> THE "MARK OF CAIN" WAS GIANTISM.
...
> THESE PEOPLE WERE THE NEPHILIM.
This seems like quite a reach.
The story of the Nephilim is indeed unusual, but I don't see how you
tie this to the mark of Cain.
They appear to be products of intercourse between angels and
women in Genesis 6:1-4 (and confirmed somewhat in Jude 6-7).
Their subsequent appearance is in Numbers 13:33 (the giants who
intimidated Israel), as well as the sons of Anak (e.g. Goliath,
Josh 11:22, 1 Sam 17:4, 1 Chr 20:6-7). This appearance is
anticipated in the Genesis account.
As indicated in Jude, the intercourse between humans and angels
is a severe abomination. This may have been why Israel was instructed
to conduct such a brutal anihilation against certain of the peoples
in the promised land whereas others were just to be chased out (Ex 23:27-33).
The severe judgment of Sodom and Gommorrah might not have been due
to homosexuality at all (God seems as patient with that sin as with
most others), rather it may have been intercourse with angels, which
has always been judged harshly. Perhaps the men of Sodom understood
that Lot's houseguests were angelic beings? (making sodomy a misnomer).
To me this is the apparent interpretation of the Nephilim, and I don't
see any connection to Cain.
I recognize that some feel that the Nephilim could not be the product
of congress between spirits and flesh, and thus don't accept this view
of the Nephilim for that reason.
There was however one great overshadowing of flesh by Spirit, which
produced a being exactly like us, not like the abominations of the
Nephilim -- perhaps the difference being that we were made in the
image of this Spirit, and not in the image of the angels.
***
The topic of the Nephilim is interesting to me because interpretations
seem to hinge on world view. World views that minimize the presence and
activity of angels look for more `natural' explanations.
I don't intend to make any assumptions about *your* world view, but I would
like to float some ideas about world views in general.
I read Phil Johnson's new book a couple of weeks ago, and it seemed to me
that he is taking a narrow view of `naturalism'. Perhaps naturalism
should be defined as only accepting evidence in accord with our world view.
The naturalists that Phil takes to task are materialists, but
the `material' they accept is limited to what they have seen. Perhaps
there are physical realities beyond their experience that they have yet
to observe (Star Trek seems to freely invent new physical reality without
becoming unscientific). Perhaps one of these larger realities will encompass
beings who are spirit?
Meanwhile those of us who do not consider ourselves naturalists seem to
operate on the same basis. We give credence to that which we have observed
or have a theory about, but dismiss whatever is beyond.
Perhaps we are as guilty of philosophical naturalism, but just have
regard for a different `nature'? Perhaps there is a philosophical
position that doesn't suffer from the flaw of bias that we all need
to adopt? Is it possible to decide between what is `real' and `unreal'
in a way that is neutral with respect to world view?
--Dave Probert