If Genesis Borrowed from Babylonian Epic, why an Egyptian ‘loan word’ for Noah’s Ark?



by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

 

Pan-Babylonianism is a far too one-dimensional approach

to the study of the ancient Scriptures.

 

 

Professor A. Yahuda (The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian, Oxford, 1933)

dealt a shock blow to both the documentary theory and to the related Pan-Babylonianism. Yahuda, unlike P. J. Wiseman (New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis, Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1936), was an expert in his field. His profound knowledge of Egyptian and Hebrew combined - not to mention Akkadian - gave him a distinct advantage over fellow Egyptologists unacquainted with Hebrew, who could thus not discern any appreciable Egyptian influence on the Pentateuch.

Yahuda, however, realized that the Pentateuch was absolutely saturated with Egyptian – not only for the periods associated with Egypt, most notably the Joseph narrative including Israel’s sojourn in Egypt, but even for the periods customarily associated with Babylonia (presumably the Flood account and the Babel incident[*]).

For instance, instead of the Akkadian word for ‘Ark’ used in the Mesopotamian Flood accounts, or even the Canaanite ones current elsewhere in the Bible, the Noachic account Yahuda noted, uses the Egyptian-based tebah (Egyptian db.t, ‘box, coffer, chest’).

Moses, traditionally the author of the Pentateuch substantially speaking - and I believe the editor of Genesis - was he not, to all appearances, “an Egyptian”? Exodus 2:19: “An Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds. He even drew water for us and watered the flock”. (Cf. Acts 7:22).   

 

 

[*] Though Anne Habermehl has, in a recent ground-breaking article, Where in the World Is the Tower of Babel? (https://answersingenesis.org/tower-of-babel/where-in-the-world-is-the-tower-of-babel/) completely shifted the playing field, by re-locating the biblical “Shinar”, and the Babel incident, to the Sinjar region of NE Syria.

This may render even less relevant the Babylonian view.

 

Most important was this linguistic observation by Yahuda:

 

Whereas those books of Sacred Scripture which were admittedly written during and after the Babylonian Exile reveal in language and style such an unmistakable Babylonian influence that these newly-entered foreign elements leap to the eye, by contrast in the first part of the Book of Genesis, which describes the earlier Babylonian period, the Babylonian influence in the language is so minute as to be almost non-existent.

{Dead Sea Scrolls expert, Fr. Jean Carmignac (Birth of the Synoptic Gospels), had been able to apply the same sort of bilingual expertise - in his case, Greek and Hebrew - to gainsay the received scholarly opinion and show that the New Testament writings in Greek had Hebrew originals: his argument for a much earlier dating than is usual for the New Testament books}.

 

While Yahuda’s argument is totally Egypto-centric, at least for the Book of Genesis, one does also need to consider the likelihood of ‘cultural traffic’ from Palestine to Egypt, especially given the prominence of Joseph in Egypt from age 80-110. One might expect that the toledôt documents borne by Israel into Egypt would have become of great interest to the Egyptians under the régime of the Vizier, Joseph (historically Imhotep of Egypt’s 3rd dynasty), who had after all saved the nation of Egypt from a 7-year famine, thereby influencing Egyptian thought and concepts for a considerable period of time.

The combination of Wiseman and Yahuda, in both cases clear-minded studies based on profound analysis of ancient documents, is an absolute bomb waiting to explode all over any artificially constructed literary theory of Genesis. Whilst I. Kikawada and A. Quinn (Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11) have managed to find some merit in the JEDP theory, and I have also suggested how its analytical tools may be useful at least when applied to the apparent multiple sourcing in the Flood narrative (and perhaps in the Esau and Jacob narrative), see my:

 

Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis

 

http://www.academia.edu/8175774/Tracing_the_Hand_of_Moses_in_Genesis

 

the system appears as inherently artificial in the light of archaeological discoveries.

U. Cassuto (as quoted by Kikawada and Quinn) may not have been diplomatic (their view), but nevertheless he was basically correct in his estimation of documentism: “This imposing and beautiful edifice has, in reality, nothing to support it and is founded on air”.

It is no coincidence that documentary theory was developed during the approximate era of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (c. 1800), who had proposed an a priori approach to extramental reality, quite different from the common sense approach of the Aristotelian philosophy of being. Today the philosophy of science is saturated with this new approach. Kantianism I think is well and truly evident too in the Karl Heinrich Graf and Julius Wellhausen attitude to the biblical texts.

And Eduard Meyer carried this over into his study of Egyptian chronology, by devising in his mind a quantifying a priori theory – an entirely artificial one that had no substantial bearing on reality – that he imposed upon his subject with disastrous results. See my:

 

The Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited

 

https://www.academia.edu/3665220/The_Fall_of_the_Sothic_Theory_Egyptian_Chronology_Revisited

Again an “imposing and beautiful edifice … founded on air”.

Creationists Criticise Pope Francis’ Backing Of Big Bang And Evolution Theories



 

For AMAIC'S views on Creationists, see e.g. our:

http://genesisflood-amaic.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/for-part-one-see-httpscienceagesamaic.html

 

 

 

The following has been taken from: http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/571662/20141104/pope-francis-criticsm-big-bang-theory-evolution.htm#.VFlHh2aKB9B
 

 

....

 

By Athena Yenko | November 4, 2014 4:50 PM EST

Some creationists expressed their strong opinions about Pope Francis' declaration that Big Bang and Evolution theories "are not incompatible" with the existence of a Creator.  John Ransom, a Finance Editor for Townhall Finance, likened the Pope to a drunk driver. Kent Ham, the leader of the Christian group Answers in Genesis alleged Pope Francis is putting man's words above God's words. Michael Snyder from Right Side news said Pope just wants to recruit new people to the Catholic faith by embracing a progressive view of how the Earth was created.

 

View Full Image

REUTERS/Alessandro BianchiPope Francis sprinkles holy water with an aspergillum as a blessing during the Palm Sunday mass at Saint Peter's Square at the Vatican April 13, 2014.

 

 

Pope Francis, "lane-wise, seems like a drunk driver," Ransom wrote. He said he agrees with the Pope saying that the scientific theories of creation are not incompatible with how it was written in the Bible. However, with Pope Francis' "desperation to be relevant," he made use of words that "will hurt Catholics" who had been loyal to the faith, Ransom stated.

 

In Ransom's opinion, the Pope's statement that "God is not a magician" is tantamount in saying that God is not divine. "I don't know how I can support a pope - or church- that says that God is not divine," Ransom highlighted.

Ransom thinks Pope Francis is bargaining too much to balance the scientific beliefs of men and the teachings of the church. With this, he is sacrificing the divinity of "our Creator" and succumbing to the worldly caprices of men, Ransom said. He noted that Pope Francis has the same attitude in handling homosexuality and other moral issues. If the Pope continues to adopt this approach, "those on the Left will seize upon the Pope's words to demoralize and degrade believers in the Christina Church," Ransom believes.

 

For Ham, Pope Francis makes no difference with many religious leaders who is putting man's word above the words of God. He found it particularly shocking that Pope Francis compares God to a magician with a magic wand. He said the comparison is tantamount in saying that only a man with the capacity of a magician had created the universe. For Ham, the Pope's statement shows he does not understand "who Scripture claims God is." Ham is appealing for people to pray that church leaders, including Pope Francis, repent for their unacceptable views about God.

 

" I encourage you to pray that church leaders like these will realise that they are placing man's opinions above God's Word and that they will repent and trust God's Word, beginning in Genesis," Ham wrote.

 

For Snyder, Pope Francis's has an agenda when he made his controversial speech. It seemed that the Pope wants to create "a religion that almost everyone would love." He said the changes that Pope Francis is bringing to the table are aimed at drawing lots of new people to the Catholic faith. In his interpretation, Pope's statement made it obvious that he "does not believe what the Bible literally says about the how the world was created and about how humanity came to be."

Has Velikovsky Correctly Placed the Ice Age?

  

From: Chronology and Catastrophism Workshop, SIS, May 1988 Number 1, p. 41

 

….

 

Many times in Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval Dr Velikovsky equates the beginning of the Pleistocene or ice age with the time of the Exodus, circa 1450 BC. On pages 114-126 of Earth in Upheaval he gives a graphic description of what he thinks happened when the ice age began. The description however sounds more like the Noachian Deluge than the Exodus. We can therefore expect Velikovsky to run into problems with his placement of the Noah/Saturn Flood and the events of that time. Presumably Velikovsky must place the Deluge in the era prior to the Pleistocene (Glacial Age). A check of the chart on p.l84 of Earth in Upheaval will show this period is known as the Tertiary or “Age of Mammals”. Under the conventional time scale it is allocated 70 million years and is followed by one million years of the ice age and then followed by 30,000 years of the Recent or Holocene Age. This system is greatly overstretched, Velikovsky claims, and does not allow for any great catastrophes.

In order to show that Velikovsky’s placement of the ice age is incorrect we must show that the conventional scheme is also wrong and also have some idea of the time-span Velikovsky allows for the period from the Deluge to the Exodus. The only clue he gives us is found on p.55 of his article “Seismology, Catastrophe and Chronology” (Kronos VIII:4). Here he notes that Dr Schaeffer has discerned that in the 4th millennium BC the ancient Near East went through great paroxysms before the time of another disaster in the Early Bronze Age (3^rd millennium). Velikovsky comments “Schaeffer like myself … arrived at the same number of disturbances … and the same relative dating”. Assuming from this that the disaster before the Early Bronze Age was the Deluge, and placing it in the 4th millennium at 3450 BC then we obtain a figure of 2000 years for the time Velikovsky would have placed between the Deluge and the Exodus.

Pick up a copy of Kummel’s History of the Earth and glance at pp.447-455 and you will see the fallacy of this time-gap. The maps on these pages clearly show that during the Tertiary Age Europe, North Africa and Asia Minor were in a state of complete ruin, being mostly under water. Note in particular the Great Tethys or Central Sea which stretches 9000 miles from Spain to India and is up to 2000 miles wide. On p.453 the map for the Oligocene subdivision of the Tertiary shows that the sea invasion of Europe plainly stops at the boundary of the area covered by the ice age in Scandinavia. This is curious because under the conventional scheme the ice age does not occur for another 23 million years. During the Eocene subdivision of the Tertiary the sea covered the south of England up to a point where the later ice age reached, supposedly 38 million years later. During the whole period of these disastrous sea invasions and large scale fresh water floodings the northern part of the British Isles along with Scandinavia was not touched. In North America it is a similar story for the Canadian Shield. While the rest of the continent was subject to sea incursions, rain storm flooding in the mid-west and volcanic eruptions in the Rockies and Central America all was tranquil in north-east Canada.

It is absolutely impossible that while the rest of the world was drowning, most of the British Isles, Scandinavia and Canada escaped. There can only be one solution, i.e. the ice age struck these lands at the same time as the Noachian Deluge. Conventional geologists have therefore reconstructed the ages of the past incorrectly by placing too much time between the end of the Tertiary and the ice age. If either follows immediately or happens at the same time as the subdivisions of the Tertiary i.e. the Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene and Pliocene periods are all contemporary with one another). Failing to grasp this, Velikovsky while at least cutting the time period down from millions of years to about 2000, has accordingly overrated the scale of the Exodus catastrophe.

There is a slim possibility that Velikovsky might place the Flood at the time of the dinosaurs. This can easily be discounted. Stone Age Man could not possibly have survived in a world of flesh-eating dinosaurs like the 18 foot tall Tyrannosaurus Rex. Besides, in Kummel’s book on p.37 we find a chart that clearly shows the dinosaurs drowned because of massive invasions of shallow seas upon the continents. The actual figures are 75% sea water drownings and 25% continental rain water and river delta drownings. For the Age of Mammals the figures are reversed: 20% are drowned by shallow sea invasions and 80% by lowland continental andupland fresh water. The book of Genesis makes it clear that the Deluge drownings were caused by forty days and nights of rainstorms. Once more this favours the Cenozoic era and not the Mesozoic or Dinosaurian era.

 

A possible new sequence of the geological ages might be:

 

Cenozoic

Holocene - Neolithic. Bronze, Iron

Pleistocene. Tertiary – Noachian Deluge – many giant forms of today’s mammals become extinct (cf. Genesis 6:4)

Palaeocene – period of change between dinosaurs and mammals

Mesozoic. Palaeozoic – Land and sea creatures of the Dinosaurian era. They are contemporary and not separated by hundreds of millions of years as

under the conventional scheme. Mostly destroyed by sea wave invasions caused by comet strikes in the oceans.

 

 

Terry Lawrence. Auckland~ New Zealand

Andrew Moore showed that Halaf Chalcolithic culture was contemporary with the Neolithic IV of Palestine and Lebanon

Taken from: http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age

....


Application to data.

1. Halaf-Neolithic 4.

   In 1982, under the title 'A Four-Stage Sequence for the Levantine Neolithic', Andrew M.T. Moore presented evidence to show that the fourth stage of the Syrian Neolithic was in fact usurped by the Halaf Chalcolithic culture of Northern Mesopotamia, and that this particular Chalcolithic culture was contemporary with the Neolithic IV of Palestine and Lebanon.^5:25
   
    

....


Figure 5. Diagram showing compatability of a sertial and parallel arrangement (mushroom effect) of Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures.

This was very significant, especially as the phase of Halaf culture so embodied was a late phase of the Halaf Chalcolithic culture of Mesopotamia, implying some degree of contemporaneity of the earlier part of Chalcolithic Mesopotamia with the early part of the Neolithic of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, as illustrated in Figure 6.
This finding was not a theory but a fact, slowly and very cautiously realized, but devastating in its effect upon the presently held developmental history of the ancient world. This being the case, and bearing in mind the impossibility of absolute dating by any scientific means despite the claims to the contrary, the door is opened very wide for the possible acceptance of the complete contemporaneity of the whole of the Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia with the whole of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Palestine. (The last period of the Chalcolithic of Palestine is seen to be contemporary with the last Chalcolithic period of Mesopotamia.)

....

A Better Model for the Stone Age

By A.J.M. Osgood

The accepted model of man’s origin and development is evolutionary. It assumes a long period of time for man’s development from a primitive origin to a civilized state. Textbooks assume this model. Our popular literature is full of pictures of developing man and cave man, allowing the artist to exercise his imagination fully. The modern media bombards us with the idea of man’s evolutionary origin, and constant assumptions of long ages of time for man’s presence on this earth backed by questionable dating methods.

Indeed, most writers on this particular subject assume that the case is closed, that the essential framework of man’s development in what is known as the stone age is a ‘fait accompli’ which has no right to be questioned, and all that is now needed is to fill in the details of the exact timing and the steps involved.

Such assumptions, however, are questioned here. The framework will here be reasoned to be faulty and a different model will be advanced to explain all the artifacts available to archaeologists, yet this better model does not require the huge amounts of time the evolutionary chronology demands, and will satisfy every reasonable argument for a reasonable history of mankind. Its basic framework is the historical framework of the Bible, particularly in its earlier chapters. Its basic assumption is that the Bible is reasonable history, and so the biblical model should, therefore, be able to explain the history of mankind.

The  evolutionary model

The stone age is here defined as that period of human history prior to the end of the Chalcolithic period in the Middle East.
The evolutionary chronology begins at approximately 2,000,000 years B.C., a date with which the majority would agree, although some dissent could be registered. This begins the Paleolithic period, which can be subdivided into Lower, Middle and Upper Paleolithic:-
Lower Paleolithic 2,000,000 – 80,000 B.C.
Middle Paleolithic 80,000 – 30,000 B.C.
Upper Paleolithic 30,000 – 10,000 B.C.
Next comes the Mesolithic for which varying terms are used, namely, Epipaleolithic, Mesolithic and Protoneolithic. The broad category of the Mesolithic occupies the time between 10,000 and 8,000 B.C. Approximately 8,000 B.C. is the date given for the Neolithic period which extends up to approximately 5,000 B.C. In the Levant, the Neolithic has been divided into four periods, labelled 1 to 4. At 5,000 B.C., and extending onwards until 3,000 B.C. we come to the Chalcolithic or the copper stone age, with its sub-divisions varying according to the regions.
These details can all be seen in Figure 1.

….
Figure 1. Table summarizing ‘Stone Age’ evolutionary chronology in the middle east.

The stone age chronology is clearly evolutionary, and occupying a period of approximately 2,000,000 years, telescopes down as we get closer to the present. It begins, by definition, where our supposed ancestors finally developed into Homo Erectus. Homo Erectus occupies a large portion of the Lower Paleolithic until the theoretical development of Homo Sapiens or modern man, from which time cultural evolution is prominent.
These supposed time cultures have to be defined and this is done by means of artifacts. The following indicates how:

1. Paleolithic. Usually defined on the basis of stone implements alone.
2. Mesolithic. Defined in terms of stone implements and some evidence of building, usually with either rock or clay materials.

Both these time cultures are defined as hunting-gathering cultures.

1. Neolithic. Defined in terms of
1. stone tools,
2. some bone tools,
3. early pottery development,
4. evidence of early farming communities, and
5. evidence of buildings and town structures.
2. Chalcolithic. Defined in terms of stone and metal tools, bone tools and other artifacts, pottery, town and village communities and farming communities, but particularly the introduction of metal (mostly copper) used in weapons and other implements.

The essential ingredients in putting together such a chronology as the above are:

1. the assumption of a developmental history of mankind anatomically and culturally; in other words, an evolutionary framework as a first base assumption; and
2. the acceptance of various dating techniques for absolute values in dating human habitation.Let us now look at the second of these two assumptions, the dating methods.
   

   Dating Techniques

   The scientific method can only work in the present, for it only has its artifacts in the present with which to experiment and to investigate. Reasonable scientific conclusions can be reached about those artifacts in the framework in which we find them, whether these be tools or cities or fossils. However, as we extrapolate the observations into the past we immediately step out of the scientific method and into the area of historical assumption. This is not science but mere reasoned conclusions, however acceptable they may be to one’s reason.
   It follows naturally that if the scientific method cannot work in the past and conclusions about the past must rest on assumptions, then there is not today a dating method that can be scientifically substantiated as being correct, for every method will have built into it an assumption. Now when we come to the practical application of this theory we discover in fact that this holds true. Let us look at the methods available.
   There are many methods now available for dating. We will mention the more obvious, all of which are used to obtain an absolute date (we are not here referring to the primary chronological arrangement or relative dating). The discussion will not be concerned with a lengthy treatise on the subject matter as this can be found in a number of other places.
   

   1. Fossil dating.

      This is largely irrelevant in this context as it is used for much greater periods of time. However, it is used to some extent in the Lower Paleolithic strata as here defined. Fossil dating assumes that the fossil can be dated by the rock in which it is found, and dating of the rock in which it is found assumes that it can be dated by the fossil which is found in it. This is, of course, circular reasoning and is frankly invalid.

   2. Radiometric dating.

      Radiometric methods assume that we can estimate the amount of radio active substance with which we began the time clock, a doubtful proposition, since that was a past event. It usually assumes a constant decay rate whereas of recent years some doubt has crept into this assumption, and in most cases it assumes no outside interference that has altered the system.

   3. Carbon-14 dating.

      Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) dating in particular assumes that the influx and outflow of carbon-14 atoms into and out of the biosphere is in equilibrium. This simply is not so, and that alone invalidates the method. Massive variations have been found. Furthermore, all the assumptions that are made for the other radiometric methods essentially apply here, and these make all radiometric dating methods doubtful as scientific tests.

   4. Dendrochronology,   or  tree-ring dating.

      This method is assumed by many to be able to ‘correct’ the carbon-14 clock from its drift of measurements. However, it assumes a number of things. Firstly, it begins its estimation with a carbon-14 date!¹ This introduces circular reasoning again. It assumes also that a tree grows a single ring every year. This is simply not always the case, for some trees have been found to put on multiple rings each year, while other trees have been known to put on no rings in a particular year or for several years, particularly in dry times. It also assumes that conditions over small areas are the same as far as climate and soil conditions are concerned, but most gardeners can tell you that the growth potential for any tree can vary across very small distances in any one place. This is rarely taken into account in dendrochronology. Dendrochronology, in fact, is so shot through with assumptions that it is surprising that anyone dared to present it as a scientific test.¹

   5. The  written word  including  coins.

      This assumes that the author is reliable or that the details are not inaccurately copied and can be verified.
   A quick perusal of the above list will show very quickly that none of these methods qualify as a scientific test for dating the past, for all of them rest upon assumptions. Furthermore, these principles can be extended to other tests and all will be shown to be based on assumptions.
   What then can we say of dating the past? Simply this – the past, as far as its historical narrative is concerned, must begin with some form of assumption and that assumption will be determined by the particular bias or world view held. A person’s bias totally includes his religious view, which shapes his thinking about the universe in which he lives and in which his ancestors lived, so that we see that history is built upon three things:-
   
   1. artifacts that have come down from the past,
   2. assumptions to extrapolate those facts into the past, and
   3. personal bias held by every historical interpreter.
   These biases will be as varied as human kind.
   Discussion of the supposed ape-like ancestors of man will not be dealt with here. They have been very adequately discussed by Bowden.²
   The problem with the evolutionary chronology of the ancient world presented above is the following:
   
   1. There is a rival claim to the history of the ancient world found within the pages of Scripture, and
   2. That particular rival view of history forms the historical framework of a legal claim which affects the hope of the world, the faith of nations and the eternal well-being of the human race.
   So the discussion of the ancient world is taken out of the realm of merely the purely academic into the realm of every man. It becomes relevant to every human being upon the face of the earth. Whether the biblical creation model of origins stands the test, as opposed to evolutionary theory, will determine the hopes and dreams of mankind down through the ages and right throughout the vast world today. It is for that reason that the true model of the ancient world must be determined to see which faith can claim our allegiance, and which faith, if any, determines our destiny. Let us then look at the second model, that is, the biblical model.

….

For complete article, go to: http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age

Shadow of Cain



Sept. 13, 2014 Pope Francis walks and pauses alone, head bowed amidst thousands of white tombstones, surrounded the green of the Austro-Hungarian Cemetery in Fogliano di Redipuglia. This, more than any other, will be the lasting image of the Pontiff’s visit to the sites of the Great War, one century after its outbreak in the summer of 1914, which opened eyes wide to an abyss of horrors, the “useless slaughter”, later denounced in vain by Benedict xv.

Likewise to no avail was Pius xii’s ultimate appeal with which in 1939 he sought to discourage the Second World War. Instead came a tragic “hour of darkness”, when — Pacelli wrote in his first Encyclical — “the spirit of violence and of discord brings indescribable suffering on mankind”. And today their successor has returned to speak of “a third war, one fought ‘piecemeal’, with crimes, massacres, destruction” as Pope Francis stated during his return from Korea.

Francis repeated it in his homily at the Mass — a meditation rooted in Genesis, the opening text of the Christian and Jewish Holy Scriptures — on the madness of war: a reality which destroys and ruins everything, driven by greed, intolerance, ambition, often justified by an ideology. When this is lacking, here echoes the deafness of Cain’s response. “What does it matter to me?” are indeed ever-recurring words, even in the face of the most frightening tragedies, the “scornful motto” of a war which looks directly at no one, a near personification of evil. In this way, in the shadow of Cain, victims have multiplied into the millions in a century soaked by the blood of two world wars, and still today tens of thousands are sacrificed in wars which are forgotten but no less savage.

“How is this possible?”, the Bishop of Rome asks himself, again denouncing the “interests, geopolitical strategies, lust for money and power”, forcefully accusing “the profiteers of war”, the outright “plotters of terrorism” and “schemers of conflicts” who, through the arms trade generate “bad dreams, foster bad feelings” and “falsify the very psychology of peoples”, as Pope Paul vi stated to the United Nations half a century ago.

 In the face of this grim reality the word of the Gospel rises up to encourage and admonish: “He who takes care of his brother enters into the joy of the Lord; however, he who does not do so, who through his omissions says ‘what does it matter to me?’, remains outside”, the Pope said. Thus, in order to save oneself one needs to have the courage to move out from Cain’s shadow and to invoke “the capacity to cry”. To abandon the bad dreams and return to those of the victims of wars and of today’s elderly to whom Francis alluded.

- See more at: http://www.osservatoreromano.va/en/news/shadow-cain#sthash.FGv8yEFY.dpuf

There were Giants on the earth .... The Nephilim.

 

Taken from: http://biblelight.net/nephilim.htm
....

---

The increasingly popular interpretation of the following passage is that it relates a story of angels interbreeding with the human race, and that this was a primary reason for God destroying most of humanity with the great flood.

First of all, it should be pointed out that angels are not humans, they are quite different creations of God. Satan and the other angels are spirit beings, and simply cannot have physical offspring (children). They do not marry (Matt. 22:30, Mark 12:25), they are incapable of procreation, and so are genderless creatures.
Let's look at this passage in an attempt to shed some light:

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Gen 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

So now let's evaluate each verse, and what it is saying-

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

This verse is straightforward. The human population on earth began to increase in numbers.

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Now this verse is full of meaning. Some will point to Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7 where the same phrase "sons of God" is translated sometimes as angels, and conclude that this also refers to angels as well. The Hebrew words used are - ben: H1121 and 'elohiym: H430:

1121. ben, bane; from H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of lit. and fig. relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., [like H1, H251, etc.]) ...

So the phrase "Sons of God" is a generic term that can mean the subjects or nation of God. It is not a phrase limited to just the angelic host, it has a wider meaning. The sons of God in Gen 6:2, in context, speaks of those men who were (or claimed to be) obedient to the will of God, they were the people of God, from the lineage of Seth (Gen. 5). In opposition to this are the daughters of men (not obedient to God), from the lineage of Cain (Gen. 4). These woman were quite attractive and alluring, and had little trouble enticing the sons of God into intimate relations and marriage. In doing so, the sons of God quickly abandoned God for these women and their ways.This is basically a retelling of the fall of Adam and Eve. Eve listened to the lies of Satan and doubted God. She ate from the forbidden tree and fell from the spiritual nature she previously enjoyed. That tree was the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:9, 17). Upon eating from the tree, Eve was aware of what she had done. She now had the knowledge of evil and she was aware that she had sinned against God. In that knowledge, and having fallen, she then offered the fruit from the tree to Adam.Adam was not deceived (1 Tim 2:14). He knew when he saw Eve that she had sinned, because she had lost the spiritual glow that results from being in close spiritual harmony with God. Moses had this same glow when he came down from Sinai (Exo 34:29, 30). Adam elected to eat the fruit, knowing what he was doing. His love for Eve (whom he knew had sinned) was greater than his love of God.This is a tactic used time and again by Satan. The downfall of God's people is frequently through the temptations of godless women (See Numbers 25:1-9). Other examples that come to mind are Samson and Delilah, and David and Bathsheba.So, now back to Gen 6:2. The same basic scenario is being repeated after the garden of Eden, only on a larger scale. There is a wholesale abandonment of God and his righteous ways by the descendents of Seth for women of the lineage of Cain, known to be in rebellion and sin. This is what God calls fornication, not referring only to a sexual sin, but the sin of mixing the righteous with the wicked, truth with evil. (One example of this is the word fornication as attributed to the harlot church in Rev 17:4 and 18:3) This sin was so prevalent, and so blatant a rejection of God that it could not be allowed to continue indefinitely.

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

God in this verse has just set a period of probation of 120 years on the human race to repent of their wicked ways. It could not be allowed to continue.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The word "giants" here in the Hebrew is listed in Strong's as follows-

5303. nephiyl, nef-eel'; or nephil, nef-eel'; from H5307; prop., a feller[*], i.e. a bully or tyrant:--giant.
*Main Entry: ⁴fellFunction: adjective
Etymology: Middle English fel, from Middle French, from Old French -- more at FELON
1 a : FIERCE, CRUEL, TERRIBLE b : SINISTER, MALEVOLENT fell

purpose> c : very destructive : DEADLY fell disease>  -- Webster's OnlineSo rather than being perhaps physical giants, in contrast to the meek people of god, these people were rebellious bullies and tyrants, forceful in character and great in their sins. This same phrase of "giants" is also used to describe the Canaanites following the exodus (Num 13:33). Again, this probably referred to their godless and lawless character, as much as their physical stature.

Gen 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The fault here is laid squarely on the wickedness of the people themselves. The first part of this verse is a restatement of the first part of verse 4. As a result of choosing godless women, men were turned away from God as well, and sin and wickedness flourished. God was rejected, and forgotten.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Sin became so great, that God had to bring the flood on them, to cleanse the earth of such great wickedness.

Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Noah was the exception, and he was given the task to build the ark, that would be the refuge from the flood for those obedient to God.
So, now back to the popular story about this passage. Based on a very narrow interpretation of the phrase "sons of God" as found here in Genesis, and bolstered by Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; and Psalms 29:1; 82:6, the case is made that this is referring to heavenly beings/angels that interbred with women, causing a ghastly mixed breed of creatures that God had to destroy.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

The above verses make clear that phrase "sons of God" applies to anyone with faith. Note how the righteous 144,000 are described

Rev 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

"Not defiled with women" alludes back to Genesis 6 and the sons of God and the daughters of men. The 144,000 walk with God just like Noah, and are not defiled by the great whore of Revelation 17, or her harlot daughters, which are symbolic of apostasy.
So the angelic interbreeding story appears to be nothing more than an attempt to put the blame on angels rather than man. The passage in Genesis 6 speaks only to the wickedness of humanity, and places no blame at all on angels. Humanity had turned their back on God, and did it on such a scale that God was moved to destroy them. Yet, God in His mercy, amid all the wickedness, still did not act hastily to exact his judgment. He gave humanity a period of probation. A time of 120 years, during which Noah could preach the message of God, of repentance and faith. ....

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luke 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

....