What I mean by special people, is set apart to point to the need for Christ, and also to be the line through which Christ got his human nature. Not because they were better, or had less of a sin nature than anyone else.neo-x wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 10:05 pmAll mankind is inherently evil and completely fallen. That has always been the case. Nothing has changed. Virtue is not a quality that God needs from a line of people from which the messiah would come. Because he would be God's seed, he would be taking nothing from a human parent. Are you saying that everyone in Jesus line was a saint who never did anything evil?RickD wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 3:21 pmWith a local flood, the population of the entire earth wasn't wiped out. The line of Adam had gotten so corrupt, that every thought was evil. Of the line of Adam, the line that God set apart to be a witness and a special people, from which the messiah would eventually be born, became completely evil. So, God wiped out all of Adam's descendants, except Noah and his family.neo-x wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 2:14 pmNo. it's both literal and contextual. In any case, it is more likely to me that he did mean angels. That is what makes the most sense to the story. Otherwise why end up with such a dramatic cataclysmic event.DBowling wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 1:37 pmDo you have any support from the actual text of Genesis that the author of Genesis believed that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to angels?
Does the author of Genesis ever refer to angels as "sons of God" when they appear later in the text of Genesis?
You are making an assertion here with zero support from the actual text of Genesis.
I actually agree with your premise that it is physically impossible for humans and angels to procreate.
But I do have to take issue with your assertion that the author of Genesis thought that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were angels when there is zero evidence in the text of Genesis to support that assertion.
By the way I do think there is a counter argument to be made here on your emphasis on precedent from scriptures. I would propose that the older texts can be referenced to set precedent on the new but it's a one way street. You can't use newer texts to set meaning to the older texts. I do think that Job sets precedent on the term to be used for angels. It is an older text, older than Genesis itself.
But to be honest with you I really don't find the precedent argument strong anyway, because there are not enough texts from the similar time period to ascertain what the term meant conclusively as it later sometimes did which you defer to. I don't think your argument applies here. The text is quite ancient and quite unlike any in the bible. Again, I find it more probable that the Author meant angels rather than people. That makes the most sense of the chain of events that followed. Adamites marrying sethites would be eventual anyway since how else the human population would grow? It is a natural process, Bound to happen. But what wasn't bound to happen, at least in the story is angels marrying humans and begetting giants. Ask your self why would this be an issue if only humans were procreating with humans? Why would they breed giants and something that God was moved to kill all life.
It only makes sense if it was something else. That is what triggers a life wiping flood that is apocalyptic.
Atleast that is what I think.
I don't see why that isn't dramatic enough in and of itself, without having to believe in Magic angel/human giants, or crazy Frankenstein DNA manipulation theories.
Of course not. And that is why I find it a weak argument.
The idea that the line was destroyed to cleanse it from evil never achieved its goal. Evil remained captive on everyone until Christ came.
These are my reasons why I don't agree with your argument.
And again, looking at the text, it doesn't say that the purpose of the flood was to cleanse evil from the line of Adam.
Do you realize how difficult it is for me to have a conversation with someone about different interpretations of scripture, when this person doesn't even hold to inerrancy? What does it even matter what the text says to you, if you don't even believe your own interpretation?