Re: The Flood Hoax

From: Dick Fischer (
Date: Fri Jul 26 2002 - 11:48:07 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "Re: No Free Lunch (NFL) Lecture"

    Hi Darryl, you wrote:

    >It doe appear that way though why I don't know unless they have already
    >answered the questions about who were the "daugheters of men" and the "sons
    >of god" who caused all the trouble to begin with. I havn't a clue who they
    >were . Perhaps some has some thoughts?

    Here is my "two cents."

    Some contend these are angels, perhaps fallen angels. But is that
    the case here? The Hebrew phrase in this passage, and elsewhere in
    the Old Testament, can refer to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psa.
    29:1; 89:6). But the same term also describes humans who lived their
    lives in service to God (Deut. 14:1; 32:5; Psa. 73:15; Hosea 1:10).
    How should it be interpreted here?

    For a start, what are angels supposed to do regarding us humans? In
    Hebrews 1:14, "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to
    minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" If that is their
    proper role, wouldn't it be out of character for them to be involved
    in these trysts? Also, even if they had the desire to sire human
    offspring would they be capable of that? Angels, while appearing as
    men at certain times, do not possess physical bodies as we do, and
    should not be able to father human children.

    Furthermore, angels do not marry. "The children of this world marry,
    and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy
    to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither
    marry, nor are given in marriage; neither can they die anymore, for
    they are equal unto the angels and are the children of God, being the
    children of the resurrection" (Luke 20:34-36). And in Mark 12:25,
    "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are
    given in marriage, but are as the angels which are in heaven.

    Two relevant bits of information exude from these passages. Angels
    do not die or marry. Sons of God, who marry, should be humans.
    Throughout the New Testament, the term "sons of God" or "children of
    God" is applied exclusively to humans (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14,19; Rom.
    9:26; II Cor. 6:18; Gal. 3:26). Nowhere in the New Testament do
    these terms apply to angels.

    Could they have been fallen angels? Would it have been possible that
    disenfranchised angels took possession of the bodies of humans in
    order to engage in marriage and procreation? Not likely; fallen
    angels or demons are not called "sons of God" anywhere in Scripture.
    They have forfeited that right.

    Furthermore, if these had been fallen angels dabbling with the human
    race, then the flood would have brought only temporary relief.
    Demons would not drown. Any marriage-minded demons could have just
    waited and preyed upon the next batch of humans. Besides, the notion
    of demons desiring to enter into holy matrimony is a bit curious.

    If the term "sons of God" refers to humans, then who could they have
    been? Perhaps those "who called upon the name of the Lord," the
    generations of Seth. Then who were the "daughters of men? The
    daughters of men could have been the generations of Cain, or perhaps
    they came from the indigenous populations who co-existed with the
    Adamite population in the same region.

    Some have contended that what has been translated "sons of God" (bene
    elohim), refers instead to sons, or servants, of pagan gods. An
    example can be found in Exodus 18:11 which states, "the Lord is
    greater than all gods (elohim) ..." Daughters of ha'adam or "the
    Adam," then, would be Adamite women. Using this line of logic,
    Genesis 6:1-2 could be translated: "And it came to pass, when the
    Adamites began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters
    were born unto them, that the sons [or servants] of the gods saw the
    daughters of the Adamites that they were fair ..."

    What comes through in either translation is that there were two
    distinct populations, some were in the covenant line from Adam,
    others were not, and they were intermarrying. What was the
    consequence of such mixed marriages? Reduced life spans.

    Mixed marriages, probably between long-lived descendants from Adam
    and the indigenous populations, reduced life spans, not the flood..

    Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
    The Answer we should have known about 150 years ago

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 26 2002 - 18:36:39 EDT