DOCSLIB.ORG

Noah's Ark: Myth, Or Reality?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Noah's Ark: Myth, Or Reality? Noah’s Ark: Myth, Or Reality? Part Three: The Spiritual Cause of the Flood Bill Crouse 9/30/18 ? ? ? The Conundrum of Genesis 6:1-8 ? ? ? ? 1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. 5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. The Big Question: Why Was God’s Judgement So Extreme? -What was the nature of the sin that caused God to mete out such a judgement? -Whatever it was, it resulted in ever-increasing human depravity and violence on the earth (vs.5). -God’s created order was violated. -We must not underestimate the wrath of God here. Varieties of Interpretation: 1. Those that Emphasize the natural 2. Those that Emphasize the supernatural 3. Those that regard it as a Jewish version of an ancient myth about the gods copulating with man. Five Major Interpretive Problems: 1. the daughters of men. It seems best to just take this in a normal way: daughters of men = daughters of men. 2. the sons of god. A word study of the Hebrew word: elohim yields only divine beings. 3. the nephilim. This is the tough one. It certainly seems to mean the progeny of this illicit mating. (see Num. 13:32-33) 4. the gibborim, or, the men of old, or, men of renown. This was the name given to some of the nephilim. 5. And, what does the 120 years refer to? Most interpret this as the time God gives to repent and to enable Noah to built the Ark. Five Major Views: 1. Unequally Yoked Marriages 2. Polygamy 3. Demon Possession 4. Divine Kingship 5. Mixing of Seeds (Miscegenation) 6. Various Combinations of Above 1. The Unequally-Yoked Marriage View Explanation: The line of Seth(the godly line) and the line of Cain(the ungodly line) were intermarrying. It violated the principle of being unequally yoked. It corrupted the line of Seth, i.e., the Messianic line. The sin then, is that the godly line of Seth fell into temptation. This is the view held by Augustine and Luther. Objections: 1. It does not seem to explain the severity of the Flood. The problem of mixed marriages prevailed after the Flood and exists even now. 2. The Hebrew: bena elohim, (sons of god), in all other occurrences in the OT means angelic or divine beings. See: Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Ps. 29:1, 82:1-2, 89:6; Dan. 3:25. 3. Man, or mankind, means the same thing in verse 2 as it does in verse 1. 4. Many Bible scholars believe angels were sexless, therefore unable to procreate. The Bible does not say that angels are sexless. True, angels in heaven do not marry, nor do the people in heaven. There is no need for angels to marry since their number never decreases. See Matt. 22:30, Mk. 12:25, Lk. 20.35-36. Angels are, however, spoken of as being male (Michael and Gabriel) and even as female (Zech. 5:9)! Yes, angels are spirit beings but they do take the form of humans and participate in human functions (see Gen, 19). These angels (divine beings) were fallen and were lustful. See other examples from the occult world. 5. It does not give a satisfactory answer to the offspring produced. 6. It runs roughshod over the passages in I Pet. 3:19,20 (spirits in prison); II Pet. 2:4,5 (the angels who sinned); Jude 6 (angels who did not keep their own position but deserted their proper dwelling). 7. None of the sons of god were on the Ark. Why not, if they were godly? And there is a logic problem: why would a godly person marry an ungodly one? Wouldn't this be considered a very ungodly act? 8. The contrast is between the sons of god and the daughters of men, not between the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain. 9. This view was not known until about the 5th Century A.D. 10. In modern times (the age of rationalism) this view, that the sin involved intermarriage, seemed to be a more rational interpretation of the text in a time that disavowed the supernatural. 2. The Polygamy View: Explanation: Taking multiply wives, or, the pagan rite of the king having first intercourse with new wives. This polygamy resulted in over-population as in vs. 1. Objections: 1. It gives too much emphasis to pagan creation myths and not enough to scripture. 2. Again, does this explain the severity of the judgement? Was not man commanded to be fruitful and to multiply? Also, polygamy was practiced after the flood! 3. The Demon-possession View: Explanation: The sons of god were demon-possessed men, maybe even the rulers. This view would certainly do away with the problem of angels cohabiting with men. Demons do seem to have a craving for bodies. Objection: 1. Use of the term sons of god in other OT passages does not refer to demon-possessed men; they were embodied spirit beings. 4. The Divine King View: Explanation: Tyrants and kings were seen as deity and were worshiped. As gods they owned everything. Deity could be passed on to sons. See: I Tim. 1:4. This view could be a valid reason for God’s judgement. You certainly see this in antiquity, but, again this practice continued after the flood even up to WWII. 5. The Mixed Seeds View: The war of the seeds: Gen.3:15 Explanation: Satan was working to corrupt and destroy the godly line, the seed of the woman. Divine Beings, i.e., sons of god (“elohim”) were attempting thwart the plan of God by “marrying” women/ These divine beings who rebelled were once part of God’s ruling council. This corruption was not just spiritual, but became physical as well. Objection to the Angel-Hybrid View: 1.The major objection to this view is the difficulty in believing that angelic spirit-beings can co-habit with humans and produce offspring. The supernaturalness of this view makes it hard to accept. 2. In addition, it is often argued that Jesus says angels don’t do sex! For in the resurrection they (people) neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels.” Matt. 22:30. Jesus is not talking about what Angels cannot do, but what they do not do. He is talking about Angels in heaven, those in their normal abode. Support for this position 1. It would explain the severity of the flood. God judged the whole earth because God’s creative authority and Messianic plan were being thwarted.. I.D.E Thomas said: This specific sin of which these extra-terrestials were guilty, must be classified as the most repugnant and repulsive that one can meet anywhere in the annals of the human race. It is such an abomination in the sight of the Lord that it called forth the ultimate in judgement. No sin ever moved the Sovereign Lord of the universe to such unmatched anger and unmitigated wrath. And no sin was ever punished like this one. The Omega Conspiracy, p. 145. 2. It agrees nicely with the theme of Genesis (3:15). This conflict between the seeds is foretold in Gen. 3:15 (your seed would then be taken literally). God is trying to preserve and purify the seed which Satan is trying to corrupt and destroy. 3. This view, though it might be hard for moderns to hold, does justice to the several texts in the NT. Some very difficult passages in the NT yield explanation with this interpretation. See: Col.2:15; I Pet. 3:19-20; II Pet.2:4-5; Jude 6,7; Eph. 4:9. It might explain why women should cover their head in I Cor. 11:10. Col: 2:15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and disgraced them publically; He triumphed over them by Him. I Pet 3:19-20 In that state He also went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison who in the past were disobedient, when God patiently waited in the days of Noah while an ark was being prepared. In it a few—that is , eight people—were saved through water. II Pet. 2:4-5 For if God didn’t spare the angels who sinned but threw them down into Tartarus and delivered them to be kept in chains of darkness until judgment; and if He didn’t spare the ancient world (cosmos), but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others, when He brought a flood on the world of the ungodly; Jude 6,7 …and He has kept, with eternal chains in darkness for the judgment of the great day, the angels who did not keep their own position but deserted their proper dwelling.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin Baker Academic, a Division of Baker Publishing Group, © 2014
    Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin Theological, Biblical, and Scientific Perspectives EDITED BY Hans Madueme and Michael Reeves k Hans Madueme and Michael Reeves, Adam, The Fall, and Original Sin Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, © 2014. Used by permission. (Unpublished manuscript—copyright protected Baker Publishing Group) MaduemeReeves_Adam_LC_wo.indd iii 9/17/14 7:47 AM © 2014 by Hans Madueme and Michael Reeves Published by Baker Academic a division of Baker Publishing Group P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287 www.bakeracademic.com Printed in the United States of America All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Adam, the fall, and original sin : theological, biblical, and scientific perspectives / Hans Madueme and Michael Reeves, editors. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8010-3992-8 (pbk.) 1. Sin, Original. 2. Adam (Biblical figure) 3. Fall of man. I. Madueme, Hans, 1975– editor. BT720.A33 2014 233 .14—dc23 2014021973 Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. ESV Text Edition: 2011 Scripture quotations labeled NASB are from the New American Standard Bible®, copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of the Problem 1
    Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF OPEN THEISM WITH THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY A Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology by Stuart M. Mattfield 29 December 2014 Copyright © 2015 by Stuart M. Mattfield All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with all things, the first-fruits of my praise goes to God: Father, Son and Spirit. I pray this work brings Him glory and honor. To my love and wife, Heidi Ann: You have been my calm, my sanity, my helpful critic, and my biggest support. Thank you and I love you. To my kids: Madison, Samantha, and Nick: Thank you for your patience, your humor, and your love. Thank you to Dr. Kevin King and Dr. Dan Mitchell. I greatly appreciate your mentorship and patience through this process. iii ABSTRACT The primary purpose of this thesis is to show that the doctrine of open theism denies the doctrine of inerrancy. Specifically open theism falsely interprets Scriptural references to God’s Divine omniscience and sovereignty, and conversely ignores the weighty Scriptural references to those two attributes which attribute perfection and completeness in a manner which open theism explicitly denies. While the doctrine of inerrancy has been hotly debated since the Enlightenment, and mostly so through the modern and postmodern eras, it may be argued that there has been a traditional understanding of the Bible’s inerrancy that is drawn from Scripture, and has been held since the early church fathers up to today’s conservative theologians. This view was codified in October, 1978 in the form of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Christian Physicist Examines Noah's Flood and Plate Tectonics
    A Christian Physicist Examines Noah’s Flood and Plate Tectonics by Steven Ball, Ph.D. September 2003 Dedication I dedicate this work to my friend and colleague Rodric White-Stevens, who delighted in discussing with me the geologic wonders of the Earth and their relevance to Biblical faith. Cover picture courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey, copyright free 1 Introduction It seems that no subject stirs the passions of those intending to defend biblical truth more than Noah’s Flood. It is perhaps the one biblical account that appears to conflict with modern science more than any other. Many aspiring Christian apologists have chosen to use this account as a litmus test of whether one accepts the Bible or modern science as true. Before we examine this together, let me clarify that I accept the account of Noah’s Flood as completely true, just as I do the entirety of the Bible. The Bible demonstrates itself to be reliable and remarkably consistent, having numerous interesting participants in various stories through which is interwoven a continuous theme of God’s plan for man’s redemption. Noah’s Flood is one of those stories, revealing to us both God’s judgment of sin and God’s over-riding grace and mercy. It remains a timeless account, for it has much to teach us about a God who never changes. It is one of the most popular Bible stories for children, and the truth be known, for us adults as well. It is rather unfortunate that many dismiss the account as mythical, simply because it seems to be at odds with a scientific view of the earth.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation/Evolution
    Creation/Evolution Issue XXIV CONTENTS Fall 1988 ARTICLES 1 Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism by Tbm Mclver 25 Scientific Creationism: Adding Imagination to Scripture by Stanley Rice 37 Demographic Change and Antievolution Sentiment: Tennessee as a Case Study, 1925-1975 by George E. Webb FEATURES 43 Book Review 45 Letters to the Editor LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED About this issue ... In this issue, Tom Mclver again brings his historical scholarship to bear on an issue relevant to creationism. This time, he explores the history of and the major players in the development and promotion of the "gap theory." Rarely do we treat in detail alternative creationist theories, preferring instead to focus upon the young- Earth special creationists who are so politically militant regarding public educa- tion. However, coverage of different creationist views is necessary from time to time in order to provide perspective and balance for those involved in the controversy. The second article compares scripture to the doctrines of young-Earth special crea- tionists and finds important disparities. Author Stanley Rice convincingly shows that "scientific" creationists add their own imaginative ideas in an effort to pseudoscientifically "flesh out" scripture. But why do so many people accept creationist notions? Some have maintained that the answer may be found through the study of demographics. George E. Webb explores that possibility in "Demographic Change and Antievolution Sentiment" and comes to some interesting conclusions. CREATION/EVOLUTION XXIV (Volume 8, Number 3} ISSN 0738-6001 Creation/Evolution, a publication dedicated to promoting evolutionary science, is published by the American Humanist Association.
    [Show full text]
  • Young-Earth Creationism: a Literal Mistake
    Article Young-Earth Creationism: A Literal Mistake Young-Earth Creationism: A Literal Mistake Dick Fischer “Biblical literalism” often is blamed when conservative Christians find themselves unable to cope with certain realities of this world and its encompassing universe, specifically, in respect to the great age of our surroundings—around 15 billion years for the universe and about 4.6 billion years for our global habitat. This article endeavors to shift the blame away from the written Scriptures, and place it squarely on the shoulders of those who to this point have been unable to comprehend them. Scribal errors and translation mistakes have led to flawed interpretations, and some of the problem can be traced to those who wrote Bible commentary centuries ago. But the Bible itself can rise above these difficulties. All we have to do is read it, and except in obvious instances, take it literally! Dick Fischer “ little learning is a dangerous thing” 24-hour day. The earth on that sixth 24-hour A is a time-honored expression my day would be filled with trilobites, brachio- high school geometry teacher would pods, dinosaurs, wooly mammoths, and all use when one of us misapplied an axiom, of the forms of animals that ever lived, postulate, or corollary in an attempt to prove dwelling in peaceful cohabitation with Adam “Young-earth a particular geometric theorem. “Biblical lit- and Eve, the first human beings. eralism” is a term to describe a movement creationism” among conservative Christians who demon- There are no biological links between spe- strate a certain lack of acumen in the basic cies in young-earth doctrine, and no death of attempts to tenets of earth science.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents 01 “What would Jesus Play?” - Actor-Centered Perspectives on Gaming and Gamers (In Lieu of an Introduction) Simone Heidbrink, Tobias Knoll & Jan Wysocki 17 Nephilim: Children of Lilith - The Place of Man in the Ontological and Cosmological Dualism of the Diablo, Darksiders and Devil May Cry Game Series Frank G. Bosman & Marcel Poorthuis 41 Living the Phantasm of Demediation - The Priest Kings and the Technology Prohibition in the Gorean Role-Playing Games Christophe Duret 61 “Venturing into the Unknown”(?) - Method(olog)ical Reflections on Religion and Digital Games, Gamers and Gaming Simone Heidbrink, Tobias Knoll & Jan Wysocki 85 Simulating the Apocalypse - Theology and Structure of the Left Behind Games Stephen Jacobs 107 The Politics of Pokemon – Socialized Gaming, Religious Themes and the Construction of Communal Narratives Marley-Vincent Lindsey 139 A Digital Devil’s Saga – Representation(s) of the Demon in Recent Videogames Jonathon O’Donnell 161 Prophecy, Pre-destination, and Free-form Gameplay - The Nerevarine Prophecy in Bethesda’s Morrowind Angus Slater Online – Heidelberg Journal for Religions on the Internet Volume 7 (2015) Religion in Digital Games Reloaded http://online.uni-hd.de Conference Papers: “Playing God” - On God & Game 185 Introduction: “Playing God” - On God & Game Frank G. Bosman 190 Beyond Belief - Playing with Pagan Spirituality in World of Warcraft Stef Aupers & Julian Schaap 207 “Are Those the Only Two Solutions?” - Dealing with Choice, Agency and Religion in Digital Games Tobias Knoll 227
    [Show full text]
  • The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4
    Grace Theological Journal 5,1 (1984) 13-36 Copyright © 1984 by Grace Theological Seminary, cited with permission. THE ANCIENT EXEGESIS OF GENESIS 6:2, 4 ROBERT C. NEWMAN The exegesis of Gen 6:2, 4 in ancient times is surveyed among extant sources, both Jewish and Christian. These interpretations are categorized as either "supernatural" or "nonsupernatural" depending upon the identification of the "sons of God." It is observed that the interpretation of "sons of God" as angels and "Nephilim" as giants dominates. This interpretation also seems to be that of the NT: almost certainly in Jude 6 and 2 Pet 2:4, and probably in 1 Cor 11:10 and Matt 22:30. Some suggestions regarding the source of this interpre- tation and its validity are made. * * * Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with men forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on 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 (Gen 6:1-4 NASB). This passage has been a center of controversy for at least two millennia. The present form of the dispute is rather paradoxical.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sons of God and “Strange Flesh” in Genesis 6:1–4
    MSJ 31/1 (Spring 2020) 79–105 THE SONS OF GOD AND “STRANGE FLESH” IN GENESIS 6:1–4 Dr. David L. Beakley Academic Dean and Professor of Exposition and Biblical Languages Christ Seminary, South Africa The “sons of God” text in Genesis 6:1–4 often receives nothing more than a brief comment from the pulpit or commentary. Coming right before the great deluge and God’s covenant with Noah, the passage seems to be a minor glimpse into antedilu- vian history. There have been several major views proffered over the past two mil- lennia, and the view that the “sons of God” were demonic angels who cohabitated with human women is one. In 1981, William VanGemeren proposed a re-examination of the “ungodly angel view” as the identity of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1–4. This article intends to answer this call for further exegetical scrutiny by examining the text through the lens of a biblical-theological and exegetical methodology. By viewing the text using this methodology, and the understanding of a specific center, or constant theme throughout the corpus of Scripture—which is the idea of God’s grace given in the midst of judgment—then the answers to difficult questions such as the reason for the Flood, identity of the sons of God, and the purpose of the Nephilim become much more clear and harmonize with the immediate context of Genesis 1– 11. * * * * * Introduction After two millennia of intense study of the Scriptures, controversies still abound over select passages that generate intense debate among evangelicals.
    [Show full text]
  • Theology of Judgment in Genesis 6-9
    Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Dissertations Graduate Research 2005 Theology of Judgment in Genesis 6-9 Chun Sik Park Andrews University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Park, Chun Sik, "Theology of Judgment in Genesis 6-9" (2005). Dissertations. 121. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/121 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary THEOLOGY OF JUDGMENT IN GENESIS 6-9 A Disseration Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Chun Sik Park July 2005 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3182013 Copyright 2005 by Park, Chun Sik All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Narrative Experience and Intergenerational Aggression in Genesis 6:1-9
    The Onyx Review: The Interdisciplinary Research Journal © 2020 Center for Writing and Speaking 2020, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 01–23 Agnes Scott College Narrative Experience and Intergenerational Aggression in Genesis 6:1-9 Taylor Drake Agnes Scott College Abstract: The aMbiguity of Genesis 6:1-4, from the potentiality that angels took human wives, to the NephiliM, to the uncertain connection between the sin of Gen. 6:2 and the Deluge, the complexities of this little paragraph have stumbled scholars for centuries. What is lost in these narrower exegetical debates, however, is a concern for the resultant narrative changes and how said changes ripple throughout the story and into the rest of the PriMeval History (Gen. 1-11). Although the question of whether the “sons of God” (benei ‘elohim) are despot princes, angels, or (iM)pious Men May seeM to only affect the opening segment, I instead propose that the entire Flood story, from the Marriages of “sons of God” to HaM’s betrayal of his father Noah, is an ouroboros of not only sexual sin, but intergenerational aggression which begins with Miscegenation and ends with an incestuous slight. While this symbolic reading could arguably hold true of any Meaning of the benei ‘elohim, the precise details render wholly different narrative experiences with separate structural, theMatic, and to a lesser degree pedological goals, all with varying levels of success. UltiMately, the More popular reading of the “sons of God” as deviant angels results in a More satisfying cascade down the cosMological hierarchy, a chiasMus of rebellion that reveals itself in its transition from macro to micro levels of interaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation of Additional Human Ancestors by GOD — Adam and Eve Were Not the Only Ancestors
    Creation of additional human ancestors by GOD — Adam and Eve were not the only ancestors James Xianxing Du Cleveland, United States of America Email address: [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Definitive logic indicates that GOD created not only Adam and Eve but also additional people. Thus, Genesis is perfectly consistent with science and archaeology. Keywords: creation, human ancestors, Genesis, Adam and Eve Introduction The origin of homo sapiens is a central theme of anthropology and archaeology, and important for us to understand biblical truth and its excellent coherence with science. Historical misguidance of people came from extensive misinterpretation of bible—not merely sun orbiting the earth or six 24h days wrongfully claimed by ruling people in church in the past millennium. Genesis has revealed our origin as divine creation, and presented mankind as the last created species. The general order of species created in Genesis 1 is fully consistent with fossils—from plant to animal, from water to land, from fish to bird to land moving creatures such as cattle, and finally to human, logically proving creation, because Moses could only record this correct chronological order of species’ emergence in Genesis by divine revelation (Moses, 2nd millennium B.C.a; Du, 2019a/b and 2020d). We only started to know this excellent logic after discovering fossils in recent centuries, when sequence of fossils perfectly matched the chronological sequence of creatures recorded in Genesis 1. However, ironically and puzzlingly, the last century was exactly the historical period that the highest number of people turned away from the universal claim by ancestors about spiritual world and afterlife, although they should have honored ancestors as solemnly created human beings rather than monkeys, which were separately synthesized by GOD from similar template termed cell—the exact reason why species demonstrate identity and diversity, divergence and convergence.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Were the Nephilim.Indd
    Answers in Depth, Vol. 3, (2008), pp. 53–63. https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/aid/v3/who-were-nephilim.pdf Who Were the Nephilim? Genesis 6 and Numbers 13—A Fresh Look Bodie Hodge, Answers in Genesis Keywords Nephilim, sons of God, daughters of men, children, fallen angels, Seth, Sethite view, fallen men, to fall Genesis 6:1–6 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God (bene Elohim) saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is fl esh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God (bene Elohim) 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. Then 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.1 Numbers 13:30–33 Then Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, “We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we will surely overcome it.” But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are too strong for us.” So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size.
    [Show full text]