[ref001] If It Walks Like a Duck.... [ref002] If It Walks Like a Duck.... Farrell Till Lik
[ref001]
If It Walks Like a Duck....
[ref002]
If It Walks Like a Duck....
Farrell Till
Like all literature contemporary to the times, the Bible contains
mythology. Fundamentalists vehemently deny this, but it is an inescapable
conclusion that all objective Bible students eventually reach. When one's
predisposition and determination to see the Bible as the inerrant
"word of God" are laid aside, the mythological base of many of
the Bible stories becomes readily apparent. An especially embarrassing
myth for bibliolaters is the quaint little story about "the sons of
God" producing a race of terrestrial giants by marrying the
daughters of men:
When people began to multiply on the face of the ground,
and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they
were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they
chose. Then Yahweh said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals
forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred
twenty years." The Nephilim (giants) were on the earth in those
days--and also afterwards--when the sons of God went in to the
daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the
heroes that were of old, warriors of renown ([ref003]Gen. 6:1-4,
NRSV
with Yahweh substituted for the LORD).
Most versions of the Bible refer to the beings in this passage who took
wives of the daughters of men as "the sons of God," but the
expression (_beni_ha-elohim_) in Hebrew literally meant "sons
of the gods" and is so translated in The Revised English Bible. So a
definite hint of mythology is seen in the very language that was used to
tell this fanciful tale of angels marrying earthly women, because any
modern reader encountering a story that referred to gods and the sons of
gods would immediately know that it was fantasy fiction or mythology,
especially if it involved gods consorting with earthly women.
Bibliolaters will quickly protest that the Hebrews used the plural word
_elohim_ when referring to their god Yahweh. They call it "the
plurality of dignity," a way of expressing the majesty and greatness
of God. Some even think they see an early recognition of the triune
godhead in the plural term _elohim_. These matters were discussed in my
exchange of articles with Mac Deaver in the summer issue of TSR, so I
won't get involved in rehashing them here. Readers who keep their back
issues, however, might want to read the exchange again to review biblical
passages that clearly show the early Hebrews were polytheistic. They
believed that the gods of the nations around them were entities just as
real as their own god Yahweh but that Yahweh was vastly superior to the
others, a God of gods, a sort of supergod whose powers exceeded all the
others.
Suffice it to say at this point that [ref004]Genesis 6:1-4
literally refers to _beni_ha-elohim_ (the sons of the gods) rather than
"the sons of God" as it has been deceptively rendered in most
English translations. This fact alone gives us our first clue that this
passage is an ancient one that managed to survive the piecemeal editing of
the monotheistic era in which the J, E, P, R, and D documents were patched
together to give the Tanach (Hebrew scriptures) their final structure. It
reflects the thinking of a time when people saw the world as a place ruled
by gods (many) rather than Yahweh, the one and only God.
Anyone who has studied the mythology of prescientific times knows that
giants figured prominently in the literature of that era. The Greeks had
their Hercules, who was so big and powerful that he supported the world on
his shoulders. Even the relatively modern fairy tale of Jack and the
Beanstalk involved an encounter with a giant. The prescientific Hebrews
were no different from the other nations of superstitious times. They had
their mythology, and giants were part of their mythology.
As indicated in the [ref005]Genesis 6 passage, the
Hebrews called their giants _nephilim_, which both Strong and Young
define as "fellers," "fallen ones," or
"giants." (Why they were perceived as "fellers" or
"fallen ones" will become very clear as I proceed.) After the
men whom Moses sent ahead to spy out Canaan returned to camp, they
reported having seen "the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the
Nephilim: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers" ([ref006]Num. 13:33). Upon
hearing this, the people were terrified and wept all night, fearing that
Moses had led them out of Egypt only to face certain death at the hands of
the Nephilim ([ref007]Num. 14:1-3). To
their superstitious minds, these Nephilim, sons of Anak, known also as
Anakim, were "a people great and tall" of whom they had heard
said, "Who can stand before the sons of Anak?"
The Hebrews designated giants by other names too. [ref008]Deuteronomy
2:10 spoke of "a people great, and many, and tall" known as
Emim, who had "aforetime" dwelt in the land of Moab. The passage
called them Rephaim and compared them to the Anakim. [ref009]Joshua 11:21-23
credited Joshua with the total destruction of the Anakim from the
hill-country of Israel so that none were left in the land except in Gaza,
Gath, and Ashdod, which were all Philistine strongholds that the
Israelites were never able to control. David came to prominence in Israel
as a result of his famous battle with Goliath of Gath, a giant whose
height was "six cubits and a span" or about ten feet ([ref010]1 Sam. 17:4), and
battles with giants (Heb. _raphaim_) are mentioned in [ref011]2 Samuel
21:16-22 and [ref012]1 Chronicles
20:4-8. Other references to giants (_rephaim_ or _anakim_)
were made in [ref013]Deuteronomy
2:20-21; [ref014]3:11,13 and
[ref015]Joshua
12:4; [ref016]13:12; [ref017]15:8; [ref018]17:15; [ref019]18:16. Many
post-KJV translations have attempted to veil these superstitious allusions
to giants in "God's inspired word" by transliterating the Hebrew
terms _Nephilim_, _Anakim_, and _Rephaim_ rather than
translating them to convey the idea of giantism. To unsuspecting English
readers, the terms simply become tribal or nationalistic designations like
Syrian or Amorite rather than mythological allusions to giants.
Wading through all of these references may be tedious, but they do
obviously establish that the Hebrews, like the superstitious nations
around them, believed in the existence of giants. [ref020]Genesis 6:1-4
appears to be a mythological attempt to explain the existence of giants,
just as [ref021]Genesis 3:14-15
was an obvious mythological attempt to explain the natural enmity that
exists between man and snakes. To the prescientific Hebrew mind, giants
existed because "the sons of the gods," had seen the fairness of
"the daughters of men" and had taken them for wives. In other
words, giants had resulted from the sexual union of angels and human
women.
In my debate with Bill Jackson, I made brief mention of this passage
just to make a point about another matter, and he built it into a straw
man that he could knock around to avoid dealing with the issue being
debated:
His (Till's) view is that Moses believed angels intermarried
with earthly women. And he is the one, mind you, who speaks
of the need for evidence! Wonder where he found angels in
[ref022]Genesis
6:1-4? This from a character who doesn't even know if
he believes in God, having said the greater evidence lies on the
side of the atheist (_Jackson-Till_Debate_, p. 19)!
From then on, Mr. Jackson made frequent derogatory remarks about my
interpretation of this passage, as if it were perfectly ridiculous for
anyone to see the intermarriage of angels and women in it. Before his
death in April, Mr. Jackson had agreed to write a reply to this article
for simultaneous publication in TSR. I sincerely regret not only his
untimely death but the opportunity he has missed to see just where I found
angels in this passage.
They weren't at all hard to find.
The key to understanding the passage is the proper interpretation of
_beni_ha-elohim_ (the sons of the gods). Let bibliolaters believe
that this expression meant only "the sons of God" if they want
to. That still will not help their case, because usage of the expression,
although infrequent in the Old Testament, clearly establishes it as a
reference to celestial beings or spiritual entities. Besides the [ref023]Genesis 6 passage,
this exact expression was used only three other times in the OT, all three
in the book of Job. In the beginning of this book, reference was twice
made to the day "when the sons of God (beni ha-elohim) came to
present themselves before Yahweh" ([ref024]1:6; [ref025]2:1). On both
occasions, Satan "came also among them (the sons of God) to present
himself."
Now where did the writer of Job expect us to believe that these scenes
had taken place, on earth or in heaven? Surely, he didn't intend for us
to think that these were scenes that had happened on earth, for on both
occasions, after discussing Job's character with Yahweh, "Satan went
forth from the presence of Yahweh" ([ref026]1:12; [ref027]2:7). To the Hebrew
mind, "the presence of Yahweh" would have been a location in
heaven where Yahweh sat on his throne ([ref028]1 Kings 22:19; [ref029]Ps. 11:4; [ref030]103:19; [ref031]Is. 66:1),
so whoever these "sons of God" were, they were creatures who
came to present themselves to Yahweh in heaven.
Confirmation of this conclusion can be found in the third reference in
Job to the "sons of God" (_beni_ha-elohim_). Here Yahweh
himself was speaking and applied the term to entities who already existed
when he began creating the world:
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Declare, if you have understanding. Who determined the measure
of it, if you know? Or who stretched the line upon it? Upon what
were the foundations of it fastened? Or who laid the corner-stone
of it, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of
Elohim (God) shouted for joy ([ref032]38:4-7, Bethel
Bible)?
Obviously these "sons of God" who shouted for joy on this
occasion were not humans, because man had not yet been created. So
whoever these "sons of God" (_beni_ha-elohim_) were, they
were beings who were already in existence when God began his work of
creation. The conclusion is unavoidable: the writer of Job intended for
us to understand that these "sons of God" were spiritual or
celestial beings.
So if the "sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were
fair" and "took them wives of all that they chose" ([ref033]Gen. 6:2), whoever
wrote this must have believed that he was describing something more than
just ordinary marriages between human men and women, and especially so
since "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men"
(v:4), the sexual unions resulted in children who "were the mighty
men that were of old"--the Nephilim. To say that the writer meant
nothing more here than when he wrote, "And so-and-so knew his wife
and she bore a son" is to stretch credulity to the limits.
A striking but enlightening parallel to [ref034]Genesis 6:1-4 can
be found in the apocryphal book of 1 Enoch:
In those days, when the children of man had multiplied, it
happened that there were born unto them handsome and beautiful
daughters. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw them
and desired them; and they said to one another, "Come, let us
choose wives for ourselves from among the daughters of man and
beget us children" ([ref035]6:1-2, Isaac
Translation).
The passage goes on to explain that 200 angels took an oath and bound one
another to a curse to carry out the proposal. Under the leadership of
Semyaz, they then descended upon Mount Hermon to execute their plan:
And they took wives unto themselves, and everyone (respec-
tively) chose one woman for himself, and they began to go unto
them. And they taught them magical medicine, incantations, the
cutting of roots, and taught them (about) plants. And the
women became pregnant and gave birth to great giants whose
heights were three hundred cubits. These (giants) consumed the
produce of all the people until the people detested feeding them.
So the giants turned against (the people) in order to eat them
([ref036]7:1-4).
Giants three hundred cubits (450 feet) tall--this is obviously mythology,
bibliolaters will no doubt say. And that is the point exactly; it is
obviously mythology. Yet the similarity of [ref037]Genesis 6:1 and 1
Enoch 6:1 is so striking that it cannot be lightly dismissed. If both
passages were in secular books, no reasonable critic would deny that the
two had been derived from the same source, either written or oral.
Bibliolaters, however, are unwilling to apply to the Bible the same common
sense critical reasoning that they routinely apply to secular works. The
writer of 1 Enoch said that "the angels, the children of heaven, saw
them (the daughters of men) and desired them" and later took them as
wives, and bibliolaters agree that this is mythology. The writer of
Genesis said that "the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they
were fair... and took them wives of all that they chose," and
bibliolaters say that this is the inspired truth of God! By what
reasoning process does one arrive at conclusions so patently
incongruous?
Inerrantists may react with "What do I care what the book of First
Enoch says?" all that they wish, but to do so is to flagrantly ignore
the stamp of approval that New Testament writers put on this
"apocryphal" book. In his introduction to the book, the
translator (Isaac) commented on the esteem that both apocryphal writers
and early Christians had for it:
It was used by the authors of Jubilees, the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs, the Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch, and 4
Ezra. Some New Testament authors seem to have been acquainted
with the work, and were influenced by it, including Jude, who
quotes it explicitly (1:14f.). At any rate, it is clear that Enoch-
ic concepts are found in various New Testament books, including
the Gospels and Revelation.
... Many church fathers, including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
Origen, and Clement of Alexandria, either knew 1 Enoch or were
inspired by it. Among those who were familiar with 1 Enoch,
Tertullian had an exceptionally high regard for it.... (F)ew
other apocryphal books so indelibly marked the religious history
and thought of the time of Jesus.
... (E)ven though Charles (R. H.) may have exaggerated
when he claimed that "nearly all" the writers of the New
Testament
were familiar with 1 Enoch, there is no doubt that the New
Testament world was influenced by its language and thought. It
influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy,
Hebrews, 1 John, Jude (which quotes it directly) and Revelation
(with numerous points of contact). There is little doubt that 1
Enoch was influential in molding New Testament doctrines concerning
the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic
kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, final judgment,
the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism. No wonder,
therefore, that the book was highly regarded by many of the
earliest apostolic and Church Fathers (_The_Old_Testament
_____Pseudepigrapha_, ed. James H. Charlesworth, "1 Enoch: a New
Translation and Introduction," pp. 8,10).
With a critical reputation like this, whatever is in the book of 1 Enoch
cannot be waved aside with a disdainful, "What do I care what the
book of First Enoch says?" Even if one chooses to think that the
preceding quotation greatly exaggerates the influence of 1 Enoch on the
formation of the New Testament, he cannot deny what was twice noted in the
quotation, i.e., the writer of Jude explicitly quoted the book, and in a
way that attributed prophetic powers to its author:
And to these (ungodly men troubling the church) also Enoch,
the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying the Lord came with
ten thousands of his holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and
to convict all the ungodly of their works of ungodliness which
they have ungodly wrought, and of all the hard things which
ungodly sinners have spoken against him (vv:14-15).
This is obviously a direct quotation from 1 Enoch 1:9, a fact that, to say
the least, should give believers in the divine inspiration of Jude ample
reason to respect the book. After all, if the Holy Spirit deemed the book
important enough to direct Jude to quote it, they surely couldn't ask for
a better recommendation than that.
Furthermore, the "inspired" Jude identified the author of
this quotation as "Enoch, the seventh from Adam," so if Jude
thought that Enoch had made this statement, he must have been endorsing
the Enochian authorship of the book. And if the Holy Spirit (as the
doctrine of verbal inspiration teaches) was directing Jude in what he
wrote, then the Holy Spirit must have actually known that Enoch had
written the book. The inerrantists, then, have nowhere to go except to
conclude that 1 Enoch was actually written by Enoch, the
seventh-generation descendant of Adam who "walked with God" and
"was not, for God took him" ([ref038]Gen. 5:24). So if
bibliolaters are looking for something to give credibility to 1 Enoch,
they surely have it in these facts. They have to believe that the book
was written by a man who was so righteous that he was translated directly
to heaven without seeing death ([ref039]Heb. 11:5). Yet
with all that to commend it, the book is not even in the holy canon. But
that's another article for another time.
After telling us that angels, the children of heaven, married human
women and produced a race of giants 450 feet tall, this book (which Jude
said was written by Enoch, the seventh from Adam) tells of the earthly
corruption that was caused by these celestial half-breeds. Their angelic
fathers taught them "eternal secrets which are performed in
heaven" (9:6), and as a result the earth became corrupt:
(Moreover) Semyaz, to whom you have given power to rule
over his companions, co-operating, they went in unto the daugh-
ters of the people on earth, and they lay together with
them--with those women--and defiled themselves, and revealed to
them every (kind of) sin. As for the women, they gave birth to
giants to the degree that the whole earth was filled with blood
and oppression (9:7-9).
This corruption became Enoch's explanation for the flood. "The Most
High, the great and Holy One," sent an angel to the son of Lamech
(Noah) to warn him of a great deluge that would destroy all upon the earth
except his seed (10:1-3). In this, we see another obvious parallel
between this account and the Genesis record, for immediately after telling
of the "sons of God" marrying the daughters of men, the Genesis
writer said that "Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in
the earth" and determined to destroy all life on earth, except for
Noah who had "found favor in the eyes of Yahweh" (6:5-8). Both
writers saw the flood as a consequence of wickedness resulting from the
"sons of God" (children of heaven) marrying "daughters of
men," so both obviously relied on the same source or tradition, the
only essential difference being that Enoch gave many more details about
the corruption that had been caused by the intermarriages.
Prior to telling the story of the flood and Noah's salvation in the ark,
Enoch devoted much more space to a description of man's wickedness than did
the Genesis writer. Man's corruption had been caused by the intermarriage
of angels and earthly women, so God instructed the archangels Raphael,
Gabriel, and Michael to punish the fallen angels for what they had done:
And secondly the Lord said to Raphael, "Bind Azaz'el (a
leader of the fallen angels) hand and foot (and) throw him into
the darkness." And he made a hole in the desert which was in
Duda'el and cast him there; he threw on top of him rugged and
sharp rocks. And he covered his face in order that he may not
see light, and in order that he may be sent into the fire on the
great day of judgment.... And to Gabriel the Lord said,
"Proceed against the bastards and the reprobates and against the
children of adultery; and destroy the children of adultery and
expel the children of the Watchers (see [ref040]Dan.
4:13,17,23, FT)
from among the people...." And to Michael God said, "Make
known to Semyaza and the others who are with him, who fornicated with
the women, that they will die together with them in all
their defilement. And when they and all their children have
battled with each other, and when they have seen the destruction
of their beloved ones, bind them for seventy generations underneath
the rocks of the ground until the day of their judgment
and of their consummation, until the eternal judgment is concluded.
In those days they will lead them into the bottom of the
fire--and in torment--in the prison (where) they will be locked
up forever. And at the time when they will burn and die, those
who collaborated with them will be bound together with them from
henceforth unto the end of (all) generations" (10:4-6, 9, 11-14).
Several times after this, Enoch mentioned the condemnation that God had
pronounced upon the Watchers (angels) for "begetting giant sons"
upon wives of "the children of the earth" (15:4). He told how
that they would be "put in bonds" and "imprisoned inside
the earth" to be "detained here forever" until "the
great day of judgment in which they shall be judged until they are
finished" (13:2; 14:5; 21:10; 19:2).
God's pronouncement of judgment upon the fallen ones went on and on,
and if it all sounds vaguely familiar, that is because it is familiar to
all students of the New Testament. I have already noted that Jude
(vv:l4-15) quoted directly from 1 Enoch 1:9. Prior to this, he referred
to the archangel Michael's contention with the devil over the body of
Moses (v:9), an allusion to a scene in an apocryphal book known as the
Assumption of Moses. Obvi- ously, then, Jude was familiar with apocryphal
works, and it was in this context that he warned his readers of the ever
present danger of apostasy by referring to the section of 1 Enoch
summarized above:
And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left
their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest
darkness for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom
and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, _which_in_the_same_
_____manner_as_they_, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued
unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing punishment by
eternal fire (vv:6-7, NRSV).
That Jude was here referring to angels who had engaged in sexual
immorality after leaving "their proper dwelling" is apparent
from his comparison of their sin with the wickedness of the people of
Sodom and Gomorrah. What could he have possibly had in mind regarding
these fallen angels except the situation that Enoch wrote about in the
section of his book summarized above? To deny this is to grasp in
desperation for any straw in sight to preserve an untenable belief in
Bible inerrancy.
The writer of 2 Peter made a similar allusion to the damnation of fallen
angels:
For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but
cast them into hell and committed them to chains of deepest
darkness to be kept until the judgment... then the Lord knows
how to... keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day
of judgment--especially those who indulge their flesh in depraved
lust ([ref041]2:4-10,
NRSV).
So Enoch told of fallen angels whom God imprisoned in darkness inside the
earth to await judgment for having taken wives from the daughters of men.
Both Jude and Peter wrote about fallen angels who have been imprisoned in
chains in deep darkness to await judgment for having engaged in sexual
immorality. The similarity is too striking to deny. The sin of the
angels whom Enoch wrote about had produced a race of giants. Can there be
any doubt, then, that the Genesis writer believed exactly as Enoch did,
that angels (sons of God) had come down from heaven, married human women,
and produced giants on the earth?
We have all heard an adage that tells a reliable way to settle
controversy. "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you
can be reasonably sure it is a duck." [ref042]Genesis 6:1-4
looks like mythology, sounds like mythology, and reads like mythology.
What else is there to conclude but that it is mythology? Who would
believe otherwise if this were in any book but the Bible?
FREE SUBSCRIPTION: A free one-year subscription to _The_Skeptical_
Review_ can be obtained by emailing [ref043]Jftill@aol.com or by writing to P.O. Box
717, Canton, IL 61520-0717.
File contributed by [ref044]Farrell Till; page
maintained by the [ref045]Internet Infidels.
[ref046]Email:
[ref047]infidel@freethought.tamu.edu
[ref048]JL
[ref049]Copyright © 1995 [ref050]Internet Infidels.
HTML Reproduction Rights Reserved.
[ref001] mailto:jlowder@atheist.tamu.edu
[ref002] http://freethought.tamu.edu/mag/sr/1991/4/4duck91.html
[ref003] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+6:1-4
[ref004] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+6:1-4
[ref005] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+6
[ref006] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Numbers+13:33
[ref007] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Numbers+14:1-3
[ref008] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Deuteronomy+2:10
[ref009] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Joshua+11:21-23
[ref010] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?I+Samuel+17:4
[ref011] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?II+Samuel+21:16-22
[ref012] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?I+Chronicles+20:4-8
[ref013] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Deuteronomy+2:20-21
[ref014] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Deuteronomy:3:11-13
[ref015] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Joshua+12:4
[ref016] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Joshua+13:12
[ref017] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Joshua+15:8
[ref018] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Joshua+17:15
[ref019] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Joshua+18:16
[ref020] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+6:1-4
[ref021] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+3:14-15
[ref022] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+6:1-4
[ref023] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+6
[ref024] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+1:6
[ref025] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+2:1
[ref026] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+1:12
[ref027] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+2:7
[ref028] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?I+Kings+22:19
[ref029] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Psalms+11:4
[ref030] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Psalms+103:19
[ref031] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Isaiah+66:1
[ref032] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Job+38:4-7
[ref033] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+6:2
[ref034] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+6:1-4
[ref035] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+6:1-2
[ref036] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+7:1-4
[ref037] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Geneis+6:1
[ref038] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+5:24
[ref039] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Hebrews+11:5
[ref040] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Daniel+4:13-23
[ref041] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?II+Peter+2:4-10
[ref042] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?Genesis+6:1-4
[ref043] mailto:Jftill@aol.com
[ref044] mailto:Jftill@aol.com
[ref045] /infidel.html
[ref046] mailto:infidel@freethought.tamu.edu
[ref047] /cgi-bin/mail?infidel
[ref048] http://atheist.tamu.edu/~jlowder/
[ref049] /copyright.html
[ref050] /infidels/
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank