Nero's Boot

When Christians and atheists reproduce together they produce giants as offspring?

--:banghead: NB

Juststeve

One problem some of you are having is that you are working from a Christian translation of the Hebrew Bible. In Hebrew there are no sons of God or supernatural beings involved. A better translation would refer to either "sons of powerful men" or "sons of the nobles". Thus the passage properly reads “That the sons of the nobles saw the daughters of man when they were beautifying themselves, and they took for themselves wives from whomever they chose”. See, no sons of God no supernatural beings involved, just sons of powerful men.

The teaching some Rabbis, including the one who taught me as a boy, draw from these passages that precede the story of the flood is that it was the oppression of the weak by the powerful that was the final evil that led God to destroy the world. In other words, whether or not you believe in God or the flood it is very bad to oppress those who are weaker than you.

Steve

Joan of Bark

Yeah, and it could also be the case that there were other Adam and Eves that weren't mentioned. Or maybe interstellar aliens landed on Earth and mated with humans to produce offspring, but YHWH couldn't be bothered adding this information to the Torah.

Like the Bible isn't ambiguous enough about what it does say, that we need to speculate on what it doesn't say.

Wyrdsmyth

Thank you for your responses.

I suppose that is a plausible answer. However, the rivers given names prior to the Flood have the same names after the flood. I think it begs the question of: in what sense are they the same rivers? If they have the same source, and generally the same course as previous to the flood, then it would make sense to refer to them by the same name.

Hmmm... That doesn't seem to fit the context of the passage: "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." The first part of the passage seems to be God making a decision about man's mortality, due to his fleshly nature. Otherwise, what does that first part of the passage mean, in context with the Flood?

What is your justification for thinking that there are generations left out?

I suppose, granting the supposition it is all true, then it would make sense that Adam and Eve started with no mutation load, and that it was still fairly low by the time of Noah and his children (about ten generations later). How many generations, though, would it take to acquire the average mutation loads that we have today?

Again, this doesn't seem to make sense of the context of the surrounding verses in Genesis 6:1-4:

1. When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,
2. the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
3. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
4. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

What is the link between (a) those who follow God + those who don't follow God producing children, and (b) those children being giants and/or heroes (depending on your translation)? This passage makes far more sense, if you read it in the context of supernatural beings mating with humans to produce demigods, a la Hercules.

Wyrdsmyth

Thanks for the Jewish point of view. Even though they are apocryphal, in books like Enoch and Jubilees it is clear that the Sons of God are fallen angels. Can you recommend a good English translation of the Torah?

James_M

Don't forget that Enoch is a Jewish work of the second temple period, so it is clear that in early Jewish theology that they also believed that angels mated with human women.

In fact the Book of Enoch was found within the Dead Sea scrolls, 4Q201. Read about that here.

Remember that what was presented is still apologetics, be it Jewish or Christian. Jewish apologetics is usually more sensible than Christian apologetics, but that doesn't make it correct or historical(and it usually isn't, just a better attempt at rationalizing the text). It is clear that the Torah (or Genesis) does describe gods or angels or some sort of imaginary supernatural being as mating with human women. Some have said that parts of the text we have is missing and that one of the gods intentions was to destroy the offspring of the Nephilim.

To get a better understanding of Torah, read Friedmans "The Bible with Sources Revealed". This is a good introduction to the Documentary hypothesis. You might also get "The Bible Unearthed" and learn just how much the Bible and archeology are in disagreement.

Rusty Venture

Good point. I've told my Christian friends that Jews interpret Genesis far differently than what they're accustomed to. What I tell them is that while Jews do consider Geneiss in a somewhat historical light, it's more important as allegory, instead of non-debateable fact. Is that correct?

semiopen

Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures--The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text Torah * Nevi'im * Kethuvim (or via: amazon.co.uk)

This is the standard Jewish translation.

It's better in Hebrew. Regarding Noah

Genesis 7:2

No big deal in English, in Hebrew male and female is Ish veIshto which means Man and Wife (woman).

It's mostly poetry, I wouldn't get too hung up on the literal stories.

semiopen

Other translations to consider, might be those of Robert Alter

Genesis: Translation and Commentary (or via: amazon.co.uk)

The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (or via: amazon.co.uk)

It's important to be aware of commentary, and he is considered to be pretty good.

Sheshbazzar

So were these 'Sons of God', whatever they were, obeying God when screwing 'those who did not obey God?'
Are you saying that these Sons of God -were- obeying God, and just following orders when they were screwing 'those who did not obey God?

Then wouldn't it be God hisself who had commanded or demanded that these 'obedient' Sons of God go out and screw the daughters of men?
If they were obeying, then there must have been a God issued directive to 'obey'.

Certainly doesn't sound like this God or any of his minions ought to harbor any qualms about or objections to 'obedient' believers getting the 'ol bone up and putting it to any attractive female heretics and unbelievers.
('course we know your 'obedient Sons of God' now days rather get their kicks by stuffing young boys bums)