THE NEW AMALGAMATION

THE NEW AMALGAMATION

Here are excerpts from an article in the Los Angeles Times, March 22, 2005, by Jeremy Rifkin

A Man or a Mouse? Or Both?

What happens when you cross a human and a mouse? While it sounds like the beginning of a bad joke, it's not...It's a fact, a serious experiment recently carried out by a research team headed by a distinguished molecular biologist, Irving Weissman, at Stanford Univerisity. Human brain cells were injected into mouse fetuses, creating a strain of mice that were approximately 1% human. Weissman is considering a follow-up experiment that would produce mice whose brains are made up of 100% human cells....

In a world where the bizarre has become all too commonplace, few things shock the human psyche. But experiments like this that produced a partially humanized mouse stretch the limits of human tinkering with nature to the realm of the pathological.

This new research field--creating hybrid creatures out of different species--is at the cutting edge of the biotech revolution and is called chimeric experimentation (after the monster of Greek mythology that was part lion, part goat and part serpent).

The first such chimeric experiment occurred many years ago when scientists in Edinburgh, Scotland, fused together a sheep and goat embryo--two completely unrelated animal species that are incapable of mating and producing a hybrid offspring in nature. The resulting creature, called a geep, was born with the head of a goat and the body of a sheep.

Now, scientists have their sights trained on breaking the final taboo in the natural world--crossing humans and animals to create new human-animal hybrids of every kind and description. Already, aside from the humanized mouse, scientists have created pigs with human blood running through their veins and sheep with livers and hearts that ae mostly human.

These experiments are designed to advance medical research. Many genetic engineers argue that human-animal hybrids will usher in a golden era of medicine. Researchers say the more humanized they can make research animals, the better able they will be to model the progression of human diseases, test new drugs and harvest tissues and organs for transplantation into human bodies.

Certain researchers are speculating about human-chimpanzee chimeras--creating a humanzee. Such a specimen would be the ideal laboratory research animal because chimpanzees are so closely related to human beings--sharing 98% of the human genome....Fusing a human and chimpanzee embryio--a feat researchers say is quite feasible--could produce a creature so human that questions regarding its moral and legal status would throw 4,000 years of ethics into utter chaos....

Remember that none of this is science fiction. Anticipating a flurry of new experiments, the National Academy of Sciences, the country's most august scientific body, is expected to issue guidelines for chimeric research in April of 2005. What are the ramifications of creating hundreds, even thousands, of new life-forms that are part human and part other creature? Creatures that could mate, reproduce and repopulate the Earth?

Bioethicists are already clearing the moral path for human-animal chimeric experiments, being confident that once society gets past the revulsion factor, the prospect of new, partially human creatures has much to offer the human race.

This macabre journey into a Brave New World in which all of nature can be ruthlessly manipulated and re-engineered to suit the momentary needs and whims and caprices of just one species, the Homo sapiens. Indeed, we risk undermining our own species' biological integrity in the name of human progress. With chimeric technology, scientists now have the power to rewrite a God-given process--to sprinkle parts of Homo sapiens into the rest of the animal kingdom as well as fuse parts of other species into our own genome and even to create new human subspecies and super-species.

Are we on the cusp of a biological renaissance, as some believe, or are we sowing the seeds of our own destruction?

What scientists fail to mention is that there are other equally promising and less invasive alternatives to these bizarre experiments. There's sophisticated computer modeling to study disease and to test the effectiveness and toxicity of drugs. There's in vitro tissue culture, nanotechnology and artificial prostheses to substitute for human tissue and organs. When it comes to chimeric experimentation, then, the question is, at what price?

I belive the price is too steep. We should draw the line at this type of experiementation and prohibit any further research into creating human-animal chimeras. --end of article.

Suzanne

This is serious, brothers an sisters! Listen:

"If there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before Him. He would not suffer them to live out the days of their natural life, which would be hundreds of years. It was on a few generations back when Adam had access to that tree which was to prolong life. After his disobedience he was not suffered to eat of the tree of life and perpetuate a life of sin." --Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 64.

Comment/question: Can men nowadays follow in the same path the antediluvians did and not suffer a similar fate?

Suzanne

In college (SDA) I learned that the SOP passage posted above means amalgamations occurred between humans and between animals - not between humans and animals.

If I had to speculate, I'd say the world has less than twenty five years of probation left. No one knows when Jesus will return but it's definitely imminent.

More Info On Amalgamation

This is from Alive: Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition, Nov. 1998.

Biotech News, by Richard Wolfson, PhD.

* Pigs are being genetically engineered with human genes to provide organs for human transplants. However, according to the UK medical journal, Lancet, organs from pigs could infect humans with porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV), a new, possibly deadly virus.

* Scientists at a well-know university in the U.S. have successfully inserted human genes that code for human milk into potatoes. The researchers are seeking to create potatoes that generate human milk. Patenting of this process, if successful, could lead to huge financial gain. The potential side effects of the milk are clearly unknown at this stage. --end of article.

In regard to pig organs for human transplants, other researchers writing in the peer-reviewed British scientific journal Nature cautioned that a common vius carried by pigs can infect human cells in the lab and become active in mice transplanted with pig cells.

Scientists have long been aware that pigs carry "endogenous" viruses--some known, while other remain undiscovered. The viruses' DNA mingle with the animals' own genes and is now simply inherited along with pig genes. Certain scientists worry that if pig tissues are transplanted to people, this viral DNA might make viruses that will infect people. This could unleash infectious diseases previously unknown in humans.

Indeed, this concern was expressed by Murray Cohen, a medical consultant in the Washington-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and Andrew Breslin, A PCRM research coordinator. Their column, Will Swine Usher in Next Black Death? appeared in the August 29, 2000 Detroit Free Press.

These authors warn that novel diseases of unprecedented virulence could be released into the human population, diseases totally foreign to our immune systems. Millions of people could die.

Cohen and Breslin go on to lament the fact that the Western worlds' taste for beer, cheeseburgers, etc., helps create an early need for organ replacements. They point out that attempts to promote preventive medicine--emphasizing lifestyle choices that exert less wear and tear on our organs are virtually nonexistent. (SDAs...where are you? This is our health message!!!!) The sensible solution, they say, is to bring these matters prominently to public consciousness. "Let's get [North] America to avoid the things that destroy our organs in the first place, from fatty and cholesterol-laden foods to tobacco to alcohol."

Note: At least we can say that since this article was published, more and more information has surfaced concerning how we can and should take care of ourselves. At the same time some researchers are continuing full speed ahead in the new amalgamation.

Suzanne

Bernell E. Baldwin, Ph.D., a neurophysiologist at Wildwood Lifestyle Center and Hospital, in Wildwood Georgia, has written an important article entitled The New Amalgamation. The complete text can be found in their Journal of Health and Healing, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2000.

Here Dr. Baldwin points out that human genes are being put into pigs, animal genes are spliced into plants and both are injected into bacteria....An untried technology is churning out new combinations of genes from any and everywhere--plant, animal, or man--to almost everywhere. This new techno-genetics, is capable of splicing genes without enough of the wisdom to follow principles from the Bible, physiology, biology, or ecology. This can only result in mass confusion.

Indeed, current genetic engineers, trained under evolutionary presuppositions, are treading in uncharted waters in areas that are best left alone.

Dr. Baldwin's article in its entirety should be read by all interested in this subject. He presents many examples and warns of the long-term human and environmental outcomes of this daring amalgamation of very diverse kinds.

Suzanne

Genetic engineering --

Amalagamation between man and beast

Yes, for years people have ridiculed EGW's statement and some Adventists have tried to explain it as just another way to express wrong associations with unbelievers

but --

Suzanne, I think you've got the correct explanation.


For one thing -- EGW does state that amalgamation produced confusion of species.
1SP.078.002 Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood.



Yes, I know, the critics say, "There was no genetic engineering in Noah's day!

The trouble is, people have been so indoctrinated with the evolution theory that even those who still believe in a six day creation have a hard time conceiving of the idea that people before the flood were extremely intelligent and advanced scientifically. Their knowledge and skill and understanding was WAY BEYOND OUR OWN.

Once the evolutionary picture of preflood people being primitive food gathers gets erased then these so called statements of EGW are no problem. THE PREFLOOD PEOPLE EXPERIMENTED WITH GENETICS just like scientists are doing today. We should understand this as a warning that is very relevant to us today.

Consider the full scope of what EGW says about preflood people and the puzzle starts coming together in a clearer picture.






"But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God," 3SG.064

When EGW wrote that, genetic engineering was not thought possible and of course cross breeding among different species does not happen naturally, so people have ridiculed this revelation of conditions prior to the flood.

However today, the question that should face every person is not really to argue over whether God revealed to EGW that this evil existed way back then; the question should be — where is our present day fascination of amalgamation leading the world today?

We are closer to the fulfilment of 2 Peter 3 then we think!

Actually, the Ellen White quote above was:
"amalgamation of man and beast"

It doesn't say man with beast.
It doesn't say between man and beast.

I agree her statement does seem ambiguous. However, the rest of the paragraph doesn't seem to be having anything to do with man with beast.

Notice, she is refering to SPECIES, not variations within species.
The amalgamation produced new species, something that does not happen naturally, but can happen by genetic engineering.

I and many others would disagree with you.

New species are happening all the time. Both in reality and on paper.

Have you not heard of the speciation of the house sparrow as it moved from the east to the west? Or how about Darwin's finches? As I understand it, they all came from one pair of finches, still are finches, but are different species of finches.

Animals speciated, man speciated.
The statement does not absolutely mean animals speciated with man.

I agree with Kland. In college we studied the "amalgamation" statements in the SOP. We learned that some people postulated black people are an example of amalgamating men and monkeys. Such a conclusion is absurd.

Perhaps you did not then notice this quote:



That quote makes it appear as though before the flood there was amalgamation of animals, whereas after the flood the range extended to include man in the mix with animals as well. She does not specify in which "races of men" this "may be seen." However, I have a few ideas in regards to that...

The quote clearly indicates animals were mixed with humans, because amalgamation was an abominable sin, and it does not follow that it would ever have constituted "amalgamation" for one descendant of Noah to marry another--we are, after all, the same species.

If a college professor was teaching that "amalgamation" of humans and humans has occurred, it would seem one of the most racist things he or she could possibly teach. (You were not clear as to how you "learned" this, and I also do not know whether this particular passage were considered, so I'm not saying you or anyone else is racist.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Hmmm...I took a closer look at the earlier quote which you had addressed, and discovered it says virtually the same thing as the one I posted. So, Mike? Do you truly believe that interracial marriage constitutes the sin of "amalgamation?" kland? What do you say on this? It appears both of you were supporting the same idea here.

Keep in mind, she says that this is the sin, above all others, that brought God to the point of causing the Flood. If interracial marriage constituted "amalgamation" back then, what is it now?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, are you assuming Ellen White was referring to amalgamations created unnaturally in laboratories?

No, I think it was a result of bestiality. Of course, no one knows what level of technology they had, and it is possible that they modified and tinkered with DNA in a laboratory. Either way, it was abominable in God's sight.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ha! I'm trying to erase the unspeakable image of bestiality you tossed in the mix. How did Paul put it?

Beastiality, even though a gross abomination and immorality, does not produce offspring thereby greatly confusing the species.

While one type of finch may mate with another type of finch and produce a new line of finches,or one type of cat may mate with another type of cat and produce a somewhat different cat,
yet nature has some pretty tight laws that keep life forms reproducing after their own kind.

So, I don't believe this "amalgamation" that EGW is refering to had anything to do with mating, it had to do with genetic engineering and manipulations with genes, cells, etc.




Whatever was going on before the Flood, Ellen White called it a "base crime," and the sin above all others that brought down the divine judgment of the Flood.
It confused the species
It defaced the image of God
She also mentions that Satan engineered undesirable plants by amalgamation using his "ingenious methods". (See 2SM 288)



Something pretty big was happening prior to the flood.

The Bible says not only was man evil, but even "all flesh" had become corrupted.


EGW writes: "Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood."

Weren't masses of strange creatures totally wiped out during the flood?
Were they part of the "confused species" brought about by amalgamation?
Was the world literally overrun by these creatures, many of them mammoth in size.


And what is genetic engineering doing now?

How many GMO foods are now in the market place?
The soy bean, corn, tomatoes, up to 75% or more have alien genes.
Pesticides have been genetically engineered into crops.

And, as has been mentioned earlier, human genes are being implanted in animal embryos. Like human brain cells into mice.
They are starting to create Chimeras,

Ancient legends are filled with Chimeras type of creatures.
Now most will laugh it off as "those people had great imaginations". But could it have been based on fact?

As it was in the days of Noah so shall it be....

If we stick to what the Bible says, the Bible clearly says that the amalgamation was between the "Sons of God" and the "Daughters of Men" and these children became "mighty men which were of old men of renown". Gn6:2-5.

According to the following verses, it seems to relate that this amalgamation increased the speed of wickedness on this earth to the point "that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually". There were only 1000 years before the flood, and who knows when this amalgamation started. But to me, it looks that the offsprings of this amalgamation speeded the wickedness of man's heart. To me, this is a greather concern and impact for God in His plan to save man than the mix of species.

Probably without this sort of amalgamation, the wickedness would of increased more slowly as we are now around 5000 years after the flood and I don't think we have reached the level of wickedness that existed before the flood...yet!

Elle, are you sure you believe that? Would you believe that if a Christian man marries a worldly woman it is such an abominable sin, greater than all other sins which they committed before the flood, that it would cause God to send the flood?

Ellen White is clear that the sin of "amalgamation" ranked at about the top of the list among all the sins of the antediluvians. If that's the case, and if you claim that this type of marriage constituted the "amalgamation" issue, then for a Christian to marry a worldling is a greater sin than that of murder, homosexuality, thievery, idol worship, etc. that were practiced prior to the flood.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I want to believe what the Bible says and don't want to go beyond that.

The Bible says:the amalgamation or the crossing was between the "Sons of God" and the "Daughters of Men". The result of this crossing produced "Giants" which became "mighty men which were of old men of renown". Gn6:2-5. Do you sincerely think that it means Christian men marrying wordly woman and having the ability to produce "Giants"?

In the OT "Sons of God" means angels. Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7

Is there any biblical support of amalgamation of man with beast?

I was responding to what you said:
I responded by giving the example of finches. I was not speaking of whether species was what Ellen White was talking about. I was objecting to your statement that,
" new species, something that does not happen naturally".
Would you be saying that production of new species does happen naturally, just not by amalgamation?
If so, you would further need to qualify it by at least disqualifying plants.


So they thought. Then they discovered some strange creatures.

But then, what is "strange"?

Surely you were only contrasting a point and weren't suggesting amalgamation of man with angels, were you!?

And the offspring of the "sons of God" can be giants for the Lord still today!



Elle, if angels do not marry, how can they have children? Furthermore, if the "sons of God" represent angels of God, pray tell, why would God's own angels be committing this heinous crime of amalgamation, against His orders--to provoke His wrath to the point of destroying the earth with a flood?

As for the word "amalgamation," I'm interested in which Bible version you are finding that?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Actually, the quote says, amalgamation of man and beast.


What did cause God to "send the flood"? What does the Bible say?

BTW. I never thought of this until I looked at this text yesterday. To me this is not a salvation issue and I'm not going to make a big fuss about this nor worth while to repeat this. However, if you go by what Gen 6 says, to me this kind of thinking goes with the context, makes sence and has more Biblical support the idea that their was an amalgamation between fallen angels and man. To accept that it was an amalgamation of Beast and man and that is what caused the flood, is a little too far fetch, doesn't go well with what Gen 6 says, there's missing links and lacks Biblical support.
The NT texts that you quoted refers in being "sons of God" by adoption. This is not how the OT language was refering to "Sons of God" in Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7 which was clearly referring to angels.

Who says angels do not marry in heaven? I think the Bible doesn't really say enough about that for us to give such statement. But let's suppose they don't under God's will, but fallen angels can as they revert to a "natural Brute Beast"(in Jude) in their rebellious state.

Let's look at the Bible quotes referring to the one incidence that you are basing this supposition on:

The teaching Jesus was conveying in Mt 22,Mc 12, and Lk 20 to the trick question was of obedience to God. God's adoptive children, becomes God's children by the surrendering to the will of the Spirit of God which the outcome of their life is totally different from the children of this world.

The problem with sin is a rebellion to the Spirit of God including in our choices in marriages. In this earth, most men and woman marry on their own will and not by God's. Meaning they choose their own mate and do not let God choose for them. That is why their is so many divorces today as we poorly match ourselve.

If we surrender to God, He will find our perfect match and when He put two people together with the ties of love, no one can seperate them. That's what Jesus was referring when he said that
1. You err in thinking that it was a marriage put together by God to begin with,
2. you don't understand scripture in regards of man's need of the indwelling Spirit of God to be led in proper choices
3. You don't know the power of God meaning how inseperable the bonds of marriage are when God puts two people together.

The main problem of the marriages of this world is God is not behind them.

Then Jesus continues and confirms the line of thought by saying
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Abraham, Jacob, and Issac where men surrendering to the will of the Spirit of God. That's what makes them "alive" today eventhought they are sleeping in the grave. However, eventhought you are walking around in 2010, if do not walk by the Spirit of God, to God you are dead.

Most people today are walking dead and will continue marrying, and giving in marriage their daughters until Jesus second coming.

But those at the ressurection, won't marry by their own will, nor give their daughters in marriage for personal interest, for they live by the will of the Spirit of God just like the angels in heaven does.


These angels, most likely referring here in Gen 6, are the fallen angels,

Notice Job 1:6
both instance Satan present himself among them(the angels) before the Lord, because Satan is an angel. And at that time, He was going from earth to heaven as He pleased. see Job 1:7

In Jude 1:6 says So we have a support here that the angels(the 1/3 fallen ones) left their first estate(the order of God) and is very plausible that they went on earth(as mention in Job 1:7, and Gen 6) and took woman for wives and made some babies, Giant ones of great renown. Here does not necessarily mean that they were big in statue, but big in influences.

Then it is talking of the incredible state of wickedness in the earth. Since these are in the same breath in the paragraph, it is not too far fetch to suppose that one has to do with the other.

We need to read Gen 6 as what is saying. It is mentioning a phenomena that the wickedness of the people on the earth was "continually evil". This took place in a time where they could walk at the door of the garden of eden and see angels with sword. The story of creation and adam and Eve where very fresh. Evidence was abondance, however in less than 1000 years, we see a phenomena that took place and that probably increased the speed of wickedness.

Since the flood, 5000 years passed by, and the wickedness still haven't reached that peaked. So I think this has been overlooked. Where's your biblical evidence that it was an amalgation of man and beast that caused the flood?

Sorry for misleading, however, if you notice I didn't put in quotes amalgamation as coming from the Bible. I always use KJV and the full text read as so :

Notice here that the Bible specifies that the daughters were born from men that multiply on the earth. There's no mention that these men where christian or followers of God, but just a general statement of men multiplying and daughters were born to them.


So these "sons of God"(most likely angels and not converted men) took the daughters of men(specified in v.1) as wives. So it is a cross of specie since angels and man are not created the same at the beginning. So you can call it AMALGAMATION

Mrs. White tells us that the sons of God spoken of in Genesis referred to the descendants of Seth, who followed God.

She even speaks of this sin of those God-fearing sons of Seth marrying the daughters of the world as being a smaller sin which led toward the destruction of the world later on by flood.

So, she speaks of this "trifle" as having had dire consequences, and actually having been a much greater sin than it might initially appear.

It still leaves me wondering, however, if this constituted the sin of "amalgamation" which was so heinous in God's sight as to cause a flood. If "interracial marriage" between the race of Cain and the descendants of Seth was such a sin, what would that mean for interracial marriage today?

Elle, if the Satanic host can marry and have children, which of us is part demon? Are all angels male? Or are there female ones?

You realize, of course, that when people try to claim that the sons of God were fallen angels (basically a Mormon belief), that they open a whole can of worms, and inconsistencies.

You quoted the statement by Jesus where in heaven we will not marry, but be as the angels. Here is what Mrs. White says about this statement:



Lest you be disappointed that will be no marriage in Heaven, Mrs. White adds the following:



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Interesting discussions.
As Elle said, knowing exactly what this "amalgamtion is, is probably not a salvation issue.
And marrying unbelievers can become a salvation issue thus a very important point.

However, there are things in these EGW quotes and Bible texts that suggest something much bigger than just the Sethites letting down their guard.

But before getting in to that let me answer a few questions.

Amalgamation means - to mix, to form a blend of diverse (unlike, as in DIFFERENT normally unrelated) elements.

The first question I think I already answered.



Nature does not allow mating between divergent species to produce offspring. A fish can't mate with human and produce a mermaid. A horse can't mate with human and create a centaur. A lion can't mate with a human and create a sphinx.
Nor can zebra mate with a lion and create a zeblion.
Any such variations could only happen by amalgamation not by mating.



I'm refering to the massive remains (thousands of them) of the various dinosaurs in particular, which disappeared suddenly from the face of the earth.

Remember too that
1. amalgamation must start with something that already has life.
2. EGW says they tried amalgamation after the flood as well, though I believe God stepped in to stop it before it got out of hand once more.
3. Not all sea creatures died in the flood -- the fish, etc. had to survive in the water.

Those statements considered, we can now focus on the massive destruction of a multitude of creatures, many huge in size that were wiped into extinction during the flood.



The quote by E. G. White says "of man and beast" it does not say "of man and man and of beast and beast", but clearly states that it was of man and beast.
In 3SG pp. 64 & 75 and 1SP pp. 69, 78 we see that this amalgamation or crossing or mixing of species caused confusion resulting
1. in creatures "which God did not create", and
2. "which defaced the image of God" in man who was created in the image of God.



Gen. 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Notice ALL FLESH, not just man.

Gen. 6:13 The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

The whole creation had gone bad, and needed to be destroyed.
The earth filled with violence -- by ALL FLESH -- seems to imply the terrible results of amalgamation (dinosaurs included) helped fill the earth with violence.

Of course humans are very much included in that statement as well.

NOW TO GENESIS 6


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

That was verse two.
KJV
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. fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

ASV
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.

Let's follow the word "Nephilim".

Numbers 13:33
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

ASV
And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

That's the only three uses of the word "giant"= "Nephilim" in scripture.

It does give the meaning physical largeness.

Let's see who "Anak" was?

Duet. 9:2
A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the children of Anak!

So the giant "Nephilim" children of Anak, lived in Canaan and caused the Israelites considerable fright.

Duet. 1:28 "The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there."

See also Num.13:22,28,33
Calab was given the territory of the Anakims and succeeded largely in driving them out.
See Josh. 15:13,14, and 21:11 also Judges 1:20

Again thes "nephilim" were very large people.

The Bible gives the dimensions of the bed of one of these giant kings.

Duet. 3:11 "Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; ... nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

A cubit is from 18-20 inches.
That means his bed was 13.5 to 15 feet long,
and 6 to 7.5 feet wide.

So my conclusion is that something happened there in Genesis 6 which enabled people to produce very tall people.

We know from EGW that Adam was created by God twice as tall as the average man today. So he would have been somewhere between 11 to 12 feet tall.

But these "nephilums" were taller than that. Between 13 o 15 feet tall.

Can a Zebra mate with a horse?

Elle, according to Genesis 6, who did wrong, who was being "punished"?

Of course they can mate. But, are they fertile like some mules?
Or keeping in mind that some places outlaw owning crosses of bobcats and cats.
Would by any chance you be starting to define what a "species" is?

Zonkey, Zorses, and Mules, Ligers and Tigons and Wolphins.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/zonkeys-ligers-wholphins

Here's an interesting Zorse photo:
http://www.dailycognition.com/index.php/2007/06/28/a-zebra-horse-hybrid-comes-to-life.html

Hi Kland, I'm surprise you formulated the question as "who was being "punished""? Maybe that's why you put it in quotes right?
However, for the sake of the discussion, I think that's a good question.

First we see what concerns God -- It is the level of wickedness. I think this is the main issue of the destruction and even I would suggest that it was what caused the expanse above the earth to break.

There's many things in the world of science we do not understand despite our high technology. I saw a creationist/scientist video explaining that the expanse of water above the earth was condensed and compacted water molecules. Today in the lab, they can condense water molecules under high pressure that becomes hard like steel. This creationist scientist went on to explain that the water from the flood came from this steel shield (expanse of compacted water) which was broken and released.

Broken by what? He explained that it could of came from the intensity of the combined wicked spirit which was no longer in harmony with the heavenly spirit that was on the outside of the shield, which caused a clash. I don't know physic enough to know what two opposite forces can do, but this creationist said that it weakened the shield over time.


Take note that there was also "the fountain of the great deep" that broke off. According to the order these are mentioned, it's very possible that the fountain of the great deep broke off first. This Creationist mentions something about under the crust of the earth there was an abondance of water type of system which differs from todays. It's been almost 15 years since I've saw his video tape; so forgive me for not remembering all the details.

However, he explained that because of the force of wicked spirit that first weakened the shield(expanse) and somehow caused these fountains to brake, and then the fountains shoot with great force up and broke the shield which at the impact caused the decompaction of the water molecules of the shield.

I haven't looked into this much beside verify that it is true that water can be compacted into metal like form. However, this showed me that there's much that man today don't understand. Most people today assume that it is God that caused the flood and destroy man and all animals; however, how do we base this conclusion? With what we know of today? Naaaw! I rather stick believing what Jesus manifested about the Father's character when he offered to Judas to drink the wine at the last supper. God does not punish -- he forgaved the whole world.


Does God need to repent? This word here and most of the time employed in referring to God, means "a deep breath" or a "Sigh". Why is God sighing? Because he knows we are but dust : very influenceable and vulnerable to outside forces which includes evil spirit. I don't see that the Bible says in any way their was any blame pointed on anyone and they needed to be punished, but just telling what happened and a big "SIGH" from the Creator. Then we see our wonderful Creator taking full responsibility of what is happening, by saying "I will destroy...". All over the Bible this is depicted when other verses says the other side of the story. Our God is great and took full responsibility because he is the Creator and ultimatly is responsible for everything by creating us and the angels as free chosing being.

What do we know about the world of the Angels? Not very much as the Bible doesn't say much and it's focuss is for the salvation of man. We know that man was made a little lower than the angels. Maybe we are very similar in kin? What do we know about the creation of the angels? Maybe God used the same method of creation, making 1 male and 1 female, and having them populate the heavens? Is that too far fetch of a thought? Isn't that His way for man to populate the earth? And the same for the animals? Maybe the offsprings of angels and man would be sterile like a mule. Anyway, we just don't know much.

To get back to your question, I see that the Bible focuss on man and it relates that the problem was that the wickedness of man has reached the maximum level that caused many problems including the increased violence within the animals. Negative thoughts within our very own body, destroys our very own cells. However, our thoughts has not reached that level of wickedness yet. Imagine the possible effect if every man on earth having continually wicked thoughts, what would be the possible effect on the behavior of the animals?

I believe the flood was a consequential result of the level of wickedness reached by all men, and the vulnerable state the earth was at that time -- fresh from creation with a shield covering it. Probably, Satan knew about this also and it was his tentative to destroy all mankind with the flood. However, the ark was built to save one family and animals from every specie to restart the earth population. The flood was not an act of destruction of God, but rather God forsaw what was coming and saved what He could save.

Who knows, that maybe after the flood, Satan and the angels lost some priviledges and couldn't anymore co-habit (or whatever they might been able to do) with men anymore. God couldn't remove all priviledges from the evil angels right away and we see in the Bible as the Great controversy unfolds, the evil angels increasingly looses their priviledges and right now they are not allow to presents themselves in heaven and are no longer visible on earth. They have been put in the bottomless pit under key. Rev 12:7-9 However, they will be allow to come out again and be visible amoungst us. Rev 9:1,2,3,11

Elle,

Jesus told us we will be as the angels in Heaven, i.e. without marriage. Ellen White has told us Jesus' statement on this is too clear to be misunderstood. She also tells us in clear terms that the "sons of God" who married the "daughters of men" referred to the sons of Seth marrying the daughters of Cain.

To me it is clear. There is no need to be questioning these points.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This type of approach in understanding Scriptures makes us good Mormons as they put Smith( and who ever is their current prophets at the time) interpretations and writings above scriptures.

They slack in studying themselves and not seeking to be taught by God 1Jn2:27; this brings us one step away from being a good catholic. Relying on "what others says" is great training to get round up by the beast of Rev 13, in accepting whatever the pope says.

With all respect, we need to be able to prove our beliefs with scriptures.

Yes, Elle, everything I quoted there was from inspiration. Jesus is the one who said that angels do not marry. So that statement does not come from "others" but from the Source of truth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Scriptures needs to be read with the Spirit of God. How did you read those Scriptures Green? Are you sure it is really that what Jesus was saying? How do you read the following?
Do you still have both eyes Green? I haven't met one man that did what Jesus said here. Why is so?

Elle, maybe I wasn't clear or specific enough.
According to Genesis 6, most specifically, the first few verses regarding man and "angels",
who did wrong, who was being "punished"?

I know kland my answer was too long, but I did answer your question. I said that there wasn't any finger pointing, but just a telling of what happened and God is very concern with the level of wickedness in ALL men. And that God takes full responsibility despite that He was not the cause of all this.

Now, you tell me who you think did wrong and who was being "punished"?

Did these "angels" do anything wrong?

kland, I answered you twice already and spent lots of time on it. Really I don't want to fuss about this. Like Jesus answered to the disciple question concerning the born blind "who sinned"? Jesus answered them, that that wasn't the issue. For me, I see the same thing here, the issue is not who has done wrong.

However, if you want to share something with everyone, please do so, and I'm interested in your respond also.

I find this is just skirting the issue and side tracking the discussion.
Surely you realize there are laws that won't allow open cross breeding between all animals. Just because there can be crossbreeding among the different horses types, or among the different cat types, still does not somehow erase the fact that nature has laws in place beyond which there can be no cross breeding.


Also you are side stepping the issue we started out with.

The amalgamation which occured back in preflood times was sin so great that it required a flood to clean it up.
SIN --

The chance happening of zebra mating with a horse would hardly fall into that category.
There was SIN -- an abomination so great that it caused massive confusion in the species.

These confused species which God did not create were destroyed in the flood.

I don't believe this amalgamation was something that happened naturally.
It required "ingenious methods".

This morning, I wanted to put some term on this by going over this study and taking notes. I like to use the interlinear and write down all hebrew codes in my Bible and then check the codes in the Hebrew dictionary and concordances looking at their roots and other occurance in the Bible.

As I was doing that I saw two things:

1. Now I understand why you ask that question, kland. In gn 6:5 it says that "God saw the wickedness of man".

I think what you were saying is that if it were an almalgamation of angels X Man, then this word would differ. However, not necessarily for if the crossing of angels and man produced sterile offsprings, then the concern of the Lord is really the affect of these offsprings upon the earth population. So that point is not really strong. Plus the fact that the Bible is written for the salvation of man and the concern of the Lord is towards saving man.

2. This one is quite strong as an indication of the possibility that their might be an amalgamation of angels X man. It is found in Gn6:3
That word "also" jumped at me this morning. When I had transcribed all the codes two days ago in my Bible, the code/word H1571-"also" wasn't in my interlinear. So it didn't register. However, I grab my interlinear again and check the scribles against the scribles of the Blue Letter Bible online; and sure enough the 1571 scribles is in my interlinear but combined with the 7683 scribles and was worded differently in my interlinear. My interlinear and the Blue Letter Bible both have the same Masoretic Text, but at times they differ in the wording usage of the scribles.

So here it is : God says "My spirit shall not always stive with man, for that he also is flesh."

God is comparing men with whom??? Probably with the angels, right? The angel fell first in heaven. The problem of sin started in heaven. So there's a comparison here with some other form of creatures that is comparible to man. Animals does not fit in this category because they don't have the ability to reason and choose like man and angels does.

So here is an overview of what Genesis 6 says :

v.2: talks about some crossing

v.3: compares two created beings with free choice and seeing that God Spirit was not going to strive

v.4: talks about the children of this crossing and their influences

v.5: talks about the level of wickedness of all men

v.6: God SIGH

v.7: God takes responsibility

Amalgamation?

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/12-01-2010/111621-sheep_human_face-0

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Since I did not see the answer and since you said, "the issue is not who has done wrong", I would say you did not? You did spend a lot of time talking about man's wickedness, though.

Regarding Do you think man did something wrong? Or do you think no one did anything wrong according to that verse? Or maybe tell me again who the Sons of God were and the daughters of men.

It does sound like you are defining "species". In this, I was only confronting your statement about different species mating as it was written. But what was the issue I was skirting? Was it whether what Ellen White said was ambiguous?

Kland, I wish you spoke in a different manner. First, the way you pose your questions are trickeries. I don't appreciate this and does not invite the spirit of fellowship(a sin? -- check out Lev 6:2 -- another gem I got this morning). I didn't want to make a fuss and did respond to you 3 times, and this post being the 4th. Another thing, you are not my teacher, nor my head. We are to be taught by God. I ask you to share your thoughts, but you keep on giving me this type of treatment. I wasn't going to answer you, however for the sake of sharing truth as I stumble on another gem this morning and as it's relating to this, so I will share for those who have ears.

Sorry, but I fully don't understand your question here. Anyway, I think by sharing the gem, I might answer your question.

I looked up all the occurances of H7683 in the Bible. In Gen 6:3 it is used in combination of H1571 and written as one word in the Mesoretic Text. The KJV kind of did a little mess with this translation. Howerver, they did preserve the meaning.

So the KJV in their translation of the mesoretic text into "he also is flesh", they used 3 Hebrew words
1 : H7683(meaning erring unintentionally however translated here as "flesh")
2 : H1571(also)
3 : H1320(flesh). the root word is 1319(tidings) -- to be fresh (i.e. full, rosy, cheerful) It's usage meaning is annouce a message, bring news or to bear tidings.

So when I looked at the meaning of the word H7683 in context employed through the Bible, I was surprised that it's meaning was to err(or to sin, or go astray) unintentionaly, or ignorantly. I went and review the offering services and I thought that in Lev 4 & 5 there was some offerings for the sins of ignorance and some other for the sins committed intentionally. All of these passages here describing all the different offerings are for sins of ignorance: Lev 4:2,13,22,27; Lev5:2,3,4,15,17. It's a little unclear if Lev 6 is an expansion of what's written in Lev4 or 5. But are all sins that can be attoned for are sins of ignorance???? Anyway, there's a need for me to dig deeper here.

However, as to in reference to Gen 6:3 it is talking of sins(errings of the flesh) of ignorance. So the level of wickedness(to do think evil continually)that was on the earth before the flood, were sins of ignorance.

So I reflected on that Moses wrote this and made that specific distinction for he understood the sin problem. Sin is a result of not knowing God. You can't trust someone you don't know.

So for sure, the issue is not about "who done wrong" or "who sinned". The issue is that God's Character might be revealed. That's why this Great Controversy exist, because the Character of God needed to be revealed to secure eternal life for all(including the angels). Only through trusting in someone we fully know, that sin will never surface again.

Like Jesus explained to His disciples: In the born blind, the works of God was manifested in him by not only in opening physcial sight, but by receiving and proclaiming the spiritual sight of believing in the only begotten Son of God. So the blind man becomes a walking testimony or witness. To testify of the works of God can go in both ways, either by receiving the ONLY Son of God, of by rejecting Him. Either will have a works and both works, either good or wicked will manifest or witness the works of God.

For the time of the flood, the works of God was a manifestation in the wicked people and angels , showing :
1. to what degree and how fast "a flesh" can become entirely wicked in all their thoughts continually.
2. how one person is vulnerable to the influence to another.
3. how the effect of degree of wickedness had on the animals
3. how the wickedness had such a consequencial destructive effect on the crust of the earth and the water expanse that shield the entire earth.
4. how all this destruction was a consequence of not entering into a relationship with God, the only life giver.
5. how God relates with all of this with a SIGH
6. how God takes full responsibility
7. how God saved one family and the species of the animals, so the Great Controversy may continue in revealing His Son to save all.

Sorry, no trickeries intended. I'm asking a straightforward question, and you have spoken about the sinfulness of man, sins of the flesh, also is flesh. That's all well and interesting. Not sure how amalgamation relates to it. However, I'm still asking a simple question. Maybe you say it's not relevant. Why isn't it?

Here's the dialog:

How is what I'm asking any "trickeries"? I don't understand. We were speaking of amalgamation between fallen angels and man. You say the wickedness of man is great. But, I don't see what that has to do with fallen angels marrying man. Others besides me disagree with you on that. I'm only asking you to support that idea. You used verse 2, as main support of that idea.



Do you think verse 2 has nothing to do with causing God to get upset, just kind of like a footnote?

Right after the sons of God taking wives of whomever they chose, it says, "And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."

Now maybe the "and" is supplied, but the thought isn't. Why did verse 3 come right after verse 2 if it's not connected. And if it is connected, then the issue is very much indeed about who did wrong. Hence my question. Maybe my thoughts are questions. Maybe my questions are answers? I don't know. We each are different.

Whether they knew God or not does not yet enter into it. Why did they not know God -- Isn't it because of verse 2?

The only way I can see you answer it is that the Sons of God sinned. (Is it only obvious to me?) If they sinned, why is God punishing the victims? (which, by the way, would give a bad view of God, though some may have it) If God is not punishing the victims, then maybe the sons of God are not angels. And, why are fallen angels called "Sons of God"? Do you see why the questions need to be addressed? Otherwise, I don't see how those verses can support your view of amalgamation.

Kland, I have answered your single question 4 times (if not 5) and you failed to even share with me why my answer where unsatisfactory until the 5th round and only share what your thoughts then. You did not come straight forward with me, as you pretend. I'm not going to dwell on it and will just tackle your answers and other questions below.
see post #122932, that post address that question directly. God is not upset, the Bible says he SIGH. see also 2nd half of post#122873.

I see verse 3 very connected with Verse 2 and I have elaborated this in detail in both post#122903 and 122932. HOwever for the sake of trying to make things clearer to you, I quote what was posted with additional comment below.

I believe Genesis verse 1 through 7 are connected. We see that 2 and 4 are directly connected as v.4 is talking about the children of the crossing(amalgamation) in v.2 So V.3 is between those two connected verse.

Here are the verses 1-6 with a brief summary given in post #12203:

Here is what I said in post #122903 about how verse 3 connects with verse 2:

Two points to draw from this comparison :
1. The fact that God is comparing the state of the unintentional-erring-flesh of the angels with the state of the unintentional-erring flesh of man in verse 3, it is because they are very similar. God is recognizing that His spirit is not going to reside with man very long, because of some similarity with the angels. Similarity in their "fallen state" and both are created beings, with freechoice, and it could also encompass the similarity of the influence of the greath deception which was elaborated in heaven. Verse.4. stresses that these children born from this crossing/amalgamation of v.2 where men of renown which means of great influence. It all blends in.

2. Another thing to draw from the word "also" when comparing the fallen state of the angels with that of man, is because it is acknowledging an incidence that was already experienced in heaven. Now the fallen angels that believed satan are well equiped with tested arguments and logics with the experience in heaven, and are ready to influence the "fallen men" with it. It had such an impact that it took how many years? Probably very much less than 600 years to have all men on earth to the point that all their thoughts where "continually evil". Another strong point that links all text together. It's been 5000 since the flood, and we have not come to that level of wickedness because we do not have "men of renown" like existed in the pre-flood from that amalgamation.
Lack of knowledge of God is one great underlying reason for the spread of sin. I'm sure I don't need to expand on this.
Yes, the angel did sin which is described in the Bible as an "unintention-sin" and so "Also" did man sin. However,is it the the real issue, and is it where we should focuss? Jesus gives us light on that and I have expanded on that in post #122932.
I don't see it as God is punishing. This and many other texts in the Bible can be viewed as "God punish" or not. It is a great debate as it splits any believers in half. I join the half that don't believe in that type of God. I have elaboraged on this in post #122932 When our view of sin is very superficial,then we tend to view God as He punish the sinner. But how can you love a God that punishes/destroys a sinner that "sin-unintentionally"?

I don't see your reasonning here. Can you elaborate?
That's how the Bible address the angels as "sons of God" in Job 1:6; Job 2:1; and Job38:7 There's no other verses in the OT than those.
I'm not here to push this view. I said at the very beginning when I express this that I wasn't going to make a fuss and these where thoughts when I made this study. I kept on in this thread, just to be courteous with you and tried to answer your one question.

Have you considered there may be a language barrier?
Ooops, another question.
I'm not exactly sure what you said right above, but my first impression is that the previous comment you complained that I didn't share my thoughts, whereas now you are complaining that I did share my thoughts. Second impression makes me think that may not be what you are saying. Which causes me to think you may not be understanding me nor I you. No?

I have talked to others about this same idea. I came right out and told him that this had nothing to do with what he was saying. He got offended. So, rather than me tell you what it says, I ask you why you think the way you do. There may be a possibility that I'm not thinking of something. I think the verses show the Sons of God did wrong. Therefore, they receive the results. Now if you think man did wrong, then I'm willing to hear you out to see how that fits. Hence why I ask you to explain what you mean rather than say, you are wrong and I am the instructor to tell you what to think and there is no variance in thinking. Which is what you accused me of.

I do think you are wrong, but am willing to keep an open mind to hear you out. Your criticism makes it hard, but will consider it a language barrier issue. So, with that background basis, I will attempt to show what I feel are the problems in us understanding each other.



Ok, substitute in sigh.
Do you think verse 2 has nothing to do with causing God to sigh, just kind of like a footnote?

However, in my copy, 6087 means, to carve, worry, pain, anger, hurt, vex, worship.... I think a good interpretation would be, Man's sin carved the Lord's heart.


Good. So we agree the verses are connected.

This is where I see a difference between our two approaches. You say unintentional erring. I say in verse 2, there was intentional erring. That's why I asked who did wrong. There was intentional wrong being done in verse 2, which showed the results in the following verses. You say no intentional wrong? How so? (No "trickeries", I want to hear how you view there is no wrong in verse 2).

It seems to me that you are saying that there were fallen angels and fallen man and they unerringly did whatever fallen angels and man do and God sighed, wiped the slate clean and hoped things will turn out better? That the ones who did wrong were the offspring and the original ones did no (accountable) wrong in marrying one another.

But, I have a question. If they did no wrong in marrying each other, how could the offspring have done any wrong. You said God sighed. Maybe they didn't do any wrong? If so, can we do wrong today?

Another question. Why did he destroy man, but not the angels?

Another question. Why aren't these fallen angels marrying men today?

H7683:

While some versions don't seem interpret that word, the above versions do. Do you think these two could be an adequate interpretation? In man's erring, in man's sinful ways, he is indeed flesh, skin, dust of the ground and will rot if not maintained by the life giver.

Which calls for more questions. If the offspring result was of unintentional sin, then why are they blamed? Not their fault. Can sin be unintentional? (I recall Paul's words about without the law, there is no sin) "Unintentional" sin? I'd have to see more support of that.

The biggest issue I see here is verse 2. Did someone do wrong in it. I say yes. You say no. Nothing else makes sense to me, either the following verses, nor what you say, if that wasn't the result of what was done in verse 2. I see this as the real issue it was written. If you do your own thing, if you don't follow God, you will reap the results of God being absent in your life. This isn't about angels who don't marry, but this is about man willfully using no self control. That's the way I see it and see the same message repeated throughout the Bible, including not being yoked to non-believers repeated in both the old and the new testaments. People who should be followers of God, mingled with the heathen and adapted their ways. God was forced away, after attempting to reach them for 120 years, and the flood resulted from God no longer protecting them. If the angels caused this problem, then why did God no longer protect the victim, man? But, if man received the result, then maybe it's not angels, but righteous man indulging in their selfish desires? Do you think that might be the possibility of those days where the righteous looked at the heathen and took wives of them?

Esau took heathen wives. It grieved Isaac and Rebekah.

What? Another question!!! Grrrr!
A language barrier? Hmmm... Maybe.
Maybe it's also because we need to adjust to each others "style" of communication as this is really the first time we got into a discussion.

Really, I like when people asking questions and I do it many time also, but I like that the point(s) or directions where you are going with the question to be share clearly. But when the same question is asked over and over, without sharing your point, then I view that(could be an erronous-non-intential view ) as a tactive to bring someone to where you want to lead them to prove your point. Perhaps I should of been more patient with this instead of being honest with you.

So, kland, please forgive me for accusing you of trickery as I will take your word that there was no such things.

I value your interest to look into this even thought you disagree. Your dissagreement is just typical because I know this view is outside the SDA view box. I wasn't expecting nor wanted to go very far with this, but it is quite an interesting study. However, I'm a bit busy this week and I'll get back to you on this by Friday evening or Sabbath.

I might also suggest that it is a view outside most non-SDA circles. Hence, I would assume one would expect many questions.

Another thing you may consider is "Sons of God". You mentioned a few places. While commentaries may not determine what truth is, they are helpful in looking at other verses. Although the exact phrase "Sons of God" may only be used in a few places depending on which version you use, the idea is used in more places. Maybe Sons of the Lord, God's sons, sons of Israel, children of God, etc. A question to ask, and I mean this by sharing the exact direction where I'm going as plain as day , are any of those places used in a negative way? You have to exclude Genesis 6, as that is what's under discussion. Also, why exclude the New Testament? If you can find half, or even several supporting a negative view of Sons of God, then I would have to consider your view. If not, what would exclude my view and that of the majority of commentators?

Others do have this view. I was surprised when I first heard it. I searched and researched it and I, at least, haven't found any support.

I wouldn’t know if your statement here is true. Can you support this with facts? All I know my Bible commentary seems to hold that there are two current interpretation of “Sons of God”: angels or "Christian Men”. However I see that the later interpretation doesn’t harmonize as well with the context as the former.


I use the Hebrew words in the search, so it is not dependant on bible version nor english translation. Really, there’s very few instances and all refers to Angels in the OT. Sons of Israel wouldn’t apply to this situation as these are sons of man.

I did stumble on another good text which I did miss previously and it is found in Ps 82 and it is talking about the fallen angels again.

Notice v.7 that is bolded, they shall fall like men, so these beings are not men, but angels. Also v.1 it describes them as a congregation of "the mighty".

Did you find any Kland? If you did, then bring them forth for I didn’t.

In the New Testament we have the manifestation of Jesus Christ which brought the understanding of the doctrine of adoption. By adoption we become “sons and daughters of God. However, at the creation only Adam was considered a Son of God as he was created by God himself. Eve was formed from Adam and the offsprings were born of man. The angels were created by God, so that’s why they carry the title of “Sons of God”.

Let’s say that there are some other text showing that Sons of God can also mean “Christian men”, but you are still facing that it can also as well mean angels. So you still have two possibilities here and the only way to determine which one fits the picture best is to consider the context of what Genesis 6 is saying.

I have Bible software from a non-SDA source. It has several commentaries. I believe blue letter bible would be similar.



For 1121 I get 3654 verses.
For 430 I get 2249 verses.

For 1121 and 430 I get 287 verses.

Since we are defining what Sons of God are, can you say Israel doesn't apply since they aren't what you think Sons of God is? (Just to be clear and straightforward, I don't think so)

Am I understanding you to say children of the most high are angels? If men are considered sons of God, could angels also be included as sons of God? Are men and angels (good ones) sons of God? Any reason why they both wouldn't be included?


I did not find any place where Sons of God is used in a negative way. Therefore it would be odd to use it in Genesis 6 in a negative way. Meaning, these Sons of God used there would be used in a good way. Either good angels, or good men.

But I thought that's what we were talking about. I don't see how we can conclude that by using the verse under discussion. Do you think the doctrine of adoption was not throughout the old testament?

I have considered the context and it is quite clear and apparent to me that God's sons, which is the purpose of the Bible to teach us to be God's sons, mixed with the heathen, which was instructed for people not to do in the rest of the Bible.

Many places there is instruction about not marrying the heathen for they would teach God's people wrong. Is there some reason you think Genesis 6 is not talking about what God's people repeated through the rest of the Bible and why it should not be done?

The context does not fit, that good angels, which do not marry, married men, and their chromosomes matched and produced offspring. Then, because of the choice good angels made, God's "spirit shall not always strive with man". And the flood came.




Is 43:6 I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not keep them back!' Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth-

Is 45:11 Thus says the LORD, The Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: "Ask Me of things to come concerning My sons; And concerning the work of My hands, you command Me.

Jer 10:20 My tent is plundered, And all my cords are broken; My children have gone from me, And they are no more. There is no one to pitch my tent anymore, Or set up my curtains.

Prov 7:1 My son, keep my words, And treasure my commands within you.
(And more in Proverbs. Was this meaning Solomon's son, or us? If us, are we Solomon's son or God's son?)

Eze 16:20,21 Moreover you took your sons and your daughters, whom you bore to Me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your acts of harlotry a small matter, That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?

Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.

(God called Israel His son. What does Israel mean - He will rule as God, a symbolical name of Jacob. This tells me that it's a symbol for God)

Mt 2:15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son."

Kland, Very nice arguments! However, I really don't want to get into it. So, let's agree to disagree.

Let's trust in the Lord to teach us all things. It was nice discussing with you.

Another line of reasoning you may use is to use your same arguments but insert "Martians" in place of angels to see if that could be argued against. If not, then maybe angels can't be. I don't know the name for it, but would be arguing from the opposite view to validate the current view.

Here's a link you may find of interest:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/who-were-the-nephilim

I am in the process of reading through this thread and came across this post.

On what basis did these "some people" come to such a conclusion?

It can only be on the basis of sheer prejudice.

I'd agree with Rosangela based upon a number of off the cuff conclusions made in past history.