Creation/Evolution Q&A

[OBXBob]

Hi Keith,

I've found that when the Bible is talking in symbolism, the 'legend' to the symbolism is provided. Once a "legend" has been provided, that 'legend' is then used in other parts of the Bible. If no explanation is given to indicate symbolism is being used, personally, I always take a passage to literally mean what it says.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Blessings,

Bob

[OBXBob]

So maybe not every verse in the bible is intended to be taken with such a strict interpretation. Perhaps there are other meanings to the verses. Perhaps this is why Daniel knew enough to ask "What does this mean?"

So let us look at the story of Cain and Abel. Let's ask the question Daniel asked, "What does this mean?"

First notice the names, cain and abel. These might very well represent two peoples, cain, the tillers of the ground, or an agricultural society, and abel, a hunter, might well represent the hunter gatherer societies. The story of cain and abel might well be the story of how hunter gatherer societies were exterminated by agricultural societies. If this perspective is correct, and since we know that agricultural societies replaced hunter gatherer societies, then we have documented evidence in the scriptures regardnig what happened in history about how man's societies have changed or evolved.

So just as the beasts from the sea are not literal beasts rising from the mediteranean, the story of cain and abel may (and I say 'may' not 'is') be about two societies of men, the agricultural societies replacing the hunter gatherer societies.

These are the thoughts that come from asking Daniel question. "What does this mean?"

This is why some of us who are christians may not necessarily agree with every literal interpretation of every passage.

Hi Keith,

I've found that when the Bible is talking in symbolism, the 'legend' to the symbolism is provided. Once a "legend" has been provided, that 'legend' is then used in other parts of the Bible. If no explanation is given to indicate symbolism is being used, personally, I always take a passage to literally mean what it says.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Blessings,

Bob

[keithareilly]

Hi water,

Thanks for answering. I don't seem to be able to get out what I mean. I
understand completely that evolution as a theory is problematic. The idea
that something comes into being because it needs to come into being (like
standing up on two legs) is simply silliness. Then to think extra
chromosones just happen to appear on the scene is just as silly.

What I am saying is that science does not always disagree with the
scriptures. Do the scriptures say that the earth is center of the universe?
No they don't. But the religious leaders of Gallaleo's day would not
tolerate a competing theory. Just like the atheistic leaders of today will
not tolerate a competing theory. I like the idea that competing theories
exist, including the theory of evolution. I don't like it when christian's say
creation means thus and thus or such and such.

I gave an example of cain and abel. This is a perfect example of how a
we christian's can see something other than the strict literal
interpretation. I would like to remember that there is room for other
points of view even if those points of view are wrong.

As a matter of fact it is why I like this board. It maintains room for
competing theories and I get to sharpen my skills with some very
tallented people.

Keith

[keithareilly]

Hi Bob,

Glad to hear from you. I haven't chatted with you in a while. I appreciate your thoughts on this.

Consider, if a king conquers another king we say king such and such conquered king such and such. What we really mean is that armies of one king conquered the other, not that the king himself did it by himself. So, in the story of Cane and Abel, if Cane and Abel are the representatives, i.e. kings, of two peoples, then the statement Cane slew Abel means that Cane’s people slew Abel’s.

Take a look through your bible and see how many times the little guy is left out and the credit is given to a king. Then reconsider that what Cane and Abel might be describing. It is not a legend but the conquering of one people by another, maybe. So it would not be couched like a legend, it would be written like a king conquering another.

----
Consider another interesting thing about the creation stories. There are two stories. One, talks about a time before rain existed. How long ago was that? Is it backed up scientifically? (Actually I think it is...) So how far back into history can science and the bible find agreement? It seems to me it can be pretty far if you don’t limit yourself to a strict literal interpretation.

Did you know Eve was created because it was not good for Adam to be alone? For how long did Adam live that he was alone? More than a day?


Have you ever noticed the story of Esau and Jacob. Look at what the bible says about Jacob and Esau. They represent whole peoples! Now look at the description of the Esau verses the description of Jacob, Hairy versus smooth. Does this not just scream the same analogy I used for Cane and Abel?

GEN 25
19 This is the account of Abraham's son Isaac.
Abraham became the father of Isaac, 20 and Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah daughter of Bethuel the Aramean from Paddan Aram [d] and sister of Laban the Aramean. 21 Isaac prayed to the LORD on behalf of his wife, because she was barren. The LORD answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. 22 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, "Why is this happening to me?" So she went to inquire of the LORD.

23 The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger."

24 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. 25 The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau. [e] 26 After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau's heel; so he was named Jacob. [f] Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to them.

27 The boys grew up, and Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the open country, while Jacob was a quiet man, staying among the tents. 28 Isaac, who had a taste for wild game, loved Esau, but Rebekah loved Jacob.

29 Once when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the open country, famished. 30 He said to Jacob, "Quick, let me have some of that red stew! I'm famished!" (That is why he was also called Edom. [g] )

31 Jacob replied, "First sell me your birthright."

32 "Look, I am about to die," Esau said. "What good is the birthright to me?"

33 But Jacob said, "Swear to me first." So he swore an oath to him, selling his birthright to Jacob.

34 Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew. He ate and drank, and then got up and left.
So Esau despised his birthright.

[water]

What I am saying is that science does not always disagree with the
scriptures.

Exactly!

When we see science for what it is, a method to study and understand the physical creation around us, a creation spoken into existence by a spiritual God, then we can proceed without hindrance.

It is when we propose monstrous theories with the goal of writing God out of the equation that science fails miserably.

[Rte66]

Honestly,

As much as this stuff interests me to learn about and discuss, sometimes I feel like just giving up and volunteering in a soup kitchen!!


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060921/D8K8U6PO0.html

Keith,

Who was Seth? What did he represent? And what group of people did the Hunter/gatherers (Cain) marry?

Thinking of this story in terms of an analogy raises more questions for me than thinking of it literally. These are just a few. Here's another one. We have astro-physical reasons for our literal 24 hour day (earth's rotation); the moon's cycle for our month; the rotation of the earth around the sun for our year of seasons. ..where does the 'week of 7 days' come from? From what I've read I am lead to believe that the week developed independently in several early cultures. Have you ever heard of an explanation for that without taking the Creation story literally?

Thanks,
Angie

[keithareilly]

Hi folks,

Thanks for your feedback. Let me make a few statements.

First God is the creator and he created us.

Second, as I understand the scriptures, man as created by God in the
account of Genesis is not the exact genetic specimen we see today. I
have two reasons for saying this, both based upon scripture.

First,
Original Adam/man was created with a greater longevity than modern
man. He lived longer. He lived a lot longer. He lived hundreds of years
longer. It was not until later that God limited man to 120 years. So this
implies God has done some tweaking to man since the creation of Adam.

Second,
We have an account of the Sons of God finding the daughters of men
attractive and having offspring with them. The result being, as we are
told in scripture, is the mighty men of old. So, I see that somehow the
offspring of man and the Sons of God are a little different than the
offspring with only Adam’s ancestry, so these offspring were notable and
their notability was tied to their not being totally of Adams ancestry.
Consequently, we, the human race, may have within our ancestry
something that was not found in the ancestry of the Adams’ race prior to
the sons of God having children by the daughters of men.

Therefore, because God says in scripture he himself has made changes to
man since he created Adam, and because in scripture we find evidence of
parentage from outside the line of Adam mixed with Adams’ children’s’
line, we, that is mankind today, may not be a exact representative of the
original creation, Adam.

For these reasons I expect to find changes in man from the original creation Adam.

Keith

[Rte66]

First God is the creator and he created us.

Second, as I understand the scriptures, man as created by God in the
account of Genesis is not the exact genetic specimen we see today. I
have two reasons for saying this, both based upon scripture.

First,
Original Adam/man was created with a greater longevity than modern
man. He lived longer. He lived a lot longer. He lived hundreds of years
longer. It was not until later that God limited man to 120 years. So this
implies God has done some tweaking to man since the creation of Adam.

Or this implies God has done some tweaking with our environment that resulted in our bodies getting older much faster.

Second,
We have an account of the Sons of God finding the daughters of men
attractive and having offspring with them. The result being, as we are
told in scripture, is the mighty men of old. So, I see that somehow the
offspring of man and the Sons of God are a little different than the
offspring with only Adam’s ancestry, so these offspring were notable and
their notability was tied to their not being totally of Adams ancestry.
Consequently, we, the human race, may have within our ancestry
something that was not found in the ancestry of the Adams’ race prior to
the sons of God having children by the daughters of men.

But that is why God sent the flood, to clear out this 'mixture of Sons of God with daughters of men' and the rampant evil that infiltrated humans. Noah was still pure as were the other 7 folks on board. I was amazed when I first learned that the Flood story is told in several ancient cultures which would indicate it was not an analogy. The Sumerians have a flood hero in their inscriptions. The Chinese have reference to a flood in their ancient histories.

Therefore, because God says in scripture he himself has made changes to man since he created Adam, and because in scripture we find evidence of parentage from outside the line of Adam mixed with Adams’ children’s’ line, we, that is mankind today, may not be a exact representative of the original creation, Adam.

So am I understanding correctly that you are saying that these exmples above indicate that God has said in Scripture that he has made changes to man?

For these reasons I expect to find changes in man from the original creation Adam.

Thank you for explaining your perspective Keith. But I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. To what extent did changes occur according to your beliefs? ..Was Adam originally an ape-like creature? Is it this reasoning that explains the fossils of "ape-man" ?

I believe every human being on this planet was created in God's image just as Adam was. I believe in micro-evolution. That God designed adaptability into our genes which explains the various races. But we are all human. We were never ape/man hibrids, only human.

Angie

[water]

Regarding changes to man, we know that as we age, our bodies change. Our cartilage continues to grow, among other things.

When man hundreds of years, I wonder what changes took place then that we have no experience with today.

For example, if all of the sudden man stopped living past 30 years of age, nobody would know what an elderly person looked like, the type we know today.

We simply have no idea today what a body would look like if it lived for 800 years.

This is one change the Bible confirms, that God cut our days shorter.

[bchandler]

We may not know what older humans looked like... but we can extrapolate with computer models.

By modeling muscle attachments and applying chewing forces to a computer model for 500+ years, and by correctly positioning the deliberately dislocated lower jaw while doing so...

We find that the skulls we today call Neanderthal are in fact human in origin and are at minimum 500 years old. We also discover that Neanderthal actually had a larger brain capacity than modern humans.

Now, this means that Neanderthal man is Human, and was either a pre-flood or post-flood human that died and was buried in sediment quickly enough to prevent bone scattering or animal predation.

Changes may indeed have occured to man... but they are for the worse... not better, or are the direct result of extreeme age.

Also note... the picturing of neanderthal with a distended lower jaw is a deliberate falsification to make him look less human, as well as is the artistic concept of depicting Neanderthal man as hairy. We have no fossil evidence to my knowledge that Neanderthal man was any more or less hairy than modern humans.

Now to tell you a story:

I travelled for my old job, and one of those jobs took me to the San-Francisco area. I rode the BART train from my hotel to my customer site every day.

One day while riding back to my hotel, the train stopped, and a man got in and sat down accross from me.

I was quite startled by this mans appearance... He was the blackest, hairiest man I had ever seen. His nose was squashed on his face, his lower jaw was pushed forward... for just a split second I thought a big male silverback gorilla had gotten on the train and I was looking for his handler.

Then as quickly as my brain had panicked at this mans appearance I realized that this was indeed a man, all be it with an extreemely unfortunate appearance. My mind kept saying Lord... I found the missing link and he lives in oakland.

I couldn't help but feel sorry for this man, because aside from his facial skelatal structural appearance, he was so hairy I suspected that he had a rare genetic condition commonly known as werewolfe syndrome, in which the body and in rare cases even the hands feet and face are covered in thick hair/fur.

Now, I say this not to poke fun, but to show how the extreemes of human genetics can fool you regarding people walking around today... how much more can they "fool us" when scientists deliberatley manipulate skeletal remains to fit their own pet theories. As with Neanderthal and lower jaw positioning which is deliberately false and any child could see and immediately correct if handed a model.

In addition note that Lucy's remains were spread out over a distance of more than 2 kilometers, which means they can't even say that the leg bones found are even part of Lucy... it is just another unwarranted assumption.

[keithareilly]

Rt66 said

But that is why God sent the flood, to clear out this 'mixture of Sons of God with daughters of men' and the rampant evil that infiltrated humans. Noah was still pure as were the other 7 folks on board. I was amazed when I first learned that the Flood story is told in several ancient cultures which would indicate it was not an analogy. The Sumerians have a flood hero in their inscriptions. The Chinese have reference to a flood in their ancient histories.

Rt66

I have heard the speculation about the evil of man being caused by the intermixing of the line from the Sons of Men. Just because the story of Noah appears immediately after the story of the sons of God intermingling with the daughters of men does not imply that that this intermingling was the cause of man’s evil. The only result of the intermingling mentioned in the Bible was the creation of the mighty men of old. Also, if I remember correctly, Adam and Eve did not need any help getting kicked out of the garden of Eden.

There is also no scriptural support for saying Noah’s line did not have any of this ancestry. That is speculation based upon assuming the first speculation, that is: “that evil in man came from the intermixing of the Sons of God is true and God would therefore have to purge this from Adam’s line and did so via the flood”. There is absolutely no support for this idea other than the close proximity of the stories.


Rt66 said


Thank you for explaining your perspective Keith. But I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. To what extent did changes occur according to your beliefs? ..Was Adam originally an ape-like creature? Is it this reasoning that explains the fossils of "ape-man" ?
I believe every human being on this planet was created in God's image just as Adam was. I believe in micro-evolution. That God designed adaptability into our genes which explains the various races. But we are all human. We were never ape/man hibrids, only human.

Rte66

I have no position on the extent of the changes. I simply see that in accordance with scripture man has changed from the original Adam. I have stated two causes provide in the scripture. I have stated my conclusion: “that it is reasonable that modern man may not be an exact representation of the original Adam”. I don’t apply this theory to explain or support evolution. If there are genetic differences between modern man and Adam, I can not say. I can only conclude that modern man need not resemble the original Adam. To what extent that is true, I have no position.

Considering Adam was created in Gods image, considering the various races and variances from man to man, race to race. What exactly do you think it means to be created in God’s image? What about sexes, skin color, shape of the face, tall, short. What about genetic mutations? Are all of these people, male or female, black white, mutated not mutated, created in Gods Image? One interpretation is that Eve is not in God’s image do you believe that this is so?

In one creation story God says “Let us create man in our image” So man is created in the image of a plural being, God may be one, but he is also plural, thus should man not also be plural?



Hi bchandler

Thanks for your post on the computer model aging; that is pretty interesting. I personally don’t believe in macro evolution, its bunk. But I can see how the variety of man’s appearance from an original Adam down through time would lead some down the road to think man has evolved. I think the story of Esau and Jacob is a story of two real people and peoples. I think the two peoples existed on the planet at the same time and that eventually won out over the other. I also think Esau and Jacob were real individuals as well and that we have an example of a how one set of parents can produce more than one of man’s normal appearances, even in twins. Notice how Esau was favored by the father and Jacob was favored by the mother. It appears that in the story of Jacob and Esau, that smooth or hairy was only notable because they came from twins not that either one was unusual. Only today do we think that such variances in people an anomaly. I think the variety used to be a norm and that so much cross breeding has taken place that man has sort of developed a more common appearance.
What are your thoughts on this?


Keith

[Rte66]

Hi Keith,

I will probably have to respond to your comments in a few posts as I've got to get to do dishes, get dinner and do dishes again soon, but as I am always eager to discuss these things, I'll just address the first point for now.

I have heard the speculation about the evil of man being caused by the intermixing of the line from the Sons of Men. Just because the story of Noah appears immediately after the story of the sons of God intermingling with the daughters of men does not imply that that this intermingling was the cause of man’s evil. . ......

I didn't say the intermingling was the cause of men's evil, I just said that this intermingling happened AND men were evil, both which I believe were reasons for God sending the flood.

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Who were the sons of God? I believe they were rebellious angels. Another verse with this term "sons of God":

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Who is able to present themselves before God with Satan in the midst of them?

Gen 6:3 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.

Interesting comment here. I'm not sure what it means but I find it interesting that when you hit the New Testament and do a search on "sons of God" you get these verses:

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Now in the NT its talking about sons of God being believers. So which is it? Could it be both? Could something have changed between New and Old that causes us to be His sons? a reference seemingly used in the OT for angels only? Yes, the blood of Jesus. He couldn't strive with us because we are flesh. Maybe this is an early indication that he has to give of Himself to save us? make us spiritual creatures as were the angels? And then Gen 6:3 is followed by some comment about mens' days being 120 years. He was going to give them 120 years to what? get their act together. ..and also the same amount of time for Noah to build his ark. And this oddly interjected smack between verses that have only to do with these "men of reknown", "sons of God". It sounds like a direct correlation to me.

Gen 6:4 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.
Gen 6:5 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.

So if we've got these rebellious angels having sex with women and producing offspring lets ask a few questions? What kind of women were they? Were they ignorant to the fact that these were demons? I highly doubt it. But I don't know. It may have been part of some false god worship that they participated in, the wickedness of man that God was referring to. And besides being large, what were these hybrids like? Maybe they had an even greater tendency for evil? maybe a capacity for evil in a "spiritual way" as opposed to just fleshly evil? I don't know. In any case it follows shortly after this intermingling that God sees the wickedness of man was great.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 6:9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.

So whats this? Noah was perfect in his generations? What does that mean? Could this be Scriptural support for Noah NOT having this intermingling going on in his ancestral history? And one last verse I think is in reference to these sons of God?

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

estate:

1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
a) of angels and demons

habitation:

1) a dwelling place, habitation
a) of the body as a dwelling place for the spirit

Could this statement be an indication that the angels left their bodies and inhabited the bodies of men in order to produce these hybrids? I don't know cuz then you have to ask, do angels have genes? Can they mingle with human genes?

I have to go. ..more later. ..

[keithareilly]

Hi rte66,

I read your response and well, it has the makings for a doctrine.

For example, I think it is a stretch to conclude that the sons of God who mingled with men are evil. I am not saying it is a wrong conclusion, I am saying I don't think there is sufficient evidence for me to say that your arguments necessarily result in that conclusion.

For example, if Christians are called sons of God in the NT, then by your arguments all christians must be evil. (I know you don't agree with this.)

Unless you make allowances for both good and evil sons of God, then what is the criteria to determine which are which? When satan tempted Jesus, he was right next to him talking to him. So just because satan is in your company does not make you evil. The same is true for the sons of god assembled in Job. To conclude they are evil because satan is present is too big a leap for me.

In Job, these sons of God might have had confidence in approaching the thrown of glory because their deeds were good. Satan's presence has no bearing on the sin or lack therof of others about.

I also think it is a leap to say Noah was perfect in his generations means he did not have any ancestry of the sons of god.

Consider this, Jacob and Esau were twin brothers, yet they were very different. Where do these differences come from, certainly it came from their parents genes. So whatever gene pool was contained with the parents, it was the same gene pool that passed down from Noah.

That is all I am saying: that these very different men were considered men by their generations. Just because such varience is not common in our day does not mean it was not common prior to our day.

I think that the strongest argument against your ideas is the following.

The Bible is the word of God. God calls these beings his sons as in "Sons of God", and you call these beings demons. You have created an argument where you call those that God calls his sons, demons. I think that demonstrates the wrongness of the argument.


Keith

[Rte66]

I read your response and well, it has the makings for a doctrine.

For example, I think it is a stretch to conclude that the sons of God who mingled with men are evil. I am not saying it is a wrong conclusion, I am saying I don't think there is sufficient evidence for me to say that your arguments necessarily result in that conclusion.

For example, if Christians are called sons of God in the NT, then by your arguments all christians must be evil. (I know you don't agree with this.)

Forgive me for not making myself clear and for putting in a comment that would mislead you to think that I think ALL sons of God are evil.. I see my mistake now. I meant the sons of God referenced in that verse only

One-third of them (the sons of God) decided to rebel with Satan. These were bad/evil. The remaining Sons of God were good/not evil. Therefore, to conclude that all Sons of God are evil, thus necessitating that the sons of God (Christians) of the New Testament are evil, is erroneous. I never meant to say that all the sons of God were evil, just the ones who chose to "come un into the daughters of men".

Unless you make allowances for both good and evil sons of God, then what is the criteria to determine which are which? When satan tempted Jesus, he was right next to him talking to him. So just because satan is in your company does not make you evil. The same is true for the sons of god assembled in Job. To conclude they are evil because satan is present is too big a leap for me.

That was NOT the point I was making by including that Scripture from Job. The point I was making is that there is Scriptural support to say that the "sons of God" are truly angels. Many people disagree with this contention so I was simply supporting the idea that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are references to angels, not the bloodline of Seth as others believe.

In Job, these sons of God might have had confidence in approaching the thrown of glory because their deeds were good. Satan's presence has no bearing on the sin or lack therof of others about.

Of course, you misunderstood me. I apologize for not making myself more clear.

Can't finish now. ..

[Rte66]

Keith, I have to go back to your post # 134

I have no position on the extent of the changes. I simply see that in accordance with scripture man has changed from the original Adam. I have stated two causes provide in the scripture. . .

One cause being the following, if I understand you correctly, from your previous post:

First,
Original Adam/man was created with a greater longevity than modern
man. He lived longer. He lived a lot longer. He lived hundreds of years
longer. It was not until later that God limited man to 120 years. So this
implies God has done some tweaking to man since the creation of Adam.

You say the difference in age spans implies God did some tweaking with man. I do not see the implication.

Gen 6:3 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.

It took Noah 120 years to build his ark. Coincidence?

The meaning of the name Methusaleh: he has sent his death.

The year that Methusaleh dies God sent the flood.

I think the 120 years were an opportunity for the men to repent as God's Spirit was not going to continually judge and try to convict them as He had been doing. In my Bible this verse is referenced to

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.

And didn't Jesus warn us that it would be like before Noah's time toward the end and here in Gen 6:3 He says His spirit will not always strive with man and people think this verse in Thessalonians is reference to His Spirit being taken away. Sorry for the tangent but I found this interesting/eye-opening. Anyway back to the change in lifespans of men. ..


You never responded to my statement that maybe the difference in age spans is a result of Him doing some tweaking with the environment which is different than tweaking man directly. Man was created to exist in a particular environment. The reduction in life span may merely be a reaction to the change in environment that came as a result of the flood.

Your second cause for men being different being the following:

Second,
1)We have an account of the Sons of God finding the daughters of men
attractive and having offspring with them. 2) The result being, as we are
told in scripture, is the mighty men of old. 3) So, I see that somehow the
offspring of man and the Sons of God are a little different than the
offspring with only Adam’s ancestry, so these offspring were notable and
their notability was tied to their not being totally of Adams ancestry.
4) Consequently, we, the human race, may have within our ancestry
something that was not found in the ancestry of the Adams’ race prior to
the sons of God having children by the daughters of men.

I have numbered your statements to aid me in addressing them individually so as to avoid any confusion.

1) Yes I agree, which is why I went to the trouble to clarify in my previous post that I think that these Sons of God are angels.

2) Yes I agree, this union brought about offspring referred to as "mighty men of old".

3) Yes, the offspring between the sons of God and the daughters of men are different than offspring from sons of men and daughters of men.

4) I don't believe this statement is a correct conclusion. Just as you stated in 3) there is a difference between this offspring. . .it seems you are assuming that ALL humans have had this intermingling going on in their ancestry. This is why I brought up Noah. So you believe that Noah did have some of this intermingling going on in his ancestry? In that case then it would be part of our ancestry. At the present I don't believe this. I believe Noah was of a pure line of generations that did not have this intermingling going on. But I do believe this intermingling happened again later but I do not know to what extent. By then God had set aside a race to be pure-the Hebrews. Retaining this purity is why ancestral records are so important to them.

Considering Adam was created in Gods image, considering the various races and variances from man to man, race to race. What exactly do you think it means to be created in God’s image? What about sexes, skin color, shape of the face, tall, short. What about genetic mutations? Are all of these people, male or female, black white, mutated not mutated, created in Gods Image? One interpretation is that Eve is not in God’s image do you believe that this is so?

In one creation story God says “Let us create man in our image” So man is created in the image of a plural being, God may be one, but he is also plural, thus should man not also be plural?

I would agree that since God is a triune God made up of three distinct persons that spiritually speaking we have all three aspects of God within us-Father, Son and Holy Spirit. How, exactly, is still a mystery to me. But I think this is a spiritual likeness, not physical. I believe that all people, male or female, black or white are created in Gods image, spiritually. I don't know what God looks like physically except that I better have some sunglasses on when I see Him! But I would venture to say that maybe physically He can resemble us. He can probably make Himself look any way He wanted.

I don't think that we are in total disagreement about the variations within the human race either. God built into our genes, I believe, the ability to adapt as needed to changing environments. And we have a massive gene pool it seems with which to make up such variances within families.

I believe that because we live in a fallen world that we suffer from genetic defects such as Down's Syndrome, etc. .... but that God is able to make these people perfect at the right time. I don't think that these genetic defects indicate that we are less than Adam or different than Adam spiritually. Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit and they experienced a spiritual death. It wasn't until they were banished from the garden that they experienced physical death. It has all been downhill for creation since then. Since then our bodies have degenerated. Creation has degenerated. But Christ came to redeem our spiritual lives. The physical redemption will follow at the right time.

Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.

I am uncertain as to what you mean by mutated so I can't say I agree to that.

And far as your question about Eve goes. . . yes, Eve was created in God's image. . ..

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Its a mystery to me exactly what being created in is image means. Was God both man and woman? He makes total man but man is lonely so He separates total man into separate man and women so that they can be company for one another. . . An indication of how He designed male/female human relationships to be. After all each sex has its strengths and together we compliment each other, make a whole in marriage. ."become one". .. Or you could look at it this way. ..Eve was taken from this image of God-man, then it follows she is made in His image as well. I don't know. What I do know is that in verse 27 of Genesis 1 it says that He created Both in his image and I believe it. And He created them with the ability to procreate.

I won't be able to post for a few days. Have a great weekend!

[keithareilly]

Hi Rte66,

Thanks for the in depth explanation.

You are correct. I think God tweaked man but it could be otherwise. So I stated this an opinion or more specifically a possibility. Could be environmental not genetic changes. No real conclusion except that the possibility exists for either solution and so I don't rule genetics out; neiother do I rule out environmental or your ideas. But I will point out strengths and weaknesses and I hope you don't take offense.

Same goes for the genetic makeup of those whose decendants are the sons of God mixed with men. I am only pointing out the possibilities to say those possibilities do not exist is to state an opinion based upon conclusions. So I simple let it be known that I allow that the possibilities exist. I am not asking you to agree with me just letting you know I don't rule these out and that I have scriptural reasons why I don't rule them out. Could I be wrong? sure and I am not invested in the opinion enough to be adamant about it.

If you want to think that Noah's perfect generation means he had not ancestry of the sons of god mixed in his blood that's ok with me. But since god describes these beings as "sons of god" I am not certain I would call their lineage imperfect. The "sons of god" lineage is not the one that placed man in bondage to sin, that was the son of Adam lineage. So I would have to say that the sons of god lineage might be better lineage than the sons of Adam lineage. If you want to say that perfect generations mean not mixed with sons of god lineage that is pure adam lineage thats an OK by me but It is just as much a conclusion as I made when I said God tweaked man.

It is a about studying scriptures. I know that there are paradoxes in scripture and that things that may appear to be conficting may not in fact be conflicting. For example, Dinosours, did they exist? Some christians think not; but, I think so and I think that perhaps leviathan was a dinosaur. But that is pure speculation on my part but it keeps me remebering that we are not told everything just what god thinks we need to know. Some things God just hasn't talked to us about and I have a lot of questions to ask later on. So when people want to say if its not in the bible then its not true well that kind of rubs me the wrong way.

But do I use any of these beleifs to support evolution? No, evolution as taught by the godless is a lie. But I can see why those who don't want to submit to God would like an alternative and why they would choose to see history without God. That is why salvation begins and ends with faith. It is not about what can be proven. It is about beleiving in the one whom God sent.

Keith

The older I get the more I realize I don't know. If I were talking about these subjects with you ten years ago I would have very adamant. But now I know too much about how little I know so I try not to close off possibilities.

[bchandler]

The whole concept of Angels breeding with humans comes primarily from extra biblical sources and requires us to disregard what Jesus said about Angels neither being given or taken in marriage.

From what we know in scripture, Angels are created beings, and there is no record of them being either sexual or procreating.

There is another explanation for the Sons of God and daughters of men.

1. God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply... If they didn't do so they would have been disobedient to God.

2. We have no record of how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they fell.

3. It is possible that Adam and Eve had children prior to their fall that were still in an unfallen state.

4. These children would have been able to come and go freely from the Garden while fallen man would have been kept out.

5. These Sons of God saw their post fall sisters and desired them.

6. It appears from biblical description that there were indeed some genetic issues that arose from these breedings between unfallen and fallen humans.

Obviously my position is as much speculation as the nephilim theory... but... It doesn't require ther interbreeding of spirit beings and humans... nor does it violate what Jesus told us about the nature of angels.

[Salty Skipper]

Genesis 6:3-5 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation



3Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."

4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Numbers 13:32-33 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


32 And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. 33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually

I believe that from what I have read...I can only deduce that the Nephilim are giants. How does one arive at the conclusion that they are not fully human? I've been trying to figure this out too. The word is only in the Bible twice. I read a Hebrew definition refering to them as giants. I have also read that before the flood many plants and animals were giant in size because of the ideal conditions for growth. Perhaps some people were just big?

[Salty Skipper]

Just found a clue...

N e-phil´-im, which means fallen ones (from naphal, to fall).

from watchman ministries.

[Rte66]

The whole concept of Angels breeding with humans comes primarily from extra biblical sources and requires us to disregard what Jesus said about Angels neither being given or taken in marriage.

I take this comment by Jesus to mean that angels can't do this in heaven, in their first estate. Nothing to say that these demons can't possess a man and do so through a man's body just as they possessed the bodies of pigs and went running off of a cliff.

Thats all I can do for now .

[AndCanItBe]

Gen 6:4 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.
Gen 6:5 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.

It always occurs to me there is an easy explanation for this that some overlook. You'll notice that the last half of verse four says "the same became the mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

When you think of mighty men, men of old who were renown, excluding men in the Bible, what is the first thing that comes to mind? The first thing that comes to my mind is the Greek gods and their offspring like Hercules, who was half god but born of an earthly woman. If you just scrape the surface of Greek "mythology" it is a perfect description of fallen angels worshipped as gods who act more like spoiled children than Gods and have the pick of whatever mate on earth they choose. Maybe you'll think I'm nuts, but I don't think the Greek gods are entirely fiction. I think they had their basis in fact, and one of Noah's sons/wives passed the tales down. I'm sure there is a lot of fiction mixed in there, but I think it's fiction mixed in with fact. I think those gods were fallen angels, and their offspring, like Hercules, were the men of renown, the Nephilium. Just my .02

[keithareilly]

My whole point in all this discussion is that there seems to be a record in the bible about humans of vastly different normal appearance than we have today. Today we might call these freaks but only because the appearance is not common. It appears that shortly after creation there may not have been one normal appearance for man.

Not saying this is a fact; but it might be; again its only speculation. But these verses in the bible make me wonder if modern man’s appearance might be somewhat different than the original Adam’s appearance.

How does this play into evolution theory? The only aspect I can think of is that if, that is if, more than one normal appearance of man existed, and if we are now down to one normal appearance of man, then it is likely that the more adaptable appearance survived.

But what is most interesting about this is that it has nothing to do with evolution creating new species but instead evolution whittles down existing species. This would appear to be the opposite of using evolution do describe how species come into existence.


Keith

[Rte66]

Hi Keith,

Thank you too for your heart-felt explanation of where you stand on this issue we have been discussing. I think that we are not holding to such opposing views as I first thought, which is why I engaged this conversation, to find out what was behind your leanings towards evolution. That is why its so important to get the terms defined up front so that we know EXACTLY what we are discussing. I thought in the beginning, that you were perhaps saying that you held a belief in macro-evolution, the unfounded belief that one species can morph into another. But I can see from your writings that is not true. And I apologize for any statements I made that assumed incorrectly. As I participate in discussions with others as I age, I have to restrain from my tendency to just clamp on one side of the issue, just because that is where I lean, and argue as if it were true when really its just an idea to explore.

Yes. .. it seems so many times these discussions all boil down to a difference of opinion, where one Scripture may indicate more than one possibility, and more importantly to faith. Man will use anything to reason God out of existence.

May the Lord grant you wisdom in your pursuit of His truth.

[Rte66]

Hello bchandler,

I apologize for the abrupt response. Ack! I so much want to engage my thoughts in discussion but so many other responsibilities call and I so often don't have the patience to wait till I have time to respond more appropriately. Please forgive me.

The whole concept of Angels breeding with humans comes primarily from extra biblical sources and requires us to disregard what Jesus said about Angels neither being given or taken in marriage.

From what we know in scripture, Angels are created beings, and there is no record of them being either sexual or procreating.

But as Keith is so astute in pointing out that we can't neglect the possibilites, are there Scripture to preclude that angels could not have had the ability to procreate? Also, I am wondering what extra-biblical sources you are referring to, that mention angels breeding with humans? It came to mind that Josephus' histories are an extra-biblical source that many Christians refer to in efforts to examine events described in the Bible. Is it your opinion that no extra-biblical sources should be sought out for research? How do you decide which sources to ignore? This is why I am wondering what sources you are talking about.

There is another explanation for the Sons of God and daughters of men.

1. God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply... If they didn't do so they would have been disobedient to God.

2. We have no record of how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they fell.

3. It is possible that Adam and Eve had children prior to their fall that were still in an unfallen state.

4. These children would have been able to come and go freely from the Garden while fallen man would have been kept out.

5. These Sons of God saw their post fall sisters and desired them.

6. It appears from biblical description that there were indeed some genetic issues that arose from these breedings between unfallen and fallen humans.

Wow! That explanation had never occurred to me. .. thank you so much for sharing that! Maybe. .. could be. . .!!! But then, wouldn't that mess with the whole idea that man is fallen since there would be some men who hadn't fallen? I mean who is to say that All of these pre (before Adam's fall)-conceived children came out and did this? And what about the females that may have been born to them? Or were there none? I will have to chew on that one for awhile but for now this is my biggest hurdle to your idea.

Obviously my position is as much speculation as the nephilim theory... but... It doesn't require ther interbreeding of spirit beings and humans... nor does it violate what Jesus told us about the nature of angels.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

It just says marriage, nothing about having sex or the ability to have sex. And as we all know, you don't have to be married to have sex.

[Rte66]

I believe that from what I have read...I can only deduce that the Nephilim are giants. How does one arive at the conclusion that they are not fully human? I've been trying to figure this out too. The word is only in the Bible twice. I read a Hebrew definition refering to them as giants. I have also read that before the flood many plants and animals were giant in size because of the ideal conditions for growth. Perhaps some people were just big?

Salty,

Yeah, I have wondered that too. I shouldn't speak in such definate terms that I believe these are angels that have fallen. Its just right now in my walk and understanding of Scripture, that is where I lean. If you lean in the direction, as I do, that the statement "Noah was pure in his generations" indicates that his bloodline was pure of this intermingling, it begs the questions why was it so important to make sure that all these mixed offspring died in the flood. That verse is a clincher, at least for me. What does it mean? I think the conclusion to that question bears heavily on this question if yours. If they were just big people then why have them wiped off the face of the earth?

So what do you think about the Noah/generations verse?

Per your next post. .. they are fallen ones according to Watchman ministries. Fallen from what? Both angels (some of) and man "fell" from their God-given position in creation.

[Rte66]

And Can it Be,

Just in the past year, in my readings I have become aware of that theory. And you know to me. . .it really seems to fit the puzzle!!! SO now, Greek and Roman myths, ancient myths of all kinds, have shot up on my reading list!

[Rte66]

Way back at the beginning of this discussion, the issue of whether or not Adam is an analogy came up. I just wanted to post Scripture that supports, at least in my opinion, that Adam was a single man that existed.


Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.


Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

It seems inconsistent to me to go from an analogy of "men" (Adam) to one man (Moses) we all know truly existed.

"who is the figure of him that was to come". . .Jesus was one man. Can we use an analogy "of men" to be a figure for one man?


Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

The comparison of one man's transgression to one man's gift of grace.

Rom 5:16 And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

When I see a phrase mentioned so many times in a section of Scripture, I think it means God really wants us to take a look.

[keithareilly]

Hi Rte66,


In case you were concerned you have not offended me.

Also, you said someone said Adam was an analogy I don’t remember
reading that, but I don’t know anyone who thinks that. I did say that
Cane and Abel could be an analogy and that I think it is. This does not
preclude Cane and Abel from being real people. I think that in these two
real people might the story of two entire races of man be explained. I
think the same is true for Esau and Jacob.

I have a few questions for you concerning your belief that God wiped out
all impurities in Adam’s line via the flood.

1) Do you think that Goliath of David and Goliath was a giant?
2) Do you think Goliath a man?
3) Was Goliath of impure blood line?

Finally,

I ask these of course because Goliath came after the flood and if God
intended to wipe out impure bloodlines and if Goliath was an impure blood
line then how does this fit with your theory?


Keith

[keithareilly]

Hi Folks,

About Angels, demons, and “sons of god”.

First, there is an assumption that the “sons of god” were angels, I don’t
know if this is a valid assumption but I can not think of any scripture that indicates this.

Second, there is an assumption that the “sons of god” are demons. I also
can not think of any scripture that says this is so. Also, I can not think of
any scripture that calls fallen angels, demons. For that matter I can not
think of any scripture that calls anything but “evil spirits” demons.

Since it appears that angels have physical form (see when Abraham
entertained them and fed them and also were some Christians have
unwittingly entertained angels) it seems unlikely to me that angels, even
fallen angels, and demons are the same creatures. I think this because it
appears that demons (see Jesus describing them as wondering in a
desert) are without physical form but angels have physical form. So I
think it unlikely that fallen angels and demons are the same thing.

It appears that angels and “sons of god” are fairly similar in that both
have human like attributes. It is unclear if this is always true for angels.
It might be angels have human attributes on demand. On the other-
hand, since God created man in their own image it seems likely that “sons
of god” would also have an image similar to God and therefore similar to
those created in image of God, humans. For the “sons of god” it is
probably normal for them to be in the image of god as is man. But this is
less clear for angels (see when the angel of death took the first born from Egypt).

Keith

[Rte66]

Hi Keith,

Also, you said someone said Adam was an analogy I don’t remember
reading that, but I don’t know anyone who thinks that. I did say that
Cane and Abel could be an analogy and that I think it is. This does not
preclude Cane and Abel from being real people. I think that in these two
real people might the story of two entire races of man be explained. I
think the same is true for Esau and Jacob.

So do you think that Cane and Abel may be an analogy for two different races or. . .

From a previous post of yours. . .

So just as the beasts from the sea are not literal beasts rising from the mediteranean, the story of cain and abel may (and I say 'may' not 'is') be about two societies of men, the agricultural societies replacing the hunter gatherer societies.

Or are saying they may explain two different societies? And since they are children of Adam and Eve, is Seth another type of society or race? Just trying to get your thoughts straight. Just following your assumptions/thoughts to see where they lead me.

As far as Goliath goes. ..I haven't negated the idea that men of reknown came after the Flood the same way as before Noah's Flood.

Gen 6:4 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.

But by the time we hear about Goliath, or the spies seeing the giants in Canaan for that matter, which happened much earlier than Goliath, God had already called out the Israelites and given them the law which included no intermingling with anyone outside of the Jewish race, or at least not with the Canaanites and others I'm guessing. I don't kow that law precisely so I'd have to do some research to understand exactly what kind of intermingling was forbidden.

First, there is an assumption that the “sons of god” were angels, I don’t
know if this is a valid assumption but I can not think of any scripture that indicates this.

I thought I made it clear previously this is how I lean but I'm not exactly sure (just to set the record straight). But I find that sometimes certain asumptions have to be made in order to see where it takes you, always keeping in mind that your initial assumptions is still just that. . .an assumption, until you find proof, which sometimes you will find along the way after you've made your assumption. .. Does that make sense to you? (It barely makes sense to me )

What about the Scriptures in Job? Don't they at least indicate that it could be the angels. ..I mean who else would be around shouting for joy during Creation? I suppose its possible that there is some created being that we don't even know about.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Second, there is an assumption that the “sons of god” are demons. I also
can not think of any scripture that says this is so. Also, I can not think of
any scripture that calls fallen angels, demons. For that matter I can not
think of any scripture that calls anything but “evil spirits” demons.

It always made sense to me to think this way, but maybe a study is in order.

Since it appears that angels have physical form (see when Abraham
entertained them and fed them and also were some Christians have
unwittingly entertained angels) it seems unlikely to me that angels, even
fallen angels, and demons are the same creatures.

I don't see how just because Abraham entertained a few good angels that means that fallen angels aren't the same as evil spirits or demons. Its just a matter of terminology. What do you call fallen angels?. .simply Fallen Angels? To me demons is just a synonym for fallen angels, not a different created being. Maybe I will discover otherwise in my "-What exactly are demons and are they referenced in the Word?- study?"

I think this because it
appears that demons (see Jesus describing them as wondering in a
desert) are without physical form but angels have physical form. So I
think it unlikely that fallen angels and demons are the same thing.

It would help me to know what verse you are referring to as far as wandering demons are concerned. But does the fact that they are wandering mean that they didn't choose to leave their physical forms, assuming, of course, that is possible?

It appears that angels and “sons of god” are fairly similar in that both
have human like attributes. It is unclear if this is always true for angels.
It might be angels have human attributes on demand. On the other-
hand, since God created man in their own image it seems likely that “sons
of god” would also have an image similar to God and therefore similar to
those created in image of God, humans. For the “sons of god” it is
probably normal for them to be in the image of god as is man. But this is
less clear for angels (see when the angel of death took the first born from Egypt).

I suppose another study is in order to compare the attributes of "sons of God"to angels. ..to see wherin the similarities and /or differences lie (lay?). Which version of the Bible do you prefer? I usually quote from KJV online because it is more universally accepted as legitimate Word of God.

Well I suppose that I need to cut back on these posts now and go do some reading and studying. . .got quite a list here now! Thanks Keith!!

[keithareilly]

Hi Rte66,

Sorry for the delay, I have been busy.

------ About Peoples and Analogies of Peoples ---------
Of course Seth represents a people. I know the children of Israel represent the tribes. I know Israel represents the Jews. There exist plenty of examples in scripture whence a people are called by their patriarch. Look through the first chapter of Chronicles and you will see what I mean. Early on nearly everyone who fathered children represented a people or tribe. While there may not be a specific mention of Sethites there is no reason to think he is an exception.

While this answer is not in the same line of thinking as my last answer. You question does not really fit my last answer either. What I said was that the story of Cain and Abel is a story about two real people. It MAY also represent the story of two peoples. I think it does; but that is not conclusive.

Think of it this way. The story of Ishmael and Isaac are the stories of two people. The children of Ishmael are the children of the slave, not the children of the promise (See Galatians 4 21-30). This is the kind of analogy I am doing with Cane and Abel.

------ About calling the “sons of god” Demons-----------
I rather object to your saying this because you are calling those whom God calls his sons, evil. If they are Gods children and you are calling them evil then you might be calling ‘good’ ‘evil’. See Isaiah 5:20

Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."

Or again, we know that those who have the spirit of God are the Sons of God, and by Mathew 12:31: And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Jesus said this after he was accused of casting out demons through Beelzabub.
So, calling the “sons of god” “demons” really rubs me the wrong way, and I think it is dangerous ground for anyone.

Actually, I think the “sons of god”, angels, demons, the four living creature in Rev 4, Seraphim, Giants, etc. are each their own category of beings. I think so because there seems to be pretty specific circumstances and roles assigned to each. The “sons of god” seem to have had a lot of freedom, angels always seem to be referred to doing an assigned task. This is just my take on it. I do think demons and evil spirits are the same.

-----About fallen angels being demons. -----
I don’t think so. Demons seem to be free to torment men. Fallen angels do not seem to be free. So I don’t think they are one in the same. See: Jude 1:6, Luke 11:24

Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

Luke 11: 24 "When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' 25When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. 26Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first."

It appears that fallen angels are bound while demons are free to rome. So they do not seem to me to be the same.

------ About Bible Versions ---------
I am not real particular about Bible versions. I have many and use them all to help me better understand what I am reading. I am no scholar so I won’t fuss about it. Though, I do tend to stay away from paraphrased ones.

Keith

[Rte66]

June 28, 2006

Why Did God Send the Flood?

Austin Robbins, D.D.

This article was first published in the February 2006 ABR Electronic Newsletter.


The Biblical account of the great flood of Noah’s day opens with an enigmatic passage, Genesis 6: 1-4. The record of Noah, it seems, could easily have omitted them, going directly from the end of chapter five to 6: 5 without losing any essential information pertaining to the flood. One writer, dealing with these verses called them an “erratic boulder” since they are “standing apart to some extent from their context”. (Newman p. 14) The flow of the Genesis narrative seems to be interrupted by these verses.

So why did God inspire Moses to include these verses? Other questions also come to mind. God had, for many hundreds of years, continued the punishment meted out to Adam. We read in chapter five repeatedly the phrase, “and he died”. Why was not the ordinary death of human beings sufficient punishment for sin? What was the factor that required the simultaneous deaths of all mankind save Noah and his family?

There seems to be a deeper and more compelling reason for the flood than the sinfulness of man. These four verses, I believe, along with other Scriptures, give us a fuller picture of the reason God sent the flood to cover the earth.

The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men

There are differing views as to the identification of these “sons of God” mentioned in verses 2 and 4. Robert C. Newman surveyed the various ideas proposed and accepted by ancient Jewish exegetes, ancient Christian interpreters and the authors of the New Testament. He documented the fact that in the pre-Christian era, Jews accepted the view that the “sons of God” were supernatural beings. The New Testament writers also accepted that view. It is only in relatively recent times that a non-supernatural identification of these “sons of God” has found wide acceptance. (Robert C. Newman, The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6: 2, 4. Grace Theological Journal, 5, 1, 1984 p 13 - 36.)

This expression, “sons of God” is used several times in the Old Testament. It appears in the opening of the oldest book of the Bible, Job 1: 6 and 2:1. There it is used of angels, both holy and fallen, since Satan was among them. In Job 38:7, the “sons of God” are the angels who rejoiced at the creation of the earth.

In the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, as well as in the Dead Sea scrolls, Deuteronomy 32: 43 reads, “Shout joyfully, O heavens, with Him and worship Him, O Sons of God.” Here, these sons of God are angels.

In all but one passage of the Old Testament the term is used of angels. Only in Hosea 1:10 is the phrase, “sons of God” used of men. But the men in the Hosea passage are those in a covenant relationship with God. This expression is never used of humans in rebellion against God.

Now, in Genesis 6 the term cannot mean humans since those of whom it speaks are certainly not in a covenant relationship with God. Noah and his family were the only righteous men on earth. Genesis 6: 9, 18 and 7:1.

The New Testament passages concerning this event

The pertinent passages in the New Testament are 1 Peter 3: 19 - 20, 2 Peter 2: 4 and Jude 6 - 7.

The 1 Peter passage speaks of Jesus, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit, “by Whom also He preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient when once the Divine long suffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared...” (NKJV)

The 2 Peter passage reads, “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah...” (NKJV)

The Jude passage states:
And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (NKJV)
The context of these passages is the Flood; actually the 120 years the ark was being prepared “in the days of Noah”. Since Christ announced the doom of those in chains of darkness awaiting their judgment, the identification of them as disobedient angels who did not keep their proper abode is certain.

The only possibility of placing that angelic disobedience in the context of the Flood is Genesis 6:1 -4.

Objection

An objection to this view is based on Matthew 22:30, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven.”

Can angels have sexual relations with humans? We need only look at Lot’s experience in Sodom to answer that question. The men of Sodom clearly intended just that with the two angels who came to rescue Lot and his family (Genesis 19:5 ff.). Obviously the angels in heaven do not have such relations. But the angels in these New Testament passages did not “keep their proper domain, but left their own abode”. They certainly were not in heaven.

Jude 7 is quite explicit. These angels sinned “in like manner” as the men of Sodom and Gomorrah in sexual immorality by going after “strange (heteros) flesh. This heteros flesh is “another of a different kind”. Wuest’s translation of Jude 6 and 7 is especially clear. He writes:

And angels who did not carefully keep inviolate their original position of pre-eminent dignity but abandoned once for all their own private dwelling place, with a view to the judgment of the great day, in everlasting bonds under darkness He has placed under careful guard. Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, in like manner to these [the angels of verse 6], having given themselves over with a complete abandon to fornication, and having gone after a different kind of flesh [from their own, cohabiting with beings of a different nature], are being set forth as an exhibit, undergoing the punishment of everlasting fire. (Kenneth S. Wuest The New Testament, An Expanded Translation Erdmans Publishing Company, 1961 p 581.)

Conclusion

In context, the passage before us gives a plausible reason why God would eradicate almost all of humanity. Its position in the opening verses of the Flood account serves as an introduction to the greatest destruction of human life in history. Satanic influx, the “seed” of Satan, entered the human race by the action of those fallen angels. Only “Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations”, (Genesis 6:9). The word “generations” is the Hebrew word, toledah. Usually it is used in Genesis to mean “family history”. However its primary meaning is “descent” or “family lineage”.

Noah was free of sinful angelic seed. His family line was perfect. Thus only he, his sons and their wives were exempt from the annihilation which came to all other humans. Satan tried at various times to prevent the “bruising of his head” by the seed of the woman, Genesis 3:15. He tried in Egypt by causing all the male babies to be drowned. He tried as the Israelites were about to enter the Promised Land through the agency of Balak and Balaam. He tried by means of Haman to extinguish the Jews. He tried at the birth of Jesus through Herod’s slaughter of the young boys of Bethlehem. He tried by tempting Jesus in the wilderness.

Satan did everything he could to keep mankind from being saved by the blood of the Lamb. If he couldn’t kill Him outright, if he couldn’t stop the Jewish nation from producing the Messiah, he would try to prevent the atonement by causing Him to sin. Our Savior had to be sinless in order to be the propitiation for our sins.

And, I believe, the Genesis 6:1-4 passage relates one of Satan’s early attempts. He wanted to infect the whole human race with Satanic seed so there could be no possibility of a sinless substitute who could make atonement for the sins of all mankind.

The proclamation Jesus made to those very angels who had infected the human race was to the effect that God had defeated Satan’s scheme and He, Himself, Incarnate God and Holy Man, was proof of that!

God spared Noah. He prevented the plague from continuing through human procreation by eliminating all those who either carried it or had the potential to do so, by means of the Flood. And by doing so continued the line God intended to use in bringing His Son into the world to be our Savior.

Thank God for the Flood! He, by it, was working to bring us salvation!

http://abr.christiananswers.net/articles/article45.html

I apologize for offending you with associating demons with fallen angels. I do it out of ignorance if I am incorrect, not to throw a jab at the angels as the Pharisees did with Jesus.

You have presented compelling evidence to support that fallen angels are not demons. It has recently been suggested to me that demons are those who were killed in the flood. I don't know. Haven't really had time to look into what demons are.

Just to refresh my mind as to why we're discussing Sons of God". . .your words from previously. ...

Second, as I understand the scriptures, man as created by God in the
account of Genesis is not the exact genetic specimen we see today. I
have two reasons for saying this, both based upon scripture.

First,
Original Adam/man was created with a greater longevity than modern
man. He lived longer. He lived a lot longer. He lived hundreds of years
longer. It was not until later that God limited man to 120 years. So this
implies God has done some tweaking to man since the creation of Adam.

Second,
We have an account of the Sons of God finding the daughters of men
attractive and having offspring with them. The result being, as we are
told in scripture, is the mighty men of old. So, I see that somehow the
offspring of man and the Sons of God are a little different than the
offspring with only Adam’s ancestry, so these offspring were notable and
their notability was tied to their not being totally of Adams ancestry.
Consequently, we, the human race, may have within our ancestry
something that was not found in the ancestry of the Adams’ race prior to
the sons of God having children by the daughters of men.

Thats right. . .I am contending that the offspring of the Sons of God and the daughters of man were killed in the flood and that Noah was of pure descent which is why he was spared. So maybe demons are the offspring but the Sons of God themselves are the angels bound in chains. . .Hmmm

[Rte66]

Demons in the Hebrew Bible
Demons as described in the Tanakh are not the same as "demons" commonly known in popular or Christian culture.

The demons mentioned in the Hebrew Bible are of two classes, the se'irim and the shedim. The se'irim ("hairy beings"), to which some Israelites offered sacrifices in the open fields, are satyr-like creatures, described as dancing in the wilderness (Isaiah 13:21, 34:14), and which are identical with the jinn, such as Dantalion, the 71st spirit of Solomon. (But compare the completely European woodwose.) Possibly to the same class belongs Azazel, the goat-like demons of the wilderness (Leviticus 16:10ff), probably the chief of the se'irim, and Lilith (Isaiah 34:14). Possibly "the roes and hinds of the field", by which Shulamit conjures the daughters of Jerusalem to bring her back to her lover (Canticles 2:7, 3:5), are faunlike spirits similar to the se'irim, though of a harmless nature.

The evil spirit that troubled Saul (I Samuel 16:14 et seq.) may have been a demon, though the Masoretic text suggests the spirit was sent by God.

Some benevolent shedim were used in kabbalistic ceremonies (as with the golem of Rabbi Yehuda Loevy), and malevolent shedim (mazikin, from the root meaning to wound) are often responsible in instances of possession. Instances of idol worship were often the result of a shed inhabiting an otherwise worthless statue;[citation needed] the shed would pretend to be a God with the power to send pestilence, although such events were not actually under his control.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon#Demo ... brew_Bible

Isa 13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

Isa 34:14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.

sa`iyr {saw-eer'} or sa`ir {saw-eer'}

2)he-goat, buck

a) as sacrificial animal

b) satyr, may refer to a demon possessed goat like the swine of Gadara (Mt. 8:30-32)

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 59
AV - kid 28, goat 24, devil 2, satyr 2, hairy 2, rough 1; 59





I only have bits of time here and there but I will post as I can, what I find out about demons.

First off there is no such word listed in the KJV, so maybe evil spirits is the way to search. I'll do both.

from my inquiry into "evil spirits" this is what Blue Letter Bible came back with. Interesting how God sends the evil spirits.

Jdg 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:

1Sa 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

1Sa 16:15 And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.

1Sa 16:16 Let our lord now command thy servants, [which are] before thee, to seek out a man, [who is] a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.

1Sa 16:23 And it came to pass, when the [evil] spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.

1Sa 18:10 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and [there was] a javelin in Saul's hand.

1Sa 19:9 And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with [his] hand.

Act 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

Act 19:16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

Gotta go

[Abiding in His Word]

from my inquiry into "evil spirits" this is what Blue Letter Bible came back with. Interesting how God sends the evil spirits.

That is interesting, Rte66! An interesting study.....

[water]

Bigfoot?

[keithareilly]

The guys arguments sound good, but upon closer analysis the conclusions drawn do not stand up to riggorous interpretation by the rules of logic.

Saying the "Sons of god" were fallen angels because Satan was present is like saying Christ was a sinner because he ate with tax collectors and sinners.

The guy's entire assumptions are based upon faulty reasoning.
Another case of guilt by association.

Sometimes, when insufficient information is available, the best conclusion is to say no conclusion is possible with the information at hand..


Keith

[Rte66]

Saying the "Sons of god" were fallen angels because Satan was present is like saying Christ was a sinner because he ate with tax collectors and sinners.

I explained this before. . .it has been demonstrated that "sons of God " may be angels, NOT fallen angels. Some of the "sons of God" may have chosen to have intercourse with women. These may be referred to as fallen angels. Not ALL the angels in God's presense in Job were fallen angels, but hey, Satan sure was. And I have never argued guilt by association.

[keithareilly]

Hi Rte66;

I know you have said this before. All these "may be" 's just result in the wrong conclusion of calling the "sons of god" "sons of satan".

If I call those whom God call his sons God's enemies Should I expect other God fearing people to agree with me?

I think not.

In logic this is called a contradiction and is used to demonstrate the fallacy of the original assumption. When you reach a contradiction it is only because the assumption that something was true was not true or because something you assumed false is actually true.

So we have a case where the "sons of god" a 'good' term is called demons a 'bad' term. good does not equal bad therefore you have a contradictin and the original assumption must therefore be false.

Keith

[Rte66]

In case you might begin to argue that Satan was never an angel. . . (which in my opinion, explains why he's showing up with the Sons of God before the throne of God, cuz he used to be on of 'em.)



SATAN [SAY tuhn] (adversary) — the great opposer, or adversary, of God and humankind; the personal name of the devil.
The Hebrew word from which Satan comes sometimes refers to human enemies (1 Sam. 29:4; Ps. 109:6). Once it refers to the angel of the Lord who opposed Balaam (Num. 22:22). But whenever this word is used as a proper name in the Old Testament, it refers to the great superhuman enemy of God, people, and good (1 Chr. 21:1; Job 1–2). This use of the word also occurs frequently in the New Testament.
Another common name for Satan in the New Testament is “the devil,” meaning “slanderer” or “false accuser.” Other titles by which Satan is identified in the New Testament include “the tempter” (1 Thess. 3:5); “Beelzebub” (Matt. 12:24); “the wicked one” (Matt. 13:19, 38); “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31); “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4); “Belial” (2 Cor. 6:15); “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2); and “the accuser of our brethren” (Rev. 12:10).
History. Genesis 3 describes a serpent who tempted the first human couple. That serpent was none other than Satan himself (Rev. 12:9; 20:2).
Two Old Testament passages—Isaiah 14:12–15 and Ezekiel 28:11–19—have been held to furnish a picture of Satan’s original condition and the reasons for his loss of that position. These passages were addressed originally to the kings of Babylon and Tyre. But in their long-range implications, some scholars believe, they refer to Satan himself.
Revelation 12 sketches the further stages in Satan’s work of evil. In his fall from God’s favor, Satan persuaded one third of the angels to join him in his rebellion (Rev. 12:3–4). Throughout the Old Testament period he sought to destroy the messianic line. When the Messiah became a man, Satan tried to eliminate Him (Rev. 12:4–5). During the future period of tribulation before the Messiah’s second coming, Satan will be cast out of the heavenly sphere (Rev. 12:7–12). Then he will direct his animosity toward the Messiah’s people (Rev. 12:13–17). Revelation 20 notes the final phases of Satan’s work. He will be bound for a thousand years and then finally cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:2, 10).


Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1995. Nelson's new illustrated Bible dictionary. Rev. ed. of: Nelson's illustrated Bible dictionary.; Includes index. T. Nelson: Nashville

[Rte66]

SONS OF GOD — a phrase with three different meanings in the Bible:
1. In the Book of Job the phrase is used for angelic or nonhuman beings (Job 1:6; 2:1). These sons of God presented themselves before God in what might be called a heavenly assembly. Satan appeared with them, although this does not necessarily mean he was one of the “sons of God.” Thus the stage was set for the telling of the story of Job.

2. The phrase, “sons of God” appears in the New Testament as a name for people who are in a covenant relationship with God. This exact phrase never appears with this meaning in the Old Testament, although the idea is implied. For example, God referred to the scattered children of Israel, whom He promised to gather together again, as His sons and daughters (Is. 43:6; 45:11).
The classic New Testament passage where this phrase occurs is Romans 8:12–19. The apostle Paul encouraged the Christians at Rome to live not “according to the flesh,” but “by the Spirit,” because those who “are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” (v. 14).
The process is described as one of adoption, by which the believer becomes a child of God, and thus an heir of God, a joint-heir with Christ (Gal. 4:5; Heb. 2:10; 12:7). Other passages use the phrase “children of God” with the same basic meaning (John 1:12; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1–2).

3. The third usage of the phrase occurs in Genesis 6:1–4. Certain “sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose” (v. 2). The offspring of these unions are described as “giants,” “mighty men,” and “men of renown” (v. 4). The question centers on the identity of these “sons of God” mentioned in this passage. There are two basic possibilities. The phrase could refer to nonhuman beings such as those mentioned in Job (1:6; 2:1). Or, the phrase may be an unusual way of referring to human beings.The context of the verse gives important clues that the “sons of God” in this case are not angelic beings. Nowhere else in the Bible is there even a hint that nonhuman and human beings can mate. There are many parallels in pagan thought, but none in biblical thought. A second clue occurs right in the passage itself. The Hebrew verb in verse two translated as “took them wives” is the standard verb in the Old Testament for marriage. In the New Testament, Jesus stated that angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30). Thus, “sons of God” in this passage must refer to human beings
Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1995. Nelson's new illustrated Bible dictionary. Rev. ed. of: Nelson's illustrated Bible dictionary.; Includes index. T. Nelson: Nashville


Once again. ..angels do not marry. ..each other, in heaven, in their first estate. This verse quoted by Jesus in answer to the question (more or less), "what will it be like in heaven?" Nothing to say that they can't marry, in rebellion to God, which we know angels can do.. .that is, rebel against God. So here we have an unusual way of referring to men or a mention of an activity of which we find no proof to exlude the possibilty. Yet the ancients believed that these "sons of God" were angels. Hmmm. ..I guess at this point you have to make a choice. .. which way you wanna lean?

Once they rebel I wouldn't refer to them as "sons of God" anymore. I'd call them "sons of Satan".

It seems like we keep going round and round. I'm getting dizzy. And all this discussion because I suggested that your reasoning, as to the genetic differences between Adam and man, is flawed since you based it on the men of reknown being a partof man's ancestral history. I see why you hold to this defence of the "sons of God" so dearly. But I beleive the sons of God left their "sonship" behind in their pursuit of human women. and I beleive this is why the flood was sent- to clear out this mixed blood, leaving us with untained blood. See, in order for the prophecy about woman's seed to come true, it would have to pure human blood. I think Satan was trying to screw up God's plan by infiltrating the blood lines with his fellow fallen angels. He tried again cuz we hear about the giants in Canaan when the spies surveyed the land and peoples. But by then the special people (Israelites) were called out unto God. . . .to keep themselves as a race pure. Why is that so important? that the Jews keep themselves pure? to the point that after the return to their land after 70 years in captivity, they refused to let people live within the newly built walls of Jerusalem, that could not prove their ancestry? Why is it so darned important?

[keithareilly]

Hi Rte66,

Sorry, I don’t mean to be frustrating. After reading your last post I think I understand where we are and why we are stuck.

I am not hard and fast that modern man definitely has ancestry from the “sons of god”. I only recognize this as a possibility. For they sake of discussion let us say that I am wrong about this and modern man does not have any outside influence from any descendants not from Adam..


Let us assume for a moment that God wanted to eliminate from the blood line of Adam all non Adam impurities. Now, after the flood, were all men decedents from Noah and his children and their spouses whom God saved on the Ark? I think we can safely say the answer to that is Yes.

Okay, Now if we have an appearance if these impurities, giants, mighty men, men of renown, after the time of Noah, as in Goliath, then where did these impurities come from? Unless we have another case of mixing of sons of god with men then they must have come from Noah and those on the Ark. So Either God was using the flood to accomplish the purification of Adams line and failed in this endeavor or the assumption that God used the Flood to clear out the impurities from Adams line is incorrect.

Since the scriptures state the reasons for God sending the flood and those reasons do not include the purification of Adams line, Then, I would assume that the reasons in the Bible are the reasons for God sending the flood and not some other reasons. From the Bible we know God used the flood because he repented of creating man because of the evil of man’s making. Since scriptures do not state that he created the flood to clean up the blood line then I have to conclude that the assumption that God was cleaning up the blood line must be incorrect. Notice: God repented of making man. He did not repent of making these “sons of god” who took wives from the daughters of men.

What I see here is that these “sons of god” are catching the blame for man’s evil and are therefore being labeled evil. After these “sons of god” started taking daughters of men for their wives, do we have a record of God saying this action is evil? No, we don’t. Instead we have a record of God’s unhappiness with man. We don’t have a record of his unhappiness with these “sons of god”.

People imply the action of these “sons of god was evil because of this passage:
1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal [b] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

But what does God say? Does he condemn the actions of these “sons of god” or does he say something about man? Let us assume that the implication is that God is not happy with these sons taking wives from men. What is his solution, to limit the life span of man to 120 years. How might this deter the sons of God from taking wives from daughters of men? Well if anything it appears that since man is mortal, God may not want these sons taking wives from men. So what does he do but limit mans life to 120 years. This makes a daughter of men a bad companion for an immortal. While they might take a wife from the daughters of men who will live hundreds or maybe a thousand years, they are not likely to take one, if she will only last 120 years.

Of course this is speculation. But what is missing here are any consequences to these sons of god for the action of taking the daughters of men as wives. The only one who suffered any consequences were men, there lifetime was greatly reduced. So I see no reason to think that God put any of these “son of god” out of his presence. Instead he took away the temptation for these sons to take wives from the daughters of men. Is not that what we ask? “God, lead us not into temptation?” I see no reason to call these sons of God evil. If anything, Gods demonstrates a preference for these sons of god over man.



So because:
1) Scripture gives “man’s evil” not “sons of god’s evil” as reason for the flood,
2) God chose to limit man’s life time but there is no mention of any punishment for these son’s of god for taking daughters of men for wives,
3) If giants were an impurity in man’s blood line, the flood did not eliminate that impurity,
4) Since the garden of Eden man has blamed others for his own evil, and the idea that the blood line ADAM is impure because of these "sons of god" intermingling with men daughters and that this is why man has become so evil that god must now destro man is another such attempt


I see no reason to think these son of god should be labeled as evil.

Keith

[Rte66]

Hi Keith,

Let me say this up front. ..It is clear that we cannot determine that "sons of God" were in actuality angels. Personally, it is my opinion that there are Scriptures to support this. .but it is not a definate. I also don't have a problem calling certain of these fallen angels (in my opinion, previous to their fall, referred to as 'sons of God') enemies of God. ..particularly Satan. So if I am in error inferring that these "sons of God" are or became the enemies of God, your concern is duly noted.

Okay, Now if we have an appearance if these impurities, giants, mighty men, men of renown, after the time of Noah, as in Goliath, then where did these impurities come from? Unless we have another case of mixing of sons of god with men then they must have come from Noah and those on the Ark. So Either God was using the flood to accomplish the purification of Adams line and failed in this endeavor or the assumption that God used the Flood to clear out the impurities from Adams line is incorrect.

At the present time I would say that God's initial attempt failed and the sons of God mated with women again. Lest anyone claim I am calling God a failure, there are numerous times it SEEMS as though God's plans fail up front but I believe that His "failure" is, in actuality, part of His grand plan.


Your premise:

Since the scriptures state the reasons for God sending the flood and those reasons do not include the purification of Adams line,

Maybe not in those words exactly but in my opinion again, I see reason to think that it is possible that the purification is a reason for the flood because of the phrase, "Noah was perfect in his generationS." granted that is not as absolute as saying "Noah had a perfect boodline untainted with the mixing of the sons of God and daughters of man", but I think the possibilty is there.

Therefore, I cannot go along with your conclusion below since I disagree with your initial premise above.

Your conclusion:

Then, I would assume that the reasons in the Bible are the reasons for God sending the flood and not some other reasons. From the Bible we know God used the flood because he repented of creating man because of the evil of man’s making. Since scriptures do not state that he created the flood to clean up the blood line then I have to conclude that the assumption that God was cleaning up the blood line must be incorrect.

Notice: God repented of making man. He did not repent of making these “sons of god” who took wives from the daughters of men.

That's a good point. Consider this. ..Maybe He repents of making man because we are the creature He made in His own image-not the sons of God. Being made in His image, is it okay to think that He created us as a sort of representative of Himself? Maybe we are the only creatures, since created in His image, that can fellowship with Him the way we can. There is something particularly special about us as His created beings that He would mourn in particular our fall from obedience. ..enough to go to the point of dying for us. Did He provide such a way of redemption for the angels in chains?

What I see here is that these “sons of god” are catching the blame for man’s evil and are therefore being labeled evil. After these “sons of god” started taking daughters of men for their wives, do we have a record of God saying this action is evil? No, we don’t. Instead we have a record of God’s unhappiness with man. We don’t have a record of his unhappiness with these “sons of god”.

That is true. If we can't assume that the sons of God are angels then we can't say that their punishment was that He put them in chains to wait for their judgement. I suppose He was more concerned with dealing with man and his punishment at this point in man's history, after all, the Bible is a record of God's dealings with man, for the most part.

People imply the action of these “sons of god was evil because of this passage:
1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

But what does God say? Does he condemn the actions of these “sons of god” or does he say something about man? Let us assume that the implication is that God is not happy with these sons taking wives from men. What is his solution, to limit the life span of man to 120 years. How might this deter the sons of God from taking wives from daughters of men? Well if anything it appears that since man is mortal, God may not want these sons taking wives from men. So what does he do but limit mans life to 120 years. This makes a daughter of men a bad companion for an immortal. While they might take a wife from the daughters of men who will live hundreds or maybe a thousand years, they are not likely to take one, if she will only last 120 years.

Except it takes quite a while for this 120 year limit to take affect:

Gen 11:10 These [are] the generations of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
Gen 11:11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
Gen 11:12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:
Gen 11:13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
Gen 11:14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:
Gen 11:15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
Gen 11:16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:
Gen 11:17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters.
Gen 11:18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:
Gen 11:19 And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters.
Gen 11:20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:
Gen 11:21 And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters.
Gen 11:22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:
Gen 11:23 And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
Gen 11:24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:
Gen 11:25 And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters.
Gen 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
Gen 11:27 Now these [are] the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
Gen 11:28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.
Gen 11:29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife [was] Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.
Gen 11:30 But Sarai was barren; she [had] no child.
Gen 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Gen 11:32 And the days of Terah were [b]two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

Even if you exclude Noah and his sons, you still have age spans of hundreds of years several generations later. If this was to be a deterrant then why didn't it take effect Immediately?

Of course this is speculation. But what is missing here are any consequences to these sons of god for the action of taking the daughters of men as wives.

Yours is speculation, so is mine, and mine explains what punishment God meted out to the sons of God. Your speculation falls short, in my opinion, since the age spans weren't in actuality limited to 120 years immediately after the flood.

The only one who suffered any consequences were men, there lifetime was greatly reduced. So I see no reason to think that God put any of these “son of god” out of his presence. Instead he took away the temptation for these sons to take wives from the daughters of men. Is not that what we ask? “God, lead us not into temptation?” I see no reason to call these sons of God evil. If anything, Gods demonstrates a preference for these sons of god over man.

Again, I cannot follow along with this conclusion since I believe it is possible that the sons of God were angels and the punishment of fallen angels, in my knowledge of Scripture, was to be put in chains.

So because:
1) Scripture gives “man’s evil” not “sons of god’s evil” as reason for the flood,

This is based on the assumption that there is no possibility that the sons of God were indeed angels. Even Bible scholars disagree about this.

2) God chose to limit man’s life time but there is no mention of any punishment for these son’s of god for taking daughters of men for wives,

Again, based on the assumption that sons of God could never be considered angels.

3) If giants were an impurity in man’s blood line, the flood did not eliminate that impurity,

Again, it could have eliminated this impurity for a while, but the sons of God could have once again mated with the women. Once one woman died after her supposed 120 year life term, this being could just go out and find another beautiful woman with which to mate.

Which leads us to God's commands for the Israelites in Deuteronomy not to intermingle with any of those peoples that they conquered. He wanted pure human blood.

4) Since the garden of Eden man has blamed others for his own evil, and the idea that the blood line ADAM is impure because of these "sons of god" intermingling with men daughters and that this is why man has become so evil that god must now destro man is another such attempt

No, it is not an attempt to blame man's evil on a scapegoat. There are fallen angels as well as fallen men. It is a fact of Scripture.

The women were culpable in this, too, as were the men (whether it be a woman's father, husband or brother) who were commanded after the fall to be the head of the women (i.e. keep her from making such foolish decisions as to listen to the temptations of a serpent).

I see no reason to think these son of god should be labeled as evil.

You've made that abundantly clear as I have my opinions and leanings. ..so this will be my last post on this subject. I feel its time to move on. Thanks for the discussion Keith, but I have to make an end of it. We do just keep going over the same subjects and it is obvious neither of us will budge. So from one stubborn mule to another! have a great weekend! ( I hope you don't take that comment in the wrong way. ..I do aprpeciate your time and thoughts in this discussion)

Angie (named, by my mom, after the angels).

[David L]

1] Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
2] "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3] "Now gird up your loins like a man, and I will ask you, and you instruct Me!

4] "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
5] Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it?
6] "On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,
7] When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Please correct me if I am wrong but is He not discussing the creation of the earth here? When He 'laid it's cornerstone' is He not discussing the creation of the earth? If so, was Adam and his sons Cain and Able shouting for joy? Was Seth shouting for joy?

The implication by the Lord here is that the 'singing' and 'shouting' took place either during the act of creating the earth or just shortly after the forming of the earth. I suppose you could stretch it out as far as the sixth day to bring Adam into the equation but then the text would have to be modified to son and not sons.

That would imply that Adam witness the laying of the cornerstone of the earth but Genesis tells us that all of that had been accomplished before day six when Adam was created. According to the text, the sons of God witnessed the laying of the cornerstone and shouted for joy.

10] And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "See that you do not do that! I am your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Revelation 19:10

So who exactly are the sons of God in the book of Job?

[keithareilly]

Does seem to rule out the sons of god being men from Adams line who were not kicked out of the garden of Eden.

I think these verses rule out angels

Hebrews: 1:1-8

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
5For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father[a]"[b]? Or again,
"I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son"[c]? 6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him."[d] 7In speaking of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire."[e] 8But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.


God does not call angels, sons. Notice, Angels are servants, not members of the household.

Keith

[David L]

Does seem to rule out the sons of god being men from Adams line who were not kicked out of the garden of Eden.

I think these verses rule out angels

Hebrews: 1:1-8

1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So He became as much superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is superior to theirs.
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father"? Or again,
"I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son"? 6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship Him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.


God does not call angels, sons. Notice, Angels are servants, not members of the household.

Keith

In context, that scripture is relevant to the deity of Christ as the 'only begotten' Son.

If you look carefully at the context of Job in Chapter 1, 2, and 38 you will notice that there is a lower case 's' used to distinguish that their is no deity assigned to the plurality of 'sons of God' which negates any reference to the 'only begotten Son' of God.

I completely and totally agree with the writer of Hebrews so long as it remains in context. The writer is arguing that at no time has God ever assigned or made reference of deity to any of the angels. Or has He?

In the OT we read in Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Chronicles, Zecheriah, etc. about 'the Angel of the Lord' who is suspected by biblical scholars to be none other than the Lord Jesus Himself in a pre-incarnate form.

So was the writer of Hebrews in error? Are biblical scholars in error? I think not. I believe the issue here is whether or not these 'sons of God' possess deity. The answer is no. The sons of God were reporting to God to give an account of their assigned duties. Satan, having been cast out as an abominable branch became the father of his own children, or demons, who follow him thus they are no longer the 'sons of God.'

If they are not Adams descendants, angels, then your only other option is Jesus. This cannot be possible because the Father and the Holy Ghost are separate people. They fellowship with the Son so they can't become another 'Son' because they have their distinct personality. The bible makes it very clear that Jesus is 'the only begotten' Son. He is alone.

This eliminates the idea of a plurality of 'Sons' of God who have deity. This also eliminates born-again Christians because the story of Job took place in the OT before the events of Calvary. According to the scripture from Revelation 19 by the testimony of the angel who spoke to John it could be logical to conclude that the 'sons of God' in Job 1, 2, and 38 are the 'holy angels' of God who remained faithful to God, thus they are 'sons of God.'

"Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels see the face of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 18:10

The above scripture seems to support the idea that angels present themselves before God regularly to give an account. Apparently, so does the devil, according the text in Job 1 and 2. Perhaps, it is not to give an account but to seek an opportunity to be used by God to deal with our old nature. It's all speculation I suppose.

[keithareilly]

While the Hebrews verses are applied to Christ typically, there is no reason for them to be applied only to Christ for the purpose of determining if angels were at one time called sons.

Here are the verses again

5For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father[a]"[b]? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"[c]? 6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."[d] 7In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire."[e] 8But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.

Look at the fifth verse again. The implication here is that no angel has ever been called son. Therefore, these sons of god are not angels else the statement "5For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father[a]"" would be false. So again the angels were never called sons so these beings who are called sons are not angels.

Notice that angels are servants, not sons, they have never had the status of sons, yet the sons of god have a status of sons, I am not saying that Christ is not the only begotten, I am saying the angels have a class of ‘servants’ while these other beings have a class of ‘sons’. I don't pretend to understand how or why but it is pretty clear: Angels are ‘servants’ not ‘sons’. Just because Christ is the only begotten son does not mean he is the only one with son class; begotten certainly is a higher class of son, but it is not the only class of son. There are adopted sons, step sons, and a few others. The first born begotten male is the highest status son and this is Christ as the only begotten son.

The idea that if these sons of god are not men, then they must be angels is rather restrictive in that is seems do indicate God created no other beings and that if he did, he would have told us about them. Well I am saying “Here is a case he where did create them and He has told us about them and they are not angels and they are not men”. There is nothing that says they must be one or the other. Furthermore, I have no reason to believe that God has not created other beings that we know nothing about. He created the all the species of the planet. He is a God of creation and I see know reason to think he has told any of us more than we need to know. I think Christ made it clear to Peter that it is not Peter's business if God wants John to live longer than Peter. So it seems clear to me it not my business to be kept informed of everything God has created.

The problem I have with this whole issue is that the Bible calls these beings "sons of god". I believe that the Bible is the word of God and that God means what he says. It is beyond me why Christians who profess to believing the Bible is the word of God want to say of those whom God calls "sons", "they are not sons". I can read what the Bible says and it says they are sons. Why does anyone think I should not believe God's word in this matter?

Keith

[David L]

While the Hebrews verses are applied to Christ typically, there is no reason for them to be applied only to Christ for the purpose of determining if angels were at one time called sons.

Here are the verses again

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"? 6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.

Look at the fifth verse again. The implication here is that no angel has ever been called son. Therefore, these sons of god are not angels else the statement "5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father" would be false. So again the angels were never called sons so these beings who are called sons are not angels.

Notice that angels are servants, not sons, they have never had the status of sons, yet the sons of god have a status of sons, I am not saying that Christ is not the only begotten, I am saying the angels have a class of ‘servants’ while these other beings have a class of ‘sons’. I don't pretend to understand how or why but it is pretty clear: Angels are ‘servants’ not ‘sons’. Just because Christ is the only begotten son does not mean he is the only one with son class; begotten certainly is a higher class of son, but it is not the only class of son. There are adopted sons, step sons, and a few others. The first born begotten male is the highest status son and this is Christ as the only begotten son.

The idea that if these sons of god are not men, then they must be angels is rather restrictive in that is seems do indicate God created no other beings and that if he did, he would have told us about them. Well I am saying “Here is a case he where did create them and He has told us about them and they are not angels and they are not men”. There is nothing that says they must be one or the other. Furthermore, I have no reason to believe that God has not created other beings that we know nothing about. He created the all the species of the planet. He is a God of creation and I see know reason to think he has told any of us more than we need to know. I think Christ made it clear to Peter that it is not Peter's business if God wants John to live longer than Peter. So it seems clear to me it not my business to be kept informed of everything God has created.

The problem I have with this whole issue is that the Bible calls these beings "sons of god". I believe that the Bible is the word of God and that God means what he says. It is beyond me why Christians who profess to believing the Bible is the word of God want to say of those whom God calls "sons", "they are not sons". I can read what the Bible says and it says they are sons. Why does anyone think I should not believe God's word in this matter?

Keith

Answer me one question Keith.

Are you a son or servant?

If you're a son then (according to your logic) you can't be a servant. If you're a servant then (according to your logic) you can't be a son. So which is it? Son or Servant?

If you're going to apply this logic to scripture then you have to apply it to yourself, it's only fair Keith.

It's well known that in the Jewish culture sons were servants of their father. It is also known that these sons or servants (can I even call them that?) or I don't know now I'm confused.

They can't be both their father's son and serve him at the same time, can they? Can a servant receive an inheritance?

you win...

[keithareilly]

I am a son, I am also a servant.

There are beings who are servants who are not sons.
Angels are not sons of god.
Therefore, the contra positive is also true,
Sons of God are not angels.


Keith

[dynastywarrior4]

Evolutionists do not like to mention seeding as a possible candidate because it breaches the chicken-egg paradox. If "aliens" made us, who made the aliens?

If god made us, who made god?

[Mrs. B]

And because ye are sons.....


Galatians 4:6......And because ye are sons......God hath sent forth THE SPIRIT OF HIS SON INTO YOUR HEARTS......CRYING Abba, Father...


7......Wherefore thou art no more a Servant.....but a Son.....and if a Son....then an heir of God through Christ.....

8.....HOWBEIT....THEN.....When ye knew not God.....ye did service unto them which by nature are not gods...


9......BUT Now.....after that ye have known God.....or rather are know of God........how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements.....whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

16.....Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

19.......My little children.....of whom I travail in birth again until CHRIST....BE FORMED IN YOU.....


Gal 4:29.....But as then....he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit.....even so it is now....



Jesus said.....We must be born again.....born of the Spirit and the Word....

Gal 4:13.......For the Promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham...or to his seed.....Through the Law........BUT through....

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH......

THE JUST MUST LIVE BY FAITH....WITHOUT FAITH.....IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE HIM......

By Faith we must believe the written word.....

Hebrews 1:1.....GOD, Who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time pass unto the fathers by the prophets.......

BUT....

2......Hath in these last days sposken unto us by his Son....

Whom he hath appointed HEIR OF ALL THINGS......By whom also He made the WORLDS....

3......WHO BEING THE BRIGHTNESS of His Glory....and the Express Image of His Person.......and upholding ALL THINGS BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER.....

BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER?........GOD SAID...LET THERE BE.....

LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE......

GOD SPOKE ALL THING INTO BEING.....BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER....


3b.....when He had by himself purged our sins....sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on High....



10.....And, Thou Lord in the Beginning hast laid the Foundation of the Earth......and the Heavens are the Works of Thine Hands....

11.....They shall perish....but thou remainest...and they all shall wax old as doth a garment....

12....And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up...and they shall be changed....
BUT....THOU ART THE SAME AND THY YEARS SHALL NOT FAIL........


2:3.......How shall we escape...if we neglect so Great Salvation....which at the first began to be SPOKEN BY THE LORD......AND WAS CONFIRMED UNTO US....BY them that Heard Him..........

10.....For it became Him.....for whom are all things.....in bringing MANY SONS.....UNTO GLORY....to make the Captain of their Salvation Perfect Through Sufferings....

11......For Both He that Sanctifieth and they who are Sancrified......ARE ALL OF ONE.......FOR WHICH CAUSE ........He is not Ashamed to call them Brethren.....


Heb.3:1.......Wherefore....Holy Brethren....partakers of the Heavenly Calling....consider the Apostle and High Priest of our Profession....Christ Jesus.....

2.....Who was Faithful to him that appointed him.....




Let us also be faithful....



bb