ARE THE SONS OF GOD FALLEN ANGELS?

New Post on Who are 'the Sons of God'?

(Revision Dates: August 26, 2014; April 2, 2020)

Biblical Canonical Sources:

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture has been taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Other Scripture Taken from:

The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew-Greek-English, © 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1984, 2nd ed. 1986 by Jay P. Green, Sr. (Lafayett, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers).

The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, copyright © 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1985 by P. Green, Sr. This work was contained in the side column of Green’s work referenced above.

Noncanonical scriptures: Complete Book of Enoch: “Scripture taken from The Source Bible. Copyright © 2010 by Dr A. Nyland.”

The passage of Scripture that we are discussing is Genesis 6:1-4. Here are the first three verses:

Now it came about, when men [lit., the man] began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God [or the gods] saw that the daughters of men [lit., the man] were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man [lit., the man] forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years. 

People have interpreted the sons of God [or the sons of the gods] to be various groups—fallen angels, the descendants of Seth, and other less likely groups. I now think that I somewhat misinterpreted these verses in my 2015 edition of my book because in it I interpreted “the sons of God” to be fallen angels. I have made a further study of these verses and shall here explain why I have changed my view. I am sorry that it took this long for me to come to my present interpretation of this phrase and to my present interpretation of the entire passage of Genesis 6:1-8. My present interpretation must be the one correct interpretation because it makes the best sense of each statement of the passage and brings each part of the passage together in the most harmonious scenario. My present view is that “the sons of God” are the idolatrous pre-Adamites. This means that this phrase is best translated “the sons of the gods.” This change in regard to "the sons of God" fortunately has little effect on the rest of my book.

My Basic Thesis Concerning God's Two Creations of the Human Race

INTRODUCTION TO MY BOOK: NEW EVIDENCE FOR TWO HUMAN ORIGINS

INTRODUCTION AND THESIS

                                                           *********

                               He who gives an answer before he hears,

                                                It is folly and shame to him. (Prov. 18:13)

Espousing a Secular View of Life

For centuries the Western World had a universal belief that God was active in His creation and concerned about the affairs of men. Many believed His will for mankind was contained in the Scriptures. Then came the Renaissance. Bruce L. Shelley defines this movement: “The word [Renaissance] means ‘rebirth’ and refers to the recovery of the values of classical Greek and Roman civilization expressed in literature, politics and the arts.”[i] Since the beliefs of these early writers were based upon man’s philosophies rather than upon God’s revelation, people began to look to their own powers of thought rather than to God’s revelation. This movement received its momentum

Could the Present Theory of Evolution Need to Include Hybridization?

Revised April 15, 2015
I want to let you know about an article on the internet that will truly make you think. Dr. Eugene McCarthy has developed a theory of evolution that supplies a "missing link." He believes that hybridization has been a very import mechanism in the progress of evolution. In fact, what he says about this subject helps us understand better what God may have done as He responded to His own statement: "Let us make man in our image..." (Gen. 1:26, KJV) McCarthy says that man is a cross between two species; in other words, man is a hybrid. If this were the case, God could have providentially brought these two species together, through weather changes or something else, and thus begun to rapidly produce the human species. As you may know, I believe that a race existed prior to the creation of Adam and Eve. The first creation of man, as recorded in Genesis 1, was through evolution and hybridization; the second creation of man, as recorded in Genesis 2, was the creation of Adam and Eve's directly from the ground. One of McCarthy's main articles on mankind's origin is found at http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html#.UjyR6ZjD_wo. This is a multipage article in which he gives much evidence for his conclusion that mankind is a hybrid species. He has other articles that support his theory of hybridization and evolution.

GENESIS CLEARLY INDICATES TWO CREATIONS OF MANKIND

Revision dates: 5/29/13; 6/21/13; 6/25/13; 7/3/13; 7/5/13; 7/8/13; 7/18/13; 6/13/14; 8/8/2014; 8/13/14; 4/24/15

Scriptural References:

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture has been taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Other Scripture Taken from:

The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew-Greek-English, © 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1984, 2nd ed. 1986 by Jay P. Green, Sr. (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers).

The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, copyright © 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1985 by P. Green, Sr. This work was contained in the side column of Green’s work referenced above.

King James Version (Authorized Version) noted as KJV.

Genesis 2:4 Closes Out the Story of God’s First Creation of Mankind

Hebrew syntax points to two creations of mankind. For many years the Jewish community and the Christian church have believed that the account of the creation of Adam and Eve given in Genesis 2 is a detailed description of a more general creation of mankind told in the first chapter of Genesis. This section will discuss some syntactical reasons why we should interpret the creation account of Adam and Eve to be a creation of another race of people, which was in addition to the creation of the pre-Adamites as recorded in Genesis 1. My comments will center on Genesis 2:5f.

A Tiny Prefix Makes a Large Difference in Meaning

WHY DOES GENESIS 5:1-2 QUOTE GENESIS 1

Last Revision: June 13, 2014
Genesis 5 begins the genealogy of Adam by quoting the creation narrative of Genesis 1:27-28. Does this mean that Adam and Eve were the subject of Genesis 1? No. Genesis 1 was quoted to make a point, but it was not quoted to equate Adam and Eve with those created as described in Genesis 1. Genesis 1:27-28 reads, "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."¹ Genesis 5:1-3 says, "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created. When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth." Because God's intention was to create Adam and Eve to be the representative of the human race and to test Adam and Eve in a perfect environment, He created them directly from the ground and placed them in the Garden of Eden. This meant that Adam and Eve needed to be real human beings. Therefore, God created them as humans and named them man to show that they were human. He also blessed them just as He had blessed the first pre-Adamites. This is why Genesis 5:1-3 sounds much like Genesis 1:27-28. My book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science shows that God created mankind as recorded in Genesis 1 and then later created Adam and Eve from the dust of the ground. Yes, it is possible to harmoize science and the Bible.
______________

¹Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture has been taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Is Finding Neanderthal Genes in the Human Genome a Problem for Christianity?

An astonding discovery has been made by Max Planck Institute--Neanderthal genes have been found in human genomes. Is this a problem for Bible-believing Christians. Certainly not. Articles on the blog and expecially my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science present a modal for harmonizing the Bible and Science that has no problem with this discovery. The Word of God, the Bible, is always right on the truth.

THE RIVER THAT WENT OUT OF EDEN

Revised: July 15, 2014; August 10, 2014

The mysteries hovering around the garden of Eden are quite tantalizing to our minds. We wonder where it was and what it looked like. We are told a number of things about it in the Bible. We do know that their was a river that flowed through it, for Genesis 2:10 states, "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it was divided and became four heads" (Gen. 1:10).¹ Please read my article "Where is the Garden of Eden?" in which I give evidence that the Garden of Eden was located in Northern Iran. Genesis 2 tells us the names of the four rivers associated with these four heads, two of which we know were the Tigris and the Euphrates. There is a website out there that uses this passage from Genesis to try to show that the Bible is not inspired since there are no rivers that split and become four heads two of which are the Tigris and Euphrates. But the author of this website makes the same mistake that many others have made. When the Bible says that "a river went out of Eden to water the garden" it does not mean that this was the direction of the river's flow.

WHERE WAS THE GARDEN OF EDEN?

Revised June 14, 2014; July 14; 2014; August 10, 2014

In my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science¹ I followed the view of those who place the Garden of Eden in the lower part of Mesopotamia (present day Iraq). I took the view defended by some people that the Garden of Eden was located at Eridu which was situated near the mouth of the Euphrates River. Since I wrote my book, I have recently read David M. Rohl's book Legend: The Genesis Of Civilisation². Also I have observed more thoroughly the Bible's description of the river that went through Eden and became four heads.
The Bible says, "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it was divided and became four heads" (Gen. 1:10).³ This verse indicates that the Garden of Eden was located near the heads of these two known rivers, not at their mouths where they go into the Persian Gulf. Having discovered Rohl's arguments, I have changed my mind as to the location of the Garden of Eden. I do not agree with all of Rohl's statements and conclusions, of course, since he does not believe in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures as I do. Rohl has convinced me that Eden was in northern Iran

QUESTIONS FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN A YOUNG EARTH

Revised June 14, 2014

1. If the Bible is supposed to teach that the creation days are only 24-hours long, why does Genesis 2:5 say the land was not yielding vegetation because there was no rain? This was before the creation of Adam and Eve and four days after the water was taken from the land. How could you expect to have vegetation this soon and wouldn’t the land still be wet from the water that just ran off of it four days before?

2. If Adam and Eve were the people who were created in Genesis 1, why does the Bible teach that these people were to be scavengers (v. 29) while Adam and Eve were apparently farmers? (Gen. 4:2)

3. If the earth is young, why does Genesis 2:4 say that those whose creation was recorded in Genesis 1 are the generations (meaning descendants) of the heavens and the earth? Adam was created directly out of the ground by special creation. Adam and Eve must be the beginning of a new race created in a different manner.

WHAT DOES GENETICS TELL US ABOUT HUMAN ORIGINS?

This post was taken from my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science (2009 edition).¹

Evidence for Theistic Evolution from Retrotransposons

In the past few years, great strides have been made in our understanding of the genome; some of these discoveries are destined to change the way we view our oringins. In his excellent timely article, "Human Evolution: How Random Process Fulfils [sic] Divine Purpose," Graeme Finlay explains how the human genome came to possess markers shared with other mammals. The natural processes that accomplished it have now been discovered. One of his examples of these processes is the retrotransposon.

DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

This post was taken from the final chapter of my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconiles the Bible and Science (2009 edition).¹

Once we see that our source of knowledge concerning morality and the problem of evil is not human reasoning but divine revelation, the problem of evil is suddenly reduced in size from a major giant to a problem with which God has already given us assistance. The Bible teaches that God is righteous and that He is the source of all wisdom. Our logical response should be like that of Abraham, who said, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” (Gen. 18:25).² Nevertheless, because the problem of evil can torment people’s minds and even keep them from coming to the Savior, I must make an attempt to address it here. But remember ultimately we are not relying upon human reason but upon God’s revelation to deal with the problem of evil. Therefore, my answers to the problem mainly come from the Scriptures.

WAS ADAM THE FIRST MAN TO SIN?

This post shows that Romans 5:12 does not teach that sin first entered the human race when Adam sinned.

Why You Should Read the Book "New Evidence for Two Human Origins"

New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science shows you how a person can believe in Christianity and at the same time avoid espousing a logical contradiction.

What Is So Special about My Book on Human Origins?

You may want to check out these sixteen topics most of which are covered rather uniquely in my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science.¹

Genesis 2:4 Must Refer to Genesis 1 Rather Than Genesis 2

Most translators have thought that the statement in Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth" (KJV) refers to the story in Genesis 2, but this article proves that it refers to Genesis 1. This becomes very important when we realize that the word translated "generations" would have been better translated "descendants." The Bible says that the people created in Genesis 1 were created as descendants of the heavens and the earth. This post is a copy of appendix D from my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science.¹ It may be easiest for you to skim the opening paragraphs and look at some of the examples to see how the Hebrew language syntax can indicate whether a verse refers to what precedes it or whether it refers to what follows it. This is important as regards our interpretation of Genesis 2:4. Who are those who are the "generations" (a better translation would be "descendants") of the heavens and the earth. You may want to see my discussion on this subject "Have You Answered the Question of Human Origins?"

HAVE YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION OF HUMAN ORIGINS?

Revised April 29, 2015

This tract is a summary of a recently published book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science by Gary T. Mayer. See the end of this tract for details.

Some people do not seriously consider the truth of Christianity because they believe the Bible is contradicted by science in the matter of human origins and the age of the earth. This serious error rests on misinterpretations of a number of Bible passages. Here are some reasons why a better understanding of the Bible confirms its truthfulness and diminishes the assumed contradictions between science and the Bible.

The First Modern Men to Inhabit the World

The Bible does not teach that Adam and Eve were the first modern men to inhabit the world. Therefore, the Bible’s placing the creation of Adam and Eve upon the earth only approximately 6,000 years ago is not in conflict with scientists’ opinion that modern humans have been here for at least 100,000 years. The creation of these first modern people is recorded in the Bible in Genesis 1, whereas the creation of Adam and Eve is recorded in Genesis 2. The Bible does not set any time at which God created this first race whose creation was recorded in Genesis 1. These people were pre-Adamites who spread from Africa over all the earth.

Fast Drop in Life Spans Proves a Pre-Adamic People

Genesis chapters 5 and 11 list the life spans of the patriarchs who were descendants of Adam and Eve. They cover the approximate time window from about 6000 years ago to about 4300 years ago. The early descendants of Adam and Eve lived to be an average of 929 years. We can show mathematically that there were modern humans upon the earth before Adam and Eve’s creation by observing how the life spans given

Were The Creation Days Twenty-Four-Hour Days?

(Revised June 19, 2014)

The Following article is a portion of the tenth chapter of my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science. [1] I have removed centain material here and there to shorten the article for the reader's convenience or to made changes. I also added a small amount that I placed in brackets.

...Science tells us that modern humans appeared about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago... science also believes that the earth was created about 4.6 billion years ago and that the universe was created about 13.7 billion years ago. If the creation days were only twenty-four hours in duration, modern humans could not have been created 100,000 years ago. Neither science nor the Bible teaches that man was created 13.7 billion years ago. Either the conclusion of those who interpret the biblical creation days to be twenty-four-hour days is wrong or the conclusion of science is wrong. Both cannot be correct. If we were to discover that the days of creation as presented in the Bible could be interpreted as very long days rather than twenty-four-hour solar days, mankind could have been created at the end of the long period of time during which God created the universe...[including] the earth. Many who [have] read the first chapter of Genesis say they must interpret these days as twenty-four-hour solar days, certainly not long ages. J. Ligin Duncan III and David W. Hall contributors to The Genesis Debate, argue, “we have yet to see internally compelling reasons for why yom [day] in Genesis 1 means an extended or undefined period.” [2] This explanation they require is exactly what I shall attempt to explain step by step. It will be so put forth, as they desire, based, not on a modern clever hypothesis but rather by approaching the text the way an early Hebrew reader would approach it....

My Blog on the Book of the Revelation

You may want to visit some of my other articles on other pages.

You may want to take advantage of my offer concerning the Book of Revelation at the following website:

http://evolutioncreationandthebible.blogspot.com/2010/05/structure-of-book-of-revelation.html

Extended Table of Contents from New Evidence for Two Human Origins

Revised: April 28, 2015
Thank you for visiting my blog on my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science. Here is an extended table of contents that may be helpful to communicate to you the topics that are discussed in this book: CAUTION: THIS EXTENDED TABLE OF CONTENTS IS BEING UPDATED FROM THE 2009 EDITION TO THE 2015 EDITION. IT IS NOT ALL CORRECT!

Contents…………………………………………………………………...vii

List of Charts………………………………………………………..……....x

Chart 1: Relative Order of Events Relevant to the Thesis..............................7

Chart 2: Actual Life Spans of Adam’s Descendants…..................................16

Chart 3: Potential Life Spans of Four Generations after a Mixed
Marriage between the Races…………………………….……......................25

Chart 4: How Close Shem’s Life Span Is to One of His
Probable Life Spans…………………………….……….……......................27

A Personal Note on My Dual Human-Origins Thesis

Revised October 2, 2020

I am taking this opportunity to explain to you why I believe that my thesis of creation should be seriously considered. As you know, there is much debate today about what should be taught in the public schools on human origins. This debate gets people who have never thoroughly studied the issues giving their opinion on the subject. Some Christians are teaching that you cannot believe the Bible and also accept theistic evolution. This encourages young people, who are continuously being told that humans evolved, to believe that the Bible is untrustworthy. But we know that the Bible is trustworthy and that faith comes by hearing the Word of God and that this leads a seeker to salvation. On the other hand, other Christians say that God accommodated His inspiration of the Bible to the erroneous current views of that day. They can accept evolution, but now they may have an inferior view of the inspiration of the Scriptures. Models that assert that the story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally do not do justice to the creation account in Genesis 2,

A Short Rebuttal against Divine Accommodation

by

Gary T. Mayer
(Edited December 9, 2014)

The reason for this paper is to question the accommodation view of divine inspiration. According to this view, the Scriptural passages that teach us about early cosmology accommodate the errors of that day. First, I shall show that although many of the verses which are presented to defend this view admittedly employ the old worldview terms, those who hold the view of accommodation rely too heavily on these words in supporting their case. The reader may visualize a reality behind a word based upon his own cosmology or he may not. God would hardly be wise if He were to use terms that were confusing or unintelligible to the worshippers whose hearts were on fire for God. Second, Genesis 1 tells us that God created something in the sky that the text calls in Hebrew a raqia‘. I shall show that it is not better to interpret the word raqia‘ as it is used here to mean a firmament, denoting a pounded-out solid metal plate supported above the earth by the mountains than to interpret it to mean an expanse, a sheet-like three dimensional volume with reference to a thin open space, such as the atmosphere. The practicality of this discussion is appreciated when we realize that, if we interpret the rest of the Bible using the accommodation approach, we may be led to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ and Paul accommodated themselves to the culture of their day, thus robbing the Word of God of its authority.