My feelings are intact, and I welcome differing opinions (iron sharpening iron and all). However, ascribing something as odious as racism to me (as implied) because of the theological conclusions I arrive at, is uncalled for and unChristian. I do not subscribe to Critical Race Theory tactics, but it would be like me counter-accusing you of promoting that (equally odious).
My conclusions are based on
a) what the bible says (man refused to scatter and fill the earth- so God scattered them)
So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth; and they stopped building the city. Genesis 11:8
b) the reality that God is omniscient and knew who carried what genes and what those combinations of people groups would look like hundreds to thousands of years later
and He made from one man every nation (ethnos) of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, Acts 17:26
c) the fact that we have a cornucopia of vastly different people groups today, who biologically might be virtually identical, but look vastly different, is a reality
However, let us consider your perspective for a second from a logic-based point of view. Let's set aside WHY God separated mankind (we agree there) and say God only separated people linguistically and people, either slowly or quickly, "drifted away" away from Babel. How did they drift away? Presumably, they left with people who spoke dialects or languages, they could understand.
Is it possible that God separated people linguistically, who carried particular sets of DNA that would later form the 70 nations as mentioned by Moses in Genesis 10?
I say yes.
Clearly, two later passages allude to both the reality of this separation (Acts 17:26) and the issues that would come along with God knowingly separating mankind by not only language but by physical appearance and cultural differences (Matt. 24:7- ethnos against ethnos)
But to your specific point, how does language physically change our biological makeup? Or does it? I think science and common sense would answer a resounding no.
For example, if I became fluent in Mandarin Chinese, and I taught it to my children, and they, their children and we did that for generations....would we begin to look Asian?
No. That is ridiculous.
I know German Mennonites who have lived deep in the mountains of northern Mexico many generations and are as blonde-haired and blue-eyed as their great, great grandparents were. And their Spanish is flawless.
Perhaps I'm missing your point, but you are absolutely missing mine.
God absolutely knew what He was doing at Babel, and He was ensuring that there were enough differences in the human race (I presume everyone looked a lot alike at Babel) and both the physical and linguistic scattering, would take millennia for mankind and Satan to undo.
Thanks so much for taking the time to review, he is a very highly regarded scholar in the AG but was so adamant of error in regards to the growing intrigue/studies of the Nephilim I was very interested to hear your take in that regard. Thanks for sharing and being such a calming/encouraging/alerting/informative voice for such a time as this Pete!I think he is wrong on almost every one of those points (except the part about Nephilim being aliens) I agree there. However, all of the points Dr. Westlake makes are addressed almost verbatim in Chaffey's book exhaustively and debunked.
1. The Sons of God could only be the Fallen Angels because the Sethite/Cainite/Royalty views are full of major plotholes that make their own positions invalid. For example- human plus human does not equal Nephilim (this means giant, not fallen one). If this view were true, human history up to and including our own day, would be full of giants. And the bible does distinguish between tall people, and Nephilim (giants).
2. The fact that the Fallen Angels (not the angels in heaven) could marry and procreate, does not mean they are creating life any more than we are "creating life" (ex nihilo- out of nothing) when we procreate. Jesus didn't say the angels couldn't procreate, He stated the angels in heaven do not marry. Again, this is exhaustively presented in the book.
3. The Sons of God (bene al elohim) (I might have misspelled that) is also proven throughout the Old Testament as applying to these spiritual beings. Even demons were called elohim (god(s)) (Deut. 32:17). The fact they were sons of God, as I understand it, means they were direct creations of God. This is why this term is applied to the born-again believer in the New Testament. We are direct creations of God by salvation. Adam was the only human that was a direct creation of God. The only other times in the OT were we see that phrase (sons of God) are in Job when speaking of the angels.
4. Why would the godly line of Seth, still be Godly, if they were marrying the ungodly lines of Cain? And where in the passage does it say "the daughters of Cain?" It says the daughters of men.
5. The 120 years was not a countdown to the flood. It was an inclusio (bracket or bookend) that God began curbing the lifespan of man; Adam was immortal until he sinned, his life span was then reduced down to under a thousand years. Wickedness filled the earth and God again, curbs mankind's lifespan down to 120 years. Moses wrote Genesis long before he himself died at the age of 120 (the other bookend). Moses wrote that the average would be 70-80 years, but the uttermost top age, would not exceed 120 years.
6. Dr. Westlake states that Noah was a Nephilim (a spiritual giant). Someone speaks from the background that we (Christians) are also Nephilim. I think that view is severely flawed given the other passages about Nephilim (Joshua and Caleb's report in Numbers 13:33) about the Nephilim in the land.
I'm sure I would agree with Dr. Westlake on other issues, but he's got some strange views on Genesis 6.