanation as to the verse's possible intention, but now I'm stumped on the "an" part you are speaking of.

I've always thought that was the time it would take to build the ark. Thanks for posing the question.

The NIV makes it look like it is the lifetime of humans and the NET Bible seems to tapdance around the issue but rather link it to the time to build the ark. The lifetime of humans did tend towards 120 years the further you get from the flood. I don't think it would be hard and fast, 120 years and an angel comes and ends your life on your 120th birthday, but rather that something changed and 120 years became a median number (or something like that).




I think the ark was parked on the ground for a couple of months.  I don't know if the tree would be OK, but a couple of months of sunlight may have brought some back to growth.




Somebody had to teach him patience. After all, he has to deal with the rest of us.

Also, the apostles were devout believers steeped in a religious system that governed what they ate, what they wore, and it missed the point entirely. Jesus was dragging them kicking and screaming out of their comfort zone and sometimes that comfort zone drags us back.




Miracles were supposed to be signs of something, and occasionally the miracle got in the way of the something (Example: Mark 1:43-45). The message was more important than the miracle and sometimes Jesus needed space to operate.




The introduction of Revelation indicates to me that the servants of God should understand it.

The word denotes a contingency, and by the use of it, Christ is indicating a contingency. It is the meaning of the word. It makes significant number of appearances when it relates to the "coming" of Jesus.

In the context of Matthew 10:23, Jesus hadn't explained that he was going to die, be resurrected, go away, and return at that point. Hence Peter's revulsion at the idea 6 chapters later. Peter's reaction was so bad that Jesus ends up referring to him as "satan". Therefore the phrase "before the Son of Man comes" cannot be understood in the sense of a "second coming", but rather understood in the sense of a prophetic fulfillment that the apostles were looking forward to.

My guess is that Jesus is referencing a prophetic fulfillment of Psalm 8 indicated by the use of "son of man".  Therefore the fulfillment of Psalm 8 (i.e. son of man over the creation) that Jesus refers to in Matthew 10:23 might have happened in the time frame referenced if things had gone differently. However, as of the writing of Hebrews, Psalm 8:4-6 isn't fulfilled (see Heb 2:8).

I don't think he was mistaken, I think he just didn't know everything and couched the prediction in a contingency.

Thinking about it more, your contention that it's not regarding the second coming makes sense, and is what Theophylact contended, as well as St. John of Chryostom.

One wonders if perhaps Hilary was more concentrated on a different layer he perceived in the statement, not that it shouldn't be about imminent events singularly, but also a sort of... perpetual theme and a final reality appropriate to multiple generations.

Theophylact:

https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/matthew-commentary/theophylact-on-matthew/chapter-1/chapter-2/chapter-3/chapter-4/chapter-5/chapter-6/chapter-7/chapter-8/chapter-9/chapter-10

Chrysostom:

https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/matthew-commentary/st-john-chrysostom-on-matthew/chapter-1/chapter-2/chapter-3/chapter-4/chapter-5/chapter-6/chapter-7/chapter-8/chapter-9/chapter-10

I thank you for your response. However, I am still not seeing how you are drawing the notion that there is a conditional fulfillment or a prophetic response.

Where does "an" fit into the verse, explicitly? In MT 10:23, where in the verse does the word "an" fit in the sentence? Secondly, I am looking at Psalm 8 and can't find how Jesus could be referencing Psalm 8:4-6 in Mt 10:23.

Psalm 8:4-6
New International Version
4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
   human beings that you care for them?
5 You have made them a little lower than the angels
   and crowned them with glory and honor.
6 You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
   you put everything under their feet:

Matthew 10:23
New International Version
23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Where is the correlation between the two? I swear that I must be off today.

ETA: Thanks cavsct for those commentaries.
This too is the only way I understand a rationale for contingency, that it is not of the Second Coming but rather until He would reunite with them.

Indeed, it crossed my mind the first time the notion of not referring to the Second Coming was brought up. However,  I still cannot see how "an" fits within the verse to denote the contingency, and that's driving me nuts. I think the verse lends itself to the contingency without the "an" being a deciding factor. So then, how does "an" play into it?

And again, I am not drawing the parallels between Psalm 8 and Mt 10:23.

Going from memory here, but didn't Jesus tell them to pray, and when he went back to check on them, they were asleep.

That is confusing. My Bible references Mark 13:10 ..and the gospel must first be preached to all nations. Matthew 24 is another dual type prophecy. One one hand Jesus is talking about the destruction of the temple that happened in 70AD and the fleeing of the city and the other question by the apostles was, at the end of the Age. End of world.

Look at the variations on the words "human beings" in Psalm 8:4. Perhaps try a more literal translation. Jesus isn't referring to some new thing with the phrase "son of man", he's referring to something the apostles already understood.

https://biblehub.com/psalms/8-4.htm

New International Version. . . mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?
New Living Translation. . .think about them, human beings that you should care for them?
English Standard Version. . .mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?
Berean Study Bible. . .mindful of him, or the son of man that You care for him?
King James Bible. . .mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
New King James Version. . .mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?
New American Standard Bible. . .think of him, And a son of man that You are concerned about him?
Amplified Bible. . .What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of [earthborn] man that You care for him?
Christian Standard Bible. . .remember him, a son of man that you look after him?
Holman Christian Standard Bible. . .remember him, the son of man that You look after him?
Brenton Septuagint Translation. . .mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Douay-Rheims Bible. . .mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?
English Revised Version. . .mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Good News Translation. . .you think of them; mere mortals, that you care for them?
GOD'S WORD® Translation. . .you remember him or the Son of Man that you take care of him?
International Standard Version. . .take notice of him, or the son of man that you pay attention to him?
JPS Tanakh 1917. . .mindful of him? And the son of man, that Thou thinkest of him?
Literal Standard Version. . .remember him? The son of man that You inspect him?
NET Bible. . .notice them? Of what importance is mankind, that you should pay attention to them,
New Heart English Bible. . .think of him, and the son of man that you care for him?
World English Bible. . .think of him? What is the son of man, that you care for him?
Young's Literal Translation. . .rememberest him? The son of man that Thou inspectest him?

Ew. Who uses the NIV? It's like scriptural HIV. Gives the reader badly translated bible AIDS.

Ask his mom.  He gave ten times as much of his life to her as he did to the apostles.

Ah, ok! In the two translations I looked at it was "human beings" not "son of man". This makes the possible correlation between the two clear:

Commentary

10. What is man, that You are mindful of him? Or the son of man, that You visit him? Psalm 8:4. It may be asked, what distinction there is between man and son of man. For if there were none, it would not be expressed thus, man, or son of man, disjunctively. For if it were written thus, What is man, that You are mindful of him, and son of man, that You visit him? it might appear to be a repetition of the word man. But now when the expression is, man or son of-man, a distinction is more clearly intimated. This is certainly to be remembered, that every son of man is a man; although every man cannot be taken to be a son of man. Adam, for instance, was a man, but not a son of man. Wherefore we may from hence consider and distinguish what is the difference in this place between man and son of man; namely, that they who bear the image of the earthy man, who is not a son of man, should be signified by the name of men; but that they who bear the image of the heavenly Man, 1 Corinthians 15:49 should be rather called sons of men; for the former again is called the old man and the latter the new; but the new is born of the old, since spiritual regeneration is begun by a change of an earthy, and worldly life; and therefore the latter is called son of man. Man then in this place is earthy, but son of man heavenly; and the former is far removed from God, but the latter present with God; and therefore is He mindful of the former, as in far distance from Him; but the latter He visits, with whom being present He enlightens him with His countenance. For salvation is far from sinners; and, The light of Your countenance has been stamped upon us, O Lord. So in another Psalm he says, that men in conjunction with beasts are made whole together with these beasts, not by any present inward illumination, but by the multiplication of the mercy of God, whereby His goodness reaches even to the lowest things; for the wholeness of carnal men is carnal, as of the beasts; but separating the sons of men from those whom being men he joined with cattle, he proclaims that they are made blessed, after a far more exalted method, by the enlightening of the truth itself, and by a certain inundation of the fountain of life. For he speaks thus: Men and beasts You will make whole, O Lord, as Your mercy has been multiplied, O God. But the sons of men shall put their trust in the covering of Your wings. They shall be inebriated with the richness of Your house, and of the torrent of Your pleasures You shall make them drink. For with You is the fountain of life, and in Your light shall we see light. Extend Your mercy to them that know You. Through the multiplication of mercy then He is mindful of man, as of beasts; for that multiplied mercy reaches even to them that are afar off; but He visits the son of man, over whom, placed under the covering of His wings, He extends mercy, and in His light gives light, and makes him drink of His pleasures, and inebriates him with the richness of His house, to forget the sorrows and the wanderings of his former conversation. This son of man, that is, the new man, the repentance of the old man begets with pain and tears. He, though new, is nevertheless called yet carnal, while he is fed with milk; I would not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, says the Apostle. And to show that they were already regenerate, he says, As unto babes in Christ, I have given you milk to drink, not meat. And when he relapses, as often happens, to the old life, he hears in reproof that he is a man; Are you not men, he says, and walk as men?

11. Therefore was the son of man first visited in the person of the very Lord Man, born of the Virgin Mary. Of whom, by reason of the very weakness of the flesh, which the Wisdom of God vouchsafed to bear, and the humiliation of the Passion, it is justly said, You have lowered Him a little lower than the Angels Psalm 8:5. But that glorifying is added, in which He rose and ascended up into heaven; With glory, he says, and with honour have You crowned Him; and hast set Him over the works of Your hands Psalm 8:6. Since even Angels are the works of God's hands, even over Angels we understand the Only-begotten Son to have been set; whom we hear and believe, by the humiliation of the carnal generation and passion, to have been lowered a little lower than the Angels.

Now, to the "an" thing...again, I understood immediately that if not taken to reference the Second Coming it could/would likely mean until Christ reunited with the disciples before the trip into Jerusalem. The commentaries cavsct provided were likewise convincing concerning the gentile/Jew dynamic.

My question is how you arrived at conditional just by the word "an" itself being conditional.

Son of man is not just in Psalm 8, but more importantly IS the Messiah in Daniel 7, which is why when Christ referred to Himself as such during the interrogation by the temple priests they rent their garments and declared he committed Blasphemy. This is also referenced in Apocalypse/Revelation 1.

The Son of Man as a titular reference is far beyond a mere human being. While one might use it as reference to human beings, on the whole of all the times Christ referenced it shows it was something much more. Otherwise, it makes no sense for the priest to yell that He committed blasphemy over calling himself a mere human person.

some sources on it:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2015/11/14/the-son-of-man-and-the-little-apocalypse-2/
https://jewsforjesus.org/jewish-resources/messianic-prophecy/the-messiah-would-be-the-son-of-man/
https://catholicproductions.com/blogs/blog/the-case-for-jesus-course-introduction-jesus-and-the-kingdom-of-god-part-5-of-5

The part in bold?

[Like]

He's a Unitarian.

Gotcha. Kinda suspected.

This is like asking how I arrived at the fact that a rock is a rock. The answer is because it is a rock. To denote something is conditional, you use a word that means conditional as Jesus did.

The very literal translations state:

Literal Standard Version: And whenever they may persecute you in this city, flee to the other, for truly I say to you, you may not have finished [going through] the cities of Israel until the Son of Man may come.

Young's Literal Translation: 'And whenever they may persecute you in this city, flee to the other, for verily I say to you, ye may not have completed the cities of Israel till the Son of Man may come.

As Hebrews 2 make plain, the son of man (Psalm 8) didn't "come", therefore the conclusion is that the conditions weren't met.

I’ve always wondered what the voices of the seven thunders uttered that John was told not to write down in revelation 10:4. Always thought it was something that could possibly give the date or time of the events in revelation away.

Why would he know? As Zukov stated "He *was* human after all."  He had to learn, just like we do (Heb 5:8-10).

I believe Zukov is Catholic. As such, when he says Christ was human, it is also understood to mean completely human and completely divine simultaneously. This ties in to the nature of the Trinity.

Could you please not drag this nonsense into the thread. (and yes I am very aware of the various idiosyncrasies of trinitarian doctrine including the particular one you are attempting to drag in here).

Jesus himself stated that he didn't know when he would return (Mark 13:32) or who would be on the crosses next to him (Mark 10:40). He obviously didn't know important things or have power over certain things, no matter what belief system you hold. The question seemed to be one from significant biblical illiteracy rather than a disagreement over doctrine.

This is my answer! Now I get how you came to that interpretation though "an". Here is the disconnect.

You are using literal translations which rely on the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text, which have additions not found in most other translations that rely on the Septuagint.

Got it!

That was driving me nuts!

I wasn't dragging anything into this thread. I answered the question BeerMeNow posed and was correcting your implication that Zukov meant "was" in the same way you do as a Unitarian. That's it.

There was no issue of "significant biblical illiteracy" but rather the use of VERY different translations:
YLT:
23 `And whenever they may persecute you in this city, flee to the other, for verily I say to you, ye may not have completed the cities of Israel till the Son of Man may come.
Pretty much all others:
23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.

The use of the word "may" makes a world of difference. You can't see a "rock" when there is no "rock".

Classy jab by the way.

Jesus prays; My Father if it is possible; let this cup pass from me; but not My will but Your will be done.......
They (the disciples) heard this portion of the prayer.....THEN fell asleep. Matthew 26:39-40.
Additionally, it says he took His disciples....all of them yet finds  Peter, James and John asleep. Any of the other disciples could have heard the prayers....it was “fervent”. (Loud, passionate)

Mark 14: 32-41
Mark 14:32-41New King James Version
The Prayer in the Garden
32 Then they came to a place which was named Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, "Sit here while I pray." 33 And He took Peter, James, and John with Him, and He began to be troubled and deeply distressed. 34 Then He said to them, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch."
35 He went a little farther, and fell on the ground, and prayed that if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 And He said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for You. Take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will."
37 Then He came and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, "Simon, are you sleeping? Could you not watch one hour? 38 Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
39 Again He went away and prayed, and spoke the same words. 40 And when He returned, He found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him.
41 Then He came the third time and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? It is enough! The hour has come; behold, the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners.

Interestinly, Jesus came back three times. Just earlier, he had told Peter he would deny him three times. What's up with the "threes".

Not so much something in the Bible, as something left out of it.  I’ve always wondered what the judgment will be on US (or any other country’s) servicemen.  

Just going off of the way Jesus responds to the Centurion (praising him for his faith above almost anyone else) I assume military service is not a guaranteed demerit.  Just have to wonder about a job that basically entails an “acceptable” amount of civilians killed in the course of duty.

You answered your own question.

FAITH

Did you know the Israelites were followed in the wilderness by a rock?

1Cor 10:4.

Now go to Exodus 17:6

And after His return He asks Peter "Do you love me?" three times.

Found this after a quick search.

There are 27 books in the NT.

3x3x3=27

They're written by 9 different authors.

Then John 7:38.

In type, yes. Paul explains that he is speaking of a type in verse 6 and verse 11  (sometimes translated "examples" and sometimes "type" in the English).


There are two rocks that the Israelites drew water from (Exodus 17:1-6 and Numbers 20:2-12)

In Exodus, Moses (a type of the law) is told to strike the rock (a type of Christ in his mortal state) and water came forth.  The type of rock here is a boulder or movable rock.

Later in Numbers, Moses is commanded to speak to the rock, not strike it. The type of rock here is a high and lifted up rock (a type of Christ in his present state). He was to address Christ as we are to by speaking to him rather than attempting to crucify him all over again. Moses disobeys and strikes the rock and he and Aaron are prohibited from coming into the land because of their lack of faith.


A neat little picture of the future kingdom of God nestled in the OT pointed out by Paul. The law was to strike Christ the first time, but not a second time. And faith is the discriminator for entering the promised land no matter who you are.

I think the subtle tenderness of this conversation is lost a bit in the English.

Jesus: Do you agape me (v. 15)?
Peter: Yay Lord, I philio you.
Jesus: Feed my sheep

Jesus: Do you agape me (v. 16)?
Peter: Yay Lord, I philio you.
Jesus: Take care of my sheep

Jesus: Do you philio me? (v. 17)?   Peter then is grieved with the change in question.
Peter: Yay Lord, I philio you.
Jesus: Feed my sheep

I'm not sure how the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint have any bearing on Matthew 10:23, but godspeed with whatever conclusion you arrived at.

The translations that are based on the TR or the Masoretic often have inaccuracies, mistranslations, and/or added words, such as the use of "may" in this instance. The KJV was based on the works of Erasmus and had to go a major overhaul twice (1629 and then again in 1638) to address these only a few years after its release. It then underwent some more revisions in later eras using better manuscripts until it reached its current stage.

New International Version
When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

New Living Translation
When you are persecuted in one town, flee to the next. I tell you the truth, the Son of Man will return before you have reached all the towns of Israel.

English Standard Version
When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Berean Study Bible
When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next. Truly I tell you, you will not reach all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Berean Literal Bible
And whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next. For truly I say to you, you shall not have completed the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.

King James Bible
But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

New King James Version
When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

New American Standard Bible
“But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.

NASB 1995
"But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.

NASB 1977
“But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes.

Amplified Bible
“When they persecute you in one city [because of your faith in Me], flee to the next; for I assure you and most solemnly say to you, you will not finish going through all the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Christian Standard Bible
When they persecute you in one town, flee to another. For truly I tell you, you will not have gone through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
When they persecute you in one town, escape to another. For I assure you: You will not have covered the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

American Standard Version
But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Contemporary English Version
When people mistreat you in one town, hurry to another one. I promise you before you have gone to all the towns of Israel, the Son of Man will come.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another. Amen I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come.

English Revised Version
But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Good News Translation
When they persecute you in one town, run away to another one. I assure you that you will not finish your work in all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
So when they persecute you in one city, flee to another. I can guarantee this truth: Before you have gone through every city in Israel, the Son of Man will come.

International Standard Version
So when they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, because I tell all of you with certainty that you will not have gone through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Literal Standard Version
And whenever they may persecute you in this city, flee to the other, for truly I say to you, you may not have finished [going through] the cities of Israel until the Son of Man may come.

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE USING THE VERSE IN QUESTION

The use of "may" denotes a definite contingency while its absence leaves room for the possibility of the Second Coming or a reunion at a later time.

Peter is afraid to commit at the first two questions, then ashamed when Jesus asks the third question which fits better with Peter's commitment comfort level.

A beautiful display of empathy by Jesus.

Who is, "...the disciple whom Jesus loved?..."

John the Apostle or John the Evangelist is considered the disciple whom Jesus loved.

"Our Lord gave to John a name which means son of thunder, and of all the twelve Apostles there was none whom He so deeply and warmly loved. It was a love of the Man in Christ for the man John. And it was shown in many ways. Peter, James, and he were the only ones Our Lord admitted to the room where he raised from death the daughter of Jairus. They alone were present at the Transfiguration and at the agony in the Garden of Gethsemani. At the Last supper it was John who sat next to Our Lord and who rested his head on His breast. He was the only one of the Apostles present at the Crucifixion, and it was to him that Our Lord entrusted the love and protection of His greatest treasure, His mother."

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on a few factors, the chief of which is did Agape and Phileo mean the same thing for John as perhaps one might take them today.

Dr. Michael Barber explains:
https://thesacredpage.com/2020/05/07/agape-isnt-a-magical-word-why-peter-was-hurt-that-jesus-asked-him-a-third-time-do-you-love-me/

I would post a snippet, but it's probably best to just visit the article and read it entirely.

I have heard this type of rebuttal put forth by others, and it has always been a strong one. This article does a better job than most in providing a concise rebuttal to the agape and phileo interpretation.

The Youtube personality James White is an excellent example of how quickly an amateur theologian with an affinity for the Logos website can so easily create new, and erroneous, interpretations and doctrines.

There is a very real danger in how quickly and dismissively some discount the almost 2000 years of consistent theological exegesis by the Catholic Church, Protestant Churches, and some Evangelical Churches for the arrogance of fly-by-night, armchair experts.

I did, thank you!

Attached File

Well, she's dead. And we aren't supposed to try to contact the dead, so...lol.

Are we just going to all ignore this pic??

Is this for real? How have I never heard anything about this before?

There is a prohibition against necromancy, which in Biblical terms has to do with communicating with the dead for the PURPOSE of witchcraft or prophesy.

This is not what Catholics do, would ever do, or what has ever been advocated by the RCC.

Do you have any other Scriptural passages that prohibit prayer to the Saints, etc?

I would add that Catholics don't see asking the Blessed Mother or Saints to pray for us (intercession) as serving as mediators to Christ. the RCC has always taught that there is only one mediator to God and that is Christ. Unfortunately, over the centuries Protestant understanding of the word "mediator" has wandered from the traditional and Apostolic definition of what a mediator is. This has led to the confusion.

Again, I am interested in any evidence that the Blessed Mother, or anyone else who has passed in a state of Grace cannot hear our prayers.

@sirgilbert357
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 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. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Genesis 6:1-6,12 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Genesis%206:1-6,12&version=KJV