RE: Why did God send the flood (ABR article): to wipe out seed of Satan

From: Dick Fischer <>
Date: Sat Feb 18 2006 - 13:50:30 EST

You've reached a creationist web site. They'll also tell you Noah
loaded up dinosaurs on the ark if you ask. There are so many glaring
mistakes in the article it's impossible to address them all. Bob Newman
mentioned in the article is a friend of mine and an ASA member and an
old-earth creationist. Two out of three isn't bad.
As for Genesis 6:4, here is my take.
The "sons of God," who are they? Some contend these are angels, perhaps
fallen angels. But is that the case here? The Hebrew phrase in this
passage, and elsewhere in the Old Testament, can refer to angels (Job
1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psa. 29:1; 89:6). But the same term also describes
humans who lived their lives in service to God (Deut. 14:1; 32:5; Psa.
73:15; Hosea 1:10). How should it be interpreted here?
For a start, what are angels supposed to do regarding us humans? In
Hebrews 1:14, "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to
minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" If that is their
proper role, wouldn't it be out of character for them to be involved in
these trysts? Also, even if they had the desire to sire human offspring
would they be capable of that? Angels, while appearing as men at
certain times, do not possess physical bodies as we do, and should not
be able to father human children.
Furthermore, angels do not marry. "The children of this world marry,
and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to
obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor
are given in marriage; neither can they die anymore, for they are equal
unto the angels and are the children of God, being the children of the
resurrection" (Luke 20:34-36). And in Mark 12:25, "For when they shall
rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but
are as the angels which are in heaven."
Two relevant bits of information exude from these passages. Angels do
not die or marry. Sons of God, who marry, should be humans. Throughout
the New Testament, the term "sons of God" or "children of God" is
applied exclusively to humans (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14,19; Rom. 9:26; II
Cor. 6:18; Gal. 3:26). Nowhere in the New Testament do these terms
apply to angels.
Could they have been fallen angels? Would it have been possible that
disenfranchised angels took possession of the bodies of humans in order
to engage in marriage and procreation? Not likely; fallen angels or
demons are not called "sons of God" anywhere in Scripture. They have
forfeited that right.
Furthermore, if these had been fallen angels dabbling with the human
race, then the flood would have brought only temporary relief. Demons
would not drown. Any marriage-minded demons could have just waited and
preyed upon the next batch of humans. Besides, the notion of demons
desiring to enter into holy matrimony is a bit curious.
If the term "sons of God" refers to humans, then who could they have
been? Perhaps those "who called upon the name of the Lord," the
generations of Seth. Then who were the "daughters of men"? The
daughters of men could have been descendants from the now mixed
generations of Cain, or perhaps they came from the indigenous
populations that co-existed with the Adamite population in the same
Some have contended that what has been translated "sons of God" (bene
elohim), refers instead to sons, or servants, of pagan gods. Indeed, a
clear example of this can be found in Exodus 18:11 which states, "the
Lord is greater than all gods (elohim) ..." Daughters of ha'adam or
"the Adam," then, would be Adamite women. Using this line of logic,
Genesis 6:1-2 would be translated: "And it came to pass, when the
Adamites began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were
born unto them, that the sons [or servants] of the gods saw the
daughters of the Adamites that they were fair ..."
What comes through in either translation is that there were two distinct
populations, some were in the covenant line from Adam, others were not,
and they were intermarrying. Edward William Lane concludes:
... the most obvious meaning, beyond dispute,
is, that the men and women here mentioned
were of different races, and hence that the former
saw in the latter a beauty surpassing that of their
own women.
What was the consequence of such mixed marriages? Reduced life spans.
Dick Fischer
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
Received on Sat Feb 18 13:50:56 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 18 2006 - 13:50:56 EST