October 17, 2017

Difficult Scriptures: Genesis 6:1-4

Well, iMonks, based on the comments we have received for our post regarding life on other planets, it seems you have a curiosity about speculative things, the stuff science fiction is made up of. So here is a verse for you to wrestle with that is just up your alley.

1 Then the people began to multiply on the earth, and daughters were born to them. 2The sons of God saw the beautiful women and took any they wanted as their wives. 3Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years.” 4 In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times (Genesis 6:1-4, NLT).

Who are the “sons of God” taking wives in verse two? And just who were their offspring, these “giant Nephilites”? Are their any descendants of these creatures still among us? Name some of these heroes and famous warriors for us, if you can.

Perhaps the most intriguing issue is verse three. In between these sons of God taking wives and giving birth to giants, the writer of Genesis tells us God imposes a limit on the number of years a man may live. What does this have to do with the Nephilites? Just what is going on in this passage?

If I didn’t know better, I might think Ray Bradbury was involved in all of this somehow. Or Robby the Robot.

It just does not compute.

Comments

  1. 1 Enoch (2nd cent BC – 1st cent AD) 6-15 retells this (and expands) to talk about a class of angels called ‘Watchers’ who, apparently, ‘watched’ a little too closely. This is also mentioned in Jubilees 5-6. In early Jewish theology, the corruption of humans is usually associated with these events, rather than the fall of Adam. This is no doubt what is behind Jude 6 and 2 Pet. 2:4-5, and Paul’s controversial statement in 1 Cor. 11:10.

    Now that that is all cleared up, what you do with it is even more difficult!

    • I Enoch’s influence on the NT (including Revelation) has implications for Evangelical doctrines about the Bible, methinks. You draw and connect the dots.

      • My point exactly. These works tell us what at least some Jews (and apparently a lot of early Christians) believed about this account in the first century. It does have implications for Evangelical doctrines, most of which make most evangelicals uncomforable (including this post-evanglical 😉 ), thus the Pandora’s box Dan Allison mentioned.

      • what implications do you think it has? If you’re trying to say that because it’s quoted (and I agree with that—Jesus quoted Enoch as well) it somehow puts it on the level of authoritative Scripture, I’d disagree. I’ve heard many sermons in which the Simpsons are referred to or quoted but no-one is saying the Simpsons are “inspired”—-the show is just part of a shared culture which can be drawn on for illustration. I think Biblical use of Enoch is similar. It *is* interesting how much Enoch is quoted or referred to—-much, much more than most people realize.

        • I’m not saying that 1 Enoch or Jubilees are inspired. What I’m saying is that if the apostles believed what was apparently a common understanding of these events, as would be suggested by their alluding to these books, it has implications for things like Paul’s view of women and their roles in the church, the limits placed on spiritual beings, how we understand inspiration, etc.

          For example, if one takes a rather wooden view of the authority or inspiration of Scripture (I’m intentionally skirting the incendiary term ‘inerrancy’), then one is almost forced to accept these accounts as ‘apostolically endorsed’ – the angels really did mate with human women (and apparently Paul is concerned it might happen again – 1 Cor. 11:10). On the other hand, if one thinks that Paul, Peter and Jude are simply reflecting commonly held beliefs and allude to them in their books, what implications does that have for the authority or truth of what they write? Could Paul be simply reflecting contemporary myths when he write about a host of other issues.

          Being a theological coward, when someone asks about these passages, I generally say ‘you don’t want to go there’ 🙂 .

  2. Dan Allison says:

    You’ve opened up a Gnostic Pandora’s Box here…

  3. Always seemed to me like the way the Greeks and Romans explained the heroes of old as being the sons of gods and mortal women.

    Obviously for the Jews, there were no other gods but God, so the ‘sons of God’ (if we want to interpret this as angels or fallen angels) were the natural stand-ins to explain the tales of the great demi-god/heroes that every culture produces.

    • Yes, exactly. And not just the Greeks and Romans. The Israelites were surrounded by cultures where tales of this sort of intercourse between deities and mortals were quite common. Not surprising that they adapted some of the tales. I went to a very good talk a while back that was able to relate the story of David to that of Hercules – very common “motifs” such as a description of armor that had not been usual before. The speaker explained that the David stories had been developed in a Hellenistic-Jewish-Egyptian culture (i.e. post-Alexander), and had likely been influenced by Greek stories – “our hero wore burnished bronze greaves, what about yours,?” “Well, of course he did! And let me tell you about his shield.”

      I don’t think it’s very difficult to understand – the verses simply showed how much Jewish culture of the time resembled that of its neighbors.

    • I see a good bit of chat here on the Israelites adopting/adapting local myths into their stories. I’m wondering if the local myths weren’t embellishments of historic events. It is not only the Greeks and Romans whose mythology of a Heroic Age incorporated battles between mortals and gods that resulted in the present cosmological configuration. Norse, Saxon, Germanic, and other northern and western cultures also seemed to share the same motifs. I don’t know enough of Asian and pre-Columbian American myths to know their take on the matter.

      I’m inclined to believe that there was some ancient event or events that gave rise to these myths. It doesn’t really answer the question about what the Bible says on this topic or even what the author was intending to say, but within the context of the whole Old Testament, it is pretty clear that miscegenation of any type is not only frowned upon but soundly condemned – whether with “foreign” Canaanites and Philistines or closely related Ishmaelites and Edomites. This account seems to reinforce that common theme with a warning and I see it more as a morality tale than a completely comprehensive and accurate history.

      • Rick, you’re referring to the theory of euhemerism or euhemerisation, from Euhemerus in the 4th century B.C. who put forward the idea that the gods arose out of heroes and great chieftains who the people venerated and over the course of time, as the facts were forgotten, were elevated into deities.

        This explained how the myths of the gods could have them being born and dying like mortals, not to mention some of their less reputable deeds 🙂 Wikipedia is my friend:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerus

        I tend to broadly agree, but on the other hand, I’m also willing to believe that fallen angels did and do meddle in human history for our downfall (okay, so I’m not quite willing to believe in the Demon of Tyre Blowouts or what have you, but up to a point, mmmkay?)

  4. Controversial even for this blog, but I wonder if the interbreeding between Neanderthals about 25000-30000 years ago and mankind stayed in early mythology and eventually in the Bible. Just a guess, my real answer is I really don’t know.

  5. I am more curious as to the reason for it’s inclusion than what actually happened.

  6. Josh Mueller says:

    I’m not sure why my posts don’t go through – if this is a moderated blog, please disregard anything after my fist post with the links. Thank you!

  7. Allen, I’ve read exactly that, but don’t remember where. The interbreeding with Neanderthals may be at the root of all the different myths about sons of Gods and mortal women.

  8. Buford Hollis says:

    The OT often references myths that it doesn’t bother to explain. I assume the Nephilim were are vestige of polytheistic myths where gods routinely interbreed with mortal women, who then give birth to heroes like Hercules. (If you don’t like my interpretation, then I refer you to Zecharia Sitchin!)

    On that line of thought, Wisdom literature alludes to the morning stars who sang together, the sons of God shouting for joy,, and something about YHWH binding Leviathan with a hook. Some see this as a version of the Babylonian Enuma Elish (Marduk and Tiamat). On this reading, YHWH was once a conquering storm god, much like Zeus or Marduk.

  9. The “sons of God” were those decendents in the line of Seth of which we are told that they began to call themselves by the name of the LORD, hence “sons of God” (Gen 4:26, see KJV margin note).

    The daughters of men were the poserity of Cain, men of renown, who sought to make a name for themselves instead of identifing themselves with God.

    When the sons of God “who kept not their first estate” but began to mingle indiscriminately with the fleshly minded poserity of Cain it was the crowning sin of the sons of God that the LORD had determined now to destroy them by the flood.

    The 120 years refers not to the number of years a man may live but to the number of years counting from the time LORD determined to destroy all flesh by the flood and when the actual flood occured.

    • that’s the interpretation I’ve always held but I do find speculations about interbreeding with fallen angels, Neanderthals, etc fascinating

    • Though many conservative evangelicals hold this view (because to infer that the “sons of God” were angelic beings would contradict Jesus’ statement in Mark 12:25) I believe that the sons of God were actually angelic beings who lost their position in heaven and sinned by intermarrying with human women (cf. Job 1:6). My problem with the Sethite view is that it doesn’t explain why only the male line of Seth should be called the sons of God and only the daughters of Cain should be called the daughters of men. The only explanation I would denounce as unbiblical or heretical is the view that we cannot possibly believe that they were angelic beings because we must not believe in the supernatural. Any so-called Christian theology that denies the supernatural doesn’t deserve to be called Christian.

      • I don’t think *only* the male line of Seth is referred to as sons of God—it’s just that there’s a common theme of God’s people going astray when the men go off and marry “foreign” wives like Solomon or like in the end of Ezra. The emphasis is on the men of the line of Seth going out and getting wives from the ungodly line.

        • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

          Which then shades into the classic “Where did Cain get his wife?”

          (To which the joke answer is “she evolved over in the next county.”)

          (I’m not even gonna touch on Lillith or “Serpent Seed Doctrine”…)

    • This view doesn’t really explain why the offspring of this union should be giants. Also, the angels are called the “sons of God” in Job.

      • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

        This view doesn’t really explain why the offspring of this union should be giants.

        Ever figure “giants” might have been the translators’ best guess? Like “unicorn” for “re’em”? Since “Nephilim” was unique to Hebrew and had NO exact translation into Kynge Jaymes Englyshe?

        • Whatever they were, they were pretty outstanding sons and/or daughters. The Sethite view doesn’t really do a good job explaining why.

  10. Tough one. I don’t have any neat answers and suspect that anyone who does is blowing smoke, but here are some observations from experience.

    1. Some of the weirdest bible passages seem that way to us because of vast differences in times and cultures. Surely that’s the case here, as some commenters have already alluded to.
    2. This passage is likely describing something really, really ancient, probably pre-historic. We know little about these beginnings. It is possible that before the Fall there was social interaction between humans and heavenly beings/angels, but that as the effects of the Fall became more greatly felt that this either became less and/or the corruption extended to that interaction. No way to know for sure.
    3. God’s limiting of humans’ lives to 120 years may be an anthropomorphic portrayal of God and culturally relevant way of explaining the effects of the Fall in ancient cultures that believed in anthropomorphic deities.

    Final thought: Those who have managed to make the Bible boring have only done so by assiduously avoiding the most intriguing (and often mind-boggling) bits such as this.

  11. I searched on the web for a variety of discussions of Genesis 6:1-4. One I found that I thought did a fair job of presenting three alternative interpretations is found at:

    http://www.christianforums.com/t4812942-3/

    The introduction in the above discussions says:

    • The introduction in the above discussions says:

      The three positions may be labeled “the cosmologically mixed races view” (angels and humans), “the religiously mixed races view” (godly Sethites and worldly Cainites) and “the sociologically mixed races view” (despotic male aristocrats and beautiful female commoners).

  12. Cedric Klein says:

    I’m afraid my theory might sound like a mix of Theistic Evolution (OK) and Arnold Murray (EEK!)~

    perhaps this is referring to the “Spirit of Life-breathed” yet fallen Adamites taking mates & bearing children with the “God-Imaged” but not “Spirit-breathed” non-Adamites, and with the more fallen Adamites or their offspring becoming Nephilim as they tyrannixe & exploit their “lesser” fellows, much the same way many European Christian colonizers went to evangelize & ended up oppressing pagan subjects.

    • Cedric Klein says:

      Btw, I gained an interest in the Bible through the works of Erich Von Daniken, so y’all can guess my OTHER theory! *L*

  13. This is pure speculation from an untrained Christian, but I’d like to take a stab at this one!

    Maybe the “sons of God” where the people who inhabited the earth at that time, after all we where made in the image of God and have the desire to have a spouse.

    “their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years.” I still have yet to hear of anyone living past 120 years.

    “In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.’ Maybe those “giants” where actually just normal people who inhabited the earth but where of a larger stature. Just like today we have people who are absolutly huge, even giant.

    If we take my analysis of this scripture then it appears that it really isn’t all that difficult after all, however, I am untrained, so there is probably more to this post than meets the eye.

  14. Okay, so I admit I didn’t read everyone’s comments.

    This passage isn’t so troubling to me, because I think that it’s just a part of the ancient Jewish creation myth (or folklore) that we can sometimes take too seriously.

  15. See James L. Kugel The Bible As It Was Chapter 5 Noah and the Flood (Genesis 6-8).

  16. Christiane says:

    The likelihood of the author incorporating some elements from the myths of his time, seems a possible answer here.
    When the chapter continues, we see how the author begins to give wide-spread immorality as a reason for ‘the Flood’, a story which appears in many ancient cultures concerning a great flood.
    And then we are introduced to Noah.

  17. Likely these heroes spoken of are of the myths surrounding, like Hercules, Gilgamesh, Osiris, Thor and the other gods and heroes of pagan cultures. And many of them are claimed to be begotten by the gods. It’s just speculation, but it makes sense.

  18. I have a VERY different take on this, but you will have to wait until I get back to posting next week. Stay tuned. Uh oh, I think I hear the mother of the bride (my wife) calling me. If she finds out I’m checking the blog, I’m toast! See y’all next week.

    • FollowerOfHim says:

      We wait with bated breath, Chaplain Mike! Best wishes to your daughter and new husband as they set out on their new life together. And we won’t tell your wife you were here….

  19. This link may help confuse the conversation a bit more:http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/giantman.asp

    According to the website snopes.com, these pictures are false. I can’t attest to their authenticity, but the pictures are interesting, supposedly depicting skeletons of giants (Nephillium).

  20. One thing I will not posit as a legitimate Christian view is that this passage just reflects Jewish scribes adopting mythical tales from their pagan neighbors. Sorry, but I believe that whoever wrote that passage actually wrote what really happened in historical time and space. Though I lean towards the angelic view, I don’t believe that holding to the Sethite view or Kingship view lands one as a heretic. However, saying that this passage was just an adaptation of a Jewish scribe from his surrounding pagan neighbors is just plain nonsense. Not only that, anyone who denies the full authority and inspiration of Scripture by inference from a redactional view of this text is a heretic.

    • Buford Hollis says:

      Then this will still count as heresy, but a slight correction: the ancient Israelites didn’t borrow polytheism from “surrounding pagan neighbors.” Rather, they were originally polytheistic themselves. The monotheistic YHWH cult arose among Canaanites who rewrote their history and voila, the Bible! In other words, the Israelites WERE Canaanites (the Exodus myth notwithstanding).

      It is no secret anymore that many of the myths of the OT (Adam and Eve, the Deluge, etc.) are related to various other ancient Near Eastern myths. Why should the Nephilim story be any different?

      • Just a second there, sir Heretic…
        Just because the Genesis stories could have been borrowed from other mythology due to their similarities, that is not conclusive proof that they were borrowed. So many make that logical leap as soon as they notice correlations, but they fail to recognize that all myths have a beginning. They have to start somewhere. I am not aware of any reason why we could not suppose the events described in the Bible did happen, and since other peoples would have been aware of them as well (that flood thing might have been a little hard to miss), then of course they passed on their version of the stories.
        I recognize that all stories develop as time passes, but as a Christian, I do believe the Bible is at least reliable. I would propose this: The pagan variations of the myth went through vast alterations, and if the Jewish/Christian account changed from the actual events that happened (assuming they are real), then the alterations themselves were inspired to present the story of Christ in scripture. If the events were NOT true, then they could certainly be inspired mythology, borrowed or not. An inspired original or amalgamation makes little theological difference if the events did not actually happen.
        For the sake of argument, I lean strongly towards the events being real. But not wanting to miss the forest for the trees, if they are not, I’m not becoming a Buddhist: Their purpose is to tell the story of Christ. And this they do perfectly well regardless. 🙂

        • Buford Hollis says:

          The Israelites didn’t borrow their myths FROM their neighbors, the Canaanites. They WERE their neighbors.

          • Seriously, your above response post to me sounds like something that comes from a Bart Ehrman textbook or from something published by Promethius.

          • NOT a historical fact. Interesting speculation. Who was it that build the pyramids then? Help me out here.

          • Buford Hollis says:

            That’s actually a good parallel question. Some people say aliens did it. Other people say it was Atlanteans. Skeptical scholar-types have their own theories, of course, but what makes their answers better than everybody else’s? They’re so full of spiritual blindness and demonic pride. Anyway, they can’t PROVE it wasn’t aliens.

          • Not to mention, is Israelites WERE originally from Canaan, then do they have a right to Palestinian land?

          • Buford Hollis says:

            If Abraham existed at all, then the Palestinians would be his descendents too. So they should find some way to live together in peace!

      • Well, Buford, we all know where you stand on spiritual matters. Of course, I could gently share the gospel with you now but I have a keen sense that Chaplain Mike will delete that post the moment it hits his sensory perceptions.

      • Craig H Robinson says:

        “The Israelites WERE Canaanites”

        ???

        Based on what? Where do you get this from? Some archeologist’s speculation? Certainly the Biblical accounts make it clear that they were not Canaanites. The story isn’t that difficult to follow. Canaanites came from Ham. Israelites came from Shem.

        • Buford Hollis says:

          Yeah, basically. I recommend “The Bible Unearthed” by (skeptical Israeli archeologist) Israel Finkelstein. But he’s not the only one who talks like that, by any means.

          The Bible accounts are myths whose contents do not match what the archeologists have been finding in the ground. Hence their speculation.

          Come on–Ham and Shem?! Do you really believe that the Canaanites were the product of father-daugher incest? Or that the three sons of Noah were the ancestors of all humanity? (I fail to recall any mention of such a genetic bottleneck from DNA researchers.)

          • Josh in FW says:

            I recently saw a PBS special using DNA to trace the geographic origins and it seems to parallel the Genesis account nicely.

          • I don’t see how anyone who says “If Abraham existed at all…” can be taken seriously on a Christian forum.

          • Craig H Robinson says:

            If Israelites and Canaanites were the same people, then why were they fighting over the same piece of land for hundreds of years. Even if you don’t believe the Bible is true, it would make much more sense that they were two different people groups fighting over the same land, than that they were the same people. That is more typical of all land battles/disputes throughout history.

            Even if you don’t believe the Biblical accounts, the historical narratives would seem to give us a much better account of how they viewed each other than some idle speculation 3000 years later by some man trying to make a name and income for himself based on a speculative interpretation of a couple pieces of evidence.

        • Craig, Buford is writing from an unbeliever’s skeptical perspective. Don’t take a lot of things he says here seriously.

        • A true believer would not believe what you believe. I say that with full seriousness.

  21. Jesus, the Apostles and disciples often quoted from the O.T. Scriptures. The purpose was to inform, teach and exhort…truths…not myths. The passage in question was drawn-on by the Apostles as exhortation of truth! To say that Genesis 6 is just some myth is to say that the Apostles referred to a myth to exhort the church.

    I do not think that the Apostles would be exhorting believers to be aware that God’s holy angels may not be able to control their sex drive at times and could therfore be raping their women. NO! The Bible says that angels do not marry nor are taken into marrage.

    Genesis 6 is a case of the sons of God (Sethites) indiscriminately taking the daughters of men (Cain’s posterity) as wives. If that’s too “boring” for some folks then so be it.

    • Calm down Charles, no one is blasting you for holding to the Sethite view (though I disagree with your interpretation of Genesis 6).

      I’m just relieved that you do not embrace the historical-critical method of redacting Genesis 6 from some pagan mythical source and undermining the inspiration of Scripture.

      • Why would anyone blast me for holding to the belief that the sons of God in Gen. 6 were Sethites?

        It’s not foreign to the Bible that belivers are called sons of God, nor is there any lack of visible evidence that men take to themselves unbelivers as wives.

        The idea that the sons of God refer to God’s immortal angels comes from the passages in Jude and 2 Peter. But, just because the sons of God were referred to as angels or messengers does not necessarily mean that they were God’s angels in heaven.

        If I seem to be “blasting” anyone it’s because I see the absurdity in thinking that angels in heaven, who are ministers to those who would inheirt salvation, would be going around marrying and having children with mortals.

        The exortation is that we be the messengers and NOT the message as were those who died in the flood.

        • How do you explain the Nephalites in verse 4 with your Sethite interpretation?

          • “Then they presented the Israelites with a discouraging report of the land they had investigated, saying, “The land that we passed through to investigate is a land that devours its inhabitants. All the people we saw there are of great stature.
            We even saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak came from the Nephilim), and we seemed liked grasshoppers both to ourselves and to them.” (Num 13:32-33)

            The Nephilim were men of great stature…height or breadth. They were either very tall or very wide or maybe both.

        • Charles,

          Showing that the Nephalites appear elsewhere doesn’t really address my objection. The passage above draws a connection between the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men.

          ‘In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.’

          It doesn’t really make sense that whenever a righteous descendent of Seth had union with a woman of Cain’s line, a giant was born.

          • Thomas,

            Nephilim….from the root ‘nephal’, meaning “he fell” or fallen ones.

            The result of the unlawful union of the Sethites with Cain’s posterity produced fallen ones or those who would fall away.

  22. Craig H Robinson says:

    I believe John Sailhamer gives the best explanation of these verses in “The Pentateuch as Narrative.” p. 120-122.

    Beyond that, looking closely at the Hebrew, I believe that there may be a couple of small parallel chiastic structures imbedded into the text that may help us in our understanding of the author’s intent. Translating woodenly:

    verse 2:
    A. They saw
    B. Sons of God
    B. Daughters of men
    A. that they were beautiful

    verse 4:
    A. They went
    B. Sons of God
    B. to daughters of men
    A. and they bore to them

  23. It’s easy to see that if the Sethites, who had taken for themselves the name of God, and were therefore called sons of God, had become attracted to Cain’s posterity and took them as wives that the result would be the Nephilim or fallen ones (apostate). The result of that unlawful union produced mighty warriors and famous men. Those children, instead taking for themselves, as their fathers did, to be called sons of God, a spiritual people, became a wordly people. Thus, God brought the flood upon them all.

    • Hi, Charles,

      Respectfully, I still find your interpretation to be disatisfying. To define the Nephalim as merely apostates doesn’t seem to do justice to how it is used in this passage. When it says,

      “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward— […]. They were the heroes of old, men of renown,” (NIV)

      it doesn’t seem like it is talking about mere apostates. For one, it seems to be setting a limit of time to the existence of the Nephalim. Second, it describes them as being extraordinary men. Why would it follow that these apostates have such outstanding children?

      • Thomas,

        This could get into a long discussion. We could ask about whom the people were who dwelt in the land of Nod (wandering) where Cain dwelt after his banishment from Eden.

        Were these sons and daughters of Adam banished as Cain was or where they just wanderers?

        Cain said:

        “Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.”

        What did Cain understand to be the face of the earth?
        Where those other people “out there” considered to be “from the face of the earth”?

        Cain was afraid to be “out” there hid from the face of the earth and from the face of God.

        It makes me wonder about those wandering people. I get the idea that wanderers get lost. I think the Nephilim were wanderers who wandered from the face of the earth and from God. In other words, they left their first habitation or first estate and thus were hid from the face of God.

        I don’t take mighty warriors and men of renown, “outstanding children”, to be a positive thing as viewed by God, else why bring the flood.

        • The discussion about Cain aside…

          My point is not whether the “heroes of old, men of renown” were good or bad. It’s that the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men seemed to be pretty special. This makes sense if the sons of God are angels, as they clearly are in Job. It doesn’t make sense, imo, if they are the descendents of Seth.

          • Thomas,

            If it makes sense to you that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are angels (messengers) in heaven who metamorphosis into men and marry and have kids with mortals then go with it.

  24. I have always loved these verses for their wonder and mystery. It certainly allows for the imagination to run wild. I am surprised that no one has mentioned Madeleine L’Engle’s book on this. Title: Many Waters. I loved it as a child and I love it as an adult. Whether you hold to the “Sethite” interpretation, or the Angel one, L’Engle’s book makes a good story.

    • black cat says:

      Agreed! I’m several days behind on my iMonk emails, but I love Madeleine L’Engle’s story. She was a magnificent author, and “Many Waters” is one of my favorites.

  25. Headless Unicorn Guy says:

    It just does not compute.

    Actually, Jeff, that isn’t Robby the Robot from Forbidden Planet.

    That’s the unnamed “Robot model B-9” from Lost in Space.

  26. Brother Bartimaeus says:

    You all make my head hurt.

    Genesis is wisdom literature all about why things are. Why don’t we live for as long as they did way back when? Why was there a historic flood recognized in the transmitted knowledge of several cultures of the time?

    Isn’t the most difficult part that the Nephilites survived the flood? Were they as good swimmers as they were warriors?

    Peace

  27. Obviously copious amounts of study and consideration led to all of the above. But noone has enunciated the line that I have always thought most believable.
    The ‘Sons of God’ (read Daughters as well) were those who originally lived in Eden. We know that Eve had children there, since God said that He was going to “greatly increase” her pain in childbirth after the fall. There must have actually been many since there appear cities at other locations immediately after the expulsion. The ‘Daughters of Men’ (read Sons as well) were thise born after the expulsion.
    The figure of 120 years is to be read as referring to 120 Jubilee years – the 6000 years of creation.
    The life span of all mankind.