Fred Harding and his views on Evolution

[Petros]

"The word "Nephilim" is in the Bible and it is the duty of Bible students to understand its contents to the best of their ability"

So much here: I will limit.

A. Not all are Bible students. I by profession and by instinct might claim "Bible student" as one descriptor, though it is not my widest or deepest focus as student, and though most of my interaction with the Bible is reading the letter, not analyzing the document. But my sil, who spent at least as much time with the Bible, was hardly a Bible student. Built wrong.

B. Not all linguists research ProtoAlgonquian phonology [that l-problem, hey?]. The Bible student called to focus on Pauline thought may have no interest in decoding Ezekiel. And vice versa. I am built to sort out the AfroAsiatic verb and the Slavic palatalizations, the OT chronologies and possible NT Urtext reconstructions. I am not designed for interpreting "Mediterranean" vocabulary or Japanese / Altaic affinities, nor for Nephilim and Beast. More power to those who are so called, but I cannot porofitably do it or read it.

C. Genesis 3:16 / Genesis 4:7: SOMETHING is going on there - at several levels. My conclusion is: When I have realized it is problematic, I HAVE understood it to the best of my ability. Note:
One day some old men came to see Abba Anthony. In the midst of them was Abba Joseph. Wanting to test them, the old man suggested a text from the Scriptures, and, beginning with the youngest, he asked them what it meant. Each gave his opinion as he was able. But to each one the old man said, "You have not understood it." Last of all he said to Abba Joseph, "How would you explain this saying?" And he replied, "I do not know." Then Abba Anthony said, "Indeed, Abba Joseph has found the way, for he has said: 'I do not know."

[natman]

The other possible explanation would be that humanity already existed before Adam and Eve were created and Cain married one of their daughters. The Genesis passage, "the Sons of God married daughters of men..." has led some to theorize that this is exactly what happened.

It is another "possible" explanation, however, I fail to see how a student of the Bible could come to such a conclusion from reading Scripture alone.

One of the principles of Biblical hermeneutics is to read something in context.

The fact that the phrases, "sons of God" and "daughters of men" is mentioned in Genesis, and that Genesis is the introductory book of Scripture (even though many Biblical scholars believe that Job was the first book written down), then the understanding of "sons of God" and "daughters of men" should be obvious to the reader based on the context, in this case, Genesis.

Many, as do I, believe that "sons of God" represents descendents of the line of Seth, while the "daughters of men" represents the daughters of the line of Cain.

The reasoning goes something like, Adam was a son of God. Seth was in the image of Adam (Gen 5:1-3). He and his family lived lives calling upon the name of the Lord (Gen 4:26) and walking with God (5:24). Cain and his descendents did exactly the opposite. Rather than calling on God, they considered themselves to be self-sufficient, taking multiple wives, counter to the model presented in the Garden, committing murder and boasting about it (Lamech).

The "daughters of men" can also be tied to the descendents of Cain in that Cain's granddaughter, Lamech's daughter is named "Naamah", which translates "beautiful" or "lovely", which is similar to the description of the fruit of the forbidden tree in the Garden. This is the only mention of her or her name in Scripture, which makes us wonder why she is even mentioned at all.

[ezduzit]

The other possible explanation would be that humanity already existed before Adam and Eve were created and Cain married one of their daughters. The Genesis passage, "the Sons of God married daughters of men..." has led some to theorize that this is exactly what happened.

It is another "possible" explanation, however, I fail to see how a student of the Bible could come to such a conclusion from reading Scripture alone.

One of the principles of Biblical hermeneutics is to read something in context.

The fact that the phrases, "sons of God" and "daughters of men" is mentioned in Genesis, and that Genesis is the introductory book of Scripture (even though many Biblical scholars believe that Job was the first book written down), then the understanding of "sons of God" and "daughters of men" should be obvious to the reader based on the context, in this case, Genesis.

Many, as do I, believe that "sons of God" represents descendents of the line of Seth, while the "daughters of men" represents the daughters of the line of Cain.

The reasoning goes something like, Adam was a son of God. Seth was in the image of Adam (Gen 5:1-3). He and his family lived lives calling upon the name of the Lord (Gen 4:26) and walking with God (5:24). Cain and his descendents did exactly the opposite. Rather than calling on God, they considered themselves to be self-sufficient, taking multiple wives, counter to the model presented in the Garden, committing murder and boasting about it (Lamech).

The "daughters of men" can also be tied to the descendents of Cain in that Cain's granddaughter, Lamech's daughter is named "Naamah", which translates "beautiful" or "lovely", which is similar to the description of the fruit of the forbidden tree in the Garden. This is the only mention of her or her name in Scripture, which makes us wonder why she is even mentioned at all.

Ez

[Petros]

"(even though many Biblical scholars believe that Job was the first book written down),"

Just a pardonable quibble:

I doubt we are in a position to talk about the order in which they were written down.

Some of the psalms duplicate wording found in Ugaritic hymns and were "written down" [in Ugaritic] in a sense at a time when it is doubtful Israel was literate.

Job in form and content hints at being COMPOSED very early possibly before Israel was; it almost certainly got adjusted in various areas and made Hebrew by ther time it was written down.

[jochanaan]

...Many, as do I, believe that "sons of God" represents descendents of the line of Seth, while the "daughters of men" represents the daughters of the line of Cain.

The reasoning goes something like, Adam was a son of God. Seth was in the image of Adam (Gen 5:1-3). He and his family lived lives calling upon the name of the Lord (Gen 4:26) and walking with God (5:24). Cain and his descendents did exactly the opposite. Rather than calling on God, they considered themselves to be self-sufficient, taking multiple wives, counter to the model presented in the Garden, committing murder and boasting about it (Lamech)...

That sounds like a bit of a stretch. Yes, it says that Seth was in Adam's image, but would not both Cain and Abel (and whatever other sons and daughters were born to Adam and Eve) also be "in Adam's image" even though the text does not specifically say so? Yes, Cain chose the path of murder and hatred, but he might not have...