# A Biblical Explanation of Ancient History



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 5, 2004)

Alright guys. I know I promised this essay along time ago on the Antedeluvian thread. So here goes. Please feel free to offer your constructive criticisms as this is only the beginning to my thoughts regarding the subject. Perhaps it will spark some brainstorming in others. Hopefully it will be publishable some day. 

_________________________________
A Biblical Explanation of Man's Development in Ancient History
By Patrick Severson (aka. Puritan Sailor)
---------------------------------------------------- 
Over recent months I have been pondering the doctrines of creation as taught in Genesis and their associated scientific proofs. It has been remarkable to me how correct and reliable the Scriptures have been when point after point, year after year, evolution and all it's worldly philosophical cousins are refuted. Granted, no one outside the Church really advertises this fact but still it has inspired me to reconsider other assumptions in this life that I have been raised to believe. My predominate thought was on the false assumptions of modern historians regarding the record of mankind. Unfortunately, evolution has hijacked that science over the last century or so. We are taught that man evolved from apes and wandered for millions of years as nomadic tribes, learning primitive survival skills, essentially like the brute beasts of the earth and then slowly developed language and basic skills like crude tools and hunting weapons. Evolutionary explanations to history assume that God is not involved with mankind, that mankind began is a very primitive ignorant species, and that this process to get mankind from cave man to the intellectual giant that he is today took millions of years. Even those in the church who despise the theory of evolution still tend to portray Adam and Eve as some idiot cavemen who had to start from scratch. 

But as I sat and reflected on this I realized these evolutionary assumptions contradict the Scriptures, particularly the book of Genesis. For one, mankind didn't have millions of years to roam and develop in the earth, the earth being only a few thousand years old. Two, we are told plainly in Genesis where many of our first social skills and technologies come from. Third, the Bible teaches us that man did not begin as a primitive cave man with low intelligence, but began as the crown jewel of God's creation endowed with all the necessary skills required to subdue the earth. As Christians we have privileged information in the Scriptures to help unlock the history and origins of mankind. God has not left us without an explanation as to how we came into existence or why the world is the way it is today. There is plenty of information out there establishing the biblical view of creation and refuting evolution so I will primarily focus here on a correct understanding of ancient history and the technological development of mankind from a biblical perspective. Let us consider these things as we browse through the first few chapters of Genesis. 

[i:4d58faf697] The first man, Adam. [/i:4d58faf697]
In the church today, we readily testify to the fact the Adam was created morally upright with a complete understanding of God's moral law ingrained in his very nature. But we must also understand that Adam was also given a basic knowledge to enable him to obey God's command to subdue the earth. Whether he was created with this knowledge or learned it by his conversations with God is not completely known and really isn't important. What is important is that Adam was no ignorant cave man. He was also given a great ability to learn more and develop ideas to further this end as can be shown by his lack of the knowledge of good and evil. Much of this is simply implied in the biblical narratives. After Adam was created, he was set in the Garden of Eden to tend and care for it. This required at least some basic knowledge of agriculture. He also named all the animals giving him a general understanding of each kind with their special skills or capabilities and how they could be used. Thus, the beginnings of animal husbandry. Adam learned how to make clothing by seeing God make him clothes from animal skins after his fall. And God plainly tells Adam in the curse that he must toil in the fields to make his crops and keep back the weeds and thorns. As silly as it may sound, we see here that Adam quickly learned how to weed a garden. 

[i:4d58faf697]Cain and Abel.[/i:4d58faf697]
It would seem that much of this knowledge passed on to his sons because we find that Abel is a shepherd and Cain is a farmer or "tiller of the ground" (Gen. 4:2). Abel brought forth gifts from his flock to God and Cain produced gifts to God from his crops showing at least a basic understanding of animal husbandry and agriculture. It would seem that Cain and Abel, and probably Adam himself improved upon Adam's basic knowledge of animals and agriculture. And these would be no measly crops either. How much wheat or fruit does it take to feed a single man for one year? Quite a bit I'd imagine. We also find the first city mentioned in the Bible built by Cain and named after his son Enoch. This probably occurred within the first 100 years of man's creation. Yet the evolutionary view would teach that over millions of years nomadic tribes would have eventually settled down and formed little villages around stable food resources eventually forming into larger communities. Now we are not told how big Cain's city was but it did occur relatively quickly after man was created completely contradicting the speculations of evolutionists.

[i:4d58faf697]Cain's descendents.[/i:4d58faf697]
We see that Jabal founded a tribe of those who dwelt in tents and raised livestock. Again skills, previously known and most likely learned and developed from Cain and Abel. It's not much of a stretch to figure out that animal skins will work as a tent just as well as for clothing. Genesis tells us that Jubal invented some musical instruments, hence the first recorded musical skills of men. Yet how many millions of years do evolutionists speculate it took for man to develop such skills? Tubal-Cain was an instructor in bronze and iron craftsmen. Curious how evolutionists will make a separate bronze and iron-age in history yet Genesis tells us these skills were developed at the same time by the same man shortly after man's creation. And why would these men pursue knowledge in these areas at all? It is entirely possible that they worked from a foundation of knowledge in these areas from Adam though it is not necessary to hold to that. Either way, it demonstrates that early man was no less intelligent in figuring things out than they are today. Notice, this most likely occurred before Seth was born to Adam as implied by Gen. 4:25 showing a remarkable amount of knowledge developed in the first 130 years of man's history. 

[i:4d58faf697]Family structure[/i:4d58faf697]
Consider the building of the family structure. Evolutionary historians teach that over time men became dominate over women simply because they were bigger and stronger. Yet, Genesis teaches that God placed man over the woman and that man and woman should cleave to one another as husband and wife. Together they were to raise children. And interesting enough, the basic family structure is still the same today despite the sinful perversions that have tried to pollute it over man's entire history of existence. 

[i:4d58faf697]The institution of religion [/i:4d58faf697]
We also see the institution of religion in these first chapters of Genesis. Evolutionary histories argue that religion developed over millions of years as man tried to find reasons to explain the anomalies of their primitive lives. Yet Scripture states that God established true worship and religion with Adam and Eve. They worshipped and fellowshipped with God in the Garden and were even appointed a specific day to enjoy this worship, the Sabbath day. The religion was later developed after man's fall where God promised to them one who would come that would crush the deceptive serpent and remove the consequent curse. We see this worship followed by Abel, and with the birth of Seth we find the first mention of congregational worship as "men began to call upon the name of the Lord." So this continued from Seth through his descendants down to Noah. Yet we also see the founding of the first false religion in Cain who refused to worship God as God commanded, and instead set up his own standards of conduct which he also passed on to his children after departing from the presence of the Lord (Gen. 4:16). And so, these chapters show us how the greatest division in mankind developed between the true worship of God and the false. 

[i:4d58faf697]The first spoken language.[/i:4d58faf697]
We may also notice that mankind was created with a spoken language and able to communicate even in the Garden of Eden. And, it was no mere series of grunts, groans, or whistles as the evolutionists would have us believe human language evolved from. Adam spoke with God in the garden and he spoke with Eve. He even selected Eve's name with a purposeful meaning, that she would be the "mother of all living", suggesting he had some sort of linguistic framework from which to derive such a name for her. We see this also with the purposeful naming of Cain and Seth. We see Cain speaking with God and later with Abel. Lamech as well speaks to those around him. All this indicates that mankind at least had a complex spoken language, which would obviously aid Cain's city, Jabal's tent tribes, and Tubal-Cain's instructions in metal crafts. We are not told as to what extent these people learned how to commit the language to writing symbols though much can be accomplished in hundreds of years. The long life spans of the people would not necessarily require them to write because oral tradition would be a much more reliable tool than it would be today with our short generations. After all, if you consider the dating of the Genesis genealogy to be correct, there are only 3 overlapping generations from Adam to Noah, (Adam- Methusela- Noah) which would allow for very little distortion in passing on oral history. We must also consider the great advantage to having the whole world speak one language. There was no need for interpreters, no loss of information due to translation, and no verbal barriers to separate great minds from sharing their research and knowledge. 

[i:4d58faf697]The benefit of longer life spans.[/i:4d58faf697]
We may also note how greatly enhanced the learning curves for these people would have been. In our time, we have roughly 70 years to learn and develop our knowledge and skills to pass on to others. It is often the case today that men are cut off at the peak of their intellectual developments. Yet, before the Flood, men lived for hundreds of years. Such long life spans would provide people like Tubal-Cain and Jubal immense time to develop their crafts with great thoroughness and research. Cain's descendants would have hundreds of years to master farming methods. This would also apply to Cain's city building technology. Cain and his descendants would have hundred's of years to figure out what structure and infrastructure designs better suited city life and what forms of government best worked. And again, considering the long ages of his descendents, they would have long overlapping life spans to better learn from each other's mistakes and pass on the lessons learned to more long-living generations. 

[i:4d58faf697]Noah and his sons [/i:4d58faf697]
Thus we see a great possibility for tremendous growth in knowledge by the time Noah was born. And all these things we have only considered assuming God was not involved at all in these affairs after Eden. Yet we know that it was God who taught much to Adam. And we also find that it is God who taught Noah and his sons how to build the ark. Noah also lived 500 years before the flood (and his sons about one hundred years each themselves) which would have been plenty of time to learn all the basics in farming, animal husbandry, clothing, tent making, iron/bronze working, music, city building, and finally ship building and wood working. We even see that at some point Noah learned how to grow vineyards and make alcohol. Noah lived 350 years more after the flood and Shem lived for 400 years after the flood. That is plenty of time to pass on to your descendents all the basic technologies learned from the old world, especially when the next three generations lived for 400 years each too. And it would seem that soon after the flood, man put this knowledge to work in creating the city and tower of Babel with bricks and mortar. We are not told whether the old world had the knowledge of brick making but it would seem implied since mankind had already known how to build cities. In any case we still see how intelligent man was before and after the flood and how quickly civilization began to grow within a few generations after the flood despite all the catastrophic changes made to the earth due to the flood.
All this takes place in a period of about 2000 years (sticking strictly with the biblical dating of generations). Evolutionary historians would think this to be completely ludicrous today yet look how far man has come in the last 2000 years! When considering these factors in the development of knowledge it is no wonder that man could build the Pyramids, the tower of Babyl, the Babylonian hanging gardens, the Colossus, or any other great wonder of the ancient world, without too much difficulty. Contrary to the opinion of the evolutionary historians, the ancients were not idiots. The great empires of the ancient world could build themselves up quickly because Noah and his sons could already provide mankind with a great wealth of information about the technologies needed to survive and "subdue the earth", especially when combined with man's great ability to learn and develop even further. 

[i:4d58faf697]The consequences of Babel[/i:4d58faf697]
We may ponder the question why the learning seemed to have slowed. For it seemed that for many hundreds of years after the flood there was very little development until perhaps the Greek and Roman empires appeared and began the great increase in knowledge once again. It may be explained in many ways but most likely it had to do with the consequences of the tower of Babel. One can only imagine the utter chaos involved when God divided the world into several languages. Further, hindrances also developed as man began spreading throughout the world thereby separating the great minds of innovative men not only by language but also by geography. We could also find setbacks due to the lost knowledge by the consequences of war, isolation, disease, and famine, and the shortening life span of the generations after the flood. It is amazing how much advancement is made when great amounts of people are united under a common language and geography, as seen throughout history with the Greek, Latin, and English languages and their related empires and nations. 
When critics argue that such events don't explain how the American Indians, Pacific Islanders, and Aborigines got to their respective homelands we may refer to the book of Genesis. The world was divided after Babel by languages. Man already possessed technologies for survival, including the knowledge of shipbuilding learned from Noah and his sons. When such things are taken into account, it isn't hard to figure out how men could settle in isolated parts of the world a few thousand years ago. I may add that such an explanation is much more believable than assuming the individual races and cultures evolved at different times over millions of years at different rates of growth and development. 

It is at this point that a remark must be made regarding the origins of racism. Modern racism is a product of evolutionary thinking because they teach that different races of men are further developed than others. This is the "scientific" explanation as to why various groups of humans are more advanced than others. But a study in the book of Genesis, and for those scientists out there a study in genetics, prove that all men are descended from one common ancestor, Noah. There is no such thing as different races of men. There is one human race. "Inferior" groups of people are not so because of any genetic differences but because of a different cultural development. History has repeatedly shown that men from simple cultures can learn and succeed in advanced cultures with out much difficulty and their children also when raised in "advanced" cultures are no different than any natives of that "advanced" culture, something which could not be done if they were genetically inferior. The biblical explanation for such differences is shown in the vast genealogies of Genesis. The sons of Noah spread out everywhere across the globe. But those civilizations that remained in close contact had the benefit of learning from each other. Thus we see in the Mediterranean region throughout the last 3000 years. Greek, Arabian, and later Latin scholars built up there knowledge by learning from each other's works. Nations who fight in frequent wars are obviously going to learn more efficient ways of warfare. Those tribes who were isolated from these interactions could not benefit from the knowledge acquired. The great ancient cities that formed for commerce and military defense were not necessary to the survival of isolated tribes with few if any military enemies. It is interesting that it was the cultures surrounding the initial settlements of Noah and Shem that had the greatest advancements in ancient history while those far off didn't enjoy as great a wealth of knowledge, with a few exceptions. Such is one explanation for the differences in technological development among different cultures. With this understanding it is easy to see why the isolated cultures in the Pacific gained much less knowledge over thousands of years than the European and Asian cultures. 

Though such meditations are wonderful to speculate on, what are the practical consequences to this more correct and biblical understanding of ancient history? Well, first, it demonstrates the complete inadequacy of anti-christian philosophies to explain the origins of man. As shown above, an approach to the biblical evidence actually provides a much more realistic and rational approach in understanding the origins and ancient technological and cultural development of mankind and a perfectly reasonable explanation of ancient history if one is willing to admit God is the Creator and interacts with his creation and that the Scriptures are history instead of mythology. A literal interpretation of the first 11 chapters of Genesis therefore provides a perfectly reasonable history of mankind without any conflict with geology or archaeology, especially when the un-provable assumptions and speculations of evolution are rejected and discarded. Such is the great reliability of the Scriptures despite all the opposition of the superstitious "intellectual" elites of our day.

Secondly, seeing how reasonable and easy it is to explain history in light of the origins described in Genesis, Christians must be emboldened to attack the false assumptions of evolutionists knowing that God has provided the truth concerning the origins of mankind. It has long been the policy of many evangelicals to compromise on these issues because they feel the weight of the speculations and superstitions of science to be so powerful. Yet when analyzed by the Word of God and by scientist's own scientific method, their worldly philosophies are exposed for what they really are, simply a rebellion against the true God. Such must be the mindset of the Christian. We must not be blind fanatical enemies to the evolutionists. We have perfectly reasonable and much more credible explanations of the origin and history of mankind in the Scriptures and so we must respond confidently on that level.

Thirdly, consider the great potential and accomplishments of this creature made in God's image. And yet this greatness is only the product of a miserable fallen race. As Thomas Boston once analogized, fallen man is like the ruins of a mighty ancient castle. One could only imagine the possibilities if man were to have remained faithful in the Garden. But the Scriptures also provide us with great warnings. Man was endowed with the remarkable abilities to learn, develop, and grow in knowledge, yet the Scriptures tell us that by the time of Noah, man had become violent and wicked to the point that he must be destroyed. Even after the flood, man using his wealth of knowledge built the great tower of Babyl as an act of defiance against God. Thus, we see that no matter how great in knowledge man becomes, no matter how great his technological advances, he will never be able to solve the problem of sin. He is a fallen and cursed creature who uses his great endowments and abilities to rebel against the one who created and equipped him. Without the intervention of God man de-evolves into moral anarchy. The great evolutionary progress of mankind exists only in fictional stories and fantasies.

There is only one way for man to improve beyond this fallen and cursed life and that is to be born again, to be re-created in the image of God, and restored back to a right relation with Him. This is only done through trusting the second Adam, Jesus Christ, who has taken the penalty of our sin upon himself, has crushed the head of the serpent, and justifies us before our Creator. Man was created to use his abilities to further develop his knowledge of God. Man has found no end to the study of nature and technology, and yet these are finite things. How much more is there to know about the infinite God? Though the study of nature is enjoyable, how much more enjoyable is the study of the great God who made it all? And so, believers in Jesus Christ must exercise that great privilege we enjoy, to use all our great abilities and gifts to pursue the knowledge of God and carry out his will, to glorify God and enjoy him forever! Such is the chief end of our creation. And, though we are set back by lingering sin, Christians have been born again and renewed, not to give ourselves and our gifts to the world but to God for his use and glory.

[Edited on 1-5-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## pastorway (Jan 5, 2004)

Great Work PuritanSailor!!

:thumbup::thumbup:

Phillip


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 6, 2004)

Thankyou Pastor Way. Any other comments guys? I'd appreciate your evaluation if you have the time.

[Edited on 1-7-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## JohnV (Jan 6, 2004)

Patrick:

I read it carefully, and I like the approach you take. It seems that you have in mind an audience that is open to a reasonable and balanced approach, an audience that is not obviously biased. And this is very well done. 

There is more you could say, and I suppose that you are itching to do so. But in the pre-classical way of presenting the truth plainly and evenly, I think that this makes a good tract to give to people. Expand on it a bit, and you have a small booklet. I would buy one.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 7, 2004)

Thanks guys. 
Paul, I won't take it personally 
I appreciate your thoughts, and I completely understand your passion to confront the athiest, but my intent thus far is not to tackle head-on the obstinant unbeliever. There are already several works out by many authors who deal adequately with that issue and I've have no desire to repeat another's work. I have neither the time nor the energy for that. My intent is to encourage the wavering or perhaps confused believer that the historicity of Genesis is perfectly reasonable and reliable. The argument that Moses &quot;made it up&quot; or &quot;we are using empirical science&quot; is based on a presupposition that Genesis is not the Word of God. If a believer questions this, then there are much bigger issues to work on than what I addressed in this essay. Perhaps someday I can adapt it to take on the atheist but that would require immense scholarly work and it would be highly unlikely that the &quot;common folk&quot; would even read it. But if I can encourage the average believer that the Scriptures are reliable in all things and that it is the unbelievers who are the truly &quot;superstitious&quot; ones then I would consider my goal complete. I am hoping to help Christians get a backbone so that they don't waver or shrink away from the supposed challenges of unbelievers. It has been my experience that when you challenge the unbelievers on their false assumptions they must eventually concede they have no foundation for their &quot;faith.&quot; That is where doors can open for the gospel because we have the truth and we have the real answers to the questions unbelievers ask. So again thankyou for your criticisms. I do value them and will try to take some of them into account as I continue this work in progress. 

Patrick

[Edited on 1-8-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 8, 2004)

Hey I think I still have this

Its one of the most fascinating subjects there is a whole era of mankind that we know almost nothing about a except a few key events tied into biblical redemeptive history.

Allthough study in this area is warrented as it unlocks the signs of our times in tune with the prophecy of Jesus saying that the last days would be as the days of noah.

Your work here I think would make a great preface

blade


----------



## JohnV (Jan 8, 2004)

In our area we have several issues that centre on Christian witness. We have just gone through the Christmas season, and the annual struggle over proper and improper greetings put up by the surrounding cities is always front page news. Is Christmas just for Christians? Should we keep the state and religion separate? But another major issue that has come to dominate the opinions pages is the issue of the merging of two political parties, one of which has a name for being &quot;homophobic&quot;, or, more precisely, being against legitimizing homosexual marriages based on Christian principles. 

There are some fairly good personal responses from Christians, some of which are from sources that have long been too quiet, from the Dutch Reformed. They are usually quite level-headed, without much in the way of invective or finger-pointing. These are in turn responded to with latters dripping with invective and personal attacks that are obviously not called for. These also have assertions in them that say things like the creation and the virgin birth being unscientific, without any kind of back up material. And if they do have some back up material, it is all volumes of stuff by discredited or questionable authors that require excessive reading, only to find that they really say no more, and have no more back up than the writer of the opinion in the first place, it is just more mere empty assertions. (Did you know that Piltdown Man is still in our High School, College and Universty textbooks? )

My point is that I can see these letters to the editor, and the reports by some Christian journalists trying to be fair and unbiased, as good examples to the community, and providing an excellent witness not to their own integrity alone, but to the integrity of the truth itself. They are in the vein of what Patrick wrote: clear, simple, unassuming, and self-attestingly true. And that is what people who are really wondering will see. 

An important part of that is the witness of the opposite provided by the opposite opinion, that they are full of hate, but not much for substance. They will do the job for us in showing that the obstinate heart is nothing more than an obstinate heart. We need not say it. We need not point fingers and accuse our opponents; they will defeat themselves. 

I don't think we need an exhaustive grasp of the truth. The more we know the better we are prepared, of course, and education is a good and proper Christian endeavour. But we don't need an answer for every thing that our opponents bring up. We don't need to answer kind for kind, for we will eventually fall because of our own pride along with them, and we do the gospel a disservice. 

I am always surprised at how little some people know. What may seem obvious to us, and what may seem to be universally known, is actually obscure to some people. A plain and simple, but educated explanation, such as Patrick's, is what is called for in most cases. 

What makes my spine bristle sometimes, and what I do not find in Patrick's pamphlet, is an appeal to truth according to our &quot;religion&quot;, or as it has been laid out for us in our &quot;system&quot;. We have to be careful here, because we believe truth to be one, and there are no other &quot;systems&quot; or competing truths; there are no other &quot;religions&quot; like Christianity because Christianity is true religion. It is absolute truth in any system, in any concept of thought. All we are called to do apologetically is to separate the truth from the lies, while other systems embrace some or more of the lies in theirs. And we can do that with confidence because we know that God is the originator of all truth, and we have no fear of truth in any way, but rather love it. We do not reject some truth because it does not fit in our &quot;system&quot;; we reject so-called &quot;truth&quot; because it is not true. And this is the gist of Patrick's article. 

But it does not stop there, it seems to me. We must also be prepared to give answers personally to individuals who are interested in the hope we hold to. This, like Blade says, is a good introductory to a ministry very much needed in our day. 

This is how I feel about this effort by Patrick, and I commend him for his good work and his earnest spirit.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jan 15, 2005)

good job puritansailor.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 15, 2005)

You forgot about one big part of the pre-deluge and post deluge the giants!! and their comingled origin. Though granted thats worth a few books to explain out.

I know many may disagree with me on their exact origin per se but giant men overall had alot to do with the shape of the ancient world. As of course Gods people got more emphasis due to the overall biblical redemptive theme of scripture in general.



blade


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 15, 2005)

There's no comingled origins of giants in the Bible.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 15, 2005)

there is their parents the daughters of men and angels


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 15, 2005)

But Im gona leave that alone for Patrick to decide if he furthurs his article or not. its not that important of an issue though important historically. 

blade


----------



## Peter (Jan 15, 2005)

Thanks Patrick. Particularly edifying was "The benefit of longer life spans." I never considered the implications of living so long on the development of learning and science. I'd like to see the section on religion expanded. Talk more about the promise of the seed and the religious meaning of the animal skins (that forgiveness of sin requires shedding of blood and that man was to worship God by animal sacrifice not plant).

I think the Nephilim were the sons of the worshippers of God and unbelievers? Though it seems the phrase "sons of God" in Job does refer to angels?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 15, 2005)

Thanks for the comments and suggestions guys. Some day when I get the time I will expand it some. 

Blade, the "Sons of God" here cannot refer to demons because demons have no ability to produce offspring. They are spirits, and have no physical bodies, hence no means of concieving. Most likely, the phrase refers to the remnant of professing believers in the one true revealed religion, the descendants of Seth. God is showing us how wicked the world had become, in that even those who "called upon the name of the Lord" were apostacizing. Only Noah and his family were left among the entire world. Jesus parallels this time to Lot in Sodom, when only Lot and his family were spared from the great wickedness and judgment. 

The more realistic explanation to the origin of giants is that they were just big guys, thanks to recessive genes. They were bigger, stronger, and mightier, hence they did great feats, just as many big people do today.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 15, 2005)

There is one big fault with that argument how come believers hwo mate with non beleivers do not have giant offspring?

Also another issue is were not talking just goliaths here that was more average were talking men 15+ feet tall not a normal offspring.

Also it wasnt demons, it was fallen angels. Its not so hard to believe if you can except the fact that Jesus was both man and God even that is alot to swallow so its not far fetched idea since ancient jews beleived the same that angels comingled with humans to produce demonic halfbreeds. which after the flood per Peter are locked in chains reserved for judgment.

See Genesis the few chapters dealing with the antedilluvian world are so short for such a long time period since that time passed away with the flood Moses only wrote what was necessary in order to deal with the biblical redemptive plan by God. 

the only reason why its so short on the nephilim is because of their desire to stop the line of Christ. which failed.

I know and understand that even my favorite Augustine does not agree with me nor do alot of church fathers. But it does not negate the fact that this is true. 

Preciselly since alot of paganized Genesis stories deal with gods who take woman. 

the idea of the line of seth as the oen swho took unbeleiving daughters was originated with Julies Africanus(sp?) 

All uses of sons of God in the OT is in refernce to angels see Job. 

http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm

And yes I realize that all NT references are for beleivers only. But in the OT it was refered to as angels specifically. 

And in Matthew when dealing with marriage it is reference to 'elect' angels not reprobate angels. 

Like many things we are Commanded not to do-We can physically do but we are instructed by God to not commit those things like murder , rape etc.....

Angels the bad ones in the pre-flood world were directly responsible for leading men astray to the point where men were so evil God used the Flood to judge them.

None the less I could go on and on and on Giant remains have been found everywhere. But eventually died off through natural causes though the gene pops up everyonce in awhile.

Ill leave with AW Pinks remarks concering this which im in agreement with:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Gleanings_Genesis/genesis_11.htm

We turn now to consider the occasion of the Flood. "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose" (Gen. 6:1, 2). There has been considerable difference of opinion among commentators and expositors in respect to the identity of these "sons of God." The view which has been most widely promulgated and accepted is, that these marriages between the sons of God and the daughters of men refer to unions between believers and unbelievers. It is supposed that the "sons of God" were the descendants of Seth, while the "daughters of men" are regarded as the offspring of Cain, and that these two lines gradually amalgamated, until the line of distinction between God´s people and the world was obliterated. It is further supposed that the Deluge was a visitation of God´s judgment, resulting from His peoples´ failure to maintain their place of separation. But, it seems to us, there are a number of insuperable objections to this interpretation.

If the above theory were true, then, it would follow that at the time this amalgamation took place God´s people were limited to the male sex, for the "sons of God" were the ones who "married" the "daughters of men." Again; if the popular theory were true, if these "sons of God" were believers, then they perished at the Flood, but 2 Peter 2:5 states otherwise"”"Bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." Once more; there is no hint in the Divine record (so far as we can discover) that God had yet given any specific command forbidding His people to marry unbelievers. In view of this silence it seems exceedingly strange that this sin should have been visited with such a fearful judgment. In all ages there have been many of God´s people who have united with worldlings, who have been "unequally yoked together," yet no calamity in anywise comparable with the Deluge has followed. Finally; one wonders why the union of believers with unbelievers should result in "giants""”"there were giants in the earth in those days" (Gen. 6:4).

If, then, the words "sons of God" do not signify the saints of that age, to whom do they refer? In Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7, the same expression is found, and in these passages the reference is clearly to angels. It is a significant fact that some versions of the Septuagint contain the word "angels" in Genesis 6:2, 4. That the "sons of God," who are here represented as cohabiting with the daughters of men were angels"”fallen angels"”seems to be taught in Jude 6: "And the angels which kept not their principality but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day."

These "sons of God," then, appear to be angels who left their own habitation, came down to earth, and cohabited with the daughters of men. Before we consider the outcome of this illicit intercourse, let us first enquire into the cause of it. Why did these angels thus "sin" (2 Pet. 2:4)? The answer to this question leads us into a mysterious subject which we cannot now treat at length: the "why" finds its answer in Satan.

Immediately after that old serpent, the Devil, had brought about the downfall of our first parents, God passed sentence on the "serpent" and declared that the woman´s "Seed" should "bruise his head" (Gen. 3:15). Hence, in due course, Satan sought to frustrate this purpose of God. His first effort was an endeavor to prevent his Bruiser entering this world. This effort is plainly to be seen in his attempts to destroy the channel through which the Lord Jesus was to come.

First, God revealed the fact that the Coming One was to be of human kind, the woman´s Seed, hence, as we shall seek to show, Satan attempted to destroy the human race. Next, God made known to Abraham that the Coming One was to be a descendant of his (Gen. 12:3; Galatians 3:18; Matthew 1:1); hence, four hundred years later, when the descendants of Abraham became numerous in Egypt Satan sought to destroy the Abrahamic stock, by moving Pharaoh to seek the destruction of all the male children (Ex. 1:15, 16). Later, God made known the fact that the Coming One was to be of the offspring of David (2 Samuel 7:12, 13); hence, the subsequent attack made upon David through Absalom (2 Samuel 15). As, then, the Coming One was to be of the seed of David, He must spring from the tribe of Judah, and hence the significance of the divided Kingdom, and the attacks of the Ten Tribes upon the Tribe of Judah!

The reference in Jude 6 to the angels leaving their own habitation, appears to point to and correspond with these "sons of God" (angels) coming in unto the daughters of men. Apparently, by this means, Satan hoped to destroy the human race (the channel through which the woman´s Seed was to come) by producing a race of monstrosities. How nearly he succeeded is evident from the fact, that with the exception of one family, "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth" (Gen. 6:12). That monstrosities were produced as the result of this unnatural union between the "sons of God" (angels) and the daughters of men, is evident from the words of Genesis 6:4: "There were giants in the earth in those days." The Hebrew word for "giants" here is nephilim, which means fallen ones, from "naphal" to fall. The term "men of renoun" in Genesis 6:4 probably finds its historical equivalent in the "heroes" of Grecian mythology. Satan´s special object in seeking to prevent the advent of the woman´s "Seed" by destroying the human race was evidently an attempt to avert his threatened doom!

Against the view that "the sons of God" refer to fallen angels Matthew 22:30 is often cited. But when the contents of this verse are closely studied it will be found there is, really, nothing in it which conflicts with what we have said above. Had our Lord said, "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God" and stopped there, the objection would have real force. But the Lord did not stop there. He added a qualifying clause about the angels: He said "as the angels of God in heaven." The last two words make all the difference. The angels in heaven neither marry nor are they given in marriage. But the angels referred to in Genesis 6 as the "sons of God" were no longer in heaven: as Jude 6 expressly informs us "they left their own principality." They fell from their celestial position and came down to earth, entering into unlawful alliance with the daughters of men. This, we are assured, is the reason why Christ modified and qualified His assertion in Matthew 22:30. The angels of God in heaven do not marry, but those who left their own principality did.

[Edited on 16-1-2005 by Bladestunner316]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 15, 2005)

Forgot say patrick the Bible does not always have a realistic or as our vulcan friends would say 'Logical Explanation'  

anyway Im appreciative of the work you put into this the pre-flood world is probably my favourite topic especially with giants(whatever you think there orgin is) there real and hav eleft there own legacy in our unnatural history 

Keep on Workin!!

In Christ
Blade


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 16, 2005)

Thanks for the excerpt from Pink, Nathan. It's interesting but I still think Pink's theory is flawed. The passage in Jude and 2 Peter, is refering to the demon's fall from their God assigned position before their rebellion. They are bound because of their rebellion against God. They can never return to their previous position. The demons/fallen angels are spirits. They have no physical bodies. They have no way to concieve. (Go back to public school health class here, it's not hard to figure out). Pink's attempt to distinguish this intermarrying practice from those angels "in heaven" is very weak. The angels and demons are the same "species." They are spiritual beings, not physical. Trying to use the example of the Incarnation simply will not work . Mary concieved by the power of the Holy Spirit. The angels have no such power to create. 
And Pink doesn't deal accurately with the argument either. The deluge was not a result of the failure of the descendents of Seth. It was a result of the great wickedness of the entire world. Mentioning the intermingling of those lines, was only an illustration of the point of how wicked the world had become. Even the people of God had grown corrupt. The point about intermarrying was most liekly an illustration to the Jews to whom Moses had written, to explain to them how wicked the times had become in terms they could understand. It also illustrates the significant impact of "mixed" marriages on the spiritual state of families.

Anyhow, I guess I'll have to do as you suggest and add another section on the giants


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 17, 2005)

Patrick,
Before Mary concieved Christ didnt have a physical body as well? Wouldnt intermarriage coincide with rebellion? Your forgot to deal with the term 'sons of God' as its used in the OT for angels. Not humans. Also say these fallen angels possesed men and mated with woman-could it be possible that God placed a curse on their offspring by turning them into obscene giants with ritulistic satanism? 

Yes Mary concieved by Holy Spirit to have Jesus Christ. But yet we procreate as well so do many animals. It does not leave out the remote possibility of angels doing the same. Though commanded not to. To do so would be disobedience. 

Now also the two angels that went to Lot 'ate' with him http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=19&version=50 

Which a is a very human act. Remember also we when are time comes will ahve resurection bodys which are better than are own they won need to eat or drink they will be like the angels of heaven but better now say the angels can do things like eat and drink or even mate it does not mean that they are dependent like we are. They can assume human form.

Why else would Paul warn the woman of Corinth to wear hats 1Cor 11:10For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 

Why would woman need to wear a hat because of angels? Maybe to not tempt them? They wore a veil or head covering in submission to their husbands before God. Woman was first tempted by Satan in the Garden. 

So allthough you disagree we cant just say well angels are spirits. Well God is Spirit and also appeared and worked as a man Christ Jesus. We have a spirit also. My point being that men are dependent on their first nature the physsical body then second is their spirit. Angels are spirit and at times physical. 

The elect angels dont marry because there not supposed to but some did that why they fell. 

Well anyway. 

Im done for now you know my point I know yours I know im in a minority in some ways thats ok its not that Important of an issue to worry about it just add or aids in explaining the natural history of that time period. Im gona pray about this and work Lord Willingly to writing an in-depth look into the most enigmatic time period of human history. 

So Im done for now. We know where we stand I dont think Im goign to or need to argue furthur until Ive fully carved out my beleifs in this area. 

But thank you for your help 

In Christ
Blade


----------



## Jonathan (Jan 23, 2005)

I just read through your essay...  I really enjoyed that. I could not stop reading it. 
I was wondering though, your article covered oral language... but what about written language. God places a lot of emphasis on His Word, how it "is written", how he commanded Moses to "write" down what he said. I was looking to see where writing was first recorded in the Bible... Exodus (the giving of the Commandments) was all I could find so far... still looking... is that the first place where writing was ever recorded?

Blade's argument was very interesting also... although I do not agree, it is making me think very carefully through the subject.

Again let me say Mr. Severson, awesome essay!


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jonathan_
> I just read through your essay...  I really enjoyed that. I could not stop reading it.
> I was wondering though, your article covered oral language... but what about written language. God places a lot of emphasis on His Word, how it "is written", how he commanded Moses to "write" down what he said. I was looking to see where writing was first recorded in the Bible... Exodus (the giving of the Commandments) was all I could find so far... still looking... is that the first place where writing was ever recorded?


I think Moses was the first who was commanded to "write." But I don't think that was the beginning of writing. You don't read about Moses teaching Israel how to read, so by implication the practice was at least in effect then. archaeology's earliest form of actual writing, not pictures, is estimated by secular scholars as far back as 3000BC, and I believe it was found in either Egypt or Mesopotamia. But that doesn't mean writing didn't exist before that either. That's just the only relic from that time which survived. Who knows what they attained before the Flood when the world was wiped clean of all the accomplishments of man by the Flood. My hunch is that writing in general became more important as the lifespans shortened and oral tradition and memory became more prone to corruption.

[Edited on 24-1-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jan 31, 2005)

My 2 cents...

Resolving some Creationist time issues 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Problem 

For many Christians, strict Creationism has a seeming weakness that 
the proponents of evolutionary theory exploit. “Why does 
everything seem older than the 6 – 10K period of time Creation is 
supposed to exist?” This has lead to the development of several 
systematic creation viewpoints; Evolutionary Creationists, Young 
Earth Creationists, Days as Age Creationist, Creation Scientists, 
etc. ad infinitum. None of which seem to satisfactorily resolve 
non-Darwinian-evolutionary, old earth, Adam and Eve biblical evidence, as 
well as supposed geologic and paleontological evidence and 
theories. 

I have formulated an alternative theory I believe can help resolve 
many of the questions raised by Christians and non-Christians 
alike. I call it the Ancient Adam theory. 

Creation 

In my theory, Creation was completed within the 6 day stricture 
proclaimed by the Bible. Earth was developed as a complex biosphere 
that existed now as it did then. All lifeforms existed simultaneously. 
Life and death, adaptation, extinction, decomposition, geologic change: all present 
and sustained by the Master Creator and within His will, however 
inscrutable that will is. This was true for all Creation except 
man. 

Man and the Garden 

Man was created and placed in a protected place from destructive, 
sudden change, the Garden of Eden. He was given great freedom 
within this protected area and prohibited from only one thing; 
eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 
(Genesis 2:17) Please note that there was one other special tree in 
the Garden: the Tree of Life. Man was not prohibited from eating 
from this Tree until after the sin of eating from the other Tree. 
(Gen. 4:22) 

Ancient-Adam 

There is no Scriptural indication of how much time passed from the 
end of the Creation period until the Fall. It is my theory that man 
existed in the Garden communing with God and Creation for 
multi-eons, sustained by the fruit of the Tree of Life. 

Some Theory Weaknesses and Resolutions 

On the Creationist, strict Biblical interpretation side, I have 
found one apparent weakness in my theory. Genesis 5:3 gives the 
apparent age of Adam as 930 (Gen. 5:5) years, but the count starts with Seth. 
Where are the firstborn, Cain and Abel? I believe they and many 
others were born before the Fall (“..be fruitful and multiply” 
– Gen 1:28) and existed as those sustain by the Tree of Life. 
Before the fall, years of life were irrelevant, only after their eyes were opened (Genesis 3:7) would years be counted or have real meaning. Thus I believe my theory 
resolves how and who Cain could marry. 

I believe it also resolves the "Sons of God" issue. They were Adam and Eve's pre-Fall children.

......


Just my musings...

Clinton, MS rocks! 



[Edited on 1-31-2005 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 2-1-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## sastark (Jan 31, 2005)

JD,

I few problems I have with your theory:

1) Complete lack of Biblical evidence to support your theory.

2) Death apart from Sin. The wages of sin is death. If there was no sin, why was there death of animals?

3) No where is Adam commanded to remain in the Garden. We are only told that he was put in the Garden "to tend and keep it."

4) Adam lived to be 930 (Gen. 5:5), not merely 800.


----------



## sastark (Jan 31, 2005)

PS- Hi! Welcome to the board. Way to jump right on in!


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> JD,
> 
> I few problems I have with your theory:
> ...



I agree with these. I would also add that you are conceding to the fallacious dating system of the evolutionists with this theory. Why does the earth "look older?" Who said it did???? What does an old earth look like? Who decides that? It is an assumption that the earth looks old, not a fact.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jan 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> JD,
> 
> I few problems I have with your theory:



okay, I welcome feedback!



> 1) Complete lack of Biblical evidence to support your theory.



This is not constructive criticism. I utilized Scripture to support my theory.



> 2) Death apart from Sin. The wages of sin is death. If there was no sin, why
> 
> was there death of animals?



Because they were not Man and did not eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Life.

If there was no death in the Garden, how did Man know what God meant when He said:

Genesis 2:17
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat [Or when you eat] of it you shall surely *die*." 



> 3) No where is Adam commanded to remain in the Garden. We are only told that
> 
> he was put in the Garden "to tend and keep it."



ok, so he would leave awhile, come back and partake of the fruit occasionally...I actually thought about that awhile back, but never modified my original posting...I took this from another site that I have had discussion on this "theory" of mine...I mean, take that to the next level...

If the dry land was truly a supercontinent once and Man was immortal, he could wander around, leaving ancient footprints will-nilly, come back, eat the fruit and start a-wandering as he wondered...



> 4) Adam lived to be 930 (Gen. 5:5), not merely 800.



oops! fixed, thanks. I am obviously errent...

[Edited on 2-1-2005 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 2-1-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jan 31, 2005)

> I agree with these.



good deal...it is good to agree...



> I would also add that you are conceding to the fallacious dating system of the evolutionists with this theory.



I don't think I am conceding anything, merely postulating around a series of suppositions in order to make the point that "evidence" can be interpreted many ways...




> Why does the earth "look older?" Who said it did????



Who says the earth is young?



> What does an old earth look like? Who decides that? It is an assumption that the earth looks old, not a fact.



...and vice versa...please note that I did state "supposed"

BTW: I am equally comfortable with a young earth or an old earth. What salvific implications, if one discards strict evolutionary theory, does my theory hold?

1 Thessalonians 5 21

Test everything. Hold on to the good.

[Edited on 2-1-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jan 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> PS- Hi! Welcome to the board. Way to jump right on in!



oop, almost missed this 'un...

thank you...I plan on visiting here for a season of refreshment...been mucking away on the Secular Web for awhile, done got tired...good to find this place. Like water to a dry land...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 1, 2005)

Well, JD, if you want to really get down to it, how long do think God was going to allow Adam's probation? Scripture seems to imply that Adam's time was rather short in the garden. Satan is called a murderer from the beginning. Most theologians throughout church history have understood Adam's time in the garden to be very short, some say one day, others a week. Either way, it was not long before Adam fell. Thousands or possibly millions of years before the Fall is an extremely long probation, all to end up in failure. Adam would have learned much about the righteousness of God, and good and evil in the proper way in that time. This is something you should consider in light of your theory. Just what does it do to the gospel? The way in which you understand the first Adam will determine how you understand the work of the second.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_ The way in which you understand the first Adam will determine how you understand the work of the second.



You are exactly right. Ancient Adam with b/millions of years in the presence of God would underscore the astounding immensity of Man's disobedience and God's justice. The skeptics often utilize the seemingly short duration of time to emphasize the "unfairness/unjustness" of God. So, examining this postulation, Man had an enormous amount of time to relationship with and intimately learn/understand the attributes of the Father. It then moves the dialogue forward toward Man’s accountability for sin, not about his apparent “youthful innocence”. I think Adam and Eve were tempted by power and knowledge and had the added condeming responsibility of outstanding premeditation.

This therefore would also underscore and amplify the mighty work of Christ as the Second Adam. Christ had the God/Man’s understanding of the Father’s attributes and still walked the path willingly without seeking/grasping for equality with God.

[Edited on 2-1-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_ The way in which you understand the first Adam will determine how you understand the work of the second.
> ...


First, where in Scripture does it say Adam lived billions of years? Genesis says he lived 930 years and does not qualify the number with "after the Fall." So your billions or millions or thousands of years theory doesn't fit with Scripture. 

Second, Adam did not have any "youthful innocence." He was created a mature man. He of all men was created after the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, without corruption, endowed with every faculty to resist the devil if he so choosed. He was created this way, and called by God "very good." He didn't need billions of years to attain it. He was our federal head in the covenant of works, and as such adequately prepared for that role as the representative of mankind to undergo the temptation and probation on our behalf. 

This is where Christ is greater. He entered His earthly life as a baby, and grew up living righteously, enduring the miseries of this life to adulthood, AND withstood the temptation of the devil, on behalf of His people, which Adam failed to overcome. 

So, I would suggest rethinking your theory.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Feb 2, 2005)

Genesis 5:3 gives the 
apparent age of Adam as 930 (Gen. 5:5) years, but the count starts with Seth. 
Where are the firstborn, Cain and Abel? I believe they and many 
others were born before the Fall (“..be fruitful and multiply” 
– Gen 1:28) and existed as those sustain by the Tree of Life. 
Before the fall, years of life were irrelevant, only after their eyes were opened (Genesis 3:7) 


[/quote]First, where in Scripture does it say Adam lived billions of years? Genesis says he lived 930 years and does not qualify the number with "after the Fall." So your billions or millions or thousands of years theory doesn't fit with Scripture.[/quote]

"their eyes were opened" (Genesis 3:7) 

Don't you think the ingestion of the Fruit of the Tree of knowledge was the beginning of some special awareness or just the knowledge that they were naked? Look at the idea objectively...why would there be writing or timekeeping before the Fall?

Why would they even be aware of the passage of time? Where did History come from? What purpose does it fulfill? I know and you know that it is the narrative of God's sovereignty through TIME. 

Remember, I agree with the 6 day Creation and I reject Macro Evolution.

*I propose Pre-fall TIME had little meaning, except for the seventh day, perhaps.*. Thus no awareness of time passing or the interest in keeping time before the Fall. Post Fall, lots of reasons...do you think Adam counted the frequency of 7th days after his creation? Why would he? What would a year mean to him? Maybe to count seasons, but what would he need for seasons in the Garden?




> Second, Adam did not have any "youthful innocence." He was created a mature man. He of all men was created after the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, without corruption, endowed with every faculty to resist the devil if he so choosed.



Agreed.




> He was created this way, and called by God "very good." He didn't need billions of years to attain it. He was our federal head in the covenant of works, and as such adequately prepared for that role as the representative of mankind to undergo the temptation and probation on our behalf.



Agreed. But what if he had that time? Does it not make the Fall even more significant?



> This is where Christ is greater. He entered His earthly life as a baby, and grew up living righteously, enduring the miseries of this life to adulthood, AND withstood the temptation of the devil, on behalf of His people, which Adam failed to overcome.



Amen!



> So, I would suggest rethinking your theory.



Ah, but the game is afoot!

Final question: Do you think this theory could be heretical? Counter-salvific?

Finally; it is all speculative, anyway...a "what if" to use as a tool. The Creation narrative is not about answering naturalist questions. Just as the Bible as a whole is given as a guide to *faith* and *practice*. 

It is about God’s relationship to Man. Man’s relationship to God. And Man’s relationship to Man.


----------

