You see the time of Enosh, I see the days of Noah who lived more than a thousand years later where the whole earth was corrupt, filled with violence, nobody was calling upon the name of the Lord. As long as Ez. 18:20 remains a truthful statement, Enosh's generation is irrelevant.
Also irrelevant. The debate is set in the days of Noah, not Seth.
That's Noah's genealogy, what does that have anything to do with the "sons of God"? Or the "daughters of men"? Among Cain's descendants were builders (Gen. 4:17), ranchers (4:20), musicians (4:21) and craftsmen (4:22), does any of these have to do with "exceesive violence"?
You're not reading anything I'm actually writing, are you? I have posted much on the relevance of all of that. It doesn't seem as though you're reading Scripture fully either:
Gen 4:8 Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.
...
Gen 4:23 Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me.
Gen 4:24 If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech's is seventy-sevenfold.” (ESV)
This is the last we hear from Cain's line--excessive violence. Why would you stop short of this verse? Cain started with violence and the last of his genealogy is excessive violence. That should tell you something; it wasn't written for no reason.
What's unbiblical is falsely identifying the sons of God as godly men, whereas what's stated in Gen. 6 is the all men except Noah and his family were extremely wicked.
Do you understand how taking later verses in this narrative cannot necessarily be used as speaking prior to previous verses? Where is it stated that everyone was wicked? Gen. 6:5, or we could push it back to what is implied in verse 3. Prior to that, we have men beginning to multiply and then "the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive." It is only
after those things that we find out that God is going to save only Noah and his family. Chronology matters.
Gen 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,
Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. (ESV)
And, as I have previously stated, what comes right before verse 1?
Gen 5:21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah.
Gen 5:22
Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:23 Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years.
Gen 5:24
Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.
Gen 5:25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he fathered Lamech.
Gen 5:26 Methuselah lived after he fathered Lamech 782 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:27 Thus all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died.
Gen 5:28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son
Gen 5:29 and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that
the LORD has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.”
Gen 5:30 Lamech lived after he fathered Noah 595 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:31 Thus all the days of Lamech were 777 years, and he died.
Gen 5:32 After Noah was 500 years old, Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (ESV)
Chapter six begins with "NOW it came to pass", that's referring to no other period but Noah's generation when Noah was 500 years old (5:32), same as "those days" and "then", in case you missed it this timing was repeated in 6:9-11.
Of course. That has nothing to do with what I've stated.
Ch. 4 and 5 at that point were ancient history, from the birth of Enosh to that "now" was 1426 years, if you don't believe me, do your own math.
Why do you keep going to Enosh? Please read what I write otherwise this discussion won't get anywhere. I've given the relevant genealogy with some commentary (hint: Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah; do the math). That is all necessary to understanding 6:1 and all that follows it.
As long as you stick to your argument of "down the line", you're treating "godliness" as a hereditary trait, which is totally unbiblical.
Of course that would be unbiblical and that is precisely why I have never made such an argument. Getting tired of your straw man yet? I am.
I do agree that godly people have a better chance of raising godly people,
And there you go. So
now you agree with my actual argument, which suggests that you were purposely presenting a straw man.
but I also know that godly people are not full of wickedness and extremely violent, God doesn't drown his own sons in a global flood.
Of course, and that is why God saved eight people.
This is "appeal to authority" fallacy, also a strawman fallacy. Procreation is NOT creation, and angels have no creative power, they are servants of God, says not I but the bible.
Please,
please learn to read what I'm actually writing and keep it within the context of our discussion. We might actually have a productive conversation if you could do so. There is no fallacy, and of course procreation is not creation; that has nothing to do with anything I've said.
What I have clearly stated is that given what Jesus says about angels, that they aren't given in marriage, strongly implies that they don't procreate, which itself implies they don't have the means to do so. Why would God created angels with the ability to procreate,
and that with human women, but not let them get married? It follows then that
the angels themselves would have to have the creative capacity of God to create all the male anatomy, completely functioning, and compatible human DNA, ex nihilo, in order to procreate with women. I've stated all this more than once, so please keep my statements within the context of our discussion as a whole.
