Vance said:
Ah, yes, I thought you were somehow arguing that the genealogies would be compressed "tighter" than they are presented. I have heard very often that they could be expanded from the literal reading as you describe. But doesn't the Genesis genealogy actually state how long each person lived before they "begat" the next in line? This would mean a plain-reading would require us to *not* interpret them as expanded beyond the father-son relationship.
I'm not sure I'm following you correctly here. The listed Genealogies in Genesis 4 and 5 are like this: Genesis 4 discribes Cain's genealogy by listing it as person to person or rather father to son like this,
and Irad begat Mehujael: and he begat Methusael:. Here the genealogy never gives ages. The genealogy of Noah given in Genesis 10 is given in like manner without giving ages. The genealogy of Jesus Christ is given in the same manner also in Matthew 1st chapter.
Now in Genesis 5 we see the author giving the genealogy of Adam but he not only gives the age of the men when they fathered their first son but he gives the ages of the men to show how long they lived on the earth. This is done I do believe to show when this flood occured. I'm not a mathematician so you can do the math, LOL...
Here's my point with Genesis 6:9,
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
See now why would the author start a genealogy of Noah before his story is told and then not even give a genealogy but just say that Noah was just and his generations were perfect and that he walked with God? The author is directly referring to the genealogy already given in chapter 5 starting with Adam. This passage is unique and special simply just by the way it is written.
Can you conclude that the reference of Noah's generation being perfect points to the sons of Cain being a line of sin? No you can't because in effect what you'd have to conclude is that Adam as well as the sons of Adam were without sin and both you and I know this to be not true. For all men sin so the reference to Noah haveing a perfect generation doesn't point to meaning anything about sin, right? I contend that it has to do with God's newest creature, man himself. See if Satan and his angels can destroy the human race by tampering with it genetically there will be no redeemer.
Genesis 3:15,
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel
See I believe that perhaps Satan thinks if he destroys the womans seed altogether God can't or won't therefore punish him. There will be no one to bruise his head sort of speak. What I believe what is being told in Gen 6 is that Satan was so successful with this evil plan that only Noah and his family were left unscathed or in other words "perfect in his generations".
Now the Nephilim were not human, they were only half human but also half Angelic being. This does not make the Nephilim apart of the human race. There has been genetic tampering done with this race of men to make them none human. Not only was their height and strength unusual but they had 6 fingers on each hand and 6 toes on each foot as well as double rows of teeth. And most of all the were as evil as evil can be.
In Gen. 6:8 it says,
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. After reading the first 4 verses in Gen 6, 6:8 suggests to me that Noah and his family were the only ones on earth who God found to deserve his grace.
Lets look at 2 Peter 2:4-5,
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; (5) 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;
Peter here combines the sins of angels with the flood story. Here Peter is referring to the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4.
Now read verse 5 here useing your interpretation of "kol erets". Does it fit? does it makes sense to assume the word world meaning something other than the whole earth? Would it make sense to say it like this...And spared not the old region but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the region of the ungodly? I know that last one sounds to silly but does the first one fit?
Lets look at the Epistle of Jude, Jude 6-7,
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. (7) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, 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.
This is a direct reference to the "sons of God" in Gen. 6:1-4 as well. Notice Jude says these angels didn't stay in their first estate but left their own habitation. This is saying these angels left the place God ordained them to live and or rule. This in and of itself was a sin, to leave without the permission of God. What was their first estate? heaven? Since they left this place where did they go?
In verse 7 Jude refers to the sin of these fallen angels as that of being of fornication, the same kind of fornication that the people of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha commited! Going after strange flesh. This strange flesh being that of humans. Where did they go? They came down to earth to marry the daughters of men!
Again, I am not opposed at all to a non-literal reading, so I am not opposed to the concept of using an alternate interpretation of these genealogies (even if it is the less "plain" one) if the result makes more sense. I know some have a problem with this, and insist on the plainest reading in every case. Not me, and I am very glad you seem to agree with me on this.
The only problem I have with this is how you find what interpretation makes more sense to you. Remember what I said about useing science to prove what the original Hebrew says? Otherwise the basic logic that you use is the same as mine, this is true.
By the way, I'm not done yet, just wanted to answer this post... :
And thanks so much for following with me on this because I honestly believe this has everything to do with the flood story. I know both you and I believe in an old earth and that we reject the YEC belief. I think this makes it alot easier for you and I to get along so well on this topic of whether it's a regional flood or global. I do believe you did post this thread to show further proof of an old earth and at least your learning that there are people who do believe in a global flood in Genesis 6-8 and yet don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth but in fact is much older.
hehehe, we gappers aim to please!