Ancient Aliens - Premieres Tuesday April 20 at 8/7c (History Channel)

The article was saying ...

According to ancient alien theorists, extraterrestrials with superior knowledge of science and engineering landed on Earth thousands of years ago, sharing their expertise with early civilizations and forever changing the course of human history. But how did this concept develop, and is there any evidence to support it?

There is evidence of this, from the authoritative, inerrant and infallible Word of God -- on the matter, as it pertains to the world-wide flood that transpired because of this "alien" interaction with human beings, a "judgement from God" which was also for the purpose of "saving the human race" -- as the "aliens" were on the verge of destroying all human beings, at that point.

I posted the following in regards to these "aliens" (and I use that word in quotes because we know they weren't "aliens" as in the sense of an being from some civilization in space that evolved far beyond us and then came here on exploration, or "whatever" and interacted with the "beings" from this planet).

No, these so-called "aliens" were none other than the created beings that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob made, who rebelled against God (our Creator God of the Bible, who made all things in the universe, including the universe and all things which exist) -- and interacted with human beings, creating "hybrids" -- a great sin that God judged by destroying all human life (including all the hybrids) except for 8 individuals in the world, who then went on to repopulate the entire globe to the point of the numbers of humans we have on the planet now.

Here is my post from another FReeper thread, Post #93 ...

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.

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.

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"...

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.

Mischievous Angels or Sethites?

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:

George Hawkins Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, first published by Hodder and Stoughton in 1875, and presently available by Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids MI, 1975.
John Fleming, The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology, Hodges, Foster, and Figgis, Dublin, 1879.
Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1976.
Merrill F. Unger, Biblical Demonology, Scripture Press, Chicago IL, 1952.
Clarence Larkin, Spirit World, Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate, Philadelphia PA, 1921.

Endnotes

Matthew 24:37.
Matthew 24:37.
Matthew 24:37; Luke 17:26, as well as Old Testament allusions such as Daniel 2:43, et al.
Cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 (where they are in existence before the creation of the earth). Jesus also implies the same term in Luke 20:36.
A footnote in an edition of the famed Scofield Bible, in suggesting that "sons of Elohim" does not always denote angelic beings, points to one ostensible exception (Isaiah 43:6) but the term in question is not there used! God simply refers to Israel as "my sons" and "my daughters." Indeed, all of Adam's race are termed God's "offspring" in Acts 17:28 (although Paul is here quoting a Greek poet).
The sons of Elohim are even contrasted with the sons of Adam in Psalm 82:1, 6 and warned that if they go on with the evil identified in verse 2, they would die like Adam (man). When our Lord quoted this verse (John 10:34) He made no mention of what order of beings God addressed in this Psalm but that the Word of God was inviolate whether the beings in question were angels or men.
Luke 3:38.
John 1:11, 12.
2 Corinthians 5:17.
2 Corinthians 5:1-4.
Luke 20:36.
This term appears only twice in the Bible: 2 Corinthians 5:2 and Jude 1:6.
Genesis 4:18.
Genesis 11:6.
This instruction was given to the descendants of Isaac and Jacob. Even the presumed descendants of Ishmael cannot demonstrate their linkage since no separation was maintained.
A.C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (Penteteuch), p. 29.
Gen 4:26 is widely regarded as a mistranslation: "Then began men to profane the name of the Lord." So agrees the venerated Targum of Onkelos; the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel; also the esteemed rabbinical sources such as Kimchi, Rashi, et al. Also, Jerome. Also, the famed Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, 1168 a.d.
Exodus 12:5, 29; Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23; 5:15, 18, 25; 22:19, 21; 23:12; Numbers 6:14; et al. Over 60 references, usually referring to the freedom from physical blemishes of offerings.
Each human gamete has 23 pairs of chromosomes: the male has both "Y" (shorter) and "X" (longer) chromosomes; the female, only "X" chromosomes. The sex of a fertilized egg is determined by the sperm fertilizing the egg: "X+Y" for a male child; "X+X" for a female. Thus, the male supplies thesex-determining chromosome.
Deut. 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 26:60; 2 Corinthians 13:1; et al.
Jude 6, 7; 2 Peter 2:4-5.
Homer, Iliad, viii 16.
Jude is commonly recognized as one of the Lord's brothers. (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:9; Jude 1:1.)
The only other use in the New Testament is 2 Corinthians 5:2, alluding to the heavenly body which the believer longs to be clothed.
Genesis 6:4.
2 Corinthians 2:11.
Luke 21:26; 2 Thess 2:9, 11; et al.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Vol V, p.2835-2836.

Here is another post I did, in regards to the worldwide flood and how our current "secular worldview" today wants to remake the understanding and the message that the Bible has, in regards to that worldwide flood, what it was, how extensive it was and what it was for.

It was Post #35 in this thread ...

Cold And Ice, Not Heat, Episodically Gripped Tropical Regions 300 Million Years Ago

You were saying ...

Here is what I am trying to do. Five years ago my brother and I were taking about how churches drive away intellects and scientists who are in the “born again” category. Since that day and after being a field historian for years in the US Army, I began to see Genesis from more of a historical value beyond that of what people are saying in church.

Well, I can see what you're doing in your view of things, but I would venture to say that it's the opposite of what you're trying to say to me right here. I'll explain that with the next part of what you said.

We are talking about the same major flood. However, churches today now interpret a world flood that of today’s world.

When you say "we are talking about the same major flood ..." -- well, that's where it's really apparent that you're wrong on the matter. It would clearly appear to me that we're not talking about the same major flood. But, I'll hold on that to clarify what I just said up above, first.

When I said that it's the opposite of what you're saying, I say that to mean while you're saying that today the "church" (at least some people in the church) -- "churches today now interpret a world flood that of today's world," -- instead it's actually -- "today's secular mentality interprets what the Bible says in today's 'worldview'."

In todays "worldview" with a secular mentality, this sort of thing is considered and viewed as a limited and/or local type of flood, albeit -- it could be a very large one on a scale not seen today. It's still considered limited and local. And it's not considered possible (again in todays secular "worldview" and "thinking") that it's not possible to have a "world-wide flood" -- so since it's seen (in that type of thinking) that it's not possible to have a world-wide flood -- we must reinterpret what is clearly said in the Bible to mean what "we know is the situation" instead of some "limited understanding" that ancient people had and "obviously" did not understand what was going on, fully.

It's not the "churches" who have the "problem" as I see it -- it's the people who have this secular worldview outlook -- who are the problem, as it's them who cannot accept what is clearly stated. Thus, they are the ones who are engaged in "reinterpreting things" according to today's way of understanding things, you see... :-)

And hence -- that's why we see this statement ... "I interpret it in the valley that Noah and his family lived."

That pretty much makes the "case" that I'm saying is the "real problem" here... you see...

That said, Noah’s world flood. Here is a man who lives for centuries, educated in boat structure sees a need for an Ark. The world Flood you believe in is a Missoula Flood in my evidence.

The only problem with that, is while I see many floods happening over the period of mankind's existence (after the flood, because of the changed climatic conditions) -- I don't see these local and/or regional floods as what the Bible is talking about. The details don't match up.

Noah’s world flood is that of his world. I take the literal in the time frame of literal 10,000 years ago. They didn’t know the world to be round.

This is the final paragraph of what you said up above, and I'll "take off" from here and go into it a bit more about that world-wide flood.

First, I'll start with this particular comment... "They didn’t know the world to be round."

This part, here -- shows a misunderstanding of the Bible, right off the bat. And it's usually "right here" (on this type of thing) that all the misunderstandings about the Bible and all the errors of the secular worldview, regarding the Bible, come into play.

When you say that "they didn't know ..." -- you've just started off on the wrong foot, with the Bible before even getting into the "content" of what was said.

You see... it was "God, Himself," who was the one who "said", and thus it was God, Himself, who was the one who would know -- or not know. Now, when we look at that, and we consider that just a bit before that, God just got through making the entire space-time existence of anything and everything -- you wouldn't expect me to believe that this same God, who made the earth itself -- doesn't know that it's round... do you? :-)

Of course -- I think it's clear that the God who is capable of getting a human being reconstructed back in one piece from having the dead body's pieces scattered into a million pieces and parts, scattered all over the ground and oceans and air, and who resurrects it back into a living being again, from all those inanimate and disassociated pieces -- that same God would know that the earth was round. It makes sense, to me. Perhaps it doesn't make sense to the "secular mind"... :-)

But, going on from there, let's say that this is a local/regional flood in a valley that Noah lives in, and God is wanting to spare 8 people from this flood. Well, considering that God told Noah about this 120 years before it happened -- if God was "smart" -- he would just have those eight people "walk out of the valley, and into the next valley to avoid that flood, doncha know ... LOL ...

I mean, I think one could "walk around the globe" about 10 times over again in 120 years... :-)

Then there's the part about the animals and putting them aboard the boat. Again, if you've got a bunch of animals that are unique to that valley, you just have them walk out of the valley, into the next valley and those animals are okay.

Of course, I'm only talking about animals that would be unique to that particular valley, because if they were common animals to several valleys, it wouldn't matter if those animals died there, because they would still exist in the next valley over and the next and the next.

And continuing..., it is also obvious that God intended to kill everyone except for those 8 people (not talking about reasons here, except that God intended to do that).

Now..., how was God going to keep those other people "in the valley" for the next 120 years, so He could make sure He killed them all, except for those particular 8 people that He chose to live and survive that flood? I mean, was God going to have a fence built around the valley for the next 120 years, so that no one could move or migrate or marry into a clan in the next valley and thus "survive" the flood in that valley?

Anyway, the more you go into the "local/regional flood" rationalization (out of "today's mentality" that is "read back into the text") -- the more stupid the whole thing becomes... to the point where the whole thing becomes utterly ridiculous to even contemplate at all.

BUT, when you get into the reason for the flood, and as to why such a drastic step was taken by God to have a world-wide flood in which every last single human being that existed in the entire globe would be killed (and definitely killed as the "purpose" and as the "intended aim of God") -- then that reason makes it clear why a world-wide flood was absolutely necessary and that a local and regional flood would be a "disaster" from the "standpoint of that reason".

The reason has been discussed in many places, over many years and by many people, so it's nothing new, but it may be new to some people who read it for the first time that they've come across it. It's not new to Christianity, since it's been mentioned since the early centuries of Christianity -- definitely so. And it's not new to the Jews, who were aware of the reason, too... from before the time of Christianity. So, don't think I'm bringing something "new" into this picture here -- it's just that a certain number of people won't be familiar with it

The reason why God had to wipe out the entire human race, during that time, with the world-wide flood, was because of the angelic intrusion of angels into the human genome, during the time leading up to Noah's day. That's mentioned in Genesis 6.

I talk about it, most recently in this thread ... at Post #93 and Post #98 ... and there are other threads and other posts on it, but this much shows anyone (who is interested) what it's about.

The destruction of the human genome, by angelic interference, was absolutely intolerable to God, and He saw it coming (by what we see in Genesis 6) and God made sure to destroy all except those chosen to carry on the human race -- basically three male/female pairings for the entire human race, although 8 individuals were carried through the world-wide flood to restart the entire human race, plus the preservation of certain animals to continue on afterwards, after all other land animals had been destroyed and obliterated.

So, once one sees the reason why the destruction of the entire human race was necessary by what God saw coming down the road, very shortly, explains why that wide and vast of a destruction was necessary.

This sort of thing might seem to be overwhelming to human beings, but to God, who created all of the space-time existence (even the creation of the "space" itself in which matter exists, along with the parameter of "time" itself existing) -- this was a mere "blip" on the screen to Him. And He accomplished it and saved 8 people through that destruction (along with those particular animals) and allowed the human race, over the entire globe, to be reconstructed from those three male/female pairs we are told about.

Here's what the History Channel puts on their webpage about him ...

Erich von Däniken

Born in Switzerland in 1935, Erich von Däniken is widely regarded as the father of ancient alien theory, also known as ancient astronaut theory. He published his first of 26 books in 1968 while working as the manager of a five-star hotel. In Chariots of the Gods?, Däniken put forth his controversial hypothesis that, thousands of years ago, space travelers from other planets visited Earth, where they taught humans about technology and influenced ancient religions. As evidence, he pointed to religious texts in which heavenly beings with supernatural powers descend from the sky. He also suggested that extraterrestrials with superior knowledge of engineering helped ancient civilizations build architectural marvels like Stonehenge, the Great Pyramid of Giza and the Maoi statues of Easter Island.

Chariots of the Gods? appeared at a time when aliens and space travel loomed large in film, fiction and popular culture. It was the era of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Trek and Frank Herbert's Dune series. Däniken's ideas thrived in this climate, and his book became an immediate bestseller in the United States and Germany. It can now be read in more than 30 languages and has seen 40 printings to date. Over the years, Däniken has attracted a large group of followers, many of whom have conducted and published their own research, although he has also received criticism from some within the scientific community.

For more than four decades, Erich von Däniken has been writing and speaking about the notion that mankind and aliens crossed paths in the distant past. His work has inspired documentary features and television specials while capturing the imaginations of multiple generations of people around the world.

Here's what the History Channel does not put on their webpage about him ... LOL ...

Wikipedia on Erich von Däniken

Legal troubles
Däniken's run-ins with the law started at an early age. In the 1960s, while working in hotels and restaurants across Switzerland, he was convicted of fraud, serving a prison sentence for defrauding his boss at one hotel. In 1967, soon after Chariots of the Gods was published he was arrested and charged by Interpol with fraud and tax evasion for non-payment of UK £7,000.00.^[1] During the investigation, authorities uncovered a large personal debt totaling about UK£350,000. Däniken was found guilty of embezzlement, and served more than three years in Swiss prisons. While in prison, he continued writing, and 'Return of the Gods' was subsequently published.^[2]
Criticism
A few scientists, such as Carl Sagan and I. S. Shklovskii, have written about Däniken's paleocontact and extraterrestrial visitation claims. Although Sagan did not rule out the possibility of visitation, he insisted that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence",^[3] which Däniken fails to provide.
Däniken claimed that a non-rusting iron pillar in India was evidence of extraterrestrial influence.^[4] (The tale of this supposedly rust-free iron pillar has already been published by Will Durant in his 1935 book Our Oriental Heritage^[5]) Later, Däniken admitted in a Playboy interview that the pillar was actually rusty and man-made, and that as far as supporting his hypotheses goes "we can forget about this iron thing."^[6] However, neither Däniken, nor any of his publishers have removed this, or any other discredited items from subsequent editions of his books.
Some also question von Däniken's credibility, as he has also knowingly put forward fraudulent evidence to advance his hypotheses, such as photographs of pottery "depicting UFOs", supposedly from an archaeological dig dating back to the biblical era. The PBS television series Nova determined that this was a fraud, and even located the potter who made them. When confronted with this evidence, von Däniken argued that the deception was justified because some people would only believe his theories if they saw actual proof.^[7]
In The Gold of the Gods von Daniken claimed to have been guided through artificial tunnels under Ecuador containing gold, strange statues and a library with metal tablets, which he wrote was evidence of ancient space visitors. The man who he claimed showed him these alleged tunnels, Juan Moricz, told Der Spiegel that all of von Daniken's descriptions came from a long conversation and that the photos in the book had been 'fiddled'. Von Daniken eventually told Playboy that although he had seen the library and other places he'd described, he had also fabricated some of the events to add interest to his book.^[8]
Most historians regard Däniken's claims as pseudoscience, and are of the opinion that he is drawing far-reaching conclusions from little evidence, and he is disregarding more likely alternative hypotheses, but a large group of followers, some of whom have written books of their own, are of the opinion that his theories are likely to be true.
The general public, however, has sometimes been more responsive. Däniken's books have been translated into 32 languages, with a gross book sales of 62 million copies worldwide, and his documentary TV-shows have been viewed in Germany, the United States, and other countries. His influence can also be seen in science fiction, the New Age culture and some modern religions like Scientology.
Some have accused Däniken of European ethnocentrism^[9] and suggested that views such as his "constitute the ultimate in racism".^[10]
Ronald Story published The Space Gods Revealed in 1976, providing an almost page-by-page refutation of the hypotheses and evidence in Däniken's ^{Chariots of the Gods?}.
A 2004 article in Skeptic Magazine[11] states that Däniken plagiarized many of the book's concepts from Le Matin des Magiciens, that this book in turn was heavily influenced by the Cthulhu Mythos, and that the core of the ancient astronaut theory originates in H. P. Lovecraft's short stories "The Call of Cthulhu" written in 1926, and "At the Mountains of Madness" written in 1931.

Here's the "money line" for "Erich von Daniken" and his false hypothesis about aliens -- in terms of our "culture" here on earth ... LOL ...

His influence can also be seen in science fiction, the New Age culture and some modern religions like Scientology.

He's one of the "useful idiots" -- who are perpetuating New Age and Science Fiction ideas and infusing them into our current culture, in order to divert people away from the "real story" of what our authoritative, inerrant and infallible Word of God says, about what has been going on here ... :-)

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.