Jim Eisele wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> Um, I hardly pretend to know more about the Bible than you :-)
> I may have a "fighting chance" with Gen 1-11, though.
>
> Really, I have few quibbles with your position. It is well
> thought out, and logical.
>
> So, I hesitantly make this suggestion.
>
> Why not see Gen 6:2 as a reference to Gen 1:27 & 5:1?
> Scientifically, we know "humans" pre-existed Adam. I don't know
> if you believe Adam was a real human. If not, I guess there's not
> much room for discussion.
Adam _means_ human. The biblical Adam is representative of the
human race in its origin. He is not, however, the definition of what
God intends humanity to be, which is shown in Christ.
As I pointed out, the Hebrew idion "sons of X" means "beings of
class X." It would be better to translate _bene elohim_ here as "sons
of the gods" = "godlike beings" than as "Sons of God." & I see no
reason to interpret "daughters of men" to mean anything other than
simply "human women." They are not "Cainite women," "Non-Adamic women"
(of whom scripture knows nothing) &c.
> But don't think too hard, you may "turn into a Baptist" :-)
Don't tempt me.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 27 2002 - 22:58:19 EDT