Very interesting, Ace. Thanks for sharing. I wasn’t aware of that.
The question remains as to whether the writers of Genesis had historical events (and people in mind). In other words, did the process of divine inspiration subvert their ancient historical beliefs, or simply subvert the ancient theological mindset and replace it with YHWH as sovereign creator. I lean towards the latter, but I’m very aware of how it affects discussions of biblical authority.
John, I agree that it is dangerous to discount miraculous ages and Biblical authority solely because I might be uncomfortable or skeptical about those ages. However, to read those ages as literal creates its own risk. How do you account for the authority of God given that these ages are listed well after God limits mankind to 120 years? It doesn’t seem very ambiguous to me. God says “…there days will be…” and then…they generations are born and SEEM to deny the will of God by living well past 120 years. Unless those numbers had a purpose other than purely genealogy, then there appears to be another problem entirely. How do you approach that?
Respectfully,
Jim
Ace, Brad, and Jim: There is nothing “clearly” about Genesis borrowing from the Sumerian account. If anything, they both borrow from a common ancestor. Or the sumerian account is a distortion of the genesis account. The sumerian account cannot be claimed older than the other merely because there is a written document or tablet found. We know some aboriginal accounts and stories are very much older than Shakespeare, even though there is no written evidence of it. But these ages are vastly different… by a factor of more than 30. In addition, while the fact that half or three quarters of the Genesis numbers end in 10 or five seems odd, it is not nearly as odd as the infinitesimal odds of having such an improbable thing as evolution or a-biogenesis happen. It is well within the range of probability without invoking some unnatural or artificial or symbolic cause. Clearly, the symbolism breaks down. Also, the fact that Enoch lived only about one third as long as most, was not just an outlier, but rather well noted “that God took him”, signifying that he died from perhaps unnatural causes, or unusual circumstances.
In addition, in the sumerian accounts, while the “60” is invoked, it really tells us nothing of the significance of why the second multiplier is used… so any symbolism is completely lost. Nor did this even explain what the actual significance of the “60” was, other than being a “wedge”. Symbolism without meaning? In any case, the ages are not parallel in any way, even though the number of kings seems to be similar… the ages are not similar, nor proportionate, so it is senseless to equate the numerology of the lists. Since the Genesis account does not follow a consistent rule (of ending in a multiple of five), even that is not scientifically viable as an indicator of something other than mere recording of age. Your Dennis Lamoureux is clearly grasping at straws, and his analysis is vacant and baseless.
It is more likely that the sumerian account perverted the actual account or is dealing with “kings”, rather than ancestors of men of God, while the Genesis account brings the lifespan of the ancestors after the flood into line with present observations within about seven generations. This follows the promise of God that lifespans would be reduced to 120 years. God purposed this, and it is reasonable to see that this happened after the flood, not in an immediate miraculous manner, but rather in a semi-miraculous natural manner over time as the decline followed a rather steep curve downwards. This is also likely a consequence of changed genetics, combined with environmental conditions that led to increased mutations… The first three after the flood had half the lifespan, and the next three had half the lifespan again, and then it continued to decline (generally), until the time of Moses. The fulfillment of the prophecy of man’s decline certainly took less time than the coming of Christ, and less time than the second coming, which since we have been in the last days for some time, should not put to shame the fulfillment of lifespan decline. Of course, if you don’t believe the pre-flood ages, why should you believe that God even said that lifespans would decline?
It is also possible, perhaps likely, that the Sumerian account dealt with multiple overlapping kings rather than only one king at a time, just as the Egyptian accounts also did at times. The Genesis account was not concerned about multiple lineages, although a bit of Cain’s descendants were described. The Genesis account was concerned with the line of descent, and this was also the primary account elsewhere in the beginning with regard to ancestors of king David, and then ancestors of Christ.
I have a theory that uses physics.
This has not been confirmed but does make sense. We do not know what the time period of a Day would be if the earth, was surrounded by a “water shield” or firmament. Imagine for a moment, that the tilt angle which is 23.25 degrees, was literally at 24 degrees. That the rush of the water caused the “wobble” and changed our tilt angle to what it presently is 23.25 degrees.
So now I pose these questions: 1. with a water shield, would man live longer, and would man grow bigger? 2. with the flood occurring causing the tilt angle to change, and the shield of water no longer there could the ultraviolet rays from the sun be causing this limited life span of 70/80 years today, where in the past the life span was 120?
@Anthony_Tony_Ambruti I know of very few young-earth creationists who still believe that the Earth was ever covered by a “water-shield” of any sort. I just talked with a staff member at the Institute of Creation Research recently who confirmed this for me. They have disavowed that belief because there is no way it could scientifically work without the planet frying from an extreme greenhouse effect. https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/the-collapse-of-the-canopy-model/
Well, if we use what we know of science, the water shield makes sense. Looking at genesis, there were only four things that existed in the beginning. One was water, one was God, one was darkness, and lastly was the void of the earth. Time did not come into play until the third day.
Therefore, logically speaking and going according to Genesis, light was the first thing created. This set into motion a day, however, the light did not come from the sun, like we are all accustomed to believe through science. Because the Sun, moon, and stars were all created on the fourth day. Making water, the earth, darkness, and God all older than time.
Using the time line of Moses, These three days are unaccounted for.
If we were to assume, the scale as defined through Isaiah as one day for God is a thousand years to man, then we have some sort of conversion factor here. For the seven days of creation is seven thousand years. But there is another problem.
Since time as we know it is defined as movement through space. And a day is defined as one rotation of the axis of the earth, this is also known as a solar day.
Looking at the factors that make up this solar day, it is the spin of the earth, the angle of that spin, and the speed of that spin. Since the earth doesn’t rotate perfectly around its axis, for currently there is a “wobble” or precess, it would further make sense, that the earth in its current state could not support a water shield.
However, If time started on the third day, there is three thousand years unaccounted for before the begining of time(or a solar day/year conversion).
Add to this “time” the solar time. Now, we can say there is seven thousand years it took for creation to be completed. But that still does not account for all the time from the end of creation till now.
Again there is another anomaly. We do not know for sure how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden. We assume because the way Moses wrote Genesis, that the fall of man occurred immediately after the creation of man. This can be debunked by a statement Moses made during the description of the fall of man. Because Eve must have been pregnant at some point in the Garden to understand the punishment that God gave her by increasing her pains in childbirth.
There is a precession of the earth, (which describes the wobble), that is approximately 5%. This is described by using the North Star as a reference point in the sky and measuring the sun through out the year at the horizon. For the sun rises/sets at one point of the year in the North and on the other part of the year in the south. We can now say the sun rises in the Northeast, in the summer(for the northern hemisphere) and the sun rises in the southeast, in the winter(for the southern hemisphere), so taking the measurement at the equator we can thus see the 5 degree, precession.
This wobble or precession was not present according to the pre-flood ancient stories. So adding up all the generations from the time Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden comes to roughly 1200+years again the precession is important in computing this time. So I compiled all of this in a formula:
(3000years[first three days before the creation of the sun]+4000years[four days after the creation of time])+(x[a variable to denote the creation of humanity(Adam and Eve) until they sinned])=a
a is the time period where the earth was at a 0 degree wobble with a firmament
The next time period can be denoted as the the time between the fall of man until the flood. It is here that man’s time span was 1000 years. This 1000 years is considered one day. Genesis describes that “upon the day you eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall surely die”, Adam lived 940-ish years. Therefore, it is assumed that he spent 60 years in the garden of Eden. Upon other scientific evidence that constantly is coming to life, it may not be so. So we can say for a fact we do not know how long Adam was in the Garden of Eden.
During this time between Eden and the Flood, the earth had a firmament. This firmament caused the completion of the precession that is experienced today. When the waters of the atmosphere hit the earth all at once emptying the firmament then the precession was completed, and thus the lifespan on planet earth was reduced. Imagine the force of water emptying the sky in forty days.
So it is here we have our second variable. b=1245 ish years that needs to be converted so we can add a+b but here is the problem. We do not know what the conversion factor is. This is the second anomaly. The bible describes the variable a’s conversion, but not variable b’s conversion. And it has been roughly 4000 years since Noah’s Flood. So if we add a+b+c then that is the age of creation.
In the past people tried to add a+b+c and failed to use vector math, and concluded that the earth was some 10,000 years old, when we only have with some sort of accuracy, 4000 years of the variable c.
One thing we do know for sure is, there was some event that brought upon the flood which also caused the reduction of the life span. What that is, is still unknown.
So let me recap for a minute:
a=(3000+4000+x) where 3000 years occured before time existed, and 4000 years is the rest of creation, and x is the time Adam spent in the garden of Eden)
**b=(1245 years)**This is an approximation, if you add up the lifespans and deaths, from Adam to Noah the first part of b is solved.
**c=(2015+1500+480+500)**Where 2015 is how long it has been since Christ’s birth plus/minus 5 years. 1500 years since the destruction of King Solomon first temple, 480 years since the exile from Egypt. Then another 500 years from Noah to Joseph. Now you may want to check these numbers but I am confident they are fairly accurate. About 5000 (+/- 500 years), since the flood.
Now before we can add a+b+c we need to convert these numbers to a common denominator. Since the earth has changed it’s spin, and due to that reason, a day is redefined for each section of time. Creation, Pre-flood, and post flood, days cannot be added linearly.
And with the two variables, an accurate date cannot be established. Is the Earth millions of years old, like science says, that is highly possible. Does this mean as the earth changed time, did the lifespans change with it. I believe so.
What do you all think?
@Anthony_Tony_Ambruti This is impressive. I love mathematics, so when I saw your inclusion of that in your theory, it made me glad. However, the greenhouse effect, as Brad mentioned, does still come into play. Find a clear cup of water and look into the side of it. The things on the other side are magnified, right? That means that the light is changing its normal trajectory because of refraction, and that would definitely be a concern if the Earth was covered with a “water shield”. Light gives a little bit of heat, and a too much of that formed by the water shield refraction would cause us to burn up.
Instead, the firmament can be understood as something else: an author’s lens of the story. Moses, when he wrote Genesis, held the same views about cosmology as everyone around him. We know what they believed. They already believed this: 
(That’s a picture from BioLogos by the way) This explains why Moses wrote Genesis the way he did. In this view, the firmament was actually solid sky, and it was holding up the waters. Here comes the refraction problem. We would burn up. It is more likely that when God revealed Genesis to Noah (however he did it), Noah interpreted what God told him through the lens of this view of the Earth. This doesn’t take away from the authority of Scripture, but it does make us realize that the Bible was written for us, but it wasn’t written to us. It was written in the culture of the day, and that is how we must interpret it. We cannot make it claim something (like the existence of the firmament) that it was never meant to claim. The ancient people were not so much interested in the things that were actually in the universe, as they were in the function that they served.
Here arises some problems with one of your starting assumptions. Namely, that the only things in existence before the first day were the water(s), God, darkness, and the “void of the earth”. The waters are not the problem here, and neither is God. The darkness is mysterious, and I don’t know enough about it to speak on it. However, the void of the earth is incorrect. When it says “without form, and void”, void is an adjective. Also, the Hebrew words for this, tohu wabohu, meant much more than the English interpretation said. In short, they didn’t mean that the Earth literally had “no shape”, but that it was useless: God was not yet using the Earth for any purpose. A better term for this is that it had no function.
Furthermore, when God “creates” things in Genesis, we have to look at the Hebrew word for it, bara, to see what Moses meant by “create”. After a lot of study, it makes the most sense to say that bara means not to create materially like we would think in our culture, but perhaps a better definition would be “to assign function to”. So when God then begins to assign function to everything, we have the Creation story. You can read all about functional Creation in The Lost World of Genesis One by John H. Walton.
That being said, your argument was very well thought out, but it seems to not match up with reality.
I’m glad you said, “God was assigning a function to” instead of God was creating. That is a great view point and have began for sometime now looking at creation in that sense.
As far as the water shield, if we take a glass of water, we see that the water is not moving. In this sense the greenhouse effect, or perhaps the magnifying effect would take place, thus making it so, that everything would burn up.
But what if that water, in the water shield was moving. And what if that movement was depended on the movement of the earth?
Basically, imagine if the earth was spinning faster than what it is today, thus making the waters of the ocean rise in an escape velocity to form a water shield around the earth serving two purposes, 1. cooling the rays of the sun, thus creating an Ozone layer, for example. And 2. providing the perfect temperature for the inhabitants of the earth. Is this possible? What do you think?
Remember we must look at the stories as a “witness” statement to what had happened, not whether it is myth, legend, fact or fiction. It is how man witnessed what had happened. So, these descriptions may seem on the surface farfetched but looking at it in an abstract way, makes it possible.
God has a history of using nature towards His will. What I am wondering is if we could spin the liquid water, would the effect be like a magnifying glass, or could it do what they described? Then when the earth started to slow down, the firmament collapsed. Thus, the flood. Which would be blamed on the sinning of men and angels. Make sense?
@Anthony_Tony_Ambruti Interesting. I want to first clarify that we are both assuming that God is working through natural processes and nothing necessarily miraculous is happening. This is certainly okay to assume, since we usually see Him working through natural processes, and all natural processes are created by Him anyways. I think it is good to note, however, that God certainly could have done something miraculous and not caused light refraction on the water.
This does make sense. I am pretty sure, though, that the refraction in the water would be the same even if it was moving. Refraction happens because the density of the water is larger than that of the air, and the density would not change much, if at all, if the water was moving. The only change would be due to the possible increase in kinetic energy caused by the force making the water move, but if it was still a liquid (which it certainly would be), the density would be pretty much the same.
I like your comment about the writing being a “witness statement”. Let me clarify what I said before about cultural context with an example. Imagine you and I observe go through a machine that shrinks us down to the size of an electron. While we are this size, we observe many strange things. One such thing would be that some molecules would occasionally “go through” a thin solid object, which is called quantum tunneling. This happens on the quantum level because there is a cloud of electrons around everything, and if those electron clouds get very close together, there is a probability that the molecule will actually “teleport” a very small distance through that solid object. We would be very confused at this because this doesn’t happen in our everyday lives, nor should we expect it to. The probability of it happening on such a large level, though, is so small that it is safe to say that it is realistically impossible.
So, we go back into our machine and become normal-sized again. Out of instinct, we want to tell everyone about what we saw. But let’s say we didn’t have the knowledge of quantum tunneling that I just stated. We would most likely tell everyone that we saw something teleport through a wall. Well, that is what we saw in some sense, but we told it through the lens of what we already know about the world. Obviously, teleportation is (at least, currently), the stuff of science fiction, and people would think we were crazy
Though not a great example, that gives a kind of glimpse into Moses’s experience with God. If God inspired the Scripture through a vision (which is safe to assume, but it is an assumption), then Moses would have come back and told it to people using the language that made sense to him. So, whatever he witnessed, it must have been interpreted through what he already “knew” about the way the world was. Does that make sense?
Yes it does make sense. Let’s take this a step further. What if I said that Jesus Christ, as we know Him from the bible, existed in three separate stories of the bible all at the same time? Do you think that is possible?
As far as I know, and as translators have indicated, the word firmanent should be understood as “expanse”, and has been translated as “expanse”.
While refraction of light is interesting, it can only cause an increase in heat if all the light/heat is concentrated in the same spot. This has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, which is caused differently. The greenhouse effect is the net total of incoming radiation vs outgoing radiation. CO2, CH4, N2O, humidity all retain the radiation bounced back from earth to the sky/expanse. Although clouds retain radiation from the earth at night, during the day, clouds bounce solar radiation back into space before it can hit the earth and warm the earth in the process. We experience this through the shade of the clouds, when we notice a cooling effect compared to being exposed to direct sunlight. If there was an actual water layer in the sky, it would likely cool the earth by preventing more solar radiation from coming through than at present, though one would have to do a full cycle energy accounting to be sure. It would depend on what form the water was in. If our present clouds disappeared, the earth would likely be about 5C warmer.(ISCCP)
I think He could do anything. Are you perhaps referring to the accounts of Melchizedek, or something different?
@johnZ I see what you’re saying about refraction, but I would argue that the light is concentrated. Since the water above would be (assuming it is evenly distributed above the firmament/expanse) convex from the point of view of the sun, wouldn’t the light rays concentrate towards a point?
Addition:
The Hebrew word for firmament/expanse is raqiya. In Strong’s Concordance, it says that one of the translations is, as you said, “expanse”. In fact, it says “extended surface (solid), expanse, fimament”. Under that definition it says that an expanse is “flat as base, support”. In this case, I think expanse and firmament are equally valid and they mean the same thing.
Look at the Transfiguration, where Christ was conferring to Moses, Ellijah, and the Apostles all at the same time. But for us, it happened three different times in history.
I do think it is possible that Moses and Elijah were in their own separate times in history in some way we don’t understand at the transfiguration, but I don’t see that there is any reason to assume that. However, for the sake of your question, I do think it is possible.
Connor, the angle would change, but concentration of light depends on how high the water would be above/around the earth, and how thick the water layer is. At present tropospheric levels, the light would not be concentrated in one point. Even if it could be concentrated , it would merely make it hotter in one spot, and not so hot in other spots… the global equilibrium would not change much, only a little due to changing the diameter of the effective solar capture. The atmosphere can also do that (solar capture) as you will notice the light refraction by the atmosphere in the mornings and evenings. On the other hand, light can also be bounced off the water, especially if the angle is a shallow angle, such as in the evenings or mornings.
In addition, while light entering the water would be refracted to center, light leaving the water would be refracted away from center, because of a convex angle when entering and a concave angle when exiting towards earth.
@Connor_Mooneyhan So many comments and I really can’t get caught up in them all. However, I did want to bring up some issues to consider. Trying to use Numerology as a lense with which to see Genesis perhaps missed the mark a bit. When we consider the Sumerian King lists the conversation thus far as focused on the numbers, relative age of the documents, and value of the Sumerian texts. None of which considers what we know about the early Sumerian rulers. I believe we can all agree to the following.
1) The rule of Sumerian kings was generally priestly in nature. They were considered either gods, sons of gods, or demi gods.
2) Having just left Egypt the various tribes would likely have been aware of this cultural and religious belief.
3) Only the Sumerian kings achieved such dramatic lifespans.
With that in mind, reread those early verses when God decides that mankind will only live 120 years. Why weren’t the Tribes of Israel bothered by God’s command that mankind would only live 120 years only to see several generations pass that up? Perhaps because the message was less concerned with an historical account and more concerned with establishing God’s sovereignty. Given that the people of the Middle East would have understood that kings were godly in some way, those passages read very much like a rejection of the religious and political norm. A reminder from God to the people that HE was their king and that they were to be different, set aside. Remember, they had just left Egypt and several hundred years of rule under the demi-god Pharaoh. Then they receive this story from Moses.
I’m pulling much of my inspiration from N.T. Wright. If you haven’t read anything by him Connor, I STRONGLY encourage it. It can be tough to get through and you may not agree. But he will definitely challenge the lenses through which the Western church typically reads scripture. It is his argument, not mine, that we should read the gospels as the establishment of God’s kingdom. Given that, the sovereignty traditionally given to kings and demonstrated by their unnatural lifespans are very explicitly rejected and overthrown by God in early Genesis.
Its late and I keep catching spelling/grammatical errors so I’m to leave you with that to mull over as you consider how to read those particular passages.
Respectfully,
Jim
What if the ancients got this diagram slightly wrong?
What if this diagram was designed by Noah, with a few inaccuracies. Between Heaven and the firmament the waters were placed what if the waters were truly, in between the Sun, Moon and stars, which would make the observation from the earth kind of magnified. In a sense a natural telescope. But let’s look at other things here. If we fill the globe full of water, the solar waves from the sun, would hit the water, and since the water is not moving, would be reflected and heat the water. Eventually all the water would reach a high temperature. Thus doing what you stated.
However, if the water was risen to an altitude to cause the magnification, which ancient astrology showed in detail the night sky. Now, with the water moving at a great speed, and the light from the sun heating up at 90 degree angles this water, what would the depth of the water be, to maintain a constant comfortable environment on the earth below? A thin layer of water would cause the radiation bounce back, that you described. If we increase the depth of the water, then we might have something here.
Now, what I am suggesting is better explained as a water shield. For if the water shield is moving, as the light heats up the water, the heat is then transferred off equally, and the force of the motion of the water going from the light side of the earth to the dark side would in a way cool the water. This would provide a utopian, perfect atmosphere, as a cooler works in the house for example. By air being forced through water a cooling of that air occurs. Similar in this global scale. But for this to work, the water would be of a certain depth to provide a cooling of the earth to stop the sun from unequal heating of the earth. The water in a sense would provide a way to equally heat the earth as well as equally cool the earth. For you could be at any point on the earth and it would be equal temperature. Without the water shield, then the water would freeze at the poles. With the water shield the freezing would not occur. The seasons would change slightly in temperature.
In addition when a rainbow was first seen by Noah, it was described as God’s bow, a sign that God would not destroy the earth by water again. Looking at that statement in Genesis, and going according to the belief of Moses at the time, it would make sense that the water shield blocked out any sight, from the surface of the earth of a rainbow. This would suggest that the depth of the water was so thick that a rainbow could not be seen or identified.
We know that a rainbow is formed from light passing through water. A reflection of that light is the rainbow. What if the water of the firmament is such that there was so much water in orbit around the earth(the water shield) that it did not blot out light completely, but did not allow light to reflect in the form of a rainbow. Under this circumstance, then the heat of the sun, with the cooling of the water would henceforth be equal, but this equilibrium, would be the result of the water moving at such a speed that would allow the water to cool the earth, as well as enough light to heat the earth to reach a utopian equilibrium of temperature and pressure. As the earth slowed, and the firmament collapsed, storms would be greater, as the sky would lose the water, thus the color of the sky, with no clouds would not be a deep blue like the oceans, but a light blue as the sky is now.
I am just wondering if this is possible. Because in further thought, if we were able to construct on a smaller scale, a device, that could spin at a fast rate from east to west, that it would raise water to the circumference of that globe, and plant simple plants inside this crazy green house type device, I wonder if the plants would grow bigger in size, with modern gardening or farming methods, as compared to a plant out side this globe as what is done today.
If the experiment of a spinning watershield greenhouse is successful, I think this thought process is on the right track. What you you guys think? In this area even though I bring up good points, I still feel like an amature. To create this device, we would have to spin the globe so the centrifugal force, to spread out the water, at the same time the base cannot move, for that is where the planting must be done. In addition it would have to be built with either glass or plexiglass to hold the water within the globe. Do you think it is possible to design or build such a device? And if such a device is built do you think it would work?
And if it does, we have some evidence that states the firmament could be possible. Then with the same device in the model form we could in a sense recreate how the flood did occur. Just food for thought or a project for a rich man to develop. lol
Aside from the bible, there is the text that was believed to be older than Genesis, called the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees and there is another book, that was considered to be apocryphal books. Although not books of faith, I believe they are records of accounts that did happen in the era of the pre-flood times. But again we do not know for sure.
You are bring up a possible question that I have been trying to research the answer to the question.
In Genesis 6, there is an account that the angels of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man. If it turns out that this story is true(which I happen to believe to be true), then the stories of not only Genesis, chapter 6 is true, but Enoch and Jubilees are also true. Which Enoch is referred to in Jude.
Now, as I began studying the event that Enoch and Genesis chapter six describes I found some interesting facts according to these witnesses.
the theory of ancient aliens and the theory of these some odd 200 angels seem to fit.
The Egyptians believed themselves to be descendants of the Nephilim, the union between angel and woman.
According to the book of Enoch, the angel Azrael, who was the chief angle of the rebellious 200 angels, is considered by the ancients to be the angel of death, Lucifer or Satan.
These two hundred angels were restrained by the watchers, (Michael, Ariel, Gabriel and Raphael) until their off-spring killed each other off. Then were cast into the depths of Sheol, or Hades.
There is evidence to suggest that Cronos of Greek Mythology was one of these offspring. These Titans are responsible for naming three of the seven continents, Europe(Europa), Asia, and Africa.
When these Nephilim died off, that is the first generation, because they were half angel, have man, they had a spirit. This spirit was not allowed into heaven so they remain on the earth. These disembodied spirits are called demons.
The two hundred angels that rebelled against God, who are chained in hell are called devils.
In addition of poisoning the gene pool of humans with the angelic power, these rebellious angels according to the books of Enoch and Jubilees, taught mankind the art of astrology, astronomy, sorcery, splitting of roots, and splitting of species, (Which can be considered DNA and genetic experimentation), and an abomination considered as human sacrifice.
If one would look at all the stories written about these evil and wicked creations, based upon not only ancient text, but also modern stories, one notices a pattern. Look for instance the creatures in Blizzard’s Starcraft for example, the Zerg and the Protos, both showing features of what was described by the ancients in their mythical creatures. A first generation Nephilim giant was explained to have blue not red eyes. A creature with red eyes would denote a demon, where a creature with blue eyes would denote a devil, or for what the species of creature is an angel. And not just any angel but a seraphim, or the fiery ones.
Nimrod, grandson of Noah, by that of Noah’s son, Cush, was married to his mother who took the name Ishtar, which we know with the pronunciation of Easter. Nimrod was a Nephilim, or a giant with extra-ordinary power. He inherited the garments of Adam and Eve. Nimrod was the first king of Chaldea, or Babel. He constructed the tower of babel with the enlightened knowledge of his god, Molech, who would turn out to be a demon, son of Azrael. Nimrod was dismembered in battle, and Ischar made Nimrod the sun god, where she took the position of the moon god. The sun god’s name was Baal, and this is the god that the Israelites would pray to when they sinned against God.
Moses would write centuries later, that all the practices of the Nephilim and their fathers, the rebellious angels, are prohibited, from the first commandment in Exodus until the end of Numbers in the law of Moses. These abominations, as was seen by all the surrounding ancient neighbors of the Israelites, were taught to them by their ancestors. Solon speaks of atlantis, which could possibly be Eden. Knowledge on this is sketchy at best. Socrates uses it for political philosophy.
St. Augustine writes about two cities of humans. Cain was exiled from Adam and Eve and built his own city. Now, Cain’s descendants, the women sinned by having intercourse with the rebellious angels. Where as the line of Seth, as Moses and Enoch points out was the pure blood of human beings. By the time of the flood, in the family of Noah, the Nephilim and humans were united in one family. In time the Nephilim gene would reach a point of equilibrium. It is at that point Jesus Christ appeared on the scene. And He brought with Him the cure for the gene. Therefore, Christ could show man how man could heal themselves.
Now using the bible, myths, and legends of ancient times, and by connecting the dots in the style of the ancient alien theorists, this idea was born. Using the attributes of what was witnessed, rather than attempting to debunk the story but reading the story as I would be reading a story from a child, I have found certain attributes remain the same in all ancient societies as well as all societies today. I know there are many more factors that I have have yet to find but between the Nephilim, and the collapse of the firmament, I think truly we are on to something…
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.