Posted on 04/24/2010 5:48:57 PM PDT by nysuperdoodle
Interesting thoughts on "aliens" by Stephen Hawking. Question - Is it possible that "aliens" are really just a demonic deception that will be revealed in the last days to lead us astray?
(Excerpt) Read more at facebook.com ...
I have read several alien abduction stories, and other encounters with aliens. I don’t know where spielberg got his idea for a nice cute loving alien because he certainly didn’t get it from people who believe they have had encounters. In all of the stories I have read the aliens are simply cruel, treating humans like we might treat mice or guinea pigs.
Yes, indeed, and there are a whole lot of people reporting "abduction accounts" for themselves, too -- here in this country. It's something that has become somewhat alarming to those professionals who handle these things.
They do not seem to be nice or friendly, at all, and so this is something for people to pay attention to -- and be warned about it.
PLENTY TRUE.
Here's the article from Whitley Strieber's Journal . . .
from:
http://www.unknowncountry.com/journal/?id=415
Implant Proof and the Failure of Science
16-Apr-2010
The implant that was removed from "John Smith" last year was not made of materials that are available on earth. To be specific, certain of the isotopes of the metallic components of the object do not have the same ratios as isotopes found on this planet.
There has been an excellent study of the object done at the highest level of scientific professionalism. At present, we are trying to obtain a version of the study that does not contain any way of identifying the scientist who did it or the labs where it was done.
It is pitiful and an outrage that this should be necessary but, in fact, if his name was known his career would be in jeopardy, and the labs might face serious consequences for the work they did.
When I used to work with Dr. Bill Mallow, the Chief of Materials Science at the Southwest Research Institute, it was only his enormous stature in the organization that enabled him to use its equipment. He could not provide me with results on Southwest Research letterhead, and the director of the Institute told him that their CIA client, who accounted for more than 50% of their budget, took a "dim view of UFO research."
In fact, a number of the objects Bill studied were completely inexplicable. The implant that is in my left ear has been found to be a piece of biotechnology that operates by totally unknown means. And this new object removed from "John Smith" is extraordinarily sophisticated. It is probably a communications device, and if Dr. Robert Koontz, who discusses it on Dreamland is correct in his analysis, it is a very powerful one.
But no established scientific institution would even consider looking at the analysis, no matter how impeccable it is. And yet, the presence of these things in our bodies is obviously of absolutely central importance.
And it goes deeper even than alien contact, because the one that was put into my ear in May of 1989 was installed by two people who were part of a group who were in my house and behind my house and were speaking English.
I saw these two people, and I could easily identify them if I saw them again. But what they did was far in advance of anything anybody with even very exotic known technologies could do even now, and that was 20 years ago.
They did something, however, that is characteristic of the grays: they left behind a number of free-floating magnetic fields, one around my car and another around a magnetic alarm system switch in the garage.
We have absolutely no way of leaving behind a persistent magnetic field with no originating magnet nearby. However, this also happened in Sicily in the early part of this decade. It has also happened at times in crop formations, including a small one in south Texas that I studied in 2002.
So somebody can do it, just as somebody can manipulate carbon nanotubes, as in the case of John Smith, to create a highly sophisticated device of some kind.
John remembers seeing the grays. Another prominent scientist I know, whose work has been profoundly affected by information he has received from visitors, also remembers them as being grays. I remember grays, blonds and people in my own experience.
What I am saying here is that something enormous is going on that appears to involve both people and aliens, and is inexplicably being ignored by human science.
This week's Dreamland opens a window into this extraordinary material, and is a tantalizing reminder of just how much we are missing by hiding our scientific heads in the sand.
You can listen in the following ways:
1. Go to Unknowncountry.com and click on "Listen Now" on the right side of the masthead.
2. In iTunes, go to Podcasts and search on Dreamland.
3. On RadioTime.com, search on Dreamland.
4. On your iPhone, use the Wunderadio app. Search on Dreamland.
5. Download the program from our subscriber area, free of commercials.
6. Navigate to our free podcast page by clicking here.
Consider subscribing to Unknowncountry.com. This is the only place in the world where material like this is discussed in as meaningful a way.
To subscribe, simply click on the "Subscribe" tab above and place your order.
Thanks for the ping!
In all due respect to Mr Hawking, who I admire greatly, the 'end-times' aliens are already here and have been for some time ....
Yes, they have -- if you're talking about the "outer space" kind of aliens from other "civilizations far advanced from us". At least... they've been "reported" as such.
However, it is a very good question whether these long-standing reports of "aliens" from other civilizations from outer space -- are indeed a deception perpetrated upon the human race.
The mathematical fact is that even if you believe there are millions of intelligent alien civilizations out there, it is so highly unlikely that we’d even detect them, much less be visited by them - friendly or not.
Well, even "that" -- that millions of other intelligent anlien civilizations exist out there is based on a fallacy. No matter what kind of "numbers" you put in a "formula" that someone created out of their head (and a formula that has no bearing in "reality") -- you still have this idea that life springs from nothing and it "advances" into more and more complex kinds and mutations and further "improvements" and so on.
This is just the "Theory of Evolution" (which is a false theory) applied to things outside of this planet and in the cosmos.
It doesn't happen here on earth and it doesn't happen out in the cosmos either... LOL ...
God, in the Bible has told us of the existence of other "aliens" -- and they're described as angels (and there are different types and classes of angels) -- all of whome have been created directly by the hand of God, and they were not designed by God for having families and "living and dying" (as in "another civilization" doncha know ...). The angels live forever, God says they are not for having families and any "civilization" that they have centers either around "God" Himself (for the angels that did not fal) and the others, their existence centers around "Satan" (as they are the fallen angels who rebelled).
That's what the Bible tells us, anyway... :-)
Just because a guy's a genius in one area doesn't make him a genius in any others.
In fact, attributing general intellect to him because of his genius in one area is a bit similar to listening to the political advice of those famous denizens of Hollywood.
And his inability to accept a "Creator" probably has more to do with his more pedestrian human qualities than his genius (i.e. it makes him uncomfortable or he might even have a beef with God because of his physical paralysis).
BTW, the existence of God by its very nature establishes the existence of at least two dimensions...His and ours!
I would hazard a guess that he didn't stop with two!;-)
“It doesn’t happen here on earth and it doesn’t happen out in the cosmos either... LOL ... “
So let me get this straight: If life is detected on say, Mars, or a Jovian moon, or through a SETI scan then this proves that God does not exist?
So let me get this straight: If life is detected on say, Mars, or a Jovian moon, or through a SETI scan then this proves that God does not exist?
I think your thinking and reasoning is defective, in regards to what you just said.
Let me lay it out so that you can see the thinking, involved ...
There exists the tri-une God (our Creator God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), who has existed (and is "self-existent") -- who created all that "is" of our observable and material universe, all matter, "time itself", even the very idea and concept of "space" as something that takes up room, even if there is nothing in it).
So, this God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, created all things -- and He Himself came from an existence that does not exist in "time" in "space" in "matter" or in any kind of existance that "is" in our current and known universe and all that we perceive and know about and acknowledge. God, Himself, is "outside" of even the concept and reality of "time", he is outside the concept and reality of "space" [in terms of "dimensions" length, width, depth], and is outside of all "matter" being of nothing that is of matter in the universe.
Now, life was directly created by Him, as nothing exists that was not created by Him. All beginning life was created directly by Him, and that life that was initially created, continues with propagation from that original source of life. All life exists in the categories that it was created in and doesn't extend outside of that.
Because of the judgment in the Garden of Eden (after the creation week), all things deteriorate and go to disorder. Left to themselves, all things go to disorder, decay and death -- which is the "judgment of God" upon creation, as a result of the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden. The ultimate result of the current state of affairs of the universe, given the judgment of God upon it for sin -- is ultimate death and destruction and into nothingness.
And life doesn't ascend up a ladder of improvement and bigger and/or better species towards more complexity, but it tends towards disorder and disorganization and death and a lessening of complexity.
With everything left to itself, life will go towards lessening order, as compared to that first amount of complexity and order that was given directly by God, in the beginning, when He created everything.
So, whatever life you find -- out in the universe -- is a direct result of God creating it, because, aside from life itself, even inanimate matter and molecules and the structure of the atom did not exist (not to mention even the "concept of space" or "dimensionality" itself existing).
Thus, when you find some sort of "life" supposedly "coming here" and informing you and/or others that "we are here and we are from some ancient and advanced civilization that has progressed up through the evolutionary ladder to the advanced state that we are at now ..." -- you've got "deception" at work, which is being talked about, the deception of demons.
It's not that you won't find some "beings" claiming to be from some "advanced civilization" -- but rather -- you've got lying demons and fallen angels, bent on the deception of mankind and the perpetration of a lie and the destruction of mankind -- and opposed to what the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is doing.
God did create that life and a significant segment of them rebelled and they are now in opposition to God and do anything that they can to deceive and lie and destroy all that God has made. That's the status of the present time, until God redeems all of creation and restores it to its pristine condition, which is coming soon.
And... a ping to others to help explain it any more or better than I have been able to do in regards to that question...
By Chuck Missler
Focus on Jerusalem is always striving to present enlightening and provocative prophecy–related material to its readers. The FOJ Library has been built to house numerous articles by various authors that I think have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. One of the foremost prophecy thinkers of our day is Chuck Missler of Koinnoia House Ministry. His books and articles on the Nephilim and the Days of Noah are interesting and timely reading. (03-14-06) In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus also likens the Last Days, not only to the days of Noah, but also makes a stark comparison to the times of Lot, and the prevailing condition that existed in Sodom. Both of these cultural debaucheries exist today, as in no other time since the days of Noah and Lot.
(Luke 17:26-30 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 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. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.)
As The Days of Noah Were
And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man."
The emergence of the "Nephilim" was what brought about the Flood of Noah. Who were they? Is the current interest in the possibility of "alien" involvements somehow of Biblical relevance?
The Nephilim
Genesis 6 indicates that the "sons of God" (B'nai Elohim) took wives of the "daughters of men," which gave birth to the "Nephilim." What on earth was going on? The B'nai Elohim is a term that refers to angels. It occurs four times in the Old Testament and is rendered "Angels of God" in the ancient Septuagin translation. The intrusion of certain angels into the human family resulted in unnatural offspring termed Nephilim, which derives from the Hebrew naphal (to fall), or the Fallen Ones. (The Greek Septuagint renders this term gigantes, which actually means "earth-born." This is often misunderstood to mean "giants," which they also happen to have been, incidentally.)
Line of Seth
The early church viewed the B'nai Elohim as angels up through the late fourth century: Justin, Athenagoras, Cyprian, Eusebius, et al. (also Josephus, Philo, Judeaus, and the Apochrypha regard this view). Celsus and Julian the Apostate exploited the older common belief to attack Christianity. Cyril of Alexandria, in his reply, repudiated the orthodox position. Julius Africanus (a contemporary of Origen) introduced the theory that the "sons of God" simply referred to the genealogical line of Seth, which was committed to preserving the true worship of God.
Seemingly more appealing, the "Sethite theory" prevailed into the Medieval Church, and many still hold this view. This view, however, has several serious problems. There is no indication that the Sethites were distinguished for piety; they were not exempted from the charge of general wickedness which brought on the flood. In fact, Seth's son Enosh was the one who introduced apostasy to that world. This is masked by a mistranslation of Genesis 4:25, which should read:
"...then men began to profane the name of the Lord."
Furthermore, when the faithful marry the unfaithful, they do not give birth to unnatural offspring! And the "daughters of men" were not differentiated with regard to the Flood. All were lost.
(Incidentally, the Nephilim didn't completely end with the flood. Genesis 6:4 mentions, "...and also after that..." We find the sons fo Anak, the Anakim, later in the Old Testament.)
The Reason for the Flood
It was the infusion of these strange beings into the human predicament that brought on the Flood of Noah. The Flood was preceded by four generations of prophets/preachers warning of the coming judgment: Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah. It seems that this was part of Satan's stratagem to corrupt the line of Adam to prevent the fulfillment of the Messianic redemption. Noah was apparently unique in that his genealogy was still uncorrupted.
The strange events which led to the flood are also alluded to in ancient mythologies.8 The legends of the Greek "titans"--partly terrestrial, partly celestial--embrace these same memories. (The Greek titan is linguistically linked to the Chaldean sheitan, and the Hebrew satan.)
The Angels that Sinned
There is a great deal revealed in the Bible about angels. They can appear in human form, they spoke as men, took men by the hand, even ate men's food, are capable of direct physical combat, some are the principal forces behind the world powers. They don't marry (in Heaven), but apparently are (or were) capable of much mischief. The strange events of Genesis Chapter 6 are also referred to in the New Testament. Peter refers to events preceding the flood of Noah:
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment..." 2 Peter 2:4
(Peter uses the term tartarus, here translated as hell. This was a Greek term for "the dark abode of woe, the pit of darkness in the unseen world." Homer's Iliad portrays tartarus "as far below hades as the earth is below Heaven...")
Also, in Jude, it mentions them:
"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 6 and 7.
Scripture warns against meddling with the spirit world. The punishment which overtook the angels that sinned was to emphasize the serious nature of apostasy: beings of a higher order than ours have been hurled down into a dark place of confinement where they have remained for thousands of years. God has not changed His attitude toward them; time has not mitigated the seriousness of their sin. False teachers are prewritten into condemnation.
The "Sons of God" Return?
There are many who believe that the recent "alien" involvements are also demonic and are just another precursor to the end-time. Some also believe that the Coming World Leader may boast of an "alien connection." It would be consistent from what else we can infer from Scripture. (The Restrainer of II Thessalonians 2 may be restraining far more than we have any suspicion of! When He is removed, the world is in for some astonishing surprises!)
In the meantime, what are our weapons of protection against such things? We do, indeed, "wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Our armor is well defined in Ephesians 6:10-17.
"Mischievous Angels or Sethites?"
In the above analysis we have explored the importance of understanding Genesis 6. The straightforward presentation of the text seems to clearly portray a strange union of fallen angels with women to produce a hybrid race called the "Nephilim," or fallen ones. We enumerated the reasons we accept the "angel" view and why the liberal "Sethite" view is inadequate. Far beyond simply a misunderstanding of the forthright presentation of the text, the "Sethite" view also obscures apprehension of the prophetic Scriptures.
Post-Flood Occurrences
Regarding the Nephilim, Genesis 6:4 also includes the haunting phrase, "...and also after that...." Apparently these strange events were not confined just to the period before the Flood. We find that there seems to be some recurrence of those things which resulted in unusual "giants" appearing in subsequent periods later in the Old Testament narrative, specifically the giant-races of Canaan.
There were a number of tribes such as the Rephaim, the Emim, the Horim, and Zamsummim, that were giants. The kingdom of Og, the King of Bashan, was the "land of the giants." Later, we also find Arba, Anak, and his seven sons (the "Anakim") also as giants, along with the famed Goliath and his four brothers.
When God had revealed to Abraham that the land of Canaan was to be given to him, Satan had over 400 years to plant his "mine field" of Nephilim! When Moses sent his twelve spies to reconnoiter the Land of Canaan, they came back with the report of giants in the land. (The term used was Nephilim.) Their fear of those terrifying creatures resulted in their being relegated to wandering in the wilderness for 38 years.
When Joshua and the nation Israel later entered the land of Canaan, they were instructed to wipe out every man, woman and child of certain tribes. That strikes us as disturbingly severe. It would seem that in the Land of Canaan, there again was a "gene pool problem."
These Rephaim, Nephilim, and others seem to have been established as an advance guard to obstruct Israel's possession of the Promised Land. Was this also a stratagem of Satan?
The Days of Noah
Perhaps the most direct prophetic reference involving these things was the peculiar warning of our Lord Jesus Himself:
And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luke 17:26
What does that mean? He also warned:
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
Luke 21:25,26 (emphasis added)
Is it possible that the UFOs - and their occupants - are part of an end-time scenario?
The Miry Clay of Daniel 2
The famous dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel Chapter 2 appears to lay out all of Gentile history until God ultimately intervenes and sets up His own kingdom. The various metals which make up the image in the dream are well known to serious students of prophecy. Even our common expression, "the idol has feet of clay," comes to us from this classic passage. But what is represented by the "miry clay" in this image? It seems to be strangely mixed-but not completely-with the iron in the dream. The term "miry clay" refers to clay made from dust, a Biblical idiom which suggests death. ) When Daniel interprets this for us he makes an especially provocative allusion in verse 43:
And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. (Daniel 2:43)
As he switches to a personal pronoun, they, "shall mingle themselves with the seed of men..." This is extremely suggestive when viewed in light of the warning of our Lord in Luke 17:26, ostensibly directing us to look more closely at Genesis 6. Just what (or who) are "mingling with the seed of men?" These would seem to refer to some beings who are not the seed of men themselves!
Could this be a hint of a return to the mischief of Genesis 6? It staggers the mind to consider the potential significance of Daniel's passage and its implications for the future global governance. Are these "aliens" so prolific that they constitute a political constituency?
Will there be UFO incidents as part of a carefully orchestrated program to lead us toward a political agenda? Or has it started already? Are the UFOs, and the increasingly widespread abductions, part of the preparations for this scenario?
UFO Abductions?
There seems to be a growing concern within the psychiatric community from the strange (and far too frequent) reports from people who claim to have been "abducted" by the occupants of UFOs. These reports are too bizarre to accept, and yet too frequent-and consistent to ignore. What is particularly disturbing is the estimate from some national polls that as much as 3% of the population may be involved! Perhaps the most well-known researcher in this area is Dr. John E. Mack, who is professor of psychiatry at The Cambridge Hospital, Harvard Medical School. A contributor to over 150 articles in professional (peer-reviewed) journals and a former Pulitzer Prize winner, he certainly appears to have impressive credentials. He has been involved in almost a hundred of these cases personally, and has shocked the professional community by declaring that he believes these beings may be real and that they appear to have an agenda to develop a hybrid race!
At a professional conference on abductions at M.I.T., Dr. Mack asked the provocative question, "If what these abductees are saying is happening to them isn't happening, then what is?" Could all this involve a return to the strange events of "the Days of Noah?"
Pinging to others, something you've seen before, but it figures into this thread and it's something that other readers may not know anything about. You can add whatever you want to say to what Missler is saying or what this topic is about ... :-)
by Chuck Missler
Why did God send the judgment of the Flood in the days of Noah? Far more than simply a historical issue, the unique events leading to the Flood are a prerequisite to understanding the prophetic implications of our Lord's predictions regarding His Second Coming.1
The strange events recorded in Genesis 6 were understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, as well as the Septuagint translators, as referring to fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human women-known as the "Nephilim." So it was also understood by the early church fathers. These bizarre events are also echoed in the legends and myths of every ancient culture upon the earth: the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and virtually all the others.
However, many students of the Bible have been taught that this passage in Genesis 6 actually refers to a failure to keep the "faithful" lines of Seth separate from the "worldly" line of Cain. The idea has been advanced that after Cain killed Abel, the line of Seth remained separate and faithful, but the line of Cain turned ungodly and rebellious. The "Sons of God" are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the "daughters of men" is deemed restricted to the line of Cain. The resulting marriages ostensibly blurred an inferred separation between them. (Why the resulting offspring are called the "Nephilim" remains without any clear explanation.)
Since Jesus prophesied, "As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be,"2 it becomes essential to understand what these days included.
Origin of the Sethite View
It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)
Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.
Problems with the Sethite View
Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah."3 Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following:
1. The Text Itself
Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")
The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5
The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth.
If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)
And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.
The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order.6 In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God."7 The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God.8 Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation,9 at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God10 and in every respect equal to the angels.11 The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.12
The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term.
2. The Daughters of Cain
The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2
It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam." There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)
Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God,13 it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.
3. The Inferred Lines of Separation
The concept of separate "lines" itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture.14 National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later.15 Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.
4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth
There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, "The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers," whose sonship is "distinctly a New Testament revelation."16
The "Sons of Elohim" saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?)
It should also be pointed out that the son of Seth himself was Enosh, and there is textual evidence that, rather than a reputation for piety, he seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God.17
If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood?
5. The Unnatural Offspring
The most fatal flaw in the specious "Sethite" view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. (Bending the translation to "giants" does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood.
Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce "monsters," but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.
The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah's case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah's family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.18
Why were the offspring uniquely designated "mighty" and "men of reknown?" This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly.
A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no "women of reknown" are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only "Y" chromosomes available in this line?)19
6. New Testament Confirmations
"In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."20 In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare Scripture with Scripture. The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.21
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5
Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah.
Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven`."22 In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus.
The Epistle of Jude23 also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process:
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6,7
The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oivkhth,rion, refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.24)
These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies.
7. Post-Flood Implications
The strange offspring also continued after the flood: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that..."25 The "Sethite" view fails to meaningfully address the prevailing conditions "also after that." It offers no insight into the presence of the subsequent "giants" in the land of Canaan.
One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty.
8. Prophetic Implications
Another reason that an understanding of Genesis 6 is so essential is that it also is a prerequisite to understanding (and anticipating) Satan's devices26 and, in particular, the specific delusions to come upon the whole earth as a major feature of end-time prophecy.27 We will take up these topics in Part 2, "The Return Of The Nephilim.")
In Summary
If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should "tie together." It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the "Sethite View" is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record.
It should also be pointed out that most conservative Bible scholars accept the "angel" view.28 Among those supporting the "angel" view are: G. H. Pember, M. R. DeHaan, C. H. McIntosh, F. Delitzsch, A. C. Gaebelein, A. W. Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Henry Morris, Merril F. Unger, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Hal Lindsey, and Chuck Smith, being among the best known.
For those who take the Bible seriously, the arguments supporting the "Angel View" appear compelling. For those who indulge in a willingness to take liberties with the straightforward presentation of the text, no defense can prove final. (And greater dangers than the implications attending these issues await them!)
For further exploration of this critical topic, see the following:
Endnotes
I think you covered it just fine.
I was half-asleep when I read that and posted back. I hate to tell you that I sometime even check FRee Republic when I'm in bed... LOL ... [I can do it on the iPhone and post that way, too...]
So, I didn't really get too much information for you.
But, let me tell you what this is all about. These particular pictures are not the "main story" here. The main story is in Genesis Chapter 6, and also involves why the world-wide flood came about, that is told to us in Genesis.
If anyone is to go "researching" it actually should be on the "main story line" here and not so much the pictures.
So, I'm going to gather up some materials that speak to that issue and post them here.
Some people may think that we're dealing with very little information here... so "slim pickings" so to speak. But, we know a lot of things from the Bible from just a few verses, on different subjects. And what we learn from the Bible and some "key" to understanding -- can, very many times -- hinge on just one word and understanding that one word in the original language, as it was originally intended and as it was given to us.
Genesis Chapter 6 1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3 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." 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. 9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah begot three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
In chapter 5, we just had a rundown of all the generations from Adam to Noah, so we could see his "genealogy"...
Verse 9 is sort of a wrap-up from the previous Chapter 5, when it says ...
This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.
Noah was a just man (and that's "just" in the same way that we are "justified" in the Lord, today). AND.., in addition, Noah's "genealogy" was "perfect" -- or, in other words (and in the context of how it's to be understood) -- Noah's genealogy was "all human" and not "half-human and half-non-human".
In verses 1 and 2, we see it says ...
Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
There's your context for understanding what was going on here, and it also leads one to the realization of why the world-wide flood was required, too.
We see in verse 4 ...
There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.That wording, "sons of God" always means angels in the Hebrew Old Testament. It's never used of anything else, except one -- and that's Adam. And you'll see why. The angels were all creations, directly, of God, and thus they were all "sons of God". Now, Adam was also, an original creation of God, so that made Adam a "son of God" -- which he is referred to, also. Outside of just the instance of Adam, only the angels are "sons of God" -- so that's how it's understood. In addition, if we go to the New Testament (different language, though), we've got the terms "sons of God" there, too. It's a completely different context here, though, and you'll understand why and how that's "perfect" too -- in its use in the New Testament.
At the resurrection, we are "sons of God" (both men and women, of course). And how perfect is that, because we are "each one" -- "a new creation in Christ". We are directly made from the hand of God, at that point and are not of our father, here on earth, a "son of Adam"...Luke 20:34-36 34 And Jesus answered and said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Note that for Jesus, the Messiah of Israel ...
But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
- Hebrews 9:11
He is not "of this creation" (as "Son of Man", he is a new creation of God). He is not part of that creation of all that was and is, from that "creation" that we see in the beginning of Genesis.
And..., we shall be like Him...
Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
- 1 John 3:2
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.
- Galatians 6:15
We don't regard Jesus, the Messiah of Israel as someone "according to the flesh" (previously a "human being"), but as a "new creation of God" and "not of this creation". And likewise, the same of us, who are "in Christ".
Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
- 2 Corinthians 5:16-17
I did the "rundown" of this in the New Testament to show that it also fits into what the Old Testament says about "sons of God". And so, in the New Testament, we're told about those who are also to be like Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, a "new creation" (a direct creation of God), just like the angels and Adam, in the Old Testament -- and we all will be "like the angels" in that regard -- and also we will not be "of this creation" just like Jesus is not of this creation. That puts us, in a higher order and status, over the angels, as we've been told.
Mankind initially was lower than the angels ..
What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor.
- Psalm 8:4-5
But, then as a "new creation in Christ" we are of a higher order ...
Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels?
- 1 Corinthians 6:2-3a
All that to come back to the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, and those particular angels who took women on earth for wives and had children by them, and that these were the "hybrids"....
Genesis 6:11-13 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
We see the destruction of mankind (except for Noah and his family, whose genealogy has been traced from Adam to his time) is going to happen, and this is told in context of the angelic corruption of mankind with hybrids. And God says the following, which I think indicates something in particular....
And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me ...
It appears to me that God is saying that He sees the end of mankind, as a result of this corruption by the angels, into the genealogy (and gene pool) of mankind. And thus, this would be a blow against God and His prophetic word in that a savior would come from mankind, to save human beings who are now under the judgment of God (a death sentence and separated from God).
God is not saying "I see this and I'm going to end all flesh because of this." No, He's saying "what He sees" and God sees that if He allows this to continue -- that He sees the end of all flesh coming before Him. He sees that as the result of this angelic corruption of the human race.
In this judgment of the world-wide flood, destroying all except for 8 people -- God has saved mankind, not that He was trying to destroy mankind. And in the process of saving mankind, God will still keep His promise of the ultimate salvation that He says will come (which we know now to be, the Messiah of Israel).
Satan, through those angels who sinned and had relations with the women of the human race, had hoped to corrupt the human race to the point where God's promise of the coming One who would be the salvation of mankind -- could not happen.
Satan, as always, is the opposer of God and Satan wants to thwart God at every turn. So, the worldwide flood, which seems so drastic to us -- and it certainly does seem drastic to kill off all of mankind except for 8 people -- was exactly what was necessary so that God "would not see the end of all flesh coming before Him..."
As always, God seeks to save mankind and Satan seeks to destroy mankind.
We can see here what is said in the New Testament about this ...
2 Peter 2:4-9 4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)-- 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment,
More specifically ...
... God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly ...
Jude 1:6-7 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
We can see that this sin was so severe, that the angels who committed it were consigned permanently to being imprisoned and not allowed free (as the other evil angels are allowed, presently).
You can see that these are the angels of Genesis 6, as they are compared to thos of Sodom and Gomorrah, and "going after strange flesh" -- of which the Bible calls it something of a "similar manner" to those angels of Genesis 6.
And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day ...
AND SO..., this is the backdrop to what I'll post here, in the next few posts, from others who have written articles on it. And it's the backdrop to those pictures that were presented.
The pictures aren't the "real story" -- the real story is Genesis 6, the angels who left their abode and cohabited with women, and that it required a worldwide flood to prevent the total and complete destruction of the human race, as a result of that.
And... for you pingees... here's something of interest (no other reason than that to ping...), in regards to the world-wide flood of Genesis and the real and fundamental reason for it.
When initially considering the world-wide flood, in my early years, it always seemed to be a bit of "overkill" -- especially when we've seen the violence of mankind since then and the evil that is currently in the world. Sodom and Gomorrah came after that, but they were handled by wiping them out totally, in their own locale.
I had always thought (many years earlier) that there was "something missing" here in the understanding of it, from what I had generally heard from others. Well..., this Genesis 6 understanding from the plain and clear language of the text is that missing ingredient, if you "grab a hold of it".
When that is considered and when that is seen as to why God said that He could see the "end of all flesh" coming -- you then know why the world-wide flood had to happen, in order for God to save mankind. It was a blessing from God, in that His judgment upon the evil that had been perpetrated "against" mankind was wiped off the face of this earth, to allow mankind to live to that future time when the Messiah of Israel would come for the Salvation that God had promised from the beginning.
Why would demons bother to create the illusion of flying saucers, grays, LGMs, etc.? Seems like a waste of everyone’s energy.
Well..., you might understand the effort that goes into something like that and whether it's a waste of time -- if you consider what nations do in war-time...
They are very active on the "deception" in war-time, in order to deceive, disguise and fool others, so that they can gain an advantage in the "war"... you see.
Consider that before D-Day, we engaged in a massive deception on Hitler and his generals by pretending that we were going to attack elsewhere. We put a lot of effort into it and sacrificed a lot of people in perpetrating it.
What is going on here is a "war" -- and it's a war against the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, against the angels who have stayed on on God's side, with mankind as the pawns and as the "booty and spoils of war".
When you think about it in terms of "war" ... then you realize why they put so much time and effort into it.
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
Q. I have heard a lot about the possibility of life in outer space. Has science established that extraterrestrial life does exist? What, if anything, does the Bible have to say on this subject?
A. There can be little doubt that the prospect of intelligent life existing in outer space has intrigued evolutionary scientists for generations. Pick up almost any evolution textbook, and you will find a reference to, brief discussion of, or whole chapter on, extraterrestrial life.
Some years ago, Carl Sagan, the late astronomer of Cornell University, raised private funding for a radio telescope that would search the skies for a message coming in to us from supposed extraterrestrial beings. Dr. Sagan, and Dr. Frank Drake, were asked by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to design an interstellar communication specifically aimed at extraterrestrials, in hopes of letting them know that we are here. Consequently, attached to NASA’s Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spaceprobes (1973) were identical gold plaques, inscribed with pictorial messages sent across the light-years to tell about Earth’s civilization. Since that time, various other attempts either to accept communications from alleged extraterrestrials, or to communicate with them, have been made.
WHY THE INTEREST IN EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE?
One might ask: “Why all the interest in the possibility of intelligent life existing in outer space?” There are several answers to such a question.
First, there are some who firmly believe in the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life because they are convinced that, if life evolved here, it not only could have evolved elsewhere, but must have done so. Carl Sagan is but one example of evolutionists who follow this line of reasoning. In an interview in January 17, 1980 issue of New Scientist magazine, Dr. Sagan made the following points:
Paul Davies, the renowned physicist and cosmologist, stated in his book, Other Worlds:
Our galaxy, the Milky Way, contains about 100 billion stars grouped together in a gigantic spiral assembly typical of the billions of other galaxies scattered throughout the universe. This means that there is nothing very special about the Earth, so probably life is not a remarkable phenomenon either.... [I]t would be surprising if life were not widespread throughout the cosmos, though it may be rather sparse (1980, p. 151).
Sir Fred Hoyle joins such thinkers. In his book, Lifecloud, he wrote: “With so many possible planetary systems, should we not expect inhabited planets to be moving around some of the nearby stars? We certainly should” (1978, pp. 145-146). It is evident, then, that many evolutionists believe intelligent life exists on other planets simply because evolution must work that way.
Second, there are some who believe life will be found in outer space because life simply could not have “just happened” here on the Earth. However, far from invoking a Creator, their intended point is simply that the available evidence indicates that life is too complex to have occurred here on the Earth by purely naturalistic processes. So, life must have evolved somewhere in outer space and been planted here. This is the view of Sir Francis Crick in his volume, Life Itself:
If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event would this be?... Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is approximately equal to...a one followed by 260 zeros.... The great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time (1981, p. 51).
Dr. Crick then made the following fascinating admission: “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” (p. 88, emp. added). But, while acknowledging the impossibility of the accidental formation of life here on the Earth, he refuses to accept the idea of an intelligent Creator, and instead opts for “directed panspermia”—the idea that life was “planted” on the Earth by intelligent beings from outer space.
Dr. Crick is not alone in this viewpoint. The same year that Life Itself was published (1981), Sir Fred Hoyle authored Life from Space, in which he took essentially the same position. In fact, in an article that year in Nature, he wrote:
The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate mater is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it.... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence (1981, 294:148).
Dr. Hoyle opted for a kind of pantheistic intelligence that created life spores in other parts of the Universe, with these spores ultimately drifting to Earth to begin life as we know it. Because of the tremendous (and impressive) complexity of life—and the obvious design behind it—other scientists are opting for this viewpoint as well. Leslie Orgel, one of the heavyweights in origin-of-life experiments, is on record as advocating this position (1982, pp. 149-152).
Third, there are, without a doubt, some evolutionists who are determined to believe in some form of intelligent extraterrestrial life because they are convinced this somehow will nullify creation. For example, Ian Ridpath, in his book, Signs of Life, has suggested: “Religions which contend that God made man in His own image could be severely shaken if we found another intellectual race made in a different image” (1975, p. 13).
Jonathan N. Leonard likewise has shown his disdain for the concept of creation in his classic essay, Other-Worldly Life:
Scientists point out that there is nothing miraculous or unrepeatable about the appearance of life on earth. They believe it would happen again, given the same sufficient time and the same set of circumstances. It would even happen under very different circumstances. There is no reason to believe that conditions in the atmosphere and oceans of the primitive earth were modified by any outside power to make them favorable for the development of life. They just happened that way, and it is likely that life would have appeared even if conditions had been considerably different (1984, pp. 186-187).
Such writers make it clear that they believe if extraterrestrial life were to be discovered, it somehow would “disprove” the existence of a Creator.
A CRITIQUE
What response should the creationist offer to these various evolutionary positions on the existence of intelligent life in outer space?
First, let us note that any claims made concerning the existence of life in outer space are just that—claims—and nothing more. In their more candid moments, even evolutionists admit such. Michael Rowan-Robinson of the University of London has observed:
From the almost imperceptible wanderings of several nearby stars we can deduce that they have small companions, but the masses of the companions deduced in this way are, with one exception, one or two per cent of our Sun’s mass, that is 10-20 times the mass of Jupiter. Such objects could in fact be tiny stars, rather than planets, for they may be undergoing nuclear reactions in their core. This one exception is Barnard’s star, the next nearest to the Sun after the Centauri system, five light years away. It has been claimed that this star has one or two companions of mass about that of Jupiter. This is still a matter of dispute between astronomers. It is an act of faith, based on rather shaky probabilistic arguments, to say that other planets like Earth exist in the Universe (1980, p. 325, emp. added).
Freeman Dyson, in his classic text, Disturbing the Universe, wrote eloquently on this very point:
Many of the people who are interested in searching for extraterrestrial intelligence have come to believe in a doctrine which I call the Philosophical Discourse Dogma, maintaining as an article of faith that the universe is filled with societies engaged in long-range philosophical discourse. The Philosophical Discourse Dogma holds the following truths to be self-evident:
- Life is abundant in the universe.
- A significant fraction of the planets on which life exists give rise to intelligent species.
- A significant fraction of intelligent species transmit messages for our enlightenment.
If these statements are accepted, then it makes sense to concentrate our efforts upon the search for radio messages and to ignore other ways of looking for evidence of intelligence in the universe. But to me the Philosophical Discourse Dogma is far from self-evident. There is as yet no evidence either for it or against it (1979, p. 207, emp. added).
These two evolutionists have an excellent point—there is no evidence for any of these grandiose claims regarding “habitable planets.”
Second, let us note that the claims being made often are blatantly contradictory. For example, consider the following. G.E. Tauber, in his work, Man’s View of the Universe (1979, p. 339), suggested that there are “about a billion possible candidates in the galaxy alone” where intelligent life could exist. That is one billion planets just in our own Milky Way galaxy. Yet listen to this estimate by Sir Fred Hoyle:
Of the two hundred billion or so stars in our galaxy, about eighty per cent fail to met the conditions discussed above as being necessary for life. The remaining twenty per cent are not in multiple star systems and have masses in the appropriate range, three-quarters to one-and-a-half-times the mass of the Sun. The grand total of planetary systems in the galaxy capable of supporting life is therefore close to forty billion (1978, p. 145).
Notice that these two men are both discussing the same thing—potentially habitable planets in the same galaxy (the Milky Way). Yet one places the number at one billion, while the other sets it at forty billion. And their books were published within one year of each other! Mark Twain, by all accounts, was correct when he observed in Life on the Mississippi: “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such a wholesale return of conjecture for such a trifling investment of facts” (1883, p. 156). How can we be expected to accept as credible figures that are as vastly different as these?
Third, those who wish to convince us of a “directed panspermia” via some intelligence in outer space apparently have failed to understand that they have not addressed the issue at hand; they merely have moved it to another planet. Creationists are not the only ones who see this as a problem. Fox and Dose, two evolutionists who figure prominently in origin-of-life research, commented: “Another criticism that has been voiced is that moving the origin of life to an extraterrestrial site also moves the problem to that locale. Only by the broadest interpretation invoking organic chemical precursors can the site be stretched to such a distance” (1977, p. 324). The question obviously arises: “Did the intelligence that allegedly directed the panspermia evolve, or was it created?” And we find ourselves right back where we started. Whether there is intelligent life in outer space or not does not answer the basic question of where that life, or life on Earth, originated.
Fourth, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for life on other planets. Scientists have little choice but to admit this fact, as the following quotations clearly indicate.
(1) Ervin Laszlo, in his book, Evolution: The Grand Synthesis, observed: “The search for life, especially intelligent life, outside the confines of our home planet has always fascinated poets and scientists; in recent years it has motivated major research efforts. Alas, these efforts have not brought positive results” (1970, p. 122, emp. added).
(2) Paul Davies noted: “Although we have no supportive evidence at all, it would be surprising if life were not widespread throughout the cosmos, though it may be rather sparse” (1980, p. 151, emp. added).
(3) Theodosius Dobzhansky and his co-authors, in their text, Evolution, stated: “The subject of extraterrestrial life, exobiology, is a curious field of science, since its subject matter has never been observed and may not exist” (1977, p. 366, emp. added).
(4) The late Isaac Asimov, in reviewing several books for Science Digest, offered his comments on one by I.S. Shklovskii and Carl Sagan (Intelligent Life in the Universe). In his review, Dr. Asimov said: “There are so many books on extraterrestrial life (I have written one myself) that they would almost seem to be a cottage industry. This is in a way surprising, since we have absolutely no evidence that any such phenomenon as life on other worlds exists” (1982, p. 36, emp. added). When Dr. Asimov observed that we have “absolutely no evidence” of extraterrestrial life, his statement, and the conclusion to be drawn from it, hardly could be any plainer.
(5) Hubert P. Yockey, writing in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, remarked:
Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of dialectic materialism plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios, and especially in exobiology and its ultimate consequence, the doctrine of advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. That life must exist somewhere in the solar system or “suitable planets elsewhere” is widely and tenaciously believed in spite of lack of evidence, or even abundant evidence to the contrary (1981, p. 27, emp. added).
(6) In an article on “Being Optimistic about the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence” that appeared in American Scientist, astronomers David Schwartzman and Lee J. Rickard wrote:
The basic argument for an optimistic assessment of the likelihood of intelligence elsewhere in the universe is really a reassertion of the ancient belief in the plurality of worlds, the idea that our own world must be duplicated elsewhere. In modern form, the idea assumes that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, conditions favorable to the emergence of life and intelligence as they exist here on earth are present abundantly in the universe.
Is it still reasonable to be optimistic about the search for extraterrestrial intelligence? After all, researchers around the world have been listening for electromagnetic signals from other civilizations in the universe for more than 25 years now, using ever larger telescopes and increasingly sophisticated equipment. [Cosmologist Frank] Tipler estimates that 120,000 hours of observing time have been spent on the search, with, of course, no positive results (1988, 73:364).
(7) Four years later, in his article, “Is Anybody Out There?,” for a special edition of Time magazine, Dennis Overbye asked:
And what if, after a millennium of listening and looking, there is only silence—what if we still seem alone? If interstellar migration is as easy and inevitable as Finney and Jones have outlined, and if the galaxy, 10 billion years old, is populated by other advanced races, critics of SETI [Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence—BT] argue, ETs should have come calling by now. There is no scientific evidence that they have, and the lack of it has led some scientists to argue that there is no life out there at all (1992, pp. 79-80; references to Finney and Jones are to Ben Finney, physicist at the Los Alamos, New Mexico National Laboratory, and Eric Jones, anthropologist of the University of Hawaii).
(8) That same year, Dava Sobel wrote an article for Life magazine by the same title (“Is Anybody Out There?”), discussing the work of Dr. Jill Tarter, NASA’s project scientist (the agency’s chief administrative officer) in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence [SETI]. Sobel observed:
For all her childhood fascination with interstellar travel, Jill Tarter, now 48, would be the first to tell you that extraterrestrials have never visited earth and probably never will. NASA SETI researchers dismiss flying saucer reports and alien abduction stories. Most do not believe that travel over vast distances in space is possible or desirable. The energy required for sending bodies through space, unlike radio waves that have no mass, numbs the minds of even the most nimble scientists. Conservative estimates indicate that a spaceship carrying 10 people and traveling 5 light years to and from a nearby star system at 70 percent of the speed of light would consume 500,000 times the amount of energy used in the U.S. this year (1992, 15[9]:67).
(9) Robert Jastrow, the founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA and the current director of the Mount Wilson Observatory, was asked to review the 1996 book, The Biological Universe, by Steven J. Dick. In his review, Dr. Jastrow wrote:
All these numbers are so small that, even when multiplied by the vast number of planets probably present in the universe, they force us to conclude that the Earth must be the only planet bearing life (1997, pp. 62-63).
(10) That same year, Robert Naeye wrote an article for Astronomy magazine titled “OK, Where Are They?” In his article, he commented:
If one chooses to shun speculation and stick solely with observations, one can ask the same question that Nobel physicist Enrico Fermi put forth in 1950: If the Galaxy is teeming with intelligent life, where are they? The sobering reality is that there is no observational evidence whatsoever for the existence of other intelligent beings anywhere in the universe.
But until that happens, it seems prudent to conclude that we are alone in a vast cosmic ocean, that in one important sense, we ourselves are special in that we go against the Copernican grain. If so, humanity represents matter and energy evolved to its highest level; whereby a tiny part of the universe on a small rock orbiting an average star in the outskirts of an ordinary spiral galaxy has brought itself to a state of consciousness that can ponder the questions of how the universe, and life itself, began, and what it all means (1996, 24:42-43).
(11) A year later, Seth Shostak penned an article for Astronomy magazine, “When E.T. Calls Us,” in which he discussed the results (or lack thereof) of the SETI program.
This is Project Phoenix, the most comprehensive search ever undertaken for intelligent company among the stars. Run by the SETI Institute of Mountain View, California, it is the privately funded descendant of a former NASA program. Here, at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory’s 140-foot telescope in Green Bank, Project Phoenix scientists are systematically scrutinizing a thousand nearby sun-like stars for the faint signal that would betray intelligent habitation. So far, they have found nothing—not a single, extraterrestrial peep (1997, 24:37).
(12) Then, in his 2001 book, The Borderlands of Science, Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, wrote: “In three decades [Carl] Sagan changed the theory [of the existence of extraterrestrial life—BT] from heresy to orthodoxy, even though there still exists not one iota of concrete evidence of any life, simple or complex, intelligent or not, beyond Earth” (p. 217, emp. added).
THE BIBLE AND EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE
Some will ask what, if anything, the Bible has to say about this subject. The astute Bible student is aware of the silence of the Scriptures on this particular matter. The biblical record does not affirm the existence of extraterrestrial life. [NOTE: The word “extraterrestrial” is used here to denote beings with physical makeups, as opposed to spiritual beings such as angels.]
The Bible does make many positive statements about the Earth and the Universe. And in those statements, it is clear that the Earth has been appointed a very unique role. For example, the psalmist stated that “the heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men” (115:16). The Earth, apparently, was created uniquely for mankind. Statements made by the inspired apostle Paul in Acts 17:24-26 echo this same sentiment. It is of interest to note that many celestial bodies—the Moon, the Sun, and stars—are mentioned in Scripture, and even spoken of as having definite purposes. Specifically, the Sun and Moon are said to be useful for marking off days, seasons, and years (Genesis 1:14). And, we are informed that “one star differeth from another star in glory” (1 Corinthians 15:41). Yet no celestial body, except the Earth, is spoken of in Scripture as being a “dwelling place.”
Furthermore, the Earth is unique in that Christ’s activities are described as having occurred on this planet. It was on the Earth that the godhead became incarnate through Christ (see John 1:1ff.). It was on the Earth that Christ died for the sins of men (Hebrews 2:9). It was on the Earth that His bodily resurrection occurred (1 Corinthians 15), and from the Earth that He ascended to His Father in heaven (Acts 1:9-10; Ephesians 4:8-10).
There is also another aspect that should be considered in this light. The Bible clearly states that “God is love” (1 John 4:8). Love, of course, allows freedom of choice, and the Scriptures make it clear that God does exactly that (see Joshua 24:15; John 5:39-40). Since God is the Creator of the Universe (Genesis 1:1ff.), and since He likewise is no respector of persons (Acts 10:34), were He to create other intelligent life, His loving nature would require that freedom of choice be granted to such life forms. It also follows that since God is loving, He would offer instruction to such intelligent beings—just as He has to man—on the proper use of freedom of choice. Creatures possessing free moral agency, however, are not perfect; they make mistakes. Such mistakes (violations of God’s instructions) require that justice be administered, since God is not only loving, but just. Because God is merciful, He institutes a way for those separated from Him—as a result of their own mistakes—to return. The Scriptures, however, teach that there is only one way to stand justified before God, and that is through His Son (John 14:6). [NOTE: The angelic host, while certainly possessing freedom of choice, was not allowed this opportunity, apparently due to its completely spiritual (i.e., nonphysical) nature, and to the fact that angels had experienced God’s glory firsthand as they stood in His presence. Therefore they were without any excuse for their rebellion against His authority (Hebrews 2:16).]
The Scriptures also speak to one other important point. The Hebrew writer stated that Christ died “once for all” (7:27; 9:28). The wording in the original Greek is explicit, meaning that Christ’s death was a once-for-all, never-to-be-repeated event. Creatures possessing freedom of choice make mistakes in attempting to carry out God’s will. Forgiveness of those mistakes comes only through Christ (John 14:6). Since Christ died only once (Hebrews 7:27), it is a seeming violation of Scripture to suggest that He somehow go “planet hopping” to die again and again as the propitiation for infractions of God’s plan by creatures (possessing freedom of choice) in other parts of this vast Universe. These biblical principles should not be overlooked in any discussion of the existence of extraterrestrial life.
CONCLUSION
The only conclusion that can be drawn currently is that science has produced no credible evidence of intelligent life in outer space. There have been many speculations and opinions offered, but empirical evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life is completely lacking. A good suggestion might be, therefore, that we spend our time on more important pursuits.
REFERENCES
Asimov, Isaac (1982), “Book Reviews,” Science Digest, 90[3]:36, March. The book by I.S. Shklovskii and Carl Sagan, Intelligent Life in the Universe, was published by Holden-Day, New York, 1966.
Crick, Francis (1981), Life Itself (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Davies, Paul (1980), Other Worlds (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Dobzhansky, Theodosius, F.J. Ayala, G.L. Stebbins, and J.W. Valentine (1977), Evolution (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman).
Dyson, Freeman (1979), Disturbing the Universe (New York: Harper & Row).
Fox, Sidney and Klaus Dose (1977), Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life (New York: Marcel Dekker).
Hoyle, Fred (1978), Lifecloud (New York: Harper & Row).
Hoyle, Fred (1981), “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, 294:148, November 12.
Jastrow, Robert (1997), “What are the Chances for Life?,” [review of The Biological Universe, by Steven J. Dick (London, England; Cambridge University Press, 1996, 578 pp.)], Sky and Telescope, June.
Laszlo, Ervin (1987), Evolution: The Grand Synthesis (Boston: Shambhala Publishing).
Leonard, Jonathon N. (1984), “Other-Worldly Life,” The Sacred Beetle, ed. Martin Gardner (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus; essay originally published in 1953).
Naeye, Robert (1996), “OK, Where Are They?,” Astronomy, 24:42-43, July.
Orgel, Leslie (1982), “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” New Scientist, pp. 149-152, April 15.
Overbye, Dennis (1992), “Is Anybody Out There?,” Time [special issue], Fall.
Ridpath, Ian (1975), Signs of Life (New York: Penguin).
Rowan-Robinson, Michael (1980), “The Infrared Landscape,” New Scientist, January 31.
Sagan, Carl (1980), New Scientist, January 17.
Schwartzman, David, and Lee J. Rickard (1988), “Being Optimistic about the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” American Scientist, 76:364, July/August.
Shermer, Michael (2001), The Borderlands of Science (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press).
Shostak, Seth (1997), “When E.T. Calls Us,” Astronomy, 25:37, September.
Sobel, Dava (1992), “Is Anybody Out There?,” Life, 15[9]:67, September.
Tauber, G.E. (1979), Man’s View of the Universe (New York: Crown).
Twain, Mark (1883), Life on the Mississippi (Boston, MA: J.R. Osgood).
Yockey, Hubert P. (1981), “Self-organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 91:13-31.
Originally published in Reason and Revelation, October 1991, 11[10]:37-40.
Copyright © 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Sensible Science" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
Do you think that the discovery of extra-terrestrial life would pose a challenge for the Christian belief system?
I think it will for some that believe in creationism. It is an interesting topic to consider.
Do you think that the discovery of extra-terrestrial life would pose a challenge for the Christian belief system?
Well, considering that we're currently talking about extra-terrestrial life right now (in our culture and on this board) -- it doesn't appear to have had any negative effect on the Christianity.
You have to realize the "worldview" of Christianity, in that God is the Creator God. In other words, He made everything. So, what is there to be concerned about.
It would be different if one was trying to maintain a "made-up" story and hold to a "propaganda line". Then you would be worried that you would lose people here and there on the "next revelation" or the next negative story that comes out.
But, when, as a Christian, you know that you're dealing with the truth of Scriptures and a God who made it all in the beginning... these types of things don't bother you too much. They just make for interesting discussions and topics on FRee Republic, that's all... :-)
I mean, you gotta remember ... you've got "Christians" who are saying things like -- when they die and are with Jesus, the Messiah of Israel -- that later, they will be coming back and all the atoms that made up their former bodies (now decayed and scattered) will be all reassembled and be given back to them in pefect order and without fault or blemist and/or any impurities of any kind.
And if I were to pick something that would be more difficult to believe (if you're talking about mere "stories") -- it would be that all the scattered atoms of that person is going to be reassembled and they're going to have a perfect and immortal body once again.
Keep in mind... you don't find anyone really seriously criticizing Christians for believing in being "resurrected" do you? That seems to be "accepted" if one can believe that they'll be resurrected after dying.
Well, hey! I figure if someone knows that is going to happen with them, it shouldn't be any problem at at (in the very least) to know that this same God who is going to resurrect their bodies from decay and being scattered to the four winds -- that it is this same God who created all life in the beginning.
Is the "one thing" any more difficult to comprehend, understand and know -- than the other? I don't think so.
So, for me ... no, I have no concerns for that issue (besides, it's been raised for the last 60 or so years anyway ... LOL ...).
I think it will for some that believe in creationism. It is an interesting topic to consider.
Well, I don't think it will have any effect at all, on any person who has seriously considered (and seriously studied) what the Bible says about Creation. Perhaps for a few who have not studied, have not considered, and perhaps just "jump on a bandwagon" -- maybe it will affect them. But, no worries, the rest of us will be around to help them along, if they have any questions ... :-)
And something that is foundational to all things like this, whether aliens or creation or being resurrected or the coming Kingdom on this earth -- the Bible should be considered, as to what it is and who has given it to us.
For that (for something short and convenient, because the study of this could be long and time consuming if one "gets into it") -- one should consider the following ...
INDEED.
The PTB reportedly have a very thick book on RELIGION from the perspective of the critters.
They claim [purportedly with 3D holographic video of such]
to have
—created man
—created each of the great religious figures of history for social engineering purposes—including Jesus
—performed all the related miracles through their technology etc.
Those Believers still around will need to
KNOW BECAUSE THEY KNOW BECAUSE THEY KNOW BECAUSE THEY KNOW AND WALK INTIMATELY WITH GOD and are used to hearing His VOICE . . . at least His still small voice within their spirits, minds,
WHO HE IS AND WHAT HE’S DIRECTING them to do and not do.
I think the Biblical warning about the END TIMES deception being so great that WERE IT POSSIBLE, EVEN THE ELECT would be deceived
is a very accurate warning.
I believe that folks who put GOD FIRST AND FOCUS ON HIM AS THEIR MOMENT BY MOMENT HIGHEST PRIORITY, will NOT AT ALL be deceived.
I believe the critters will essentially trash evolution [satan doesn’t need it any longer when they come overtly on the scene] and support panspermia a la their agency.
Some reports indicate that the critters [though the PTB KNOW they chornically lie, lie, lie!!!] have convinced the PTB that God Almighty is merely an also ran ‘god’ and that the PTB WITH satan will defeat Christ and God at Armageddon.
Clearly, satan knows his goose is cooked then and he loses big time. However, the deception serves his goal of bringing as many humans down with him as possible.
Some Bible scholars indicate that on that score, there’s something about human leaders going in league with satan that satan and the fallen angels NEED as some sort of spiritual legal thing . . . or some DNA related thing . . . it’s not real clear . . . but that the critters on their own cannot or dare not or legally cannot take such a stand on earth without humans complicity.
Interesting puzzle pieces anyway.
THANKS TONS for the great posts and work.
I haven’t made it through every paragraph but they are clearly fitting commentary that I believe to be largely correct.
LUB
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.