Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Richard:
    
    I too have always wondered what these verses meant.  Did heavenly
    beings procreate with women?  
    
    -Jack

 
re.0

>Anybody got
>a clue as to what the heck we're being told here?

	No clue.

	Hint: Get a decent translation.

ace

    .2 Ace,
    
    I welcome all translations.  Does your favorite translation make
    these verses less puzzling?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

	When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and
	daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the
	daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as
	they chose.  Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man
	for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and
	twenty years."  The Nephilim were on the 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.  These were the mighty men
	that were of old, the men of renown.
					Genesis 6:1-4 (RSV)

The RSV also has a footnote to Genesis 6:4, referring the reader to
Numbers 13:33.  I'll also give verses 30-32 to provide some context:

	But Caleb quieted the people before Moses, and said, "Let us go up
	at once, and occupy it; for we are well able to overcome it."
	Then the men who had gone up with him said, "We are not able to go
	up against the people; for they are stronger than we."  So they
	brought to the people of Israel an evil report of the land which
	they had spied out, saying, "The land, through which we have gone,
	to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the
	people that we saw in it are men of great stature.  And there we
	saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim);
	and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to
	them."
					Numbers 30-33 (RSV)

From "Asimov's Guide to the Bible", pages 72-73:

	  These people predated those who arrived six or seven centuries
	after the time of Abraham -- the Israelites and related tribes.
	The tradition is strong that the pre-Israelite inhabitants of
	Canaan, the Rephaim in particular, were giants.  Indeed, the
	tradition of the one-time existence of giants, with sizes that are
	magnified as the tales are passed on from generation to
	generation, are very common in the folklore of all nations.  The
	Bible states flatly in one much-discussed passage:

		Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days...

	  However, the Hebrew term here translated as "giants" is Nephalim
	and there is no way of being certain that giants is what is
	actually meant.  It may simply have been a race of mighty
	warriors, with no particular reference to gigantic physical size.
	The Revised Standard Version evades the issue by leaving the
	Hebrew words untranslated and saying "The Nephalim were on the
	earth in those days."

	  Again in the Book of Numbers, in retailing the report of the
	spies sent into Canaan by Moses, the Bible has them say:

		Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of
		Anak, which come of the giants ...

	  Here also the term is Nephalim and the Revised Standard Version
	reads: "And there we saw the Nephalim (the sons of Anak. who come
	from the Nephalim) ..."

	  At least one reason for the persistent tales of giants may rest
	in the wonder felt by barbarian invaders at the sight of the works
	of the civilizations they replaced. ...

	  Similarly, the Israelite invaders of 1200 B.C., viewing the
	elaborate fortifications of the Canaanite cities, may have felt
	that they were fighting giants.  The term must have been used
	metaphorically at first, as a dramatic expression of the
	technological advancement of the enemy.  Thus, the verse in
	Numbers goes on to say:

		Numbers 13:33 ... and we were in our own sight
		grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

	which is about how an unarmed man might feel facing a man with a
	loaded rifle, or how the latter might feel facing a man in a tank.

	  Nevertheless, all such expressions came to be accepted literally
	and in later rabbinical legends, the Rephaim, Emim, Zuzim,
	Zamzummim, Nephalim, and Anakim all became giants of absolutely
	tremendous size.  It would certainly be strange if they were,
	however, since they were easily defeated by Chedorlaomer and also
	later by the Israelite invasion.

	  It is almost needless to say that archaeologists have come
	across no traces of giant races in historic times.  To be sure,
	there are a very few fossil remains, mostly teeth, indicating the
	one-time existence of a manlike being even larger than the modern
	gorilla.  These must, however, have lived a hundred thousand years
	ago and more, and it is unlikely in the extreme that any existed
	as recently as Abraham's time.

				-- Bob

    .4 Thanks, Bob!
    
    Comparing the two translations suggests that the "sons of God," who
    apparently enjoyed sex with earthly human females, were not earthly
    beings.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

It is disputed what these verses mean.  I believe that there
are 3 different views on how best to understand these verses.

The view I hold to was held by Dr. Walter Martin of Bible
Answer Man fame.  He held that angels do not have genetic
codes and so could not produce children if they mated with
humans.  Therefore, he rejected those interpretations which
assumed such and believed that the "sons of god" referred
to the "godly" men who were descended from the "godly" line
of [Seth?  I don't remember, but I believe it was another
child of Adam and Eve].  When these men started acted in an
ungodly manner, than God decided to do something about it.

Perhaps that's what it means, perhaps not.  It's an interesting
question; but the answer doesn't have much practical use so
I don't spend time worrying about which interpretation is
right.

Collis

    Yes, we spent some time with a commentary this morning and it seems
    there are several explanations of these truly weird (my opinion) few
    verses.
    
    Interesting that these few verses could be tossed out and the story
    line (Noah) would flow just as well, if not better than it does.  It's
    almost as if it was inserted by some editor.
    
    Also, interesting that the part about God limiting the the lifespan
    appears to be an insert within an insert, and that mortals were to
    be given a lifetime limit of 120 years, but then Genesis continues
    with Noah, who supposedly lived 600+ years.
    
    Richard
    

Re: .7  Richard

According to Richard Friedman in "Who Wrote The Bible?", the story about
the sons of God and human women was part of the J document while the later
verses giving Noah's age were written by the Redactor (editor).  Genesis 6
verses 1-4 (sons of god) and 5-8 (flood) were all from J, verses 9-22 were
from P.

				-- Bob

>    I welcome all translations.  Does your favorite translation make
>    these verses less puzzling?

Bru... uh,  er, Richard, 8*)

	The one Bob provided is sufficient.

	My views: I've spent more than a little research into this 
particular verse. I'm not an expert, but at least I'm a serious amateur. 8*)

	This incident my be considered the third stage of the fall of mankind.
The first was the fall in the garden severing man's unlimited fellowship with 
God in Eden. This fall was related to man's spirit. The second occured in the
slaying of Abel by Cain his brother. This second stage of the fall was related 
to man's mind, emotion and will (man's soul). The third stage of the fall was 
related to man's physical body and violated even the most basic laws of nature,
that is, the joining together difference in life. In this case, the fallen
angels joining themselves to human women. At this point man became "flesh",
that is, he was characterized as fleshly to the uttermost having their entire 
being controlled and managed by the fallen flesh. This breaching of the laws of
nature resulted in a hideous offspring, half human, half angelic. God executed
judgement on fallen mankind including these bio-freaks with the flood. The 
angels who committed this atrocity were cast into a prison in Tartarus 
(1 Peter 3:19-20, 2 Peter 2:4-5, Jude 6), where they are being kept for 
judgement.

	Biblical history tells us of the reappearance of these type of beings
again (i.e Anak, Goliath, etc.). I expect that in these latter days we will
hear of this same thing happening again. Afterall, the AntiChrist himself is
Satan incarnate.

Ace

Note 731.8

>Genesis 6
>verses 1-4 (sons of god) and 5-8 (flood) were all from J, verses 9-22 were
>from P.

Thanks, Bob!

	Yes, I was aware of this.  That's why I referred to the *2* Noah
stories in .0.

Shalom,
Richard

Note 731.9

>God executed
>judgement on fallen mankind including these bio-freaks with the flood.

>Biblical history tells us of the reappearance of these type of beings
>again (i.e Anak, Goliath, etc.).

Excellent points, Ace!

So, the offspring of these divine-human unions were wiped out in the flood.
Yet, they reappear in the Bible at a later time.

This would seem to mean that either:
	a. They were very good swimmers and somehow survived the flood.
	b. At least a couple of them were stowaways aboard the Ark.
	c. At least one of the wives of Noah's sons was one of "them".
	d. The divine beings started screwing around with humans again
	   sometime after the flood, though it is not recorded in the Bible.
	e. There is a teensy-tynsey (hardly worth mentioning) chronological
	   flaw in the Bible.
	f. Something else.

Peace,
Richard

Funny that you should say that, Richard.  The myth-makers have anticipated
your objection, though.  From "Asimov's Guide To The Bible", pages 181-182:

	  The conquest of Bashan was one of the events in early Israelite
	military history that most impressed the later writers, both
	Biblical and post-Biblical.  Part of the reason is that Og, king
	of Bashan, was reputed to be a giant.  This is based upon a
	statement in the Book of Deuteronomy, where Moses is pictured as
	reviewing the events following the Exodus:

	    Deuteronomy 3:11.  For only Og king of Bashan remained of the
	  remnants of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron
	  ... nine cubits was the length thereof and four cubits the
	  breadth of it ...

	...

	  Later rabbinical writers expanded on Og's size and made him the
	last of the Nephalim who lived before the Flood (see page 72).  To
	survive the Flood, however, Og would have had to be in Noah's ark,
	into which he could not fit.  The legendmakers have it, then, that
	he sat astride the ark and was fed by Noah till the waters fell.

The Revised Standard Version translation of Deuteronomy 3:11 uses the word
"Rephaim" instead of "giants".

				-- Bob

re.11

Probably..

	d. The divine beings started screwing around with humans again
	   sometime after the flood, though it is not recorded in the Bible.

I think when Peter says that only 8 were saved, only 8 were saved. The whole
purpose of the flood was to wipe them and the majority of the humans out. I 
see no reason for God to spare them through Noah's family. Also, the swimming
idea is incredible at best. The water didn't slowly rise, it broke forth. 
God would have provided the effective method to execute His judgement in
any case.

I think another "air gang" of fallen angels did the same dastardly deed. 
That's the most logical option. 

ace

Note 731.12

>The myth-makers have anticipated
>your objection, though.

>The legendmakers have it, then, that
>he sat astride the ark and was fed by Noah till the waters fell.

Oy vey!!  This is beginning to hurt my brain!

I guess if one can swallow the story about a literal talking snake,
it wouldn't be hard to swallow this as a chaser.

Any information on what the modern Reformed Jews say about all this??

Peace,
Richard

    .13 Ace,
    
    As Collis has alluded to in .6, there is a genetic problem that arises
    out of cross-breeding.  The ancients, of course, knew nothing about
    genetics.  The monk named Mendel had not been born yet.
    
    When you cross a horse with a donkey you get a mule.  Trouble is, mules
    cannot reproduce themselves (oddly enough, there is a mule of some
    notoriety in the film industry for having a voice just like Chill
    Wills!).  This inability to reproduce is pretty typical of hybrids.
    
    Humans can mix interracially, but not outside their species.  More
    and more, science is coming to realize that race is a myth, that we
    all probably originated out of a single race, and that race was probably
    black.  This position actually tends to support what we're told in
    the Genesis stories.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Genesis records that Noah lived 950 years.  Sarah lived to 127.
    Abraham, Sarah's husband, lived to 175.  Ishamel, son of Hagar,
    lived to 137.  Many others in Genesis reportedly live in excess
    of the 120 year restriction God placed on the lifespan of mortals
    at the beginning of chapter 6.
    
    This might be explained by one or more of the following:
    
    	a.  God didn't mean it.
    	b.  God changed God's mind, but the Bible fails to report it.
    	c.  The Scripture didn't get what God really said.
    	d.  There's a teensy, weensy, (hardly worth mentioning) flaw
            in the Bible.
    	e.  Something else.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    >    	e.  Something else.
    
    I've often wondered if "years" were tracked a little differently. Or
    is very rough approximations weren't sometimes used. I tend to believe
    that God's view of time is that it isn't all that important. What
    counts is that something happens not when or how long it takes.
    
    			Alfred

    Well, even if time were tracked differently, say in rabblefratzes, there
    were still plenty of exceptions to the limitation that the Almighty
    supposedly laid down in Genesis 6.1-4:
    
	When mankind had spread all over the world, and girls were being born,
some of the heavenly beings saw that these girls were beautiful, so they took
the ones they liked.  Then the Lord said, "I will not allow people to live
forever; they are mortal.  From now on they will live no longer than 120
rabblefratzes."  In those days and even later, there were giants on the earth
who were descendants of human women and heavenly beings.  They were the
great heroes and famous men of long ago.

    Genesis records that Noah lived 950 rabblefratzes.  Sarah lived 127
    rabblefratzes.  Abraham, Sarah's husband, lived to 175 rabblefratzes.
    Ishamel, son of Hagar, lived 137 rabblefratzes.  Many others in Genesis
    reportedly lived beyond the 120 rabblefratze restriction God placed on
    the lifespan of mortals.

	I essentially agree with what you've said, Alfred.  It just doesn't
explain the apparent contradiction.  Shall we just ignor it?

Peace,
Richard

    
>	I essentially agree with what you've said, Alfred.  It just doesn't
>explain the apparent contradiction.  Shall we just ignor it?

    I do. I have this basic philosophy that some things in the Bible are
    central to my beliefs. Others are not. I only worry about the things
    that are central. The rest, including this sort of apparent
    contradiction, I write of to my own lack of understanding but not 
    enough to worry about. I figure I'll have plenty of time after death
    to ask God all about it.

    			Alfred

Re:  .16

The goal was stated, but the implementation time was not.

You are assuming that implementation was to take place
immediately and should consume no time.  It appears
that implementation started later (around the time of
the flood) and took significant time.

Naturally, I don't know why this is (since the Bible
doesn't say, that I know of).

Collis

Re: .20 Collis

>The goal was stated, but the implementation time was not.
>
>You are assuming that implementation was to take place
>immediately and should consume no time.  It appears
>that implementation started later (around the time of
>the flood) and took significant time.

I don't think that's a very reasonable way of resolving the contradiction.
When God told Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit, that wasn't
just a goal; it was an edict which took effect immediately.  Similarly,
when God gave Moses the ten commandments, the commandments took effect
immediately.  Presumably when God told Noah that he wouldn't destroy the
world with another flood that wasn't just a goal but a promise that took
effect immediately.  When the implementation wasn't immediate God said
that it wasn't immediate, e.g. in the case of prophesy.  Can you cite
other passages in the Bible where God made a proclamation without saying
that implementation would be some time in the future, and the
implementation was delayed for hundreds of years?

Re: .16 Richard

According to Richard Friedman in "Who Wrote the Bible?", the passage where
God says that mortals wouldn't live longer than 120 years was part of J.
The passage giving Noah's age was in R (the redactor), and the passages
giving Sarah, Abraham and Ishmael's ages were all in P.  Thus the J and P
source documents were each internally consistent, but the redactor wasn't
able to resolve the contradiction between J and P (or used an argument
like Collis's to explain it away).

				-- Bob

    I, too, have shrugged off apparent contractions in the past, figuring
    someday it'll all make sense to me.  I refuse to be so passive any
    longer.
    
    The false doctrines of literalism and inerrancy have got to be exposed
    in the light of Truth.  Truth should be able to withstand such
    scrutiny.
    
    If there were 2 sources that were later compiled together, no wonder
    the numbers don't line up.
    
    In Christ's afflicting peace,
    Richard

    .21  Thanks for entering that, Bob.
    
    Richard
    

  >Can you cite
  >other passages in the Bible where God made a proclamation without saying
  >that implementation would be some time in the future, and the
  >implementation was delayed for hundreds of years?

Our pastor preached on this last Sunday.  God made a *lot* of promises
which were not fulfilled in a "timely" fashion.  I can understand why
you believe that this solution is unsatisfactory.  We can agree to
disagree, I guess.

Collis

Richard,

> The false doctrines of literalism and inerrancy have got to be exposed
>    in the light of Truth.  Truth should be able to withstand such
>    scrutiny.

	I see.

	The Bible is either a fable at one end of the spectrum or to prove
itself to you it must satisfy your every "literal" test. I think I liked you
better as a true liberal. 8*) At least your heart was single-minded back then.

	When you say "light of Truth", whose do you mean?

	
regards,
ace

Note 731.25

>	The Bible is either a fable at one end of the spectrum or to prove
>itself to you it must satisfy your every "literal" test.

Honest to God, Ace.  I've never said this.

>When you say "light of Truth", whose do you mean?

The same light of Truth mentioned in the Gospel of John 1.1-5 & 1.9,
the Gospel of Luke 1.78-79, and in a bunch of other places.

The light of Truth is not a private thing.  I thought you knew that.
	
Peace,
Richard

re.26

Richard,

>Honest to God, Ace.  I've never said this.

Oh. 8*)

I ask concerning the definition of one's "Truth" because it is a term that has
been spoiled like so many other terms we use. I've had conversations with folks
from other "christian organizations" where we agreed on everything for hours 
until I found out that we had different definitions of the terms we were using.


Regards,
ace