Mike Satterlee wrote:
>Jim wrote: I'd like to add Gen 6:2 to the evidence table. ... "the sons of
>God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for
>themselves, whomever they chose." ... We already know that Adam was
>considered "the son of God" from Luke 3:38. ... So, in Gen 6:2 the sons of
>God would be Adam and his descendants.
Probably one of the most difficult passages in Genesis. Commentaries
wrestle with this. Some contend these are angels, perhaps fallen
angels. 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).
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 descendants from the now mixed generations of Cain,
or perhaps they came from the indigenous populations that co-existed with
the Adamites 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. Indeed, a
clear example of this 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
would 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. Edward William Lane wrote in 1860::
... the most obvious meaning, beyond dispute, is, that the men and
women here
mentioned were of different races, and hence that the former saw
in the latter a
beauty surpassing that of their own women.
>Adam and Eve and their descendants were considered to be "sons of God"
>because they were in a covenant relationship with him. But how does this fact
>prove that those who were spoken of in Gen. 1:26,27 as being created "in
>God's image" were Adam and Eve and not the preadamic human race? I have
>argued this subject matter before with Dick. And though I agree with 99% of
>what he has to say in his fine book, "The Origins Solution," I take issue
>with him on this point.
I can live with 99%. But if you had been an Israelite child sitting in a
synagogue, listening to one of the pharisees reading from the pentateuch,
what would you have thought when you heard that word 'adam?
"And God said, Let us make 'adam in our image ..." "So God created 'adam
in his own image ..." Would you have piped up and said, "You know of
course that isn't father Adam, that is some pre-adamic person, a Homo
erectus, maybe."
>Most Bible readers believe that being "created in the image of God" simply
>means that people are like God in many ways.
When I used to fly jets I thought exactly that. It's funny how knowledge
can bring humility.
>Dick's position maintains that the author of Genesis described in some detail
>virtually everything that God had made prior to His creation of mankind, but
>after doing so failed to make any mention of God's creation of the human
>race, prior to His creation of Adam and Eve.
I don't think the writer of Genesis, Moses perhaps, had any idea where
humans came from and simply offered no guess. The purpose of the narrative
was to tell the Israelites the history of their people. It was not
intended initially for us.
>I find it very hard to believe that the author of Genesis would have made
>absolutely no mention of God's
>creation of preadamic man.
As did I until I tried to look at it from the perspective of the Jews who
were always surrounded by outsiders in all directions.
>And I am not the only one who does. Critics of our belief that the
>Bible does not present Adam as being "the first man" in
>an absolute chronological sense have often asked me, "So then, if that's the
>case, why does Genesis not tell us of God's creation of men before Adam?"
>When they do I tell them to read Genesis 1:26,27.
Or ask them why their forefathers never bothered to write anything down?
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 18 2002 - 01:00:38 EDT