Noah’s Ark—What You Don’t Noah: Shocked by the Bible, Chapter 12
Just as we already learned, and Kovacs pointed out, there are a lot of myths about Christmas. There are also a lot of myths about Noah as well. Kovacs addresses those myths in this chapter. However, there are some corrections to which I don’t think he does justice.
Clean and unclean…
He addressed the issue about exactly what animals were on the Ark with Noah. He pointed out that it wasn’t just two of every kind, but that there were at least seven pairs of each kind of “clean” animal aboard the Ark. He makes a slight overstatement on page 101—Kovacs wrote:
“A complete list of which animals are clean and unclean is provided in the eleventh chapter of the book of Leviticus, but it’s apparent that righteous Noah was acquainted with God’s dietary laws and followed the directions.”
Such a list does exist in the book of Leviticus. The problem is not with the list of animals; the problem is that Kovacs made it sound as though Noah knew about this list. Then what is the problem you might be asking? The list Kovacs refers to wouldn’t come into existence until thousands of years later when the Israelites vacated Egypt. There is no way that “righteous Noah was acquainted” with God’s dietary laws contained in Leviticus 11.
Angels and sex again?
Kovacs then moved into an area that probably deserves an entire chapter in his book and not a few passing statements. The topic is that of Genesis 6 and the “sons of God” and the “men of renown.” On page 104 Kovacs wrote, “Their offspring were famous people, the ‘giants’ of their day, as Steven Spielberg, Mel Gibson, and Donald Trump might be considered in ours.” This led to him mentioning the controversy surrounding what the meaning of the phrases/terms “sons of God, men of renown, and giants.” This led to him proposing that the ‘giants’ were angels mating with human women, as others have suggested as well. I think that it truly meant giants, like our modern day giants. The photo on the right shows what I mean. I think Floyd Mayweather
(the guy looking up at "The Big Show) would considered Paul Wight a giant and not in the sense Kovacs meant. Click on the photo to see the difference in height and weight between the two men; my point being this isn't a staged photo to make the difference really stand out.
There is a problem with that theory though. The problem is that the Bible nowhere says that angels are given the ability to reproduce. The command of God to mankind and animals to “be fruitful and multiply” is not found anywhere in the Scriptures concerning angels. Those who propose that angels were doing this are going beyond the Bible and supposing that this is possible. I also understand that simply because the Bible is silent about something does not mean it is not possible. However, Jesus also indirectly addressed this whole notion of angels reproducing.
In Matthew 22, the Sadducees asked Jesus a question. They wanted to know to whom a woman would be married at the final resurrection if she had been married many times during her earthly life. Jesus answered them by saying, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” The implication is that the angels do not marry. What makes marriage more special than other relationship (friendship, family, etc.)? It is the ability to unite sexually, which is to fulfill God’s directive to “be fruitful and multiply.” The Bible makes it clear that sex is intended to take place in marriage and nowhere else. Therefore, if the angels do not marry, then they do not have sex—as this would be detestable in God’s sight. So the notion that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels is simply unfounded
Clean and unclean…He addressed the issue about exactly what animals were on the Ark with Noah. He pointed out that it wasn’t just two of every kind, but that there were at least seven pairs of each kind of “clean” animal aboard the Ark. He makes a slight overstatement on page 101—Kovacs wrote:
“A complete list of which animals are clean and unclean is provided in the eleventh chapter of the book of Leviticus, but it’s apparent that righteous Noah was acquainted with God’s dietary laws and followed the directions.”
Such a list does exist in the book of Leviticus. The problem is not with the list of animals; the problem is that Kovacs made it sound as though Noah knew about this list. Then what is the problem you might be asking? The list Kovacs refers to wouldn’t come into existence until thousands of years later when the Israelites vacated Egypt. There is no way that “righteous Noah was acquainted” with God’s dietary laws contained in Leviticus 11.
Angels and sex again?
Kovacs then moved into an area that probably deserves an entire chapter in his book and not a few passing statements. The topic is that of Genesis 6 and the “sons of God” and the “men of renown.” On page 104 Kovacs wrote, “Their offspring were famous people, the ‘giants’ of their day, as Steven Spielberg, Mel Gibson, and Donald Trump might be considered in ours.” This led to him mentioning the controversy surrounding what the meaning of the phrases/terms “sons of God, men of renown, and giants.” This led to him proposing that the ‘giants’ were angels mating with human women, as others have suggested as well. I think that it truly meant giants, like our modern day giants. The photo on the right shows what I mean. I think Floyd Mayweather
(the guy looking up at "The Big Show) would considered Paul Wight a giant and not in the sense Kovacs meant. Click on the photo to see the difference in height and weight between the two men; my point being this isn't a staged photo to make the difference really stand out.There is a problem with that theory though. The problem is that the Bible nowhere says that angels are given the ability to reproduce. The command of God to mankind and animals to “be fruitful and multiply” is not found anywhere in the Scriptures concerning angels. Those who propose that angels were doing this are going beyond the Bible and supposing that this is possible. I also understand that simply because the Bible is silent about something does not mean it is not possible. However, Jesus also indirectly addressed this whole notion of angels reproducing.
In Matthew 22, the Sadducees asked Jesus a question. They wanted to know to whom a woman would be married at the final resurrection if she had been married many times during her earthly life. Jesus answered them by saying, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” The implication is that the angels do not marry. What makes marriage more special than other relationship (friendship, family, etc.)? It is the ability to unite sexually, which is to fulfill God’s directive to “be fruitful and multiply.” The Bible makes it clear that sex is intended to take place in marriage and nowhere else. Therefore, if the angels do not marry, then they do not have sex—as this would be detestable in God’s sight. So the notion that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels is simply unfounded
Labels:
Shocked by the Bible
|
i also tend to doubt that the sons of God are angels in gen 6, but i still have to admit there is some scriptural support. in job (another ancient figure), the sons of God appear to be angels or some kind of supernatural beings that can go before God. add that to the fact that "sons of God" isn't used much in the OT, and we can at least see where advocates of angels in gen 6 are coming from. still, not so sure i think they're angels in the text
I thought about mentioning that the whole notion of angels having intercourse with women in Genesis 6 came from the book of Job, as you noted. You are correct that the "sons of God" is not used much in the OT. In fact, it is not used much in Scripture. The phrase is only used 5 times in the Old Testament in two places, Genesis and Job. In the New Testament, it is amazingly only used 5 times; once in Matthew, once in Luke, twice in Romans, and once in Galatians. I used the NASB for these references. The reference in Job is certainly referring to angels. The only use of it in the New Testament that would even possibly be angels is its use in Luke 20:36. However, a quick survey of several translations makes it clear that Jesus is not referring to angels as being the sons of God, but to humans. So the overwhelming use in Scripture as a whole is to refer to humans, not angels.
I did give the possibility that it was referring to angels a fair shake when I first heard that proposition. I strongly considered the possibility, but I just can't see where it is a viable option when everything is considered. Actually, I think that no one would have considered the possibility of it referring to angels if the phrase was not used in the book of Job, what do you think?
The Bible refers to the sons of God (most commonly Understood as Angels) as having left their "first estate" (or okaterion in the Greek), meaning that they gave up their "heavenly bodies" for corruptible bodies. This word is only used twice in the Bible, the other time by Paul when describing believers bodies changing in the twinkling of an eye, but in the opposite way. The corruptible bodies would have enabled these angels to procreate with human women. A literal interpretation is most possible here.
I.e. why would the Bible especially mention this "cohabitation" if it were just a commingling of the line of Seth. Why would Noah be spared because he was perfect in his generations (genetically clean of defect from the Gen 6 effect). And what about the giants in Canaan of whom the Israelites were like grasshoppers by their side. And Goliath and his four giant brothers or Ogs 14 foot bed. God certainly seems to go out of his way to tell us about the "giants"
Chuck Misslers study on Gen 6 is well worth a review for a more comprehensive explanation
God bless :)
Ps, the Apocrophal book of Enoch goes into much more details re the happenings of Gen 6 too