Pauluc, I just wanted to add that although I agree …

Comment on Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…” by David Read.

Pauluc, I just wanted to add that although I agree with the Adventist and EWG interpretation of Genesis 6:4 as referring to the Sethites marrying Cainites, I thought you raised an excellent point regarding the ubiquity of chimerical or mosaic creatures in ancient statuary and mythology. I mention this same phenomenon in my book, but attribute it not to the products of sons of God/daughters of men but rather to the amalgamation phenomenon:

“Mixed creatures such as chimeras and griffins are prominently featured in ancient mythology. On a trip to the Getty museum in Los Angeles, I was struck by how pervasive is the griffin—a mythical beast that was part eagle and part lion—in ancient Greek art and artifacts. Combinations of humans and animals are also common in ancient mythology, which features centaurs (half horse), harpies (half bird), minotaurs (half bull), satyrs (half goat), and mermaids (half fish). One wonders why human/animal combinations are so common in mythology. Could it be that the ancients had a dim collective memory of a time when human and animal combinations existed? Perhaps Noah and his children told stories of human/animal combinations that existed before the Flood, and, over the millennia, elements of these stories worked their way into the mythologies of the ancient nations. ‘With the revolution in recombinant DNA,’ writes Michio Kaku, ‘we have to re-analyze many of these ancient myths from an entirely different perspective. The ancient dream of being able to control life is gradually becoming a reality via the bio-molecular revolution.'”

David Read Also Commented

Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…”
Pauluc, I discuss the Genesis 6 statement in pages 399 to 404 of my book, “Dinosaurs–An Adventist View.” I won’t reproduce all five pages here, but I will reproduce the footnote (FN 26, ch. 18) that deals with the book of Enoch:

“Proponents of the theory of breeding between angels and humans draw support from the pseudepigraphal book of 1 Enoch and from an interpretation of verses in Peter (1 Peter 3:18-20, 2 Peter 2:4, 5) and Jude (verses 6 and 7) that is influenced by 1 Enoch. Although Jude quotes from 1 Enoch, Enoch contains a mixture of truth and error. Pseudepigrapha means ‘falsely superscribed,’ meaning falsely titled or attributed. The book of Enoch was written between 200 B.C. and A.D. 50. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, had nothing to do with writing the book. Moreover, the Book of Enoch makes bizarre and incredible assertions. For example, it claims that the Nephilim were 300 cubits tall (450 feet tall), that the antediluvians exhausted themselves trying to feed these outsized giants, that the giants turned on the antediluvian men and started eating them, and that they then started eating each other and drinking blood. (1 Enoch, chapter 7.) The Book of Enoch was never included in the Hebrew canon, and although the book was well known to the early Christians, they did not include it in their canon, either—the Ethiopian church being a notable exception. After the Council of Laodicea in A.D. 364, the church banned 1 Enoch and suppressed it so vigorously that most copies were destroyed. It was thought to be a lost book until the Scottish explorer James Bruce found a copy in Ethiopia, written in Ethiopian, in the early 1770s. Copies were also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. For the views of supporters of the theory of breeding between angels and humans, see, e.g., James Montgomery Boice, Genesis, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998); Henry J. Morris, The Genesis Record, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1976); Chuck Missler, Textual Controversy: Mischievous Angels or Sethites?; Ray C. Stedman, Signs of Collapse; Merrill F. Unger, Biblical Demonology, (Chicago: Scripture Press, 1952); John Fleming, The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology, (Dublin: Hodges, Foster & Figgis, 1879).”

Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…”
@David Read: Sean, the platypus is a monotreme. I mentioned them already, in a previous post. To deny that the mammal-like reptiles, for example are more class-bending than modern animals seems to me obtuse, but to each his own.

Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…”
Sean, I’m afraid we can’t go back and create a world in which no one speculates about origins. We have Darwinism and we have creationism, and they are both based upon faith, not certainty. I choose to contribute to the world that actually exists–in which people theorize about origins–rather than live in an imaginary, speculation-free world.

The evidence I’m using to support my view is not vague, but crystal clear. The evidence is literally overwhelming that the sub-tertiary fossil record is full of class-mixing animals that no longer exist and that never existed in the post-Flood world. There’s a huge forest here, and we must not miss it for the trees. My interpretation of the amalgamation statements has very clear predictive value, in that it predicts and explains all these extinct, mixed-class fossil creatures.

You and I may be troubled by the fact that something as creepy as a crocodile was preserved in the post-Flood world, but it isn’t “problematic” in terms of being a mixed-class creature. It is a reptile, pure and simple. I’m not suggesting that predation itself was a result of pre-Flood antediluvian amalgamation (although I do suggest that amalgamation worsened the problem). Predation apparently came in right after the Fall, so wiping out the amalgamated creatures in the Flood would not solve the problem of predation, as exemplified in creatures like crocodiles that are unusually well adapted for predation.

Recent Comments by David Read

The Reptile King
Poor Larry Geraty! He can’t understand why anyone would think him sympathetic to theistic evolution. Well, for starters, he wrote this for Spectrum last year:

“Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”

“Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”

So the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis is an “extra-Biblical interpretation” put forward by “the fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church? What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?

It is no mystery how LaSierra got in the condition it is in.

The Reptile King
Professor Kent says:

“I don’t do ‘orgins science.’ Not a single publication on the topic. I study contemporary biology. Plenty of publications.”

So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?

The Reptile King
Well, Jeff, would it work better for you if we just closed the biology and religion departments? I’m open to that as a possible solution.

The Reptile King
Larry Geraty really did a job on LaSierra. Personally I think it is way gone, compromised beyond hope. The SDA Church should just cut its ties to LaSierra, and cut its losses.

As to the discussion on this thread, round up the usual suspects and their usual arguments.

La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
It is a remarkably fair and unbiased article, and a pretty fair summary of what was said in the recorded conversation.