Messianic Mermaid: Of those not fully "human", could they worship Messiah?

[Gxg (G²)]

Shalom..


Just saw "Pirates of the Caribbean 4" recently & I highly enjoyed many aspects of it. But something that stood out to me in the film was how they seemed to be more open about spirituality from a Biblical perspective.

In example, one of the main characters is named Philip.. a missionary trying to teach the pirates about the Lord, despite their continual mocking of him...and when it came to his desiring to reach them, they tried using him as bait to lure some mermaids that they needed. Here's a clip of the scene:

My Jolly Sailor Bold - Mermaid Song - Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides ​

Mermaid from pirate of caribbean 4 ​

Many were shocked to see the way that mermaids were depicted within the film, though its actually closer to how folklore described them. For Like the sirens, mermaids are incredibly beautiful women–incredibly seductive women–that lure men to their deaths. A mermaid's greatest weapon was her radiant appearance.....and though they are women, they were also animal. The water line defines where they're women and where they’re creatures. Under the water, they are creatures and over the water, they're women. They were known to feed on the men, and that’s how they see men, as something that sustains them. They may look lovely, but they can shred a human limb from limb in seconds.


With Philip, he seemed doomed during the mermaid attacks. However, when he was almost about to be killed by an explosion elsewhere, one mermaid saved him. Though she's depicted as good, she is captured nonetheless by the pirates. Thee rest of the film shows Philip and the mermaid falling in love. It was a conflict for Philip since he was a priest/missionary and trained to think that only men had souls/relationship with the Divine.

Such beauty. Surely you are one of God's own creations...and not a descendant of those dark creatures who found no refuge on the Ark. Such beauty...and yet deadly."

"Deadly. No."
―Philip Swift and Syrena

​

Inspired by her beauty, Philip began to fall deeply in love with the mermaid, whom he names Syrena, to make the crew see her as a person and not a monster. Syrena began to fall in love with him as well, seeing him as different—not like the other men she dealt with...

​

With all of that stated, my friends and I began to have a conversation on the subject.......and it was interesting what was considered. For All of that is stated to say that it is interesting to consider what could happen when humans/mankind were to fall in love with others who may not be like them....and as it concerns real life, this is something I say in light of how many wild things have been happening within the world of science. Some of what's stated is based in light of the flood ---as it concerns things like the Nephilim, the angelic/human mixes that occurred within Genesis 6...and the many possible ways man mixed with other creatures apart from him.

Genesis 6​

Wickedness in the World
1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

​

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

​

From what the text seems to say, there was ALOT of mess going on...especially as it concerns the angelic mixing with men. And some scholars have noted that if angels mated with men for their own purposes and trained men in doing certain things (like the Book of Enoch notes), then its more than possible that man was able to do things on his own....such as seeing it where the angelic beings bred with men to produce wild creations and the men learned via their ADVANCED intelligence of how to possibly do so with those lower than them.

It's often noted that early man may've been more intelligent than many realize...for there have been many scientific discussions on the capabilities of man back in early Human History and how many of the monuments that man made then (i.e. The Pyramids, The Easter Island Statues, STONE Henge, etc) could never have been made without the very advanced technology that we have available today---making others wonder just how advance we were back in early days and what exactly was lost. I think personally that we'd be amazed at how much what we have today may've been nothing compared to what they had then...​

For man to name ALL of the animals that GOd brought him in Genesis 2 and be a zoologist/botanist and gardener, one would have to think that man was truly brilliant..and there's no reason to think that brilliance went away after the FALL​

If man was truly a scientific GENIUS during his creation and able to do things that we've only dreamed of because of his perfection, naturally, he would have been capable of doing ennormous feats of power that many are either just now discovering over the recent centuries...or realizing that there's more to learn/go with. And due to man's wickedness, its interesting to see what he's capable of when he tries to cross barriers. There's a book that I remember coming across called The Island of Dr Moreau---a very dark tale of a man named Dr. Moreau who learned how to successfully use human DNA in animals to make them more humanlike and regress their animal instincts.​

Everytime my mother and I discussed the book/film, we automatically thought of Genesis 6 and why the Lord decided to wipe out men in the Flood. For there may've been MANY things occurring that should NEVER have occurred. My own mother and I have often discussed the issue of how it seems to be the case that the "heros of old" in Genesis 6 seems to be in reference to where all of the great world religions get their stories and mythologies----be it with the creatures and gods from Greek Mythology, the Egyptian Gods, werewolves, vampires, fairies , mermaids, and many other mythological creatures that were encountered.....and in our view, whereas some of them came about as a result of angelic having mixed offspring, others may've been developed due to man getting involved in the dark arts/sciences and learning how to manipulate himself so that he could gain abilities that other creatures had. Its possible that man was advanced enough to learn/know how to use his DNA to mix with others and create certain things........and perhaps this knowledge was simply lost after the Fall. Perhaps it was by God's design that man lost that knowledge.​

Some of what's stated is based in light of previous discussions such as one entitled Noah & Abraham and the flood ---as it concerns things like the Nephilim, the angelic/human mixes that occurred...and the many possible ways man mixed with other creatures apart from him. As said there in that thread (within #86 and #91 ), with Genesis 6, its more than possible that man was doing genetic experimentation even then...and corrupt man may've discovered how to manipulate creation to create other hybrid creatures from which all folklore comes from today.​

And for some examples of experimentation that could occur:

• Man + Goat = Satyr
• Man + Horse = Centaur
• Man + Bull = Minotaur
• Bird + Horse = Pegasus
• Bird + Lion = Griffin
• Man + Fish = Mermaid

The list can go on...and as said earlier, its not as if early man just thought to sit down/think up some of these things. They had to have gotten inspiration from somewhere.

For an interesting perspective on the issue, one can go here to "God vs god: The Days of Noah"------​

For within that organization, the author discusses similar views on how man seemed to be able to bridge the animal world with that of the human world in differing points/times.​

Many say that such creations would not be genetically possible---but man was highly advanced/intelligent....far more than where we are today. Its more than possible that many sciences early man had access to are things where we've yet to discover.....​

There have been multiple accounts today of men splicing genes from one species of animal with another...and even humans at this point. If looking it up, it turns out that scientists have added animal genes to bacteria and farm animals to mass-produce insulin and spider silkproteins, and introducing human cells into mouse embryos. I was shocked finding out about how men cross-bred a gene from spiders into goats so that GOATS now produce spider silk. There was even something where scientists recently made a mouse with human ear. Prior to all of this, of course, there've also been accounts of things such as test tube babies /genetic engineering.....and of course, .cloning...that surprised many. The entire debate on Stem-Cell Research/Cloning have been things that surprised many since not too long ago, all of those things would've been considered as "science fiction".....but when they happened, everyone adapted/wished they were prepared for it.​

On the issue of how men cross-bred a gene from spiders into goats so that GOATS now produce spider silk. For more info, one can either go here ​

And for more on current events with men doing experimentation to advance humanity via human/animal mixes in wild ways, one can go online/investigate the following:

• "Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy
• Animal-human hybrid - Mary Meets Dolly
• Linda MacDonald Glenn: When Pigs Fly?
• Scientists Place Jellyfish Genes Into Monkeys - New York Times
• GM monkey passes jellyfish gene to offspring - life - 27 May 2009
• Mouse with human ear › Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science (ABC ...
• We have created human-animal embryos already, say British team
• Genetically modified monkey could be key to curing some diseases - CNN

Many believers have noted that its best to get prepared for the inevitable with going back to the days before the Flood..and when it comes to those subjects, I've often heard others say "Anything un natural could never have a soul or follow the Lord!!!"---but I do wonder.​

What is it that makes one have a soul....and if something was created in an un-natural means, would that mean that it is incapable of looking unto the Messiah or the Lord for salvation? When I think about what occurred during the days of the flood---and all of the creatures that came out of all of the mixing and that are possibly the root causes behind mythological creatures (i.e. minatour, cyclopes, werewolves, vampires, mermaids, faries, etc)----is it possible that they could have been good in some cases rather than purely evil?​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Genesis 6 seems to be in reference to where all of the great world religions get their stories and mythologies....

To give clarity on where I was coming from, IMHO, its not as if people simply decided to sit down and say "I think I'll make up a mermaid or a fairy today!!!!"---for even if many of the other stories developed from them are not true, there's always an element of truth to every tale. Some of it seems similar to when others used to tell stories of "man beasts" in Africa and others scoffed, until they realized what the creatures were/discovered gorillas. The same goes for a host of other creatures within cryptozoology..as it concerns how a cryptid (from the Greek "κρύπτω" (krypto) meaning "hide") is a creature or plant whose existence has been suggested but that is unrecognized by a scientific consensus. Many things that were thought to be scientifically impossible later are deemed to be quite realistic when seeing how they were diagnosed.

As it concerns men being hybrids like Genesis 6 seems to describe, debate lies as to what kind of creations were being made in Genesis 6---and for some, they say some creatures were never even a "hybrid." Rather, they were simply beasts of the field which the Lord had made...and being humanoid, that didn't mean that they were human.

A practical example would be how man is a type of primate, just as apes are...and apes/chimps have fingers/toes just like man. However, no one supposes that those creatures were "hybrids" made from men mating with other animals....as some traits in creation are not unique to what it means to be made in the Image of God. Aspects of similarity can be seen in The intelligence and the ability to use tools, as other creatures had that (including otters)---and even the serpent had that in Genesis 3 as it concerns his being the most intelligent/crafty of all God's creations.

Some are open to the fact that many creatures within mythology may've been creatures the Lord made and that man was to rule.....though their being made from hybrid unions of men/animal are also possible. If a mermaid was simply a humanoid creature that had great intelligence/beauty but was never related to humankind, that's just as possible as their being made from men crossing genetic boundaries and them being developed.

There doesn't seem to be anywhere in scripture saying that hybrid creatures wouldn't have spirits---as if that was why the Lord may've ordered destruction. I have pondered that often, when it comes to debating if a genetically engineered creature deserves to be shunned by believers in Yeshua.....and whether or not people would treat them as having a soul/spirit.

That's where the "Pirates of the Caribbean 4" aspect came in when it came to the sailor falling in love with a mermaid.

And on the issue of how one mermaid seemed to be different than the rest who seemed darker by nature, Older mermaid tales have always leaned towards being dark, from Siren legends to underwater creatures of Irish folklore to the angsty spiritual hodgepodge of near-death and earn-your-own-redemption in Hans Anderson's edition of "The Little Mermaid." I used to see the Disney film and think "That would be neat to go under the sea "---and yet, while I find the idea of an underwater civilization to be an intriguing one which could make a good tale if properly spun, I don't believe the creatures originated with the preschool demographic. The more I studied the issue, the more it seemed to make me wonder, "Where did these ideas come from?"...and when reading the scriptures, it seemed things make logical sense as to how they could be possible.

Disney's "Little Mermaid" spin brought up ALOT of themes that have made many think what would occur in real life....such as when Ariel's father, King Triton (merman), shows himself to be xenophobic toward humans.. and Ariel's fascination with humans casts a strain on their relationship.

​

According to Triton, contact between the human world and the merworld is strictly forbidden due to how human world would always persecute the mer world. Because of how he saw mankind being hateful toward them, he chose to hate men. This is a theme that has often shown up whenever xenophobia has occurred between groups of differing ethnicities...and it was intriguing to see how Disney played on that in the 1989 film success. However, in the "Pirates 4" film, that same theme has been tweaked further to where the mer people no longer avoid mankind--but actively seek to be at war with them.

Other generes have capitalized on that theme, be it with Aquaman and Atlantis being at odds with the "surface dwellers" in D.C Comics or in Sci-Fi where they say differing lifeforms will be found in the ocean rather than from the starts. And as it concerns the Bible, what's interesting is that much of it places those things not specifically human in the light of actually having emotions/feelings. If men before the flood were antagnostic toward those things which were not "natural" (hybrids) and then persecuted them, violence could've occured in retailiation from those creatures/heros of old...and violence would lead to more violence, to the point where everything would be sheer evil.

It seems that in Genesis 6, God destroyed the world because of the increase in wickedness rather than because of hybrid creatures--and for those who may've existed, I wonder what their story would be. I'm curious as to whether or not they ALL were at odds with God's designs with mankind...as perhaps many felt like they didn't ask to be a hybrid creation but still wanted man to do right, much like children from adulterous relationships saying they didn't ask to be made.

For those wishing to have further clarity on the issue, there was a thread elsewhere on that discussion entitled Genetic Manipulation/Petri Dish & Test Tube Babies..Are Familes Prepared to Aid Them?...and it was interesting to see the views shared by others.....especially as it concerned things like Genetic engineering. There it was discussed how there've been many debates on the nature of human/animal mixes and what the ethics of such would be if man found out how to do so.

It may not be the case that man was able to naturally breed with animals...but it's not necessarily the case that man was incapable of discovering ways (through the occult or dark sciences/advancements) of blending them together....for man has many capabilities, some of which have been locked off. We see this currently in how many saying men/animals could never breed together are now being shocked at how man has discovered ways to make “chimeras” made of a mosaic-like mix of cells from different species, and “human transgenic embryos” - human embryos modified with animal DNA

There was an in-depth series by BBC network, I believe, entitled "Animal Farm" that showed the many transgenic creations man has made..and the many strides he has taken with bio-engineering/mixing species. It can be found on YouTube, but I gave one part of the video here which seemed to be wild:

Animal Farm episode 3 p2
Animal Farm Episode 1, Part 1 of 10
Animal Farm Episode 1, Part 4 of 10​

Some feel that this is a new and evil invention as noted in Romans 1:30, that evil inventions would be made....and for many, the best reference we have in “the law” that this is a bad thing is in Leviticus 19:19. For under the law you could not mix breed animals, you could not mix seeds, you could not even mix fabrics in a garment. The law provides a guide as the old covenant law should. From IT, many feel that we should not mix animals and people. We know humans are on a higher plane than animals. ...and thus, trying to breed a human-animal hybrid creates a life form that lessens the value of human life.

Some, however, A-OK with lessening other humans if it means they might possibly get a few more years of physical life for themselves..regardless of the ethics of the matter. There are others thinking it was for these reasons that the Lord gave laws saying men could not sleep with animals.....as seen in Exodus 22:19 and Leviticus 18:22-24 /Leviticus 20:14-16 Leviticus 20.

Exodus 22:19 “If there is Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death"...


Deuteronomy 27:21 "Cursed is anyone who has sexual relations with any animal.”Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”
​

Many may say that one should see in the context of a hypothetical “if”....and say that the Lord knew men couldn't breed with animals but would perhaps try to anyhow and make some life form come from it. We know even in nature, God has designed it so that human and animal are incapable of birthing anything together naturally....and thus, it should make common sense even to one who does not care for scripture, that 2 things that can’t breed in nature should not be forced together by man. But perhaps even then, there were still things unknown to us from that culture..

The fact that the Lord had to forbid it makes one wonder if perhaps there was a point of reference that precedded it...like making a law about not crossing a boundary because it was already crossed before and had grave consequences.


Perhaps even then, there was knowledge still avaialble to man where they knew how to mix/force things together---and therefore, the Lord didn't even want his people to attempt such.

For many, as life always comes from God and cannot be sustained APART from him, they felt that there'd never be a place for condeming those who may be made in unnatural ways---and thus, one needed to treat them with respect as well.

Where I stand currently on the issue, all things deserve respect....whether with GENE SPLICED creations, Designer Children, Test Tube Babies, or anything else due to the issue of genetic engineering/addressing the amount of liberty mankind can take in its responsibility to care for the human body and the rest of creation. For me, the question is how can it have life when God is the one that sends Life? Is it not God who sends all spirit? He is the only one that can make a man without a woman ....and From a reverse standpoint, no life that occurs on the earth happens without the permission of the Lord. He’s the Giver of the Breath of Life, & nothing becomes a living being until he breathes into it (Genesis 2/Genesis 2:6-8/ Genesis 2)...and even if something is created by man that’s spliced with animal dna---or made by genetic engineering of ANY KIND, does it not have a soul? Moreover, if it has a soul, can we truly condemn it or should we hope for it to be capable of making rational decisions but being capable of recieving salvation & perhaps chosesn by the Lord to be used by Him somehow?

For those saying that a creature is incapable of having a soul (or emotions/feelings and pain), I am reminded of how what makes man different from the animals is not that he has a soul, but that he is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). The words "let us make" uses the same Hebrew word for "make" found in Ex. 20:4 in which God commands us to "not make" any graven image. In Psalm 78:50 we find an example of the usage of “soul” as “life” when the writer said in speaking of the people of Egypt (who tried in vain to prevent the Israelites from leaving their country’s slavery) that God “spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence.” In this instance, the word “soul” (Hebrew nephesh) is used to denote the physical life of humans. But in Genesis 1:20,24, the identical Hebrew word is employed to speak of animals as “living creatures” (Hebrew nephesh hayyah). In this sense, then, yes, it is correct to say that animals have “souls”—since the word soul means only physical life. In responding to the question, “Do animals have souls?,” McCord wrote in his correspondence work "“Do Animals Have Souls?,” that "the word soul, nephesh, only means ‘breath,’ as in Genesis 1:20 (ASV), ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,’ nephesh hayyah, literally, ‘living soul’” (1999).

It is true that at times the Bible uses the same terms to refer to the life principle/force in both humans and animals (e.g. Genesis 7:22), and that those terms may be used to refer to the immortal soul of humans (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Matthew 10:28). Revelations 16:3 also refers to the souls of animals when it states that "The second angel poured out his bowl upon the sea, so that it turned to blood as of a corpse, and every living soul that was in the sea died." The exact Greek word for soul, "psyche," was used in the original texts. The scriptures discuss how animals have the same "breath of life" as do humans (Genesis 7:15, 22)...and Numbers 16:22 refers to the Lord as "the God of spirits of all flesh." In Numbers 31:28, God commands Moses to divide up among the people the cattle, sheep, asses and human prisoners captured in battle and to give to the Lord "one soul of five hundred" of both humans and animals alike.

Even Psalm 104:27-30 says God provides for animals and their ensoulment:

The earth is full of Thy well-made creations. All these look to Thee to furnish their timely feed. When Thou providest for them, they gather it. Thou openest Thy hand, and they are satisfied with good things. When Thou hidest Thy face, they are struck with despair. When Thou cuttest off their breath, in death they return to their dust. Thou sendest Thy Spirit and more are created, and Thou dost replenish the surface of the earth."
​

Moreover, Job 12:10 teaches that in God’s hand "is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind."...and Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 says humans have no advantage over animals since "They all draw the same breath...all came from the dust, and to dust all return."

All of what's noted goes back to the OP subject of weird science/genetic engineering, as it seems mankind is rapidly going back to how things were before the Flood---and for the other things that could be made as a result, I wonder with others what the proper response should be. Should it be condemnation...or should it be acceptance as long as whatever comes up is pointing to Christ?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

He’s the Giver of the Breath of Life, & nothing becomes a living being until he breathes into it (Genesis 2/Genesis 2:6-8/ Genesis 2)...and even if something is created by man that’s spliced with animal dna---or made by genetic engineering of ANY KIND, does it not have a soul? Moreover, if it has a soul, can we truly condemn it or should we hope for it to be capable of making rational decisions but being capable of recieving salvation & perhaps chosesn by the Lord to be used by Him somehow?

For more info..

I still wonder if the prodcut of that sin would something that the Lord was never truly concerned about/cared for. Why would the product of a union be something that the Lord would condemn (as it concerns the action of making it) and yet show no concern for it? For the creature itself did not ask to be made, nor can it undo its creation...

This is why I've often wondered why it seems that others may think the Lord had no concerned for those who were the products of mixed unions. Even with the Flood in Genesis 6 that was sent to wipe them out, God's hatred of the acts of creation may not have been the same as hatred for the CREATURE itself. It seems that some creatures created may've only be suited for life before the Flood---and thus, in the new world, they would've probably gone extinct........and as the scriptures aren't exhaustive on all that occurred, we simply don't know what happened fully. It could have been where certain creatures knew that it was the end of their time and they were glad for what the Lord was going to do Post-Flood with a new world/fresh start for those who were saved.

The Lord could've destroyed many things in an act of Mercy, as in seeing how certain things were never meant to be in existence....and therefore, would have sufferings that weren't natural, with the Lord choosing to do a massive mercy killing of other creatures who had to endure while also killing off/judging all of the men and mixed beings who were indeed corrupt. If you were a genetic experimentation that was made due to the wickedness of mankind, you didn't ask to be created....nor did you ask to be "un natural"....but just like children born out of wedlock or negative circumstances, what's done is done. They were there and perhaps could've found a place in that world---but things were far too wicked on the account of mankind, which was corrupted due to the mixing of men/angels to pollute it. When it got to wicked, God seemed to say "Enough."

Steve Collins (who's a Messianic for Two-House Theory) had some very interesting insights on the issue----and for more, as he said best:

Genesis 4:20 records that pre-Flood mankind were livestock keepers, indicating that they knew how to inbreed or cross-breed animals to create the kinds of subspecies they desired. Although we do not have a canonized form of the book of Jasher today, we do know that the Bible affirms that there used to be an inspired version of the book of Jasher that was still read by people in ancient biblical times (Joshua 10:13, II Samuel 1:18). I have a copy of the book of Jasher available today, and I find it to be largely credible in its pre-Flood accounts and in those applying to the patriarchal period of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It has clear errors and spurious additions in its later chapters. However, Jasher 4:18 records that pre-Flood mankind was “provoking the Lord to anger” by “mixing of animals of one species with the other.” Pre-Flood mankind was creating types of “chimera” species of mammals which God never intended to draw breath! Since pre-Flood mankind was given to violence (Genesis6:13), they could have bred chimera species of mammals which were specifically bred to fight each other for the entertainment of a degenerating pre-Flood mankind even as the degenerate Roman Empire had gladiators and different types of beasts fight each other to entertainment the masses. Ecclesiastes 1:9 observes that “there is nothing new under the sun” and that past behaviors and types of events recur in cycles, so arranging man vs. man or man vs. beast combat can occur in far-separate times. Daniel 12:4 prophesies that mankind will experience an exponential increase in knowledge in the “time of the end,”‘ and Matthew 24:38 prophesies that the latter days will mirror the pre-Flood world, so it follows that the pre-Flood world also had an exponential increase in knowledge and had a high-tech civilization like our own.

Since one cannot create chimera species by normal breeding, pre-Flood mankind had to do it the same way modern scientists clone animals or create chimera organisms. They had to do it by mapping the genomes of the species and they “mixed and matched” them in whatever combination they desired to breed formidable “designer” species of predators and prey animals. Obviously, pre-Flood mankind had electricity, electron microscopes, and all the technology to accomplish the same kinds of genetic manipulations that modern scientists do. The artifacts of this period were so destroyed and atomized in the destructive cataclysms on the Flood that there was likely nothing left of them as God wanted to remove all vestiges of that civilization from his sight.

Genesis 4:12 relates that pre-Flood mankind had “corrupted God’s ways” so badly that God was compelled to extinguish life on earth and start over with Noah’s family and a few specimens of animals on the Ark. Genesis 4:12 records that “all flesh” had become corrupted, and this term includes all the animal species, not just mankind. Genesis 7:9 & 15 indicate that God selected the animal specimens which came to Noah for placement on the Ark. Once we realize that all species of flesh were corrupted by mankind’s reckless and unsanctioned genetic manipulations, it makes sense that God would bring to Noah only those animal specimens which had not been corrupted by “species mixing.” The destructions of the Deluge were intended to not only eliminate a grossly-corrupted human race, but also all the chimera species that God never intended to be placed on the earth.

Scientists discuss to a period of archaeology in which there was a rapid and unprecedented explosion in the types and sizes of mammals on the earth. I’ve seen it called “the golden age of evolution” by writers who are duped by evolutionary fables and who do not understand the real history of the earth. Far from “proving the theory of evolution,” this rapid appearance of new and giant-sized mammals supports the record of Jasher 4:18 that pre-Flood mankind was mixing the species to produce all kinds of mammals that God never intended to live on the earth. Genesis6:12 records that both mankind and animals had become terminally “corrupt” in God’s eyes, so he wiped them all out except for a very small number of survivors on the Ark.

​

On what Brother Collins noted, some may take issue with his commentary when it comes to the Book of Jasher--but in my studies, I've found the Book to be quite fascinating. The origins of the book of Jasher are uncertain, but there is a book of the same name which was written before the Bible was finalized. We know this because the Bible itself quotes Jasher and references it as a source document for events that allegedly happened in the 13th and 10th centuries BCE. From the 10th century BCE, the Bible states,

"David told them to teach the children of Judah how to use a bow. Behold, it is written in the book of Jasher." (II Samuel 1:18)
​

Also,

Joshua 10:13
"So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day."
​

For some references, if having an Apocraphya Bible, that may help. But for more info:

• The Real Book of Jasher?

• Book of Jasher, Chapter 13

• The Book of Jasher Uncloaked

• Myths of the World: Abraham in Ur

• The Nephilim: Their Origins and Evolution

It seems that the Bible itself uses Jasher as a source document, and footnotes it as if it needed Jasher's authority to substantiate its claims. ..and thus, with the Flood and Beastiality, it can be used as a good reference as to why the Lord noted things that he did within the Ot that were forbidden. Apart from that, there are indeed other scriptures that seem to echo the thought of how corruption was something that seemed to pollute mankind in general. In example, the Book of Jubilees, a sacred holy book of the Dead Sea Scrolls, mentions that certain angels called watchers descended in the time of Enoch's father Jared ( Jubilees 4:15-17 ).As Jubilees records,

Jubilees 5:2
"All flesh corrupted its way. Humans, herd animals, wild animals, birds, and everything that walks on the earth – they all were corrupted from their natural order."
​

The phrase "Corrupted from their natural order" seems to mean that animals were morphing into different species. Jubilees also asserts that the Great Flood in the time of Noah happened because the angels had sex with both humans and animals, "sinning against beasts and birds and every other animate object on earth." ( Jubilees 7:24, Jubilees 5:1-4 ). Genesis also says that flesh had become "corrupt," as said before:

Genesis 6:11-13
"The earth was full of violence. God looked upon the earth and saw that it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth, so God said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh is coming.'"
​

I find it interesting that Jubilees states that there were 22 different kinds of animals in the beginning ( Jubilees 2:14-16 )---something which approximates the number of phyla that emerged in the Cambrian Explosion. The Book of Jubilees was very popular among the Essenes who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, as 15 copies have been found...and that's considerably more than many books of the Old Testament.

According to Abegg et al:

"Jubilees was viewed and used as Scripture by the Qumran community… Jubilees is quoted in some of the non-Biblical scrolls, which indicates its authoritative status to the authors of such texts."

- Abegg, Martin; Flint, Peter; Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English. Harper Collins Publishers, 1999, San Francisco, CA, p 196-198
​

All of this goes alongside what was noted in the book of Jasher, as it is said that humans saw what the angels were doing, and tried to emulate it ( Jasher 4:18 )

Jasher 4:18
"In those days, the children of humans selected herd animals from the land, and wild animals from the outback, and birds of the air, and they practiced mixing different species of animals with each other…"

​

__________________

 

[Lulav]

I wasn't able to read through all your info but I think your basic premiss for starting this thread was about Mermaids.

No such thing as a Messianic Mermaid, there is no such thing as a mermaid. Now there is the fish god of the Philistines, dagon which many artifacts have been found. This is the same one that the L-RD toppled when his ark was set before it. Lessons to be learned there.

From what I recall when visiting Hommossasa Springs in Florida, on a foggy day out at sea, hurgry and half starved (for food and women) sailors saw the seal reclining on the rocks And the siren song was that of the seals or the manatess. They are mammals and have a tail and mammary glands and feed their young up under their 'arms'.

What is depicted is more sexual in nature and it has a fishes tail, with scales and fins.

Think about it, what does a fish need mammary glands for? And how could they possible reproduce? Maybe this came about from the discovery of the Platypus?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I wasn't able to read through all your info but I think your basic premiss for starting this thread was about Mermaids.

The Mermaid aspect was the basis for the rest of the discussion, seeing how its connected with folklore/mythology and mythological creatures...and a theme in the "Pirates of the Caribbean 4" film is something many have considered in light of what's occurring today when mixing of species...and whether or not it'd be right.

Outside of that, yes....I do think mermaids are cool concepts. The way they were often portrayed in media may've made a difference...

Hook - mermaids ​

No such thing as a Messianic Mermaid, there is no such thing as a mermaid.

How would you know that there's no such thing as a mermaid---or more specifically, how would you know that there has never been such a thing as mermaid...a creature half man and fish? For that matter, what of centaurs or other minotaurs and many other things? In specific:

Centaur (horse-man)
Echidna (snake-woman)
Harpy (bird-woman)
Mandrake (plant-man)
Mermaid (woman-fish)
Minotaur (bull-man)
Satyr (horse-tailed man; later, goat-man)
Siren (bird-woman)
Sphinx (woman-lion-bird)
Tragelaphos (goat-stag)

For there are many things that were once thought to be impossible that were seen to be possible later on in history when gaining more information. Of course, depending on how much one likes science and the study of cryptid zoology---such as seeking out creatures thought to be unknown such as giant squids, bigfoot/yeti, thunderbird and many other things discussed in cultural histories----that may make a difference. I don't expect all others to agree, but I do think scripture gives basis for showing how much mixture between species did occur---and on the issue, it is something to consider if such things would've been able to look to the Lord.

Half human, half animal myths are common--and it may be that they're common for a reason beyond simple imagination. From the Greek Mythological depictions to the Egyptians, each of them seems to advocate and portray powerful creatures that were mixed....and as recently discovered, there are 4000 year old cave painting on the outskirts of Sydney that resemble Egyptian gods. How could a race of people cut off from the world have the same images as that of the ancient Egyptians, unless they were viewing the same thing. Could all the cultures have drawn the same creatures because they saw them with their own eyes? Possibly

The Book of Jasher seems to go into great depth, as well as the Book of Enoch, discussing how corruptions of breeding/genetics were common in the days of the Flood...




We're going back there rather quickly, in light of all of the genetic experimentation on humans/animals and mixing them together...and others have wondered if those mixtures would be automatically lost by default.

Now there is the fish god of the Philistines, dagon which many artifacts have been found. This is the same one that the L-RD toppled when his ark was set before it. Lessons to be learned there.

I agree..

I'm currently researching at what point the entire concept of "Dagon" came into being during the history of Israel. From what I understand, Dagon was a Canaanite god of grain adopted by the Philistines. As noted earlier, the Philistine god Dagon was represented with a half man, half fish figure, and was said to be the father of Baal. This deity was a personification of the generative and vivifying principle of nature, for which the fish with its innumerable multiplication was especially adapted, to set forth the idea of the giver of all earthly good.​

​

Something interesting I discovered was seen in an excerpt from Dagon: The Philistine Fish God - Associates for Biblical Research. As said there:

Dagon was originally a Semitic deity, adopted by the Philistines after they invaded Canaan, ca. 1177 BC. We have records of Dagon dating to the 3rd dynasty of Ur in the 25th Century BC. Dagon was very popular among the Amorites, among whom “Dagon” is a component of many personal names, and Assyrians.

Most scholars argue that he was originally a vegetation, grain and wheat, deity. The name is very similar to the Hebrew word for “grain”, dāgān. This would create an interesting irony in the Samson narratives, as Samson was forced to grind wheat for the Philistines (Judges 16). However, some descriptions seem to make Dagon a storm-god, possibly in connection with the need of rain for the wheat and grain harvest.

However, Dagon in iconography Dagon is often presented as fish-god. This depiction has survived the centuries and is quite controversial. The reason it has survived is the similarity of the name to the Hebrew term dâg, meaning “fish”. This connection was first popularized by Rashi, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (AD 1040-1105), author of an extensive commentary on the Tanakh. He imagined, based on this connection to the Hebrew term dâg, that Dagon was in the shape of a fish.

David Kimhi (AD 1160-1235), Medieval Rabbi and Bible Commentator, expanded upon the interpretation of Rashi. In his comments on 1 Samuel 5, wherein the Philistines placed the Ark with Dagon, he interpreted the statement “only the flat part was left to him” (1 Samuel 5:4) as meaning “only the form of a fish was left”. He reasoned that since the text mentions “hands”, Dagon was in the in the form of a fish from the waist down, hence the name, and in the form of a man from the waist up. One must note that the LXX mentions both hand and feet.

In 1928, H. Schmökel argued that Dagon was never a “fish-god”, half-man and half-fish. However, once his cult became important to the sea-faring and maritime peoples, such as the Phoenicians and Philistines, the false connection to dâg (fish) had a powerful impact on Dagon’s iconography. Some scholars still insist that this merman image, half-man and half-fish, is a secondary aspect to this god of the Philistines. The Philistines were a powerful part of the invasion of the “Sea Peoples” who swept the Eastern end of the Mediterranean basin ca. 1200 BC. Therefore, a god with aquatic aspects could prove to be an important part of their pantheon.

Overall, Dagon is represented somewhat differently than other gods in Judges. This is because he is linked to the Philistines, who seemed to have adopted Dagon very early, one of the most hated enemies of YHWH and Israel. The Philistines represented a more menacing type of threat than the local Canaanites who had inhabited the Promised Land. With their political and military organization the Philistines were a viable threat to wipe out Israel and thwart complete possession of the land. Their importance is fully seen in that, according to 2 Samuel 5, their defeat was a key to the establishment of Davidic power. The tensions between Israel and Philistia began with Samson, encompassed the careers of Samuel and Saul, and ended with David. Therefore, based on Dagon’s long Semitic history and his connection with the Philistines, it is quite understandable that Dagon should be remembered in such detail by the biblical authors.


​

As it concerns the subject of mythological creatures like "mermaids", others may disagree...but IMHO, it'd seem that it may be possible for such creatures of man/fish mixtures to have survived/been around even into the time of the Conquests of Cannan since the apperance of Dagon was around that era ( Judges 16:22-24, etc ) and afterward ( 1 Samuel 5:1-3, 1 Samuel 5 , 1 Chronicles 10:9-11 / 1 Chronicles 10, etc )----and perhaps it was the case that such creatures existed/gave room for others making idols out of them.

From what I recall when visiting Hommossasa Springs in Florida, on a foggy day out at sea, hurgry and half starved (for food and women) sailors saw the seal reclining on the rocks And the siren song was that of the seals or the manatess. They are mammals and have a tail and mammary glands and feed their young up under their 'arms'.

I've heard that account as well, though I know others have said that was but one explanation for what was seen historically with mermaids. The seal dynamic is something that has been discussed alongside saying that manatees and sea cows were mistaken for mermaids....though the depictions of mermaids in mythology were far from simple observing from a distance. With the Seal dynamic, mermaids were also known as selkies, animals that can transform themselves from seals to humans..

For the sake of technicality, a mermaid (from the Middle English mere in the obsolete sense 'sea' + maid(en) is a legendary aquatic creature with the head and torso of human female and the tail of a fish. The male version of a mermaid is called a merman; the gender-neutral collective noun is merfolk. Various cultures throughout the world have similar figures.

In some ancient cultures Mermaids were regarded as semi-divine aspects of the Goddess, connected to the sea from which life arises and honoured in seaside temples. The earliest Mermaid story comes from Assyria around 1000 BCE. Atargatis, an Assyrian priestess, jumpred into the sea to wash away the shame of an unwanted pregnancy and emerged as a fishtailed goddess. In the 2nd century BCE, the Greek historian Lucian reported that the statue of the Great Goddess at the temple of Hieropolis (which is now modern Turkey) had a fishtail instead of legs. In Greece, Aphrodite, the goddess of love, as born from the sea foam and rode to land on a half-scallop shell.

In the 1st century CE, Pliny wrote convincingly of the existence of Mermaids, but said that their bodies were 'rough and scaled all over'. But by the 5th century CE, the bestiary Physiologus described Mermaids in terms that accord fully with their contemporary image. Mermaids are 'wonderfully shaped as a maid from the navel up and fish from the navel down'.

What is depicted is more sexual in nature and it has a fishes tail, with scales and fins.

That's how many mermaids were generally depicted....

Think about it, what does a fish need mammary glands for?

That's why its a mixture It has mammary glands due to being mixed rather than for the sake of need

....

And how could they possible reproduce? Maybe this came about from the discovery of the Platypus?

With the reproduction factor, there are camps within Jewish culture advocating that man was the one who was responsible for enabling certain things to mix together when breeding and crossing boundaries that the Lord forbide him from doing so...in line with Genesis 6.

 

[anisavta]

Messianic Mermaids?

 

[Lulav]

Oh, I believe in all the corruptioins and the truth behind genesis 6, as HaShem helped me with this almost 3 decades ago. It also tied in with something I couldn't understand about the move in to Caanan and he showed me how these were connected.

Also it brought me great understanding further down the road when studying Torah and realizing how many commandments and how much of the whole Bible is about separation, and for a reason, which ties in with creation and who the Creator is.

How would you know that there's no such thing as a mermaid---or more specifically, how would you know that there has never been such a thing as mermaid...a creature half man and fish? For that matter, what of centaurs or other minotaurs and many other things?

HaHa, that reminds me why back in grade school retorts of 'how do you know' nananananana!

Anyway, more correctly to describe this mythological beast, a mermaid would be half fish half woman, while a half man and half fish would be a merman. (not at all related to Ethel, at least I don't think so!) :o

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Messianic Mermaids?

The concept of mermaids deals with the subject of hybrid creatures....genetically engineered beings...and whether they (or other mixtures) would be capable of being "Messianic" in the sense that they would be able to look unto the Lord for either salvation or redeemption. It deals with the subject of what happened with the Fall and why the Lord ordered the wholesale extinction of all the creatures from the Flood Era.

The movie Splash had a similar aspect...as it concerns showing mermaids/mythological creatures with souls and the ability of showing emotion and needing to be respected rather than treated as if they're trash. If assuming that all mythological creatures relate back to Genesis 6 and assuming that the Lord hated THEM in specific since he chose to wipe them out, the thread is meant to discuss what their plight really was about.

From what I understand of the scriptures, when it comes to mixture and the larger issue of beastiality, the prohibition only involved the willful, intentional attempt to create hybrids. Once a deviant of any sort occurred, through natural or unnatural means, he would be prohibited from Tabernacle/Temple service. But nothing ever prevents a soul from reaching out to God.


As it concerns the innocence of the creatures made in abnormal unions, I tend to see it from the perspective of what an innocent child would perhaps see it as. What was the fate of the babies/women and children who died in the Flood? Additionally, what was the fate of people in that same grouping who died in Sodom/Gommorah ( Genesis 18:3 ), or the Conquests of Canaan ( Joshua 11:11-13 /Joshua 10:29-31/, Deuteronomy 3:6 )..and even within the time of the MONARCHy of Israel ( 1 Samuel 15:2-4 )?

On the subject of what occurred with Cannan and the possible reasons behind the conquest, more was discussed in #131 when it came to the subject of progressive revelation and how it seems the Lord often adapts to the cultures in which he is dealing with.....and does whatever so pleases him. When the Lord ordered a massive extermination of a group of people, even animals/babies, I don't see it as the Lord saying that somehow something was wrong with the children/babies as well. It is clear within scripture that small children/little offspring did not share the guilt of their parents. The Bible describes small children as not knowing right from wrong (Is 7:15-16), and in some cases, this meant that they were spared the earthly punishment their elders received. For example, when the Israelites sinned during their wanderings in the desert, God forbid the adults from entering the promised land, but gave it to their children who were too young to be held responsible (Dt 1:34-39). The Bible also clearly teaches that one person is not held guilty for another's sin (Ezek 18).


Therefore, the children who were killed would not face the same punishment in the afterlife as their parents who may've willfully sinned---and that would also apply possibly to the offspring of "hybrid" creations who didn't ask to be what they were. With the issue of Hybrids, I feel that they need to be placed in the same category as the women/children (babies and animals) who were chosen for extermination----as just because they were killed doesn't mean that they were "evil", nor does it mean that they didn't have a chance at redeemption since redeemption is something that's bigger than mere survival in this life. If one was the son or daughter of a hybrid being (i.e. mermaid, minotaur, centaur, etc), it'd make no sense to say that they were "evil" like their parents if saying that a son/daughter of a wicked parent was evil....


Some of the things the Lord did in massive extermination may've been a matter of a Mercy Kill---just as the periodic "Ethic cleansings" carried out by the Israelites could've been a merciful thing when considering they were heavily involved with bestiality, and even children were entirely given over to it..with these people regularly taking little babies and throwing them into fires in the name of religious sacrifice. The Lord may've been feeling angered at others not considering the plights of those who were "hybrids"---and this would also go alongside his concern for protecting the line that the Messiah would come through. And if the Lord caused the Flood to happen out of concern for the existence of creatures from mixed unions, then it seems to be more reasonable on many points.

But again, that's just wrestlings/processing over the text and possible meanings behind it..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Oh, I believe in all the corruptioins and the truth behind genesis 6, as HaShem helped me with this almost 3 decades ago. It also tied in with something I couldn't understand about the move in to Caanan and he showed me how these were connected.

Curious as to what in specific you're speaking of when it comes to the move into Caanan and how you feel things connected. I know of others who've made some very convincing cases as to why Caanan was very much connected to Genesis 6 and how much of the same things going down with mixing of species may've also been happening back then as well...and I may share later more in-depth.

Also it brought me great understanding further down the road when studying Torah and realizing how many commandments and how much of the whole Bible is about separation, and for a reason, which ties in with creation and who the Creator is.

Cool to know...

HaHa, that reminds me why back in grade school retorts of 'how do you know' nananananana!

To be clear, I only ask because I don't really see anyway of logically dismissing the case for mythological creatures such as mermaids existing unless one has seen them firsthhand..


Shoot, the teachers did that when students would deny what they said...and sometimes, teachers would encourage it amongst the students, such as seeing a student dogmatically say "Humans are the only living creatures in the universe!!!!" and encouraging the other kids when they ask "How do you know?"

And on the issue, there are ALOT of things that would have never been discovered if the "how do you know?" question was never answered. At one point, men said that people could never have the ability to fly..and that was challenged/shown otherwise. Others said that man could never find a means of getting off the planet..and that was challenged. Sadly, however, man was also told that the boundaries between man/beast could never be breached---and they have chosen to break that as well.....and I'm glad for others who note that man was just as intelligent, if not more so, back in Genesis 1-5 as he is today and therefore he may've be capable of doing things in mixing which others once felt were impossible....

Anyway, more correctly to describe this mythological beast, a mermaid would be half fish half woman, while a half man and half fish would be a merman. (not at all related to Ethel, at least I don't think so!) :o

To my knowledge, the simplest way of describing both men and women of the underwater world would be mer folk.

There were also descriptions of merfolk where it wasn't an issue of one being half human and half man AT all.

Oh, I believe in all the corruptioins and the truth behind genesis 6, as HaShem helped me with this almost 3 decades ago. It also tied in with something I couldn't understand about the move in to Caanan and he showed me how these were connected.

Curious as to what in specific you're speaking of when it comes to the move into Caanan and how you feel things connected. I know of others who've made some very convincing cases as to why Caanan was very much connected to Genesis 6 and how much of the same things going down with mixing of species may've also been happening back then as well...and I may share later more in-depth.

Also it brought me great understanding further down the road when studying Torah and realizing how many commandments and how much of the whole Bible is about separation, and for a reason, which ties in with creation and who the Creator is.

Cool to know...

HaHa, that reminds me why back in grade school retorts of 'how do you know' nananananana!

To be clear, I only ask because I don't really see anyway of logically dismissing the case for mythological creatures such as mermaids existing unless one has seen them firsthhand..


Shoot, the teachers did that when students would deny what they said...and sometimes, teachers would encourage it amongst the students, such as seeing a student dogmatically say "Humans are the only living creatures in the universe!!!!" and encouraging the other kids when they ask "How do you know?"

And on the issue, there are ALOT of things that would have never been discovered if the "how do you know?" question was never answered. At one point, men said that people could never have the ability to fly..and that was challenged/shown otherwise. Others said that man could never find a means of getting off the planet..and that was challenged. Sadly, however, man was also told that the boundaries between man/beast could never be breached---and they have chosen to break that as well.....and I'm glad for others who note that man was just as intelligent, if not more so, back in Genesis 1-5 as he is today and therefore he may've be capable of doing things in mixing which others once felt were impossible....

Anyway, more correctly to describe this mythological beast, a mermaid would be half fish half woman, while a half man and half fish would be a merman. (not at all related to Ethel, at least I don't think so!) :o

Indeed, a half-man/fish hybrid would be known as a merman whereas the half-female/fish hyrbrid would be the mermaid. I don't think anyone ever questioned that, as the main focus was upon mermaids.....those who are half-female/half fish. With mermen, there were many references to gods of ancient mytho0logy that are very shocking--one of which is connected with Dagon (as you mentioned earlier). To my knowledge, the simplest way of describing both men and women of the underwater world would be merfolk...or those of the merworld. The Film "The Little Mermaid" used similar terminology, as seen in the video I posted earlier when King Triton described how contact between the human world and the mer world was forbidden.



There were also descriptions of merfolk where it wasn't an issue of one being half human and half man AT all. Some creatures were a mixture of fish and another animal, such as the Merlion

And on the issue, the issue of mixture wasn't always seen with having the characteristics of animals. For example, the Arabian story called One Thousand and One Nights includes several tales featuring "Sea People", such as Djullanar the Sea-girl. Unlike the depiction in other mythologies, these are anatomically identical to land-bound humans, differing only in their ability to breathe and live underwater. As it turns out, they can (and do) interbreed with land humans, the children of such unions sharing in the ability to live underwater.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Messianic Mermaids?

To consider it from a differing perspective---if the sons of god in Genesis 6 were angels and they had hybrid offspring with the daughters of men, do you feel it would be possible that all of those hybrid mixtures would be able to still trust in the Lord for salvation? Or were they cut off from any kind of redeemption simply because of what they were by nature?

 

[Lulav]

From what I've been able to get about this is that they are not G-ds creations, they do not have his Ruach, aka soul, so there is no salvation, or reconciling them back to him as they never belonged to him in the first place.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

From what I've been able to get about this is that they are not G-ds creations, they do not have his Ruach, aka soul, so there is no salvation, or reconciling them back to him as they never belonged to him in the first place.

Still processing what that means to be a "creation" of the Lord and if that had anything to do with why the Lord decided to wipe things out for that purpose---or if there were other reasons.

In example, I like the view of Michael Heiser....as his thoughts on the Nephilim/offspring from the unions of men and angels are very insighful...and I appreciated his noting that they were not necessarily "evil" in all respects or the reasons that the Lord decided to wipe out the earth.. For his article on that, one can go online/look up the article entitled "The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy << Michael S. Heiser" .





As he noted in his article (for a brief excerpt):

At no point in Genesis 6 or Numbers 13 do we read that the nephilim sinned. We do get something like that idea from the book of Enoch (1 Enoch), but that isn&#8217;t preserved in Hebrew. Additionally, at no point do we read that the nephilim are spiritually fallen as a result of Adam and Eve&#8217;s fall from grace. The Fall of Adam and Eve passed on all humans (Romans 5:12), and the nephilim were not normal humans &#8211; they were hybridized beings (human + a foreign seed) and so not included in the Fall, at least as Romans 5:12 describes (this assumes the literal view of Genesis 6 &#8211; see below). Even Genesis 6, where the nephilim make their grand appearance, does not say they are fallen. The beings that did the evil act of Genesis 6 were not the nephilim. The transgression in that passage was between human beings and the sons of God. The sons of God and the nephilim are not the same; that latter are offspring of the former. 4 Lastly, we aren&#8217;t even told that the flood was the fault of the sons of God, and so how would it be that their offspring, the nephilim, are fallen in the sense of being inherently evil?


I am speaking here of Genesis 6 alone, where the biblical text just describes the nephilim as the mighty men of renown. The other clans that spring from the nephilim are the enemies of Israel for sure (like the Anakim), and so could be seen as evil. The giants in the book of Enoch and other Jewish literature composed after the biblical material (as far as the existing texts we know about) are certainly evil. But here&#8217;s the point: basing their evil nature on some presumed &#8220;meaning&#8221; of the word as &#8220;fallen&#8221; (passive participle from that word) is basically reading later Intertestamental and rabbinic tradition back into the word. This is poor methodology and is anachronistic. It&#8217;s also unnecessary. The word nephilim means giants (see below), and they turned out to be evil later on by virtue of their actions (in both biblical and non-biblical Jewish literature). They weren&#8217;t given some name because of some inherently fallen spiritual state (as though they could not be redeemed and were &#8220;more fallen&#8221; than humans). I mention all this because it is most likely that nephilim comes from the ARAMAIC word naphal (same meaning, &#8220;to fall&#8221. If that is the case, then the &#8220;full&#8221; spelling (with middle yod) can be accounted for as a masculine plural participle IN ARAMAIC.6 However, even this option for &#8220;fallen ones&#8221; fails because it cannot explain why the nephilim were said to be giants&#8212;which is made explicitly clear in Numbers 13:33, where the giant Anakim are said to be descendants from the nephilim
​

I thought it was pertinent what he noted when saying that the children of those unions between men and angels were not inherently evil----even though it was wicked for man to mix with angels....and it was on account of crossing boundaries that the Lord was angry rather than on account of it somehow being that a creation didn't have a soul. Also, it seems that the Lord's anger was very much directed toward the angels themselves who were tripping

Of course, I'm aware that there are views of the Nephilim that are far less generous.....and this can be seen especially when studying what other books of scripture note in the development of the demons and how they may've been creations of the death of Nephilims. This was the view of 1 Enoch, for example, as it stated that demons are specifically said to be the departed spirits of the nephilim giants. Apparently, when a Nephilim giant was killed, the immaterial spirit of that Nephilim was considered a demon. This is the Second Temple explanation for the origin of demons....and one would indeed need to be aware of the cultural history behind the developments of Judaism in order to be aware of that, lest one not be fully caught up and assume that things developed within a vaccum. Michael Heiser tried to bring out the issue in some of his articles, as said here if one chooses to go to the following:

• The Naked Bible » Sheol: The OT &#8220;Bad Place&#8221;?

• The Naked Bible » Discerning the Dead, Part 3

But again, I still don't know if it could said 100% that the Nephilim and any kind of mixed creature was automatically beyond salvation/redeemption or saving by the Messiah.....and when I read the text, it seems the Lord is more so angry at men for choosing wickedness alongside angels.


From what I've been able to get from the text of Genesis 6/other Jewish sources, the phrase , "sons of God " used in Genesis chapter six is refering to the fallen angels. One can read about the background in the book of Enoch and in some of the other Jewish writings. Apparently, it was the fallen angels working with fallen man to bring about these corruptions in the gene pool.....for one of the issues was Satan's attempt to corrupt the seed as an attempt to prevent the promised Messiah from being able to come since Genesis 3 prophesied that the seed of the woman would bruise the serpents head.

However, it doesn't seem to say that the creations themselves were beyond saving. ..and it seems that the Lord indeed ensured that those angels who were responsible for choosing to create hybrids were punished greatly for the ways in which they greatly polluted creation and "forced GOd's hand" (so to speak) by making things so crazy that the Lord had to wipe out creation in order to contain the situation.

2 Peter 2:4
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;


Jude 1:6
And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling&#8212;these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
​

2 Peter 2:4 says that &#8220;the angels that sinned&#8221; were cast into &#8220;Tartarus.&#8221; This is precisely the Greek word that Jewish texts (like 1 Enoch in Greek) use to describe the place where the sons of God who sinned in the Genesis 6 story were imprisoned. Genesis 6 seems to describe the sons of God having children with the daughters of men....and the issue of how "sons of God" was consistently interpreted as "angels" rather than anything else. The Book of Enoch, which the Jews accepted in the time of Christ, is indeed referenced in the Book of Jude as you noted.....

Michael Heisner is one of the best minds on the issue I've ever seen address the issue. For in his view, humans were apparently willing participants in the rebellion against the Lord which angels seemed to spearhead. The Genesis account says the &#8220;sons of God&#8221; took &#8220;wives.&#8221; (Genesis 6)--meaning, in other words, that they didn&#8217;t rape women. According to I Enoch (which Heiser thinks is passing on reliable traditions), this unnatural intermingling began in the &#8220;days of Jared,&#8221; who is referenced in Genesis 5:18...meaning this rebellious angelic activity had been going on for centuries before God decided it was time to judge humanity, the fallen angels and their hybrid children in Noah&#8217;s day.


Moreover, Heiser argued that by telling us that only Noah and his immediate family were unsullied at this time, the Genesis author was showing that the seed of the woman &#8220;had nearly been eclipsed.&#8221; The purpose for the author inserting this strange episode at this point in the narrative was to justify God&#8217;s drastic action in flooding the land.

What's even more amazing to consider (as Heiser argues) is that the Genesis author himself notes that the Nephilim existed not only before the flood but also afterwards (vs. 4) and we find descendants of the Nephilim all over the place in the land of Canaan. For those wondering how is this possible, Heiser suggests that perhaps the flood was local rather than global...and it&#8217;s important to remember that the word &#8220;earth&#8221; (eretz) in the Bible doesn&#8217;t refer to a planet necessarily (as they had no such concept) but to whatever land a given writer had in mind when he or she wrote. However, if the flood was in fact global, its suggested that perhaps the rebel gods resumed their project of creating hybrid-creatures once again after the flood. In support of this, Heiser noted that Genesis 6:4 could be translated: &#8220;The Nephilim were on the earth in those days &#8211; and also afterward &#8211; whenever (not simply when) the sons of God went to the daughters of humans beings and had children by them.&#8221;

Heiser also noted in his studies the various tribes mentioned in the conquest accounts were directly or indirectly related to the Nephilim. In his view, the seed of of the enemy had infected the entire land ( In Numbers 13:32-33, Amos 2:9-10, etc )...and the reason God ordered these groups exterminated, Heiser argues, was because he needed to ensure that his people, from whom the Messiah would come, would not be polluted with what Heiser refers to as &#8220;demon seed.&#8221; The warfare for the promised land was a continuation of the prophecied war between the seed of Eve and the seed of the enemy.

For more on where Heiser shared his views, one can go to the following:

AOD 2005 - Michael Heiser - The Sons of God, Daughters, Nephilim, UFOs"​

For more information on Heiser's views on the Sons of God and their references throughout scripture, more can be found at his organization known as "The Divine Council - Michael Heisner".....as what was offered was really part of a chapter in a series of 8 papers. All of which are very well-researched and with many intriguing thoughts. I have to agree with him when it comes to dealing with what the texts says plainly, concerning other gods being in existence outside of the Lord/Creator who is above all.



As it concerns the issue of the "gods" of other nations (also called "sons" or elohim), For more information, one can go online to the following:

• Who are the sons of God and the Nephilim?

• 
  Angels, "Aliens" & The Bible

• Examining UFOs, Nephilim and the Fallen Ones

• " The Nachash () and His Seed - Michael Heisner" ()

• "Genesis 6-Sons of God..Here a Little..There, A Little"

• Does God's judgment infringe on people's free will inappropriately?

• " Chapter 5 Appearances Can Be Deceiving - Michael S. Heiser" ( )

• "Random Reflections - Greg Boyd: Yahweh's War Against the Nephilim" ( )

• "Random Reflections - Greg Boyd: Boyd and Heiser Dialogue On The Nephilim Question

• [PDF] Christus Victor - A Christian Thinktank - The Great Irruption &#8211; The Work of Christ Triumph over the Powers

The last one that speaks on the issue of how ancient Israel was not opposed to the concept of their being other divine beings/"gods" is found under the article entitled &#8220;Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism: Toward an Honest (and Orthodox) Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible&#8220;. (C).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

From what I've been able to get about this is that they are not G-ds creations, they do not have his Ruach, aka soul, so there is no salvation, or reconciling them back to him as they never belonged to him in the first place.

How would one know, though, that they didn't have a soul---his Ruach Ha Kodesh (Holy Spirit)? How does one even get a soul to begin with? For all I see in the text is that the Lord decided to wipe out the earth on account of the wickedness of man. I don't see anywhere that it says that the mixed unions/hybrids themselves were somehow "souless"....and therefore, beyond salvation/being able to be reconciled. And even if a creature came into existence in a manner that seemed to be counter to the Lord's design, the fact is that life alone can only come from God. Christ in the scriptures is portrayed as the INSTRUMENT of creation, “sustaining all things by His powerful word”, (Colosians 1:16-7, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:3)—and whom by immanence is fully present in even the smallest atom….with all things connected to Him for their own survival. And since it requires God’s very prescence/connection and energies for any of mankind to even live on, Thus, everything is still his "creation" even when its not truly set up the way he wanted it...

If a mythological beast such as mermaid was created, where would there be a scriptural basis for saying that the Lord would have no pity on it or that it would be something he wasn't concerned for?

This of course goes to the OP issue of where Messianics stand on the issue of Genetic Engineering. For the same issue of creations in the Flood Era not having a soul has been said of things today. In example, I've seen it said that a child not born of a man/woman having sex the way the Lord designed (i.e sexual intercourse) is not something that has a "soul" since it came by "unatural means"........and yet, that seems to assume that having a soul is based squarely on genetics/the physical rather than the spiritual. For if something is created in a way that others deem unatural (i.e. gene splicing, chimeras and human/animal embryos, test tube babies, artificial insemination, cloning, etc), would that mean that it has no purpose in life? Some of what was mentioned has already been done and many fellowships are wrestling on what the proper stance on subjects would be. What was once considered to be "Sci-Fi" has quickly become reality in many things


It seems inevitable that genetic enginerring is bound to take place---and it's not something that's going to be a matter of families be able to shelter themselves from. Therefore, rathter than being shocked by the signs of it coming, we should be prepared to deal with the results of people made out of those unions.

For every test-tube baby, its amazing to see how others may be confused as to what to make of them:

In light of things such as "designer kids"--where traits can be manipulated nowadays in kids, I remember discussing this before in highschool and wondering “How many times do I hear Christians shocked at the thought of life that didn’t happen naturally and yet never come to terms with the fact that it’ll happen & we should be ready to deal with it somehow?” If a human’s genetically manipulated tommorrow, so be it. It’s unatural for life to be produced that way, but it’s a life. It has feelings, a mind, and a soul……..& since more of it’s kind are goinng to be produced, might as well get ready to learn how to accomodate him the best I can……cause things are going to be just as crazy for him, if not CRAZIER, than they will be for me. He didn’t ask to be created unaturally.

He didn’t asked to be spliced……..& even though we’re in danger of God’s Wrath, the fact remains that he or she is still caught in the cross-fire…..A VICTIM/CASUALITY of the war man’s waging agaisnt God





Personally, I’m guessing my experience with being born out of wedlock may be affecting my viewpoint a bit (lol)When it happened, there were plenty of people around my mother shocked about the entire situation. You can imagine some of the responses:

• “How unatural!!!”

• “You’ve really messed things up!!!”

The list goes on…..but despite what others may’ve said, our family was still willing to come to terms with the issue. Even beyond that, they realized that the entire situation (though worthy of God’s Wrath) was still part of GOD’S PLAN/NOT A MISTAKE by His Book. …..& just as that should affect our views when it comes to things like children born out of adultrey/incest or some other unatural way that displeases Him, so the same should again go for CHildren born out of Science. God’s in control even of their fates and should be seen/treated no differently than others…….& just as God used others despite crazy/unjust circumstances, so I believe it’s possible for the same to happen today with Genetically enginered children.

If comparing the situation with the Bible, I’d go with the Book of Judges, wchich as as godless/backward & “On it’s way to HELL!!!” time as one could get…..and the children born of Genetic engeneering could be likened to that of Jephthah (Judges 10-13), Judges 11:16 who was an illegitimate son of Gilead……chased out of the country because of how “unatural” the birth was, and forced to live as an outcast.

He suffered as a result of another’s decision and not for any wrong he had done. Yet, in spite of his brother’s rejection, God used Him.

Moreover, Circumstances BEYOND HIS CONTROL forced Jephthah away from his people and into life as an outcast…..& the same’s true for today. Both believers and nonbelievers may drive away those who do not fit the norms dictated by our society, neighboorhoods or churches……and when things that are unatural ways of doing things according to Scripture are done long-term, they become the norm and anything OUTSIDE/ABOVE THAT has become the standard for ABNORMAL (as is the case with genetic engeeniering where it seems that a double standard exists when children produced by it are seen as somehow ABNORMAL while those who are born of adultrey/rape and other ways are accepted….even praised…in our society.)

Often, as in Jephthah’s case, great potential is wasted because of prejudice–a refusal to look beyond ill-concieved stereotypes…..and more harm than neccessary is done becasue we fail to realize that EVERYONE can have a place in God’s family. Background/Beginnings shouldn’t matter…..& the same should happen with genetic engineering or those coming from such backgrounds as well. Even if something was happening since the start of exixtense doesn’t mean that it’s more acceptable than something else that’s more rare but bound to happen in the END TIMES.

Besides, there’re LOTS of things that happen in our society today than didn’t happen back then, like artificial insemination, for example weren’t present then….but there here now, and the Bible has an perspective for them.

And again, the Breath of LIFE COMES DIRECTLY FROM GOD (Genesis 2:7). There’s no contending that….unless one wishes to take the discussion around the dynamics of whether or not something engineered is man & therefore capable of having a soul like a man or whether he’s simply a living orgasism like any other creature. It’s made from a person. It has the Image of God, and we should be prepared when it happens to treat it as such rather than as something less than human. Not only that, but seeing as we're to look out for those abandoned/isolated in society as the Lord takes that seriously, this would seem to me to be the same issue:

Psalm 68:5
A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in his holy dwelling.
Psalm 68

Psalm 82:3
Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
Psalm 82


Psalm 146:9
The LORD watches over the alien and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.
Psalm 146


Isaiah 1:17
learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.
Isaiah 1

Isaiah 1:23
Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow's case does not come before them.
Isaiah 1


James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
James 1:26-27 (in Context) James 1
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Anyway, more correctly to describe this mythological beast, a mermaid would be half fish half woman, while a half man and half fish would be a merman. (not at all related to Ethel, at least I don't think so!) :o

Ethel's on a whole different level..


But as it concerns Ethel Merman, she was a cool kat. I loved the Muppet Show growing up/the musicals---and it was still amazing to see how her voice was rocking it desptite her age.

Ethel Merman and the Muppets No Business Like Show Business​

Later, they made a parody on her on Sesame Street known as Ethel Mermaid..

As a Sesame Street fan, I think she was wild...and I thankfully knew her name didn't have any do

Vintage Sesame Street - Ethel Mermaid - I Get a Kick Out of U (MBTA Bus LED Matrix Display) ​

Training the children from young to think mermaids are a good thing.....

 

[christianmomof3]

I am pretty sure that mermaids are not kosher.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am pretty sure that mermaids are not kosher.

I wouldn't think they're "kosher"---specifically, if someone said that they were cool for eating/consumption....for the part that's fish may be healthy but the rest of it that's human wouldn't fly...

On a serious note, I'm not too certain that they would not be "kosher" in the sense of having value anymore than mankind would...and for where mixing is occurring today, gotta get geared for it to happen again. We've already had similar things come up, such as debate on whether or not "test tube" babies or clones of humans would be able to be considered as having "souls"/being valuable to the Lord..

 

[INTJ-F]

As a thinker, I can understand your question totally. You are asking if a being that is only half human can be saved and only used a mermaid as an example. I'll answer this question and then answer the question that others felt you had asked.

Half human-half angel beings cannot be saved. This is why God destroyed them all in the flood and why God instructed Israel to destroy certain cities - including children- while letting other cities continue to exist. Half humans are incapable of accepting Yeshua as Messiah even if they recognize Him to be the Messiah (this is different from unbelievers that are temporarily blinded to the truth)

As for mermaids, I believe they existed at one point and became the fish-"god" dagon (that is also worshiped in some churches today - the fish "god" hat is a known symbol of some "churches") Likely these beings were wiped out in the flood or shortly after. If they were wiped out by the flood, the stories about them would have been carried to the post flood world by Noah and his family or by writings Noah brought to the other side of the flood. Remember that Noah and Abraham were contemporaries and that Shem even outlived Abraham (Isaac and Shem were contemporaries as well) For those who feel there generations that are skipped in the creation history that leaves room for their old earth mythology: They have not read the genealogy in Genesis.

Dragons existed too (and may still) and unicorns existed at least into the late 1400's (AD)

 

[yonah_mishael]

Dragons existed too (and may still) and unicorns existed at least into the late 1400's (AD)

What do you think dragons and unicorns are? Are you serious? Do you live in another plain of existence?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

As a thinker, I can understand your question totally. You are asking if a being that is only half human can be saved and only used a mermaid as an example.

Glad to know that you understand where the focus of the original post comes from..for the mermaid was but one example, meant to be a spring-board example for discussion on other creatures that're mythological and being re-created in our times via science----as seen in the many ways men are now splicing animal/human dna to make differing things and creating things in a host of ways not natural (i.e. cloning, test tube babies, etc).

I'll answer this question and then answer the question that others felt you had asked.


Half human-half angel beings cannot be saved. This is why God destroyed them all in the flood and why God instructed Israel to destroy certain cities - including children- while letting other cities continue to exist.

Can't say that I can see that in the scriptures, as it seems to be clear in the scriptures that it was on the account of man's wickedness that the world was destroyed rather than on account of the beings that were created from hybrid unions. From scripture, we know that there were still Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakim and Emim in the land of Canaan and YHVH wanted them 100% wiped out too...but with those beings that were wiped out (hybrids), I think the issue of destroying them didn't necessarily have to do with any inherent evil on their part as a species since they never asked for it----just as children in the conquests of Cannan didn't ask to be born to parents whom the Lord didn't like. Many of them were capable of being good just as they were also capable of being bad..

As noted earlier, in an excerpt from an article done by Michael Heiser ( called The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy << Michael S. Heiser" ) that I thought was legit:

At no point in Genesis 6 or Numbers 13 do we read that the nephilim sinned. We do get something like that idea from the book of Enoch (1 Enoch), but that isn&#8217;t preserved in Hebrew. Additionally, at no point do we read that the nephilim are spiritually fallen as a result of Adam and Eve&#8217;s fall from grace. The Fall of Adam and Eve passed on all humans (Romans 5:12), and the nephilim were not normal humans &#8211; they were hybridized beings (human + a foreign seed) and so not included in the Fall, at least as Romans 5:12 describes (this assumes the literal view of Genesis 6 &#8211; see below). Even Genesis 6, where the nephilim make their grand appearance, does not say they are fallen. The beings that did the evil act of Genesis 6 were not the nephilim. The transgression in that passage was between human beings and the sons of God. The sons of God and the nephilim are not the same; that latter are offspring of the former.4 Lastly, we aren&#8217;t even told that the flood was the fault of the sons of God, and so how would it be that their offspring, the nephilim, are fallen in the sense of being inherently evil?

I am speaking here of Genesis 6 alone, where the biblical text just describes the nephilim as the mighty men of renown. The other clans that spring from the nephilim are the enemies of Israel for sure (like the Anakim), and so could be seen as evil. The giants in the book of Enoch and other Jewish literature composed after the biblical material (as far as the existing texts we know about) are certainly evil. But here&#8217;s the point: basing their evil nature on some presumed &#8220;meaning&#8221; of the word as &#8220;fallen&#8221; (passive participle from that word) is basically reading later Intertestamental and rabbinic tradition back into the word. This is poor methodology and is anachronistic. It&#8217;s also unnecessary. The word nephilim means giants (see below), and they turned out to be evil later on by virtue of their actions (in both biblical and non-biblical Jewish literature). They weren&#8217;t given some name because of some inherently fallen spiritual state (as though they could not be redeemed and were &#8220;more fallen&#8221; than humans). I mention all this because it is most likely that nephilim comes from the ARAMAIC word naphal (same meaning, &#8220;to fall&#8221. If that is the case, then the &#8220;full&#8221; spelling (with middle yod) can be accounted for as a masculine plural participle IN ARAMAIC. However, even this option for &#8220;fallen ones&#8221; fails because it cannot explain why the nephilim were said to be giants&#8212;which is made explicitly clear in Numbers 13:33, where the giant Anakim are said to be descendants from the nephilim.
​

Of course, his view is but one of many---and having that frame of thought naturally brings to mind the subject of whether or not children/offspring are born evil.....and whether or not they're destined to take on the sins of their parents or if they are born into a state of innocence, be it children born the way the Lord designs or children born in wrong means (i.e. born out of wedlock, born out of an adulterous relationship or from rape, born from prostitution, etc).



Something else to consider is that salvation is more than being able to live in this life. Yeshua went to hell and preached to those of the pre-flood world so maybe some of the hybrids were saved. Since Yeshua preached to those in hell who had no chance to know or accept him......then maybe, just maybe those hybrids had a chance to be saved.


For if what truly matters is the life to come rather than this one alone, one must wonder who did the Lord preach to when he died....and others have noted that those who died before the Flood were given a chance to hear/know of Him.

The Lord is outside of time and not stuck in a "linear" mode of existence. Things that he desires to get done are seen as "completed" from his perspective once He declares it---and when Christ died, it wasn't as if those in the OT who died waited thousands of years to finally hear of him. For in eternity, there is no sense of time.....and thus, they may've gotten there/felt it was only for a couple of minutes/hours and ran right into Christ.....who died in the future, but stepped into the Eternal realm and made it seem as if they virtually all got there at the same time.

The same goes for all of those who died AFTER Christ did the Atonement, as they may've never heard of it in the future--but the work was done for them as well...and thus, when they died, it wouldn't be as if they didn't get a chance to hear of Christ preaching. Because of the fact that Christ preached to those who were bound in Hades, there's never anyone who can say those who died without hearing of Christ are lost.

John Sanders made two excellent books on the matter which you may look up---one of which is entitled "No Other Name" ( ) and "The God Who Risks" ---concerning the possibility of creation being able to be renconciled to the Lord. This also touches upon the issue of what happens to the souls of many who may've been seeking the Lord but died in natural diasters (i.e. plagues, volcanos, earthquakes, famines, etc)----with people wondering if diaster happened as a result of judgement when the Lord is considering the state of people in eternity. The same principle can be seen in Luke 13/Luke 13:21 . For there Pilate had apparently placed to death some Galileans as they were offering worship sacrifices in Jerusalem. No explanation of the reason was given. THey had perhaps trangressed a Roman Law prompting the respons from the notoriously hard-hearted Pilate. Since their theology attributed individual suffering to individual sin, the Jews interpreted the fate of the Galileans as God's punishment of their guilt.

This view of God's activity is known as Retribution Theology......and with that in mind, one sees how Jesus transfered the meaning of these incidents to the spiritual sphere. He does not deal with a Retribution Theory (similar to what occured with many concerning Hurricane Katrina or the recent Tsunami that hit Japan....and many saying it was of the Lord as JUDGEMENT). He instead points to the Lord and urgent demand of the present--that unless you repent, you will perish. The same principle can be seen in John 9:22 with the man that was born blind, as the Lord said it wasn't because of sin that he was made.

I know I've had friends who have wrestled with that same issue whenever you see destruction worldwide---and you know that not everyone who perishes was "evil".....and as some have told me, God is just....and he will ensure all men have a chance to know of/see him to be saved, be it in this life or the next. For the man who never has heard of the Gospel in the Amazon, its not as if the Lord was unaware---and the Lord is merciful. If he doesn't get the chance to hear it in this life, God will judge based on what people do know...and give the full facts there.

Half humans are incapable of accepting Yeshua as Messiah even if they recognize Him to be the Messiah (this is different from unbelievers that are temporarily blinded to the truth)

Sincerly, where does it say that the Lord destroyed them because they weren't redeemed? Other animals on the planet alongside mankind (who was desperately wicked), but that didn't necessarily mean every single animal (i.e. dog, cat, goat, dinosaur, etc) on the planet was corrupt and not worth respecting----otherwise, all of the instances in scripture where man was commanded to respect creation or told of animals having spirits/being divine would be odd.

With all of the babies/children who also died in the Flood, it doesn't seem that the Lord ordered their destruction because of their being "evil".....just as the Lord ordering the destruction of women and children alongside men in the Conquest of Canaan didn't mean necessarily that the children were "evil." Of course, some may differ in that if they come at the scriptures believing that all man is born sinful/will go to hell at any point if they don't have faith in Christ--be it with the mentally disabled (who may've been made such due to actions of parents like drug usage or bad maitencance of their bodies) or babies aborted and many others...and that's another isssue altogether

Some creatures created may've only be suited for life before the Flood---and thus, in the new world, they would've probably gone extinct........and as the scriptures aren't exhaustive on all that occurred, we simply don't know what happened fully. It could have been where certain creatures knew that it was the end of their time and they were glad for what the Lord was going to do Post-Flood with a new world/fresh start for those who were saved.

The Lord could've destroyed many things in an act of Mercy, as in seeing how certain things were never meant to be in existence....and therefore, would have sufferings that weren't natural, with the Lord choosing to do a massive mercy killing of other creatures who had to endure while also killing off/judging all of the men and mixed beings who were indeed corrupt.

If you were a genetic experimentation that was made due to the wickedness of mankind, you didn't ask to be created....nor did you ask to be "un natural"....but just like children born out of wedlock or negative circumstances, what's done is done. They were there and perhaps could've found a place in that world---but things were far too wicked on the account of mankind, which was corrupted due to the mixing of men/angels to pollute it. When it got to wicked, God seemed to say "Enough."


IMHO, I don't necessarily see where it says that hybrid creatures would somehow be incapble of accepting the Lord as Messiah because of anything on their part-----and one would be hard pressed, IMHO, to show from scripture where it was absolutely the case that they couldn't. To me, to say that they couldn't accept the Lord would be akin to saying that a person born deaf/mute & blind..unable to either hear or see or confess Christ would be unable to be saved (as many have sadly said when it comes to those with disabilties that they didn't chose to be born with).

When it comes to those born with handicaps or disabilities, many are of the mindset that they must automatically be destined for hell----and yet, others feel that there must be a place of mercy for them as well since things occurred naturally which were not their fault. I must naturally wonder the same for those hybrid creatures who were born/never asked to be what they were. They simply came into being..


With some of the hybrids that came in Genesis 6---if it was indeed the case that men were being mated with angels to produce the heros of old/all manner of creature---I don't see where it was the case that it ever became IMPOSSIBLE for them to be redeemed or have relationship with the CREATOR. People often read Genesis 6 as if all of the heros of old/creations from the unions were evil...yet all the text says is that man became increasingly evil. To me, it seems simialr to how much fatherlessness has occuredd in our country alongside sexual immorality---and how the children being born to unions that were done outside of God's desires don't have to be considered "evil" just because man at large was such. Men may have tendecies to go one route, but God still seems in control...




It seems that in Genesis 6, God destroyed the world because of the increase in wickedness rather than because of hybrid creatures--and for those who may've existed, I wonder what their story would be. I'm curious as to whether or not they ALL were at odds with God's designs with mankind...as perhaps many felt like they didn't ask to be a hybrid creation but still wanted man to do right, much like children from adulterous relationships saying they didn't ask to be made.

From what I see in scripture, many prohibitions against things only involved the willful, intentional attempt to create hybrids. Within the law, once a deviant of any sort occurred, through natural or unnatural means, he would be prohibited from Tabernacle/Temple service. But nothing ever prevents a soul from reaching out to God.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

As for mermaids, I believe they existed at one point and became the fish-"god" dagon (that is also worshiped in some churches today - the fish "god" hat is a known symbol of some "churches") Likely these beings were wiped out in the flood or shortly after.

The connection of mermaids with the god, "Dagon", is something that was brought up earlier---and its an interesting connection. It's interesting to consider how what may often occur in the wild can lead to man making idols out of it, just as Romans 1 describes when Paul noted men choosing to worship created things rather than the Creator...and one can see multiple examples of this throughout the scriptures when men saw an animal of some sort in nature and decided to worship it. The Egyptian gods were often shown to be like this...


In view of this, wanted to bring up how debate lies as to what kind of creations were being made in Genesis 6---and for some, they say some creatures like mermaids were never even a "hybrid." Rather, its possible that they were simply another kind of beast of the field which the Lord had made...and being humanoid, that didn't mean that they were human. A practical example would be how man is a type of primate, just as apes are...and apes/chimps have fingers/toes just like man. However, no one supposes that those creatures were "hybrids" made from men mating with other animals....as some traits in creation are not unique to what it means to be made in the Image of God. The same goes for intelligence and the ability to use tools, as other creatures had that. Some excellent articles on the issue that one can consider would be ones from the ministry of "God and Science", known as Must Human Evolution Contradict Genesis? and A Philosophical Critical Analysis of Recent Ape-Language Studies by Dennis Bonnette

Even the serpent had that in Genesis 3...for the scriptures say in Genesis 1:23-25 /Genesis 1:24-26 /Genesis 2:18-20 / that the Lord made all kinds of wild animals from the ground---and yet, the scriptures make clear that the serpent was a wild animal as well.

Genesis 3:1
[ The Fall ] Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, &#8220;Did God really say, &#8216;You must not eat from any tree in the garden&#8217;?&#8221;
Genesis 3
​

I used to be under the impression that the Devil was automatically in view during Genesis 3--in accordance with what Paul noted in 2 Corinthians 11:2-4 / 2 Corinthians 11 concerning the Devil as a Fallen Angel/reading that back into Genesis 3.

Rev 12:9
9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


Rev 20:2-3
2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished.

​

However, I was challenged years ago by others who were under the view that the serpent was a real animal that could talk....a creature SEPERATE from the angels themselves, which are of another order...and a creature that now crawls around on his belly, still alive, roaming the earth. It seems difficult to accept at first, until one considers how the only way to get out of it is to interpet Satan as being a kind of "animal" that the Lord made from the dust of the field alongside the other creatures. If trying to say that Satan would still be an angel while also being an "animal" that he made, that'd seem difficult to renconcile with the text since scripture makes clear that the angels were made PRIOR to the creation of the world, as seen in Job 38:6-8 ----and the animals made from the land were made to be in dominion to Adam. The beasts of the field were made lower than Adam according to Genesis, whereas Psalm 8:4-6 /Hebrews 1:3-5 /Hebrews 1 /Hebrews 2:6-8 /Hebrews 2:8-10 make clear that man was made a LITTLE lower than the angels.

It'd seem odd to say that the Devil was a beast of the field/animal man was made to have dominion over---as Genesis 3 notes --and yet say the devil was an angel who was higher than man. I'm still processing how to renconcile that...


But When reading Genesis 3, the serpent is noted to be more crafty than the other animals....which indicates that he too is an animal, not a demon or devil. A parallel is the snake in the Gilgamesh Epic who steals the plant of rejuvenation (and therefore sheds his skin). Some animals are clever, some are more clever than all the beasts of the field. The serpent in Eden is a trickster figure who is even more clever than the other animals, can speak (like humans), and knows about divine things. He bridges the boundaries between animals, humans and God...and effectively enlists the woman's desire to break the boundary between humans and GOD. If the serpent was apparently an angel who took on the form of a wild animal, it'd seem odd...and perhaps a bit of forcing a view onto the text that's not immediately apparent.


I think its quite fascinating to see that even man was not the only creature in creation that was capable of vast intelligence...and I must say that I don't think its wrong when seeing how some are open to the fact that many creatures within mythology may've been creatures the Lord made with intelligence/certain abilities and that man was to rule/exercise dominion over. Of course, the theory of their being made from hybrid unions of men/animal are also possible as well.

If a mermaid was simply a humanoid creature that had great intelligence/beauty but was never related to humankind, that may be just as possible as their being made from men crossing genetic boundaries and them being developed.

And to be clear, as it concerns the issue of the Serpent of Genesis 3 not really being considered as the Angelic "Devil" of the NT in the entirety of Jewish thought, the only reason I say that is because many concepts within Judaism are ones that've evolved over time.

As Michael Heiser said best in his article entitled The Naked Bible » The Absence of Satan in the Old Testament:

Basically, &#8220;the satan&#8221; in Job is an officer of the divine council (sort of like a prosecutor). His job is to &#8220;run to and fro throughout the earth&#8221; to see who is and who is not obeying Yahweh. When he finds someone who isn&#8217;t and is therefore under Yahweh&#8217;s wrath, he &#8220;accuses&#8221; that person. This is what we see in Job &#8212; and it actually has a distinct New Testament flavor. (We also see it in Zechariah 3). But the point here is that this satan is not evil; he&#8217;s doing his job. Over time (specifically the idea of &#8220;being an adversary in the heavenly council&#8221; was applied intellectually to the enemy of God &#8212; the nachash (typically rendered &#8220;serpent&#8221 in Eden, the one who asserted his own will against Yahweh&#8217;s designs. That entity eventually becomes labeled &#8220;Satan&#8221; and so the adversarial role gets personified and stuck to God&#8217;s great enemy (also called the Devil). This is a good example of how an idea in Israelite religion plays out and is applied in different ways during the progress of revelation
​

Although I wrestle with the concept of Satan being present at the Fall of man being fully understood today, I pray that what I'm saying doesn't come off as if I don't feel that there's no validity in the traditional church view, concerning Genesis 3 being a picture of the character of what would later be known as Satan....and the same goes for Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 being symbolic of what was occurring with the Enemy before His Fall--with Ezekiel 28 being something of a double entendre where a phrase or collection of statements are devised to be understood in either of two ways, with it being the case that often the first (more obvious) meaning is straightforward, while the second meaning is less so.

That has often happened in scripture on differing occassions. For a really excellent review on the issue that may be of benefit, one can go online and investigate an article entitled "SATANOLOGY: THE DOCTRINE OF SATAN - A Messianic Bible Study from Ariel Ministries." . Its by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum of "Ariel Ministries.org". ...and it does some of the best in-depth treatment on the character of Satan/Lucifer and many of the common objections others may give due to not understanding the Jewish framework when it comes to identifying who others are. If you haven't heard of him yet, you may be very blessed by his work. He's a Messianic Jew, whose family came from Russia...and in his lifestyle, he chooses to keep the OT festivals/enjoys what the Scriptures say of the beauty of the Law---though he does so because he has freedom in Yeshua to do so--or not. It is his choice and they are part of his heritage. He belongs to two Messianic congregations--neither of which demands its members be torah-observant since it is left up to the individual conscience, as per Romans 14. To me, his work has been a blessing since he has a good way of explaining things, like God's law compared to Christ's law. The Messianic Jewish Rabbi I'm dear friends with----known as Rabbi Aaron Evans of "Congregation Mishkan David" ---is of the same mindset as Dr.Arnold....and the man came to our church as part of a conference 2yrs ago and it was amazing. Truly one of the most wonderful examples of what it means to be Messianic Jewish and understanding of the Law.



For another one that may benefit, one can also go online/investigate the following from "Bible.org":

• Satanology | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

Its by J. Hampton Keathley III, Th.M. He is a 1966 graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and a former pastor of 28 years. Though he passed away years ago and went on to be with the Lord, he was a very dynamic individual. For Hampton wrote many articles for the Biblical Studies Foundation and on occasion taught New Testament Greek at Moody Bible Institute, Northwest Extension for External Studies in Spokane, Washington. There was more said in greater depth in the article series they had entitled "Angelology: The Doctrine of Angels"

If they were wiped out by the flood, the stories about them would have been carried to the post flood world by Noah and his family or by writings Noah brought to the other side of the flood.Remember that Noah and Abraham were contemporaries and that Shem even outlived Abraham (Isaac and Shem were contemporaries as well) For those who feel there generations that are skipped in the creation history that leaves room for their old earth mythology: They have not read the genealogy in Genesis.

Dragons existed too (and may still) and unicorns existed at least into the late 1400's (AD)

Agree 100% with you, concerning the fact that Noah and Abraham were contemporaries...and Noah would've easily brought his knowledge about them to the rest of the world---and the legends would've continued.

However, I'm not certain as to whether or not its the case that all mermaids were wiped out by the flood alongside other mythological creatures---as if that couldn't happen again. Many of the ancient techonologies man had access to before the Flood seem to be things we've remade in our times today....and many have come to the realization that man must've been QUITE advanced in order to do what he did.

Interestingly enough, even a Flood wasn't enough to keep mankind from becoming polluted again....as seen in examples like Nimrod the first world conqueror (and reputed to be one of the main ones who began all major world religions), or the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. God made very clear "If this people as one voice are able to do this tower, nothing they set their minds to will be impossible"----and had to confuse their languages so they couldn't communicate.....yet we see in our day how that's QUICKLY changing now that men are learning universal languages and how to communicate via the media. The advances of science have shown the issue of hybrids occurring again, with others amazed that man can do as he has now done (i.e. glowing tobacco plant with a gene from fireflies, mouse with human ear, pig with a human heart, goats with spider genes spliced so that goats can make milk that's silk, test tube babies, designer gene kids, changing gender via surgeries, etc).