OK, since we're on the subject of the Bible, which version or translation are we discussing? What about the apocrypha? There is a difference, after all...sometimes a great one!
MarcUK, I have to say that you have one unique theory going there!
Made me think of the old saw about solar systems = particles, galaxies = atoms, atoms make up people, people are part of the universe, which make up different people in a different plane, etc....we are the Ark, and the Ark is us!
i'd very much like to believe we are galactic nomads, that would be pretty cool - infact I read a light novel on this recently, called Saucer. Its a nice theory, and I wouldn't rule it out as terribly unlikely, but I dont think the evidence fits the hypothesis.
Sweet. Thanks MarcUK, you've given now a good no.2 explanation, with Segovius on a no.3 explanation.
Now we're really looking at the meaning behind the Flood stuff. Where the F is Frank on this??? A bit lame, I have to accuse, coming in here and saying "Oh the Bible is all I need, but I will refer to it to research answers for you".... Well, we're waiting, Frank, it's been a few days...
For me I can reconcile the various meanings at this stage almost chronologically. The details are of course so many with so many stories and measurements and references it is so "anthropological"/ cultural.
But it begins with humans being Guilty and feeling shite about themselves so they imagine/ believe that God comes and punishes them to wipe out all but the pure. Then, we move on to the Ark being more of "we are all made of stars" (cue Moby [the musician]) ... Then, actually the Ark/vessel theory means that whatever happens to our "imagined physical" existence, our core being (pure energy, soul, Self, etc) ... is *always* safe from any "Flood" (of suffering, etc.).
Made me think of the old saw about solar systems = particles, galaxies = atoms, atoms make up people, people are part of the universe, which make up different people in a different plane, etc....we are the Ark, and the Ark is us!
Sweet. Thanks MarcUK, you've given now a good no.2 explanation, with Segovius on a no.3 explanation.
Now we're really looking at the meaning behind the Flood stuff. Where the F is Frank on this??? A bit lame, I have to accuse, coming in here and saying "Oh the Bible is all I need, but I will refer to it to research answers for you".... Well, we're waiting, Frank, it's been a few days...
It's been less than a day since I last posted. And in between my postings on AI, I occasionally have to go into the real world to eat and sleep and..you know..earn money to live.
That I think Marc and Sego are dancing on the wrong side of lunacy goes without saying. While I'm sure they mean well, (ok, I'm trying the high road here ) I think Marc's explanation is simply not credible. Judaism wanted nothing to do with astrology, and trying to shoehorn such concepts into the text to fit a deeper meaning moves one away, not closer, to what the authors intended.
Segovius, as usual, is looking at the same sources as I am and seeing something completely different.
Genesis 6 is an interesting text, not simply because of the Flood account but because of the brief account of the Nephilim.
Nvidia, you spoke earlier of people being guilty of sin and God wiping them out. What if there was more to it here than meets the eye? What evil would so invade the Earth that would cause God to destroy it, when God himself has said he would spare whole cities for the sake of a few righteous people?
There is a line of thinking that says that the Nephilim mentioned just prior to the Flood account were the primary cause of the Flood.
After the Fall and the banishment from Eden, it was obvious that someone would have to "take the fall" for Adam's sin in order to redeem mankind from the Curse and restore him to fellowship with his Creator. The promise of a Redeemer is given in the third chapter of Genesis, and the coming of that Redeemer is the central thread of the Bible and every single book in it.
In Genesis, the Redeemer is said to be the seed or offspring of the woman (3:15.) In other words, fully human. A regular human, however, would inherit the sins of his human father (and from Adam). Jesus had no sin because he was born into this world by the power of God with a human mother but without a human father. As a result, He was fully human, yet fully God at the same time.
The need for a sinless, yet fully human Redeemer was the reason for the Virgin Birth. Islam's founder never understood that point, so he include the Virgin Birth teaching in his religion without realizing what it meant.
When most people skip over the boring "who begat whom" listings in the Old Testament, what they fail to realize is the lengths God went to protect and keep a royal dynasty in line from Adam through King David to Joseph and Mary to allow Jesus to fulfill the role laid out for him.
The Nephilim may have been a serious threat to that line. If Angelic-Human cross-breeding had in fact contaminated humanity to the extent that a fully human Redeemer could not have been born, all of humanity - past, present and future - would be at stake.
Immediately after the writings on the Nephilim, Noah is mentioned as being "a righteous man, blameless in his generation." Does the last part of that statement simply mean he was a good man, or that his DNA was not contaminated?
It's a fascinating issue, and this discussion has started to increase my interest in the subject again.
Immediately after the writings on the Nephilim, Noah is mentioned as being "a righteous man, blameless in his generation." Does the last part of that statement simply mean he was a good man, or that his DNA was not contaminated?
...and you have the gumption to accuse Marc and Segovius of 'lunacy'.
No, you're quite right, it's much more rational to consider the human bloodline being contaminated by angels.
I've been thinking about all this and studying Genesis for a few days and I think I have come up with a smoking gun to blast Frank's contradiction challenge out of the water for all time.
Work with me here....
This is from Genesis 5:27:
Methuselah was the father of Lamech (who was born when Methuselah was 187) and Lamech was the father of Noah. Both had normal life spans. Assuming Lamech sired Noah at 100 and Noah built the ark at 100 years old then Methuselah would still be only 387....that's a discrepancy of 582 years.
So...where was Methuselah during the flood?
He clearly wasn't on the ark - so where was he? He could not also have been drowned in the flood as he was 'righteous'.
I think that should nail it down......this is a cast-iron contradiction. No other way to swing it.
Well according to Genesis, Lamech was 182 years old when he fathered Noah, then lived for 595 years making him 777 when he died. 'Only the good die young' is what his father would have said.
Noah, on the other hand, lived to be 950 years old! He was 600 (covers your discrepancy (hell, why are we even arguing fantasy??)) when the flood came. I guess Noah's dependents were punished for having the audacity to survive the flood.
does anyone know of a good source of literature that outlines the stories of the bible in the context of what they really mean metaphorically?
yes, i know its not possible as the teachings are fluid and evolving, but im getting lazy in my old age and would like to read some credible thinkings of their meanings
It's been less than a day since I last posted. And in between my postings on AI, I occasionally have to go into the real world to eat and sleep and..you know..earn money to live.
doesnt God provide you with everything you need???
Quote:
That I think Marc and Sego are dancing on the wrong side of lunacy goes without saying. While I'm sure they mean well, (ok, I'm trying the high road here ) I think Marc's explanation is simply not credible. Judaism wanted nothing to do with astrology, and trying to shoehorn such concepts into the text to fit a deeper meaning moves one away, not closer, to what the authors intended.
it depends on what you want to know, I for example - want to know the absolute literal of where these stories came from, and that is astrology, and I also want to know the deepest metaphorical meaning of the philopsophy of these stories.
Quote:
Segovius, as usual, is looking at the same sources as I am and seeing something completely different.
Quote:
Genesis 6 is an interesting text, not simply because of the Flood account but because of the brief account of the Nephilim.
Nvidia, you spoke earlier of people being guilty of sin and God wiping them out. What if there was more to it here than meets the eye? What evil would so invade the Earth that would cause God to destroy it, when God himself has said he would spare whole cities for the sake of a few righteous people?
There is a line of thinking that says that the Nephilim mentioned just prior to the Flood account were the primary cause of the Flood.
After the Fall and the banishment from Eden, it was obvious that someone would have to "take the fall" for Adam's sin in order to redeem mankind from the Curse and restore him to fellowship with his Creator. The promise of a Redeemer is given in the third chapter of Genesis, and the coming of that Redeemer is the central thread of the Bible and every single book in it.
In Genesis, the Redeemer is said to be the seed or offspring of the woman (3:15.) In other words, fully human. A regular human, however, would inherit the sins of his human father (and from Adam). Jesus had no sin because he was born into this world by the power of God with a human mother but without a human father. As a result, He was fully human, yet fully God at the same time.
The need for a sinless, yet fully human Redeemer was the reason for the Virgin Birth. Islam's founder never understood that point, so he include the Virgin Birth teaching in his religion without realizing what it meant.
When most people skip over the boring "who begat whom" listings in the Old Testament, what they fail to realize is the lengths God went to protect and keep a royal dynasty in line from Adam through King David to Joseph and Mary to allow Jesus to fulfill the role laid out for him.
The Nephilim may have been a serious threat to that line. If Angelic-Human cross-breeding had in fact contaminated humanity to the extent that a fully human Redeemer could not have been born, all of humanity - past, present and future - would be at stake.
Immediately after the writings on the Nephilim, Noah is mentioned as being "a righteous man, blameless in his generation." Does the last part of that statement simply mean he was a good man, or that his DNA was not contaminated?
It's a fascinating issue, and this discussion has started to increase my interest in the subject again.
It's been less than a day since I last posted. And in between my postings on AI, I occasionally have to go into the real world to eat and sleep and..you know..earn money to live.
That I think Marc and Sego are dancing on the wrong side of lunacy goes without saying. While I'm sure they mean well, (ok, I'm trying the high road here ) I think Marc's explanation is simply not credible. Judaism wanted nothing to do with astrology, and trying to shoehorn such concepts into the text to fit a deeper meaning moves one away, not closer, to what the authors intended.
Segovius, as usual, is looking at the same sources as I am and seeing something completely different.
Genesis 6 is an interesting text, not simply because of the Flood account but because of the brief account of the Nephilim.
Nvidia, you spoke earlier of people being guilty of sin and God wiping them out. What if there was more to it here than meets the eye? What evil would so invade the Earth that would cause God to destroy it, when God himself has said he would spare whole cities for the sake of a few righteous people?
There is a line of thinking that says that the Nephilim mentioned just prior to the Flood account were the primary cause of the Flood.
After the Fall and the banishment from Eden, it was obvious that someone would have to "take the fall" for Adam's sin in order to redeem mankind from the Curse and restore him to fellowship with his Creator. The promise of a Redeemer is given in the third chapter of Genesis, and the coming of that Redeemer is the central thread of the Bible and every single book in it.
In Genesis, the Redeemer is said to be the seed or offspring of the woman (3:15.) In other words, fully human. A regular human, however, would inherit the sins of his human father (and from Adam). Jesus had no sin because he was born into this world by the power of God with a human mother but without a human father. As a result, He was fully human, yet fully God at the same time.
The need for a sinless, yet fully human Redeemer was the reason for the Virgin Birth. Islam's founder never understood that point, so he include the Virgin Birth teaching in his religion without realizing what it meant.
When most people skip over the boring "who begat whom" listings in the Old Testament, what they fail to realize is the lengths God went to protect and keep a royal dynasty in line from Adam through King David to Joseph and Mary to allow Jesus to fulfill the role laid out for him.
The Nephilim may have been a serious threat to that line. If Angelic-Human cross-breeding had in fact contaminated humanity to the extent that a fully human Redeemer could not have been born, all of humanity - past, present and future - would be at stake.
Immediately after the writings on the Nephilim, Noah is mentioned as being "a righteous man, blameless in his generation." Does the last part of that statement simply mean he was a good man, or that his DNA was not contaminated?
It's a fascinating issue, and this discussion has started to increase my interest in the subject again.
Cool. Fair enough, thanks for your insight Frank. I was crazy busy with work yesterday (I have a real life now too.... ) so it's only 8am today on Saturday that I'm checking back into this thread...
What is Nephilim?
Other than that, that is an interesting way you are reading that. I have explanation no.4 now.
(Being a Virgo, I like order and cataloging and stuff... but you don't believe in that rubbish anyways).
Okay, so looking at explanation no.4, it honestly is just as "crazy" as the other ideas. Now you are talking about the Bible being a historical record of "bloodlines" and that "humans were contaminated" so "God had to send Jesus to decontaminate...", to prevent "Angel-Human hybrids". (I'm certainly doing a very rough interpretation of what you said). ...Sounds like DaVinci Code: The Sequel (or Prequel)...???
Add me to the NAC crowd. I think I'm more in line with MarkUK's thinking, though I say I pity the fundie xians rather than merely hate them... and Sego's obviously the most knowledgable on the subject.
But Sego is Agnostic while Marc and I are Atheist... correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
Welcome to the club. Memberships still widely available. ...So we have Sego, MarcUK, Tonton, iPoster, me, and we can now add Frank to the list as well.
IMO Agnostic and Atheist definitions start to break down at this level. If everything is God, or if God is something else we don't know about (or can't not know about), then there is no need to "recognise" whether God exists or not. My "God by default" theory is complex and hard for me to figure out now how to explain it properly, but just a quick comment. If we take what we think is God, and what is Not God, then what is beyond that, "beyond that" is where the action really is.
No, you're quite right, it's much more rational to consider the human bloodline being contaminated by angels.
You have no idea how much work it took to come up with an explanation of the Genesis events that was on the same level of crazy as Marc and Segovius. I could at least get props for that.
Seriously, Genesis kicks off the human race by stating that the Lord pulled part of Adam out and used it to create Eve. Surely if you can get past that, there's little need for answers to questions like "What did the Anteater eat?" There are a billion ways an all-powerful God, who created everything in the first place, could have pulled this off.
One of the maddening things about Scripture is that sometimes it gives only as much information as one needs to know, and doesn't go into detail into things that distract from the main point the text is trying to convey.
It's almost like the Bible expects the reader to learn to trust God along the way.
Comments
MarcUK, I have to say that you have one unique theory going there!
Made me think of the old saw about solar systems = particles, galaxies = atoms, atoms make up people, people are part of the universe, which make up different people in a different plane, etc....we are the Ark, and the Ark is us!
Now we're really looking at the meaning behind the Flood stuff. Where the F is Frank on this??? A bit lame, I have to accuse, coming in here and saying "Oh the Bible is all I need, but I will refer to it to research answers for you".... Well, we're waiting, Frank, it's been a few days...
But it begins with humans being Guilty and feeling shite about themselves so they imagine/ believe that God comes and punishes them to wipe out all but the pure. Then, we move on to the Ark being more of "we are all made of stars" (cue Moby [the musician]) ... Then, actually the Ark/vessel theory means that whatever happens to our "imagined physical" existence, our core being (pure energy, soul, Self, etc) ... is *always* safe from any "Flood" (of suffering, etc.).
Made me think of the old saw about solar systems = particles, galaxies = atoms, atoms make up people, people are part of the universe, which make up different people in a different plane, etc....we are the Ark, and the Ark is us!
Cool.
Segovius:
"It's like, humans are like, these galactic nomads, man, and like, whoa...."
iPoster:
"It's like, the Ark is us, and like, we are the Ark, man...."
MarcUK:
"Our body is the vessel, and Noah is our soul, like, yeah, and then we get drunk which actually means acquiring, like, new knowledge...."
Heh.
A lot of people must be wondering what we're all smoking...
Sweet. Thanks MarcUK, you've given now a good no.2 explanation, with Segovius on a no.3 explanation.
Now we're really looking at the meaning behind the Flood stuff. Where the F is Frank on this??? A bit lame, I have to accuse, coming in here and saying "Oh the Bible is all I need, but I will refer to it to research answers for you".... Well, we're waiting, Frank, it's been a few days...
It's been less than a day since I last posted. And in between my postings on AI, I occasionally have to go into the real world to eat and sleep and..you know..earn money to live.
That I think Marc and Sego are dancing on the wrong side of lunacy goes without saying. While I'm sure they mean well, (ok, I'm trying the high road here
Segovius, as usual, is looking at the same sources as I am and seeing something completely different.
Genesis 6 is an interesting text, not simply because of the Flood account but because of the brief account of the Nephilim.
Nvidia, you spoke earlier of people being guilty of sin and God wiping them out. What if there was more to it here than meets the eye? What evil would so invade the Earth that would cause God to destroy it, when God himself has said he would spare whole cities for the sake of a few righteous people?
There is a line of thinking that says that the Nephilim mentioned just prior to the Flood account were the primary cause of the Flood.
After the Fall and the banishment from Eden, it was obvious that someone would have to "take the fall" for Adam's sin in order to redeem mankind from the Curse and restore him to fellowship with his Creator. The promise of a Redeemer is given in the third chapter of Genesis, and the coming of that Redeemer is the central thread of the Bible and every single book in it.
In Genesis, the Redeemer is said to be the seed or offspring of the woman (3:15.) In other words, fully human. A regular human, however, would inherit the sins of his human father (and from Adam). Jesus had no sin because he was born into this world by the power of God with a human mother but without a human father. As a result, He was fully human, yet fully God at the same time.
The need for a sinless, yet fully human Redeemer was the reason for the Virgin Birth. Islam's founder never understood that point, so he include the Virgin Birth teaching in his religion without realizing what it meant.
When most people skip over the boring "who begat whom" listings in the Old Testament, what they fail to realize is the lengths God went to protect and keep a royal dynasty in line from Adam through King David to Joseph and Mary to allow Jesus to fulfill the role laid out for him.
The Nephilim may have been a serious threat to that line. If Angelic-Human cross-breeding had in fact contaminated humanity to the extent that a fully human Redeemer could not have been born, all of humanity - past, present and future - would be at stake.
Immediately after the writings on the Nephilim, Noah is mentioned as being "a righteous man, blameless in his generation." Does the last part of that statement simply mean he was a good man, or that his DNA was not contaminated?
It's a fascinating issue, and this discussion has started to increase my interest in the subject again.
Immediately after the writings on the Nephilim, Noah is mentioned as being "a righteous man, blameless in his generation." Does the last part of that statement simply mean he was a good man, or that his DNA was not contaminated?
...and you have the gumption to accuse Marc and Segovius of 'lunacy'.
No, you're quite right, it's much more rational to consider the human bloodline being contaminated by angels.
I've been thinking about all this and studying Genesis for a few days and I think I have come up with a smoking gun to blast Frank's contradiction challenge out of the water for all time.
Work with me here....
This is from Genesis 5:27:
Methuselah was the father of Lamech (who was born when Methuselah was 187) and Lamech was the father of Noah. Both had normal life spans. Assuming Lamech sired Noah at 100 and Noah built the ark at 100 years old then Methuselah would still be only 387....that's a discrepancy of 582 years.
So...where was Methuselah during the flood?
He clearly wasn't on the ark - so where was he? He could not also have been drowned in the flood as he was 'righteous'.
I think that should nail it down......this is a cast-iron contradiction. No other way to swing it.
Well according to Genesis, Lamech was 182 years old when he fathered Noah, then lived for 595 years making him 777 when he died. 'Only the good die young' is what his father would have said.
Noah, on the other hand, lived to be 950 years old! He was 600 (covers your discrepancy (hell, why are we even arguing fantasy??)) when the flood came. I guess Noah's dependents were punished for having the audacity to survive the flood.
.....(hell, why are we even arguing fantasy??).....
Exactly. It's like watching folks argue over the nuances and subtleties of how Santa Claus gets to every child's house in 24 hours?
"But how do you explain THAT, given the different timezones???!!!"
Wait.....if there were only two ants then what did the anteaters eat.....
Quit clouding the issue with facts!!
Well, people discuss sci-fi books and movies all the time with the upmost seriousness.
Sure, no problem, that's kind of fun. But at the end of the day we all know we're discussing fantasy.
Why not the Bible, even if just academically.
Is that possible? Who does that? Not many here.
I can respect it (at the bare minimum it deserves as much) for being such a polarizing piece of literature.
/0.02
yes, i know its not possible as the teachings are fluid and evolving, but im getting lazy in my old age and would like to read some credible thinkings of their meanings
It's been less than a day since I last posted. And in between my postings on AI, I occasionally have to go into the real world to eat and sleep and..you know..earn money to live.
doesnt God provide you with everything you need???
That I think Marc and Sego are dancing on the wrong side of lunacy goes without saying. While I'm sure they mean well, (ok, I'm trying the high road here
it depends on what you want to know, I for example - want to know the absolute literal of where these stories came from, and that is astrology, and I also want to know the deepest metaphorical meaning of the philopsophy of these stories.
Segovius, as usual, is looking at the same sources as I am and seeing something completely different.
Genesis 6 is an interesting text, not simply because of the Flood account but because of the brief account of the Nephilim.
Nvidia, you spoke earlier of people being guilty of sin and God wiping them out. What if there was more to it here than meets the eye? What evil would so invade the Earth that would cause God to destroy it, when God himself has said he would spare whole cities for the sake of a few righteous people?
There is a line of thinking that says that the Nephilim mentioned just prior to the Flood account were the primary cause of the Flood.
After the Fall and the banishment from Eden, it was obvious that someone would have to "take the fall" for Adam's sin in order to redeem mankind from the Curse and restore him to fellowship with his Creator. The promise of a Redeemer is given in the third chapter of Genesis, and the coming of that Redeemer is the central thread of the Bible and every single book in it.
In Genesis, the Redeemer is said to be the seed or offspring of the woman (3:15.) In other words, fully human. A regular human, however, would inherit the sins of his human father (and from Adam). Jesus had no sin because he was born into this world by the power of God with a human mother but without a human father. As a result, He was fully human, yet fully God at the same time.
The need for a sinless, yet fully human Redeemer was the reason for the Virgin Birth. Islam's founder never understood that point, so he include the Virgin Birth teaching in his religion without realizing what it meant.
When most people skip over the boring "who begat whom" listings in the Old Testament, what they fail to realize is the lengths God went to protect and keep a royal dynasty in line from Adam through King David to Joseph and Mary to allow Jesus to fulfill the role laid out for him.
The Nephilim may have been a serious threat to that line. If Angelic-Human cross-breeding had in fact contaminated humanity to the extent that a fully human Redeemer could not have been born, all of humanity - past, present and future - would be at stake.
Immediately after the writings on the Nephilim, Noah is mentioned as being "a righteous man, blameless in his generation." Does the last part of that statement simply mean he was a good man, or that his DNA was not contaminated?
It's a fascinating issue, and this discussion has started to increase my interest in the subject again.
so many ways to read that!
It's been less than a day since I last posted. And in between my postings on AI, I occasionally have to go into the real world to eat and sleep and..you know..earn money to live.
That I think Marc and Sego are dancing on the wrong side of lunacy goes without saying. While I'm sure they mean well, (ok, I'm trying the high road here
Segovius, as usual, is looking at the same sources as I am and seeing something completely different.
Genesis 6 is an interesting text, not simply because of the Flood account but because of the brief account of the Nephilim.
Nvidia, you spoke earlier of people being guilty of sin and God wiping them out. What if there was more to it here than meets the eye? What evil would so invade the Earth that would cause God to destroy it, when God himself has said he would spare whole cities for the sake of a few righteous people?
There is a line of thinking that says that the Nephilim mentioned just prior to the Flood account were the primary cause of the Flood.
After the Fall and the banishment from Eden, it was obvious that someone would have to "take the fall" for Adam's sin in order to redeem mankind from the Curse and restore him to fellowship with his Creator. The promise of a Redeemer is given in the third chapter of Genesis, and the coming of that Redeemer is the central thread of the Bible and every single book in it.
In Genesis, the Redeemer is said to be the seed or offspring of the woman (3:15.) In other words, fully human. A regular human, however, would inherit the sins of his human father (and from Adam). Jesus had no sin because he was born into this world by the power of God with a human mother but without a human father. As a result, He was fully human, yet fully God at the same time.
The need for a sinless, yet fully human Redeemer was the reason for the Virgin Birth. Islam's founder never understood that point, so he include the Virgin Birth teaching in his religion without realizing what it meant.
When most people skip over the boring "who begat whom" listings in the Old Testament, what they fail to realize is the lengths God went to protect and keep a royal dynasty in line from Adam through King David to Joseph and Mary to allow Jesus to fulfill the role laid out for him.
The Nephilim may have been a serious threat to that line. If Angelic-Human cross-breeding had in fact contaminated humanity to the extent that a fully human Redeemer could not have been born, all of humanity - past, present and future - would be at stake.
Immediately after the writings on the Nephilim, Noah is mentioned as being "a righteous man, blameless in his generation." Does the last part of that statement simply mean he was a good man, or that his DNA was not contaminated?
It's a fascinating issue, and this discussion has started to increase my interest in the subject again.
Cool. Fair enough, thanks for your insight Frank. I was crazy busy with work yesterday (I have a real life now too....
What is Nephilim?
Other than that, that is an interesting way you are reading that. I have explanation no.4 now.
(Being a Virgo, I like order and cataloging and stuff... but you don't believe in that rubbish anyways).
Okay, so looking at explanation no.4, it honestly is just as "crazy" as the other ideas. Now you are talking about the Bible being a historical record of "bloodlines" and that "humans were contaminated" so "God had to send Jesus to decontaminate...", to prevent "Angel-Human hybrids". (I'm certainly doing a very rough interpretation of what you said). ...Sounds like DaVinci Code: The Sequel (or Prequel)...???
Interesting, but I really have to say, WTF ??
Add me to the NAC crowd. I think I'm more in line with MarkUK's thinking, though I say I pity the fundie xians rather than merely hate them... and Sego's obviously the most knowledgable on the subject.
But Sego is Agnostic while Marc and I are Atheist... correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
Welcome to the club. Memberships still widely available.
IMO Agnostic and Atheist definitions start to break down at this level. If everything is God, or if God is something else we don't know about (or can't not know about), then there is no need to "recognise" whether God exists or not. My "God by default" theory is complex and hard for me to figure out now how to explain it properly, but just a quick comment. If we take what we think is God, and what is Not God, then what is beyond that, "beyond that" is where the action really is.
No, you're quite right, it's much more rational to consider the human bloodline being contaminated by angels.
You have no idea how much work it took to come up with an explanation of the Genesis events that was on the same level of crazy as Marc and Segovius. I could at least get props for that.
Seriously, Genesis kicks off the human race by stating that the Lord pulled part of Adam out and used it to create Eve. Surely if you can get past that, there's little need for answers to questions like "What did the Anteater eat?" There are a billion ways an all-powerful God, who created everything in the first place, could have pulled this off.
One of the maddening things about Scripture is that sometimes it gives only as much information as one needs to know, and doesn't go into detail into things that distract from the main point the text is trying to convey.
It's almost like the Bible expects the reader to learn to trust God along the way.