Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:I'm not sure I'm too confident in the Sethite theory about this. I think DBowling may be onto something with his Adamite theory. I believe he's discussed it before.

DBowling, maybe you could explain it further, or perhaps link us to where you discussed it before. I think it's at least as good as any other theory out there.

Here's a summary of my current thoughts that I put together for Rick a while ago...


Rick… I would say that my creation belief is a work in progress and this board has given me the opportunity to share my journey with brothers and sisters in Christ to see how my views stack up Scripturally and scientifically.

Per John Walton (The Lost World of Adam and Eve) and Mike Heiser (http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... -research/).
I am now convinced that Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential narratives, which separates the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27 from the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3. This is an enabler for an ‘Old Earth Young Adam’ principle. This removes the apparent contradiction between Scripture and science regarding the timing of the first appearance of humans and the location of the first appearance of humans.
- Science places the appearance of the first modern humans at around 200,000 years ago in Africa.
- Scripture places the appearance of Adam and Eve in Mesopotamia at around 5,000-6,000 BC.

If Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential then Genesis 1:26-27 could be referring to the creation of mankind in Africa 200,000 years ago while the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 occurs around 5,000-6,000 BC in Mesopotamia.

Another topic of research for me has been extrascriptural corroboration for the historical Adam and Noah. Two primary sources for me on that topic have been “Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham” by James Fischer and “Legend the Genesis of Civilisation” by David Rohl. David Rohl is a secular historian and James Fischer is a Theistic Evolutionist (James Fischer’s Historical Genesis website can be found here http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/). But despite their different perspectives Rohl and Fischer examine similar historical data and reach similar conclusions regarding the historicity of Adam and Noah. They differ in some specific details, but they do agree on a couple of key points.
1. A historical Adam lived in Mesopotamia sometime around 5,000-6,000 BC.
2. There was a historical Noah who survived a historical flood in Mesopotamia sometime around 3,000 BC.

I am a big fan of Hugh Ross, and even though I was raised YEC, Hugh Ross’s “Creation and Time”, “A Matter of Days”, and “The Genesis Question” were foundational to my embracing the Old Earth position. For quite a while I also embraced Hugh Ross’s position of a local flood that affected all of humanity somewhere around 50,000 years ago.

Then I watched an excellent miniseries “The Incredible Human Journey” by Alice Roberts which describes the first appearance of humans in Africa around 200,000 years ago, the migration of humans out of Africa around 50,000-60,000 years ago, and humanity’s eventual population of the globe by around 15,000 years ago. After watching this miniseries I came to the conclusion that there was no possible point in time when a local flood as described in Scripture could have affected all of mankind. So even though I agree with Hugh Ross on a number of origins issues, I could not accept his views on Noah’s flood, and this dilemma led to my research project of the last couple of years.

During my research, James Fischer’s book made my difficulty with Ross’s flood position even worse when he pointed out that the human activities described in Genesis 4 are post-Neolithic activities. According to Genesis 4, mankind was engaged in the following activities before the flood: building cities, domesticating animals, playing the lyre and pipe, and forging bronze and iron. These activities describe a post-Neolithic human culture which didn’t exist until well after 10,000 BC, so the Genesis 4 narrative of life before the flood excludes Hugh Ross’s flood of 50,000 year ago as a possibility.

This brought me to my next conclusion.
If Noah’s flood (according to Genesis 4) took place sometime after 10,000 BC (most likely sometime around 3,000 BC)
And if mankind had populated the globe prior to 10,000 BC
Then it is impossible for Noah’s flood to have affected all of humanity.

One of the issues that I struggled with when I came to the conclusion that neither Adam or Noah were the genetic progenitors of all humanity was the following question:
“What then is the significance of the story of Adam in Genesis 2-3?”
N.T. Wright contributed a chapter regarding Paul’s use of Adam in John Walton’s “The Lost World of Adam and Eve”. I’ll quote some of Wright’s comments that enabled me to look at the narrative of Adam in Genesis through a slightly different lens.

“Creation itself”, declares Paul, “will be freed from its slavery to decay, to enjoy the freedom that comes when God’s children are glorified” (Romans 8:21)

Here is the problem to which Romans is the answer: not simply that we are sinful and need saving but that our sinfulness has meant that God’s project for the whole creation (that it should be run by obedient humans) was aborted, put on hold. And when we are saved, as Paul spells out, that is in order that the whole-creation project can at last get back on track. When humans are redeemed, creation gives a sigh of relief and says, “Thank goodness! About time you humans got sorted out! Now we can be put to rights at last.”

And it leads me to my proposal: that just as God chose Israel from the rest of humankind for a special, strange, demanding vocation, so perhaps what Genesis is telling us is that God chose one pair from the rest of early hominids for a special, strange, demanding vocation. This pair (call them Adam and Eve if you like) were to be the representatives of the whole human race, the ones in whom God’s purposes to make the world a place of delight and joy and order, eventually colonizing the whole creation.

So building on Wright’s thoughts, the final goal for God’s creation has always been for heaven and earth to come together with God dwelling together with his image bearers forever as we see in Revelation 21. In Genesis 2 God chose Adam and Eve as the first of God’s people (the first ‘sons of God’) and they were placed in the Garden of Eden (a localized preview of sorts of the Revelation 21 new heaven/new earth). When Adam and Eve sinned, God’s plan for creation was put on hold so that God could redeem his image bearers and get his creation project back on track.

A few months ago I was doing a study on the Luke 3 genealogy of Jesus. In the Luke 3 narrative Luke places Jesus genealogy immediately after his account of the Baptism of Jesus that concludes with the voice from heaven making the following pronouncement, “You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased.”
Luke then starts his genealogy with Jesus and traces Jesus family line through David, through Abraham, and all the way back to Adam. But when Luke gets to Adam he refers to him as “Adam, the son of God”. Luke is obviously drawing a correlation between Jesus, the Son of God and Adam, the son of God, but what does that correlation mean?
I think Luke is tracking redemptive history beginning with Adam, the first ‘son of God’ and proceeding through generations of God’s people to the climax of God’s redemptive plan, Jesus the Son of God, who would resolve the problems of sin and death and provide redemption for mankind.

Which brings us to Genesis 6. I think some aspects of Genesis 6:1-8 become a little clearer if we adopt the following principles:
- The creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27 predated the appearance of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 by some indeterminate period of time, which means that Adam and Eve were not the genetic progenitors of all mankind.
- Luke 3 identifies Adam as the first “son of God” and Adam and Eve mark the beginning of “God’s people” whose story is tracked through Scripture and finds it’s ultimate fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Based on these two principles we can discover the identity of the “son’s of God” and “daughters of men” whose wickedness resulted in the judgment of Noah’s Flood.
- The ‘son’s of God’ are God’s covenant people at the time. They were the descendants of Adam, the first son of God, and as God’s people they were tasked with presenting the truth of God to mankind.
- The ‘daughters of men/mankind’ were the indigenous in inhabitants of “the land” of Mesopotamia who were not members of Adam’s family line.

Genesis 6:3 provides some additional support for this theory when it states that the lifespan of the offspring of the ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men’ was 120 years. Genesis 5 indicates that for whatever reason (possibly the tree of life?) Adam’s family line had extraordinarily long lifespans. It would make sense that offspring of Adam’s long lived family line and normal humanity would not retain the lifespans typical of Adam’s family line.

As God’s people, the family line of Adam should have presented the inhabitants of “the land” (of Mesopotamia) where they dwelt with the truth of God they had been given. But instead, God’s people (the sons of God) intermarried with and were themselves corrupted by the inhabitants of “the land”.

The wickedness of God’s people and the inhabitants of “the land” led God to pass judgment upon all the people of “the land” (of Mesopotamia) and destroy everyone in “the land” in a flood with the exception of the righteous remnant of Noah and his family. God saved this righteous remnant from destruction to continue the line of God’s people (the sons of God) through people like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and eventually find its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Ok… I think that pretty much summarizes most of the significant points regarding my current views.

In Christ

PaulSacramento wrote:One thing though, other than the passage where Jesus makes it clear that there is no sexual intercourse IN HEAVEN, is there any reason to believe that divine beings can NOT make with humans on Earth?
We know that are NOT supposed to but we also know that divine beings have free will and rebel, just like us.

That's an argument from silence fallacy.

Philip wrote:This is one of the wilder discussions I've ever read on G&S. And it's filled with speculations that will likely go nowhere. If, IF the "sons of God" are fallen angels, it's certainly not clear from the text. So - let's not go trying to matchy-match Scripture to fit that scenario. It's so unclear, that IF that were the case, it surely can't be relevant to us today - rather, IF true, our knowledge of that wouldn't change how things already are for humans today.

Paul: is there any reason to believe that divine beings can NOT make with humans on Earth?

Assuming you mean "mate" and not "make," the answer is, that Scripture teaches that the demonic/fallen angels have the ability to disguise or manifest themselves in human and other forms. If they can take on human form, then I'd say that means they can physically do whatever a human form is capable of - yes, that means including the ability to engage in sex. But what would their dna produce - as it would seem to be human dna if they took on human form and abilities - as they are spiritual beings. But all that is a mere technical speculation - as we're still left with immense uncertainty that this phrase is referring to fallen angels. It's just one more bible mystery spurring endless debate.

In the end people are putting in the emphasis on the trees rather than the forest. Either way, the overall point of Genesis 6 is that the holy mixed with the profane, and the world was filled with idolatry and violence, prompting God to wipe the slate clean in order to bring about redemption.

The A-H theory tends to ignore this though, and puts the emphasis on the sins of other people instead of looking at how we are actually doing the same things they did; I.e.people are pointing at the sins of those who would manipulate the genetic code (nevermind that has nothing to do with angels having sex), when we are obsessed with celebrities and violence, which is the real point of the passage. The difference in the views on the passage itself is minor, but the eschatological implications are huge - it means (for the futurists) that things are much farther along than we realize.

DBowling wrote:
Here's a summary of my current thoughts that I put together for Rick a while ago...

Might I add this source also, which IMO may be onto something:
Six Day Science

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Sons of God does NOT refer to fallen angels explicitly.

Sons of God doesn't refer to fallen angels, EVER!

In order to say it does, one needs to go outside scripture.

Since ACB couldn't do it, maybe you can. Show me anywhere in scripture that sons of God refers to FALLEN angels.

Are you saying that we cannot know either way what sons of God means? Because we could make the same argument whether people think they are fallen angels,men or good angels.Based on what people have been arguing who reject the fallen angels producing hybrid interpretation that they are men I showed that it cannot be referring to men so we can rule out it is referring to men.

I think we can all agree that the most common usage of "sons of God" in Scripture refers to humans who are God's people.
(which is my starting point)

The question then becomes, does "sons of God" ever refer to something other than humans in Scripture?
The answer to that question is yes.
There are some passages in Scripture, where context explicitly identifies the term "sons of God" as referring to angels. Job 1:6 is an example of this.

However, in order for the 'angels mating with humans' theory to be true, then "sons of God" would have to refer to fallen angels.
That is the Achilles Heel of the 'angels mating with humans' theory.
As Rick has pointed out, Scripture never refers to FALLEN angels as "sons of God".

Moses referring to God's people (ie... humans) as "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is consistent with how Moses uses the term "sons of God" elsewhere in the Pentateuch. (which supports my starting premise)
In contrast, FALLEN angels are NEVER referred to as "sons of God" anywhere in Scripture.

There is nothing in the text of Genesis 6, that states that the offspring of the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" are not 100% human. The presumption that the offspring were hybrids is a function of the presumption that angels mated with humans, and is not a function of the Scriptural text.

The primary support for the theory that angels mated with humans comes from noncanonical documents and pagan myths... not Scripture.

Thanks for responding and I respect your research but there are reasons why I when I try to reject the "Fallen angels produced hybrid off-spring" interpretation and try to look at it the way you interpret it to mean "sons of God" refers to men I see many problems with interpreting like this.

First off,I don't think it is fair to those of us who believe the term "sons od God" refers to fallen angels and not men to claim the bible does not refer to "sons of God" as fallen angels when the bible does not refer to "sons of God" to mean men either. It is by bible study and interpretation that we claim it refers to fallen angels or men because the bible does not say "sons of God" are fallen angels or "sons of God" are men.

Also it is not fair to claim the angel/hybrid theory comes from noncanonical documents because it comes from the bible first and the noncanonical documents are only used to enhance our understanding of this interpretation based on what the bible revealed first.I don't know of any serious bible researcher who would put what they claim over what the bible says and if it contradicts the bible they do not trust it,only when it helps to clarify what the bible already reveals do they trust it.This is why I have only relied on the bible itself to back up this interptretation because I know this interpretation must be seen biblically true first before we should even consider other text outside the bible.

And just based on the bible to remove hybrids from the bible and claim they did not exist,etc causes problems biblically for you in other parts of the bible and I have brought up a few examples. Like for instance it makes sense that Satan would send fallen angels to produce hybrids to contaminate God's creation with hybrids to try to prevent Jesus from being born based on Genesis 3:15 the very first prophecy of the coming of Jesus in the bible.

But if you remove these hybrids from the scenario it does not make sense that in Genesis 6 one race of people produced off-spring with other humans because this would not effect the bloodline and would not stop the birth of Jesus like hybrids could and so the bible becomes boring when if we leave hybrids in the scenario we can see Satan trying to fight and prevent the birth of Jesus,but failing.

But also by removing hybrids from the scenario it does'nt make as much sense as to why God in the OT would tell his people to go to war and to kill them all basically.It makes God look like an evil God just commanding his people to go out and kill other people just for fun when if we leave hybrids in the scenario we can see why God is telling his people to go to war and destroy them.It is because they are hybrids and not God's creation he is trying to get rid of.

But also future bible prophecy also. Jesus said that it would be as in the days of Noah when the son of man returns and yet again by leaving out hybrids it makes the bible boring where we can only focus on violence that was happening in Noah's day and not the hybrids that contaminated God's creation.If we leave hybrids in the scenario then we can predict that hybrids will be produced again prior to the return of Christ and man will be dealing with it again in these last days like they did in Noah's day.

These are a few reasons why it just does'nt seem to make as much sense to remove hybrids from the scenario and claim they were just news races of people.You lose so much more bible understanding if we do it and the bible kindof becomes boring. Now I know that we don't base what is true or not in God's word based on if it is boring or not,but still it removes so much more understanding from the bible if we do it.

Also there has been evidence found of bones that do show that tall giants existed and some of the skeletons of bones that have been found are very tall compared to a man.Could you imagine these hybrid giants being released in the future during the tribulation? That is for another topic but if these hybrid giants were produced we should expect them to return again as in the days of Noah prior to the coming of Jesus. Now it is mostly photographs that have been taken of the bones but there are photographs of giant skeletons.And so it starts becoming more believable biblically.There are people who have put alot more time and research into this than I have and so I'm probably not doing it justice bringing up this evidence but it is real evidence as far as I can tell and it all adds up.

But also remember another point I brought up also by understanding that fallen angels did produce hybrids it also explains some of the gods people have worshipped as gods too such as the many Hindu gods,etc and gods like Hercules,Zeus,Atlas,Saturn,Venus,etc. People worshipped both fallen angels but also the hybrid off-spring giants as gods too. And again by removing this from the bible we lose the potential to teach the truth about these false gods people worshipped as gods from a biblical perspective.

Notice that these are just biblical reasons and not based on the other texts that are not in the bible.Perhaps you could explain how these issues are not problems with the way you interpret it.I mean can't you see how much understanding we lose if we remove fallen angel hybrids from the scenario in Genesis 6,but also after Noah's flood also because it kept on happening after the flood too?

abelcainsbrother wrote: First off,I don't think it is fair to those of us who believe the term "sons od God" refers to fallen angels and not men to claim the bible does not refer to "sons of God" as fallen angels when the bible does not refer to "sons of God" to mean men either.

I'll just quote SoCal's response to a similar assertion earlier in this thread.


Jesus and the Apostles disagree:

Mat 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.

Luk 20:36
“nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Rom 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Rom 8:19
For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.

Gal 3:26
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

DBowling wrote:

RickD wrote:I'm not sure I'm too confident in the Sethite theory about this. I think DBowling may be onto something with his Adamite theory. I believe he's discussed it before.

DBowling, maybe you could explain it further, or perhaps link us to where you discussed it before. I think it's at least as good as any other theory out there.

Here's a summary of my current thoughts that I put together for Rick a while ago...


Rick… I would say that my creation belief is a work in progress and this board has given me the opportunity to share my journey with brothers and sisters in Christ to see how my views stack up Scripturally and scientifically.

Per John Walton (The Lost World of Adam and Eve) and Mike Heiser (http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... -research/).
I am now convinced that Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential narratives, which separates the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27 from the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3. This is an enabler for an ‘Old Earth Young Adam’ principle. This removes the apparent contradiction between Scripture and science regarding the timing of the first appearance of humans and the location of the first appearance of humans.
- Science places the appearance of the first modern humans at around 200,000 years ago in Africa.
- Scripture places the appearance of Adam and Eve in Mesopotamia at around 5,000-6,000 BC.

If Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential then Genesis 1:26-27 could be referring to the creation of mankind in Africa 200,000 years ago while the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 occurs around 5,000-6,000 BC in Mesopotamia.

Another topic of research for me has been extrascriptural corroboration for the historical Adam and Noah. Two primary sources for me on that topic have been “Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham” by James Fischer and “Legend the Genesis of Civilisation” by David Rohl. David Rohl is a secular historian and James Fischer is a Theistic Evolutionist (James Fischer’s Historical Genesis website can be found here http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/). But despite their different perspectives Rohl and Fischer examine similar historical data and reach similar conclusions regarding the historicity of Adam and Noah. They differ in some specific details, but they do agree on a couple of key points.
1. A historical Adam lived in Mesopotamia sometime around 5,000-6,000 BC.
2. There was a historical Noah who survived a historical flood in Mesopotamia sometime around 3,000 BC.

I am a big fan of Hugh Ross, and even though I was raised YEC, Hugh Ross’s “Creation and Time”, “A Matter of Days”, and “The Genesis Question” were foundational to my embracing the Old Earth position. For quite a while I also embraced Hugh Ross’s position of a local flood that affected all of humanity somewhere around 50,000 years ago.

Then I watched an excellent miniseries “The Incredible Human Journey” by Alice Roberts which describes the first appearance of humans in Africa around 200,000 years ago, the migration of humans out of Africa around 50,000-60,000 years ago, and humanity’s eventual population of the globe by around 15,000 years ago. After watching this miniseries I came to the conclusion that there was no possible point in time when a local flood as described in Scripture could have affected all of mankind. So even though I agree with Hugh Ross on a number of origins issues, I could not accept his views on Noah’s flood, and this dilemma led to my research project of the last couple of years.

During my research, James Fischer’s book made my difficulty with Ross’s flood position even worse when he pointed out that the human activities described in Genesis 4 are post-Neolithic activities. According to Genesis 4, mankind was engaged in the following activities before the flood: building cities, domesticating animals, playing the lyre and pipe, and forging bronze and iron. These activities describe a post-Neolithic human culture which didn’t exist until well after 10,000 BC, so the Genesis 4 narrative of life before the flood excludes Hugh Ross’s flood of 50,000 year ago as a possibility.

This brought me to my next conclusion.
If Noah’s flood (according to Genesis 4) took place sometime after 10,000 BC (most likely sometime around 3,000 BC)
And if mankind had populated the globe prior to 10,000 BC
Then it is impossible for Noah’s flood to have affected all of humanity.

One of the issues that I struggled with when I came to the conclusion that neither Adam or Noah were the genetic progenitors of all humanity was the following question:
“What then is the significance of the story of Adam in Genesis 2-3?”
N.T. Wright contributed a chapter regarding Paul’s use of Adam in John Walton’s “The Lost World of Adam and Eve”. I’ll quote some of Wright’s comments that enabled me to look at the narrative of Adam in Genesis through a slightly different lens.

“Creation itself”, declares Paul, “will be freed from its slavery to decay, to enjoy the freedom that comes when God’s children are glorified” (Romans 8:21)

Here is the problem to which Romans is the answer: not simply that we are sinful and need saving but that our sinfulness has meant that God’s project for the whole creation (that it should be run by obedient humans) was aborted, put on hold. And when we are saved, as Paul spells out, that is in order that the whole-creation project can at last get back on track. When humans are redeemed, creation gives a sigh of relief and says, “Thank goodness! About time you humans got sorted out! Now we can be put to rights at last.”

And it leads me to my proposal: that just as God chose Israel from the rest of humankind for a special, strange, demanding vocation, so perhaps what Genesis is telling us is that God chose one pair from the rest of early hominids for a special, strange, demanding vocation. This pair (call them Adam and Eve if you like) were to be the representatives of the whole human race, the ones in whom God’s purposes to make the world a place of delight and joy and order, eventually colonizing the whole creation.

So building on Wright’s thoughts, the final goal for God’s creation has always been for heaven and earth to come together with God dwelling together with his image bearers forever as we see in Revelation 21. In Genesis 2 God chose Adam and Eve as the first of God’s people (the first ‘sons of God’) and they were placed in the Garden of Eden (a localized preview of sorts of the Revelation 21 new heaven/new earth). When Adam and Eve sinned, God’s plan for creation was put on hold so that God could redeem his image bearers and get his creation project back on track.

A few months ago I was doing a study on the Luke 3 genealogy of Jesus. In the Luke 3 narrative Luke places Jesus genealogy immediately after his account of the Baptism of Jesus that concludes with the voice from heaven making the following pronouncement, “You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased.”
Luke then starts his genealogy with Jesus and traces Jesus family line through David, through Abraham, and all the way back to Adam. But when Luke gets to Adam he refers to him as “Adam, the son of God”. Luke is obviously drawing a correlation between Jesus, the Son of God and Adam, the son of God, but what does that correlation mean?
I think Luke is tracking redemptive history beginning with Adam, the first ‘son of God’ and proceeding through generations of God’s people to the climax of God’s redemptive plan, Jesus the Son of God, who would resolve the problems of sin and death and provide redemption for mankind.

Which brings us to Genesis 6. I think some aspects of Genesis 6:1-8 become a little clearer if we adopt the following principles:
- The creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27 predated the appearance of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 by some indeterminate period of time, which means that Adam and Eve were not the genetic progenitors of all mankind.
- Luke 3 identifies Adam as the first “son of God” and Adam and Eve mark the beginning of “God’s people” whose story is tracked through Scripture and finds it’s ultimate fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Based on these two principles we can discover the identity of the “son’s of God” and “daughters of men” whose wickedness resulted in the judgment of Noah’s Flood.
- The ‘son’s of God’ are God’s covenant people at the time. They were the descendants of Adam, the first son of God, and as God’s people they were tasked with presenting the truth of God to mankind.
- The ‘daughters of men/mankind’ were the indigenous in inhabitants of “the land” of Mesopotamia who were not members of Adam’s family line.

Genesis 6:3 provides some additional support for this theory when it states that the lifespan of the offspring of the ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men’ was 120 years. Genesis 5 indicates that for whatever reason (possibly the tree of life?) Adam’s family line had extraordinarily long lifespans. It would make sense that offspring of Adam’s long lived family line and normal humanity would not retain the lifespans typical of Adam’s family line.

As God’s people, the family line of Adam should have presented the inhabitants of “the land” (of Mesopotamia) where they dwelt with the truth of God they had been given. But instead, God’s people (the sons of God) intermarried with and were themselves corrupted by the inhabitants of “the land”.

The wickedness of God’s people and the inhabitants of “the land” led God to pass judgment upon all the people of “the land” (of Mesopotamia) and destroy everyone in “the land” in a flood with the exception of the righteous remnant of Noah and his family. God saved this righteous remnant from destruction to continue the line of God’s people (the sons of God) through people like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and eventually find its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Ok… I think that pretty much summarizes most of the significant points regarding my current views.

In Christ

That is actually very well reasoned and you make some very valid points.
I think that view of Sons of God is far better than the Sethite view and would agree with this one far more than the other.
The only issue we have left is WHY did the unions result in giants ( remember that all the original writings translated them as giants) or what the union was wrong to begin with since it isn't stated why in Genesis 6.

That said, I do like this interpretation, I have heard it before but not put this way, good work DB.

PaulSacramento wrote: That is actually very well reasoned and you make some very valid points.
I think that view of Sons of God is far better than the Sethite view and would agree with this one far more than the other.

Let me try to address your outstanding issues...

The only issue we have left is WHY did the unions result in giants ( remember that all the original writings translated them as giants)

I will agree that it is significant that the Septuagint translates Nephilim into the word "giants". However, what does that really mean in context?

Let's compare the NASB (which represents a pretty literal translation of the Masoretic text) to an English translation of the Greek Septuagint.

NASB

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. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Septuagint

Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown.

I'm not going to try to draw any conclusions here, because I just don't know for sure. But it is interesting to note that "Nephilim" is not the only word that the Septuagint translates as "giants". Later in the verse "mighty men" is also translated as "giants" by the Septuagint.

I think it is legitimate to ask what did the Septuagint translators mean by "giants" in this context?
- Does it mean "mighty men"?
- Does it refer to people who are taller than the norm?
I'm not sure how being a "mighty man" or a person who is taller than the norm in that day implies that a person is not fully human.
There are many reasons that a person could be either a mighty man or taller than the norm that have nothing to do with fallen angels mating with humans.
There are too many uncertainties surrounding the meaning of Nephilim or precisely what the Septuagint means by the word "giant" in this context for me to be persuaded that the Nephilim are not 100% human.

or what the union was wrong to begin with since it isn't stated why in Genesis 6.

In Genesis 6 the marriage of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" is linked to the wickedness of man that was great "in the land".

I believe the union was wrong due to the Scriptural principle of being unequally yoked.
This is the first of a number of times in Scripture where we see this Scriptural principle demonstrated. As God's people, who were supposed to be light to a godless world, married those godless people and ended up being seduced and corrupted by the wicked world instead.

That said, I do like this interpretation, I have heard it before but not put this way, good work DB.

Thanks Paul

Don't know if Heiser's thoughts on the specific issue of translating "giants" has already been posted or not:

http://drmsh.com/thoughts-nephilim-answering-criticism/

Philip wrote:Don't know if Heiser's thoughts on the specific issue of translating "giants" has already been posted or not:

http://drmsh.com/thoughts-nephilim-answering-criticism/

Phillip... in this article Heiser discusses why he thinks the Septuagint translators translated nephilim as "giants".
Do you know if Heiser addresses why the Septuagint translators translated gibborim as "giants" later in the same verse?

I think that, considering the passages where specific "giants" are addressed ( Like Og, Goliath and his brothers, the report to Joshua), we can take them as people of above average height.
Does that mean they are not fully human?
Well, one argument is that them not being fully human ( or being of a "contaminated" bloodline) is what justifies God's war on those clans.

DBowling,

Thanks for the response about Adamites.

So in a nutshell, the sons of God are people descended from Adam, and daughters of men are daughters descended from humans that preexisted Adam, correct?

PaulS wrote:
I think that, considering the passages where specific "giants" are addressed ( Like Og, Goliath and his brothers, the report to Joshua), we can take them as people of above average height.

Yes. In those cases, I think it's reasonable to come to that conclusion simply from the text.

Does that mean they are not fully human?
Well, one argument is that them not being fully human ( or being of a "contaminated" bloodline) is what justifies God's war on those clans.

If they're not human, then that conclusion isn't reached from the text.

And another argument is that by becoming unequally yolked with wicked people, the sons of God(people set apart by God) became wicked, to the point that their every thought was evil. So God destroyed them. And of the sons of God, only Noah and his family were righteous before the Lord.

RickD wrote:DBowling,

Thanks for the response about Adamites.

My pleasure

So in a nutshell, the sons of God are people descended from Adam, and daughters of men are daughters descended from humans that preexisted Adam, correct?

Yes...
My position is that the "daughters of men" are descendants of mankind who were created in Genesis 1:26-27 who were not part of the Adamic family line.
And the "sons of God" were members of Adam's family line who as you said elsewhere were "set apart by God" to be God's people.

On a side note Db, what are your views on the "other gods" in the bible?