It seems the language in which the genealogy is laid out is pretty specifically connecting each link directly by specifically naming fathers and sons. And as it’s laid out in Luke, it would seem the Jewish people of Jesus’ time also saw it this way.
According to genetics… intermingling of Adam’s offspring within the sapiens happened immediately.
The Bible only acknowledges human females mixing with angels. Adam/Eve were physically identical to the Imago Dei Humans.
Fine. I’m not an RTB model supporter. But I think that’s their position. Argue against it as much as you like. For what it’s worth,
“Further, the ages given for the antedilu- vian people named in Genesis 5 are not randomly distributed, as we would expect in a list of real people, but neatly contrived according to a precise numerical scheme, a base-60 or sexagesimal system of Babylonian origin.31 So Genesis 5 mimics not only the form but also the numerology of the fictional lists of Mesopotamia. Its “competitive genealogizing” is a strategy for claiming an ancient pedigree for the Hebrew people over against the pretensions of Mesopotamian culture.”
RTB could use this in their favor, though I think it points toward a different conclusion.
Where?
That doesn’t help to answer my questions about line drawing. I’m not sure exactly what you are trying to show with your last post.
It’s also a pretty significant break from traditional Christian Orthodox views as it suggests the genealogy that ties Jesus to this line and fulfills previously laid out prophecy is deliberately false, which if I understand correctly is something to avoid.
The line includes all of humanity… diminished not at all by any minor cross-breeding outside of “sapiens”.
Ok thanks
1 Like
I proved it with the Genesis 9 (and Gen 1) reference to Image of God.
@Jeremy_Christian
So if something is literary, it is “deliberately false”?
Clearly Luke was doing a lot of theology in his genealogy as well.
1 Like
My comment about being “deliberately false” was in reference to this bit …
Here’s a good resource on the manner in which ancient geneaologies were recorded:
http://messianicapologetics.net/archives/10799
Not the whole thing… just the word being used fuguratively.
When Jesus says he is The Door… he is not a DOOR… but is still the way.
Hmm…
I’m not sure if these other cultures believed their genealogies were any more historical than the Hebrews. I think it’s more a theological STATEMENT, not a deliberate lie to make people think they are descended from people that never existed.
2 Likes
By competitive, I think he just means cultures would craft their genealogies in such a way as to reflect how they already felt about their culture. I don’t think they were creating genealogies to MAKE themselves feel great. I think it’s the other way around
Okay, so then what “fictional lists” is this bit referring to?
The gilgamesh king list I think.
1 Like
That’s a popular claim based on a traditional interpretation. (Jewish scholars linked “sons of God” to fallen angels.) Personally, I’ve never found it at all compelling. (And Jesus said that the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage He wasn’t just talking about whether angels qualified for marriage certificates. It refers to procreation.)
I believe the word Nephilim had different meanings in different eras. (Consider the word “giant” in English. It brings to mind old stories like Jack and the Beanstalk. Yet, “giantism” used to be a common term for a very real human with excessive stature due to pituatary gland problems. A giant can also be someone outstanding in their field of accomplishment. So there are mythical giants and real giants.)
3 Likes