Adam – Scripture Thoughts

According to the History Channel, yes. But I do not trust the spirit behind those programs. They are not at all interested in telling people what God was saying to mankind during those cited episodes in the Bible that seem to be describing ETs to them. The programs just want to divert from any notion that there is ONE GOD who is a Loving Boss. Their definition of ET would be a life form that is not spiritual but physical, and has evolved farther than humans and may have produced us as an experiment. There is never a message of love for us or intervening on our behalf as God has done through the centuries. The Bible-believing Christian could define ETs as angels or demons because they are not from this earth. Jesus defined God, who is the ultimate “ET,” as being a spirit, not a physical entity simply with superior DNA. If Satan can get people to believe that God is nothing more than a physical entity that’s more evolved than we are, then there is less desire to worship him….and this could be the bottom line of this deception. Who are we to trust, the History Channel along with its evolutionary bias, or the Word of God to humanity? From a biblical perspective, determining the actual identity of the nephilim is difficult. There are four theories:

Theory #1: Offspring of Seth—The sons of God were the godly line from Adam to Seth down to Noah, and the Nephilim were fallen children who sought after false gods. A portion of the Dead Sea Scrolls contains the earliest known reference to the phrase “children of Seth,” stating that God had condemned them for their rebellion. Other early references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain are found in Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Augustine of Hippo, Julius Africanus, and the Letters attributed to St. Clement. It is also the view expressed in the modern canonical Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. Orthodox Judaism rejects the idea that angels could intermarry with men. Consequently, most Jewish commentaries describe the Nephilim as being from the offspring of “sons of nobles,” rather than from “sons of God” or “sons of angels.” Note: Jewish or Christian commentaries are not considered to be word-for-word God-breathed by Christians or Jews.

Likewise, a long-held view among some Christians is that the “sons of God” who fathered the Nephilim spoken of in the text, were in fact the formerly righteous descendants of Seth who rebelled, while the “daughters of men” were the unrighteous descendants of Cain, and the Nephilim the offspring of their union. Holders of this view have looked for support in Jesus’ statement that “in the days before the flood they (humans) were marrying and giving in marriage.”

Some individuals and groups, including St. Augustine and John Calvin, take the view of Genesis 6:2 that the “angels” who fathered the Nephilim referred to certain human males from the lineage of Seth, who were called sons of God probably in reference to their being formerly in a covenantal relationship with Yahweh (Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5). These sources assert that men began to pursue bodily interests, and so took wives of the daughters of men, e.g., those who were descended from Cain or from any people who did not worship God.

Theory #2: Offspring of angels— Fallen angels bred with human women and had offspring that were called Nephilim. A number of early sources refer to the “sons of heaven” as “Angels.” The earliest such references seem to be in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek and Aramaic Enochic literature. Also some Christian apologists shared this opinion, such as Tertullian and especially Lactantius. However, “angels” in this context has sometimes been considered to be a sarcastic epithet for the offspring of Seth who rebelled. The earliest statement in a secondary commentary explicitly interpreting this to mean that angelic beings mated with humans can be traced to the rabbinical Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and it has since become especially commonplace in modern-day Christian commentaries.

The New American Bible commentary draws a parallel to the Epistle of Jude and the statements set forth in Genesis, suggesting that the Epistle refers implicitly to the paternity of Nephilim as heavenly beings who came to earth and had sexual intercourse with women. Genesis 6:4 implies that the Nephilim have inhabited the Earth in at least two different time periods—before and after Noah’s Flood. If the Nephilim were supernatural beings themselves, there is a theory that the “giants of Canaan” in Numbers 13:33 were the direct descendants of the antediluvian Nephilim, or were fathered by the same supernatural parents.

Some Christian commentators have argued against this view, citing Jesus’ statement that angels do not marry. Others believe that Jesus was only referring to angels in heaven. Evidence in favor of the “fallen angels” interpretation includes the fact that the phrase “the sons of God” (the Hebrew words literally mean “sons of the gods”) is used just two times outside of Genesis chapter 6. In both instances (namely, Job 1:6 & 2:1) the phrase refers to angels.

The story of the Nephilim is further elaborated in the Book of Enoch. The Greek, Aramaic, and main Ge’ez manuscripts of 1 Enoch and Jubilees connect the origin of the Nephilim with the fallen angels. Although Christians do not believe these sources are “God-breathed” like the books of the Bible, they can contain historical facts.

According to these texts, the fallen angels who begat the Nephilim were cast into a place of total darkness. However, Jubilees also states that God granted ten percent of the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim to remain after the flood, as demons, to try to lead the human race astray until the Final Judgment. In addition to Enoch, the Book of Jubilees also states that ridding the Earth of these Nephilim was one of God’s purposes for flooding the Earth in Noah’s time. These works describe the Nephilim as being evil giants. There are also allusions to these descendants in the books of Judith, Sirach 16:7, Baruch 3:26–28, and Wisdom of Solomon 14:6, and 3 Maccabees 2:4.

Theory #3: Fallen angels overtook men—Fallen angels possessed men and caused them to breed with women; the offspring were not a mix but completely human. One question is, would such people who are
overtaken by demons and/or fallen angels warrant the title of “sons of God?” In all of Scripture, demons are never described as “sons of God.” This is similar to Theory Two.

Theory #4: Fallen men view—Godly men (sons of God) took ungodly wives, and their descendants (the Nephilim) followed after the false gods, rejected God, and fell far from God in wickedness. This is similar to Theory One.

Conclusion: Take your pick. I’m not sure if we can know for certain. I am not comfortable with fallen angels being the parents of the Nephilim because Jesus said that angels do not marry, therefore I assume they do not reproduce like humans. I also assume they lack sexual organs to perform such a task, unless they did exactly what the Holy Spirit did to Mary. If demons can do this, I assume that would mean they can create the necessary physical genetic code material, and I think only God can do that. There are no other Creators beside Him. This would make for a great sci-fi movie – evil angels steal genetic code from God in order to produce a human race against God! For an in-depth work on the Nephilim, go to Who Were the Nephilim – Answers in Genesis

Feedback:

CL – I have never studied this outside Scripture and really appreciated your commentary and extended references. This is something I searched myself (just Bible Commentaries) and came to my own conclusion which you have included here – but I have always still been unresolved and desirous of more information from knowledgeable resources. This was great and when I have time I will search more out.

Alona R – In all of my Bible studies I had never heard of most of your references, just Judith and the Maccabees. Thank you for all your research and references.

Science indicates Adam was not a literal man as revealed in Christianity Today, “The Search for the Historical Adam,” by Richard Ostling, June 8.2011. This is not to say that this Christian magazine is advocating this view, but rather it is showing what “science” claims. I put the word science in quotation marks because this segment of the scientific community is simply voicing opinions based on what they believe from current data. I maintain that their interpretations are in serious error. Not all scientists agree on this issue. You might want to read the article first before reading further: The Search for the Historical Adam – Christianity Today

It is so sad to see men “out thinking” the Holy Scriptures. When they made their points, they quoted scientists. When a literal Genesis view was presented, they quoted pastors. From a scientific viewpoint, how fair is that? They never included scientists who believe in a literal Adam, and I have a long list of those who do, and they all work at major universities such as Cornell, Penn State, Princeton, and many more. (see http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf). LINK UNAVAILABLE

There are plenty of these people from which to choose. One comment in this article was, “there is nothing that insists on a literal understanding of Adam in a passage (Gen. 1-3).” Really?! What about Jesus talking about Adam as being a literal person? They talked about Paul perhaps “not understanding the scientific knowledge of today,” but they dared not include Jesus with that arrogant statement. The truth is that scientists are just scratching the surface with this new human gnome DNA research, and to draw these outlandish conclusions (to usurp the authority of Scripture) is not only arrogant, but foolish and extremely short-sighted. In ten more years, they will know more about the history of human DNA, and what they’ve prematurely concluded now may very well be abandoned then. God’s creation is so complex, but knowledge does puff up and these guys think they know so much when they don’t. So much of science today is adulterated with man’s own thinking and spiritual biases. The scientists do see facts, but they have their own spin put upon those facts, and they falsely call it knowledge (1 Timothy 6:20-21). These modern-day interpreters of Scripture should go back and read God’s rebuke to Job about his apparent lack of scientific knowledge about how and why God made things.

Ironically, science has come up with a “Mitochondrial Eve.” This refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of modern humans. She was the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. In other words, science is thinking that evidence exists that strongly indicates that all humans can be genetically traced backward in time to one woman.

The Bible claims that the fool in his heart says there is no God (Ps.14:1-3). But the devil is no fool (Gen.3:1). He believes in the one true God and trembles (James 2:19). But he knows how to deceive (2 Cor. 2:11). If he can wipe out a literal Adam from modern minds, then what happens to original sin? That’s gone as well. If that is gone, what is the meaning of the Cross? Not much. The spirit behind evolutionary thought is to first undermine the very core of Christianity, and many believers have not looked seriously into this issue unfortunately. The more we ignore it, the more ground it can gain.

Consider these quotes:

“Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.” – Dr. Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes, 1977. This resembles something that Screwtape would say to Wormwood (if you are familiar with C.S. Lewis’ classic book).

“Christianity will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly the very reason for Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and original sin, and in the rubble you will find the remnants the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death (if Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means), then Christianity is nothing.” – G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist, p. 30, 9/20/79.

“You are an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms,” – Biology: Visualizing Life, Holt, 1994. This is a typical statement in all government-run high school science textbooks. Notice how it is stated as a scientific fact despite evolution being only a theory. This is indoctrination and suppresses critical thinking skills. Our tax dollars support this.

I did like South Carolina pastor Phillips’ comment at the end of the article: “Can the Bible’s theology be true if the historical events on which the theology is based are false? If science trumps Scripture, what does this mean for the virgin birth of Jesus, or his miracles, or his resurrection? The hermeneutics behind theistic evolution are a Trojan horse that, once inside our gates, must cause the entire fortress of Christian belief to fall.”

In conclusion, I am thankful for what Jesus told us – “…I will build My church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (Matt.16:18). Some believers, however, may simply sit back in peace with this knowledge, but there is an ongoing war for the souls of people and there is a “Goliath” here strutting arrogantly in front of us ridiculing our God with the same demonic spirit in that ancient Philistine. Rather than just resting in the knowledge that Christ will triumph in the end, we should also heed 1 Peter 3:15 – “…but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence….” Sooner of later, the subject of evolution will confront you. My advice to you is to first repent of the fear of man (which I had to do and still battle to this day). Second, embrace this motto – “It is not about us, it is about Him.” Third, depend on the Holy Spirit to give you the right words.

Feedback so far:

NF – You are so right on Dave—it’s all about Jesus living in your heart –trusting and believing and letting the Holy Spirit speak the needed words to say when meet such folks–glory to His Holy Name forever!

GR – Brother Dave, when will man, atheists, amateur theists, pastors, etc STOP trying to manipulate, change, analyze, question the Word of God. REALLY! If people would stop trashing the Word of God and READ the Word of God and LIVE by the Word of God, all the problems in the world would be gone. I guess its just too easy and man’s PRIDE always gets in the way.

CL – I tried reading all the way thru the Christianity Today article but I couldn’t even finish it – not worth the time I even spent! I would love to be able to see the faces of the “scientists” when they die and meet the One True God…or maybe even Adam (or Eve).

AR – I agree with CL – that article is ridiculous! However, I’m sure some who read it could have been swayed if they didn’t do as GR suggests READ and LIVE by the WORD.

Scripture Thoughts

Tag: Adam

Were the Nephilim in Genesis 6 Extraterrestrials?

Was Adam Literal?

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts