206 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON 
from God. Hence the Christian—the regenerate man is called “a 
son of God.” There are physiological reasons against the old idea 
that they were angels whom our Lord says, “neither marry nor are 
given in marriage.” I am glad Dr. Irving has brought up this racial 
question also in the very valuable paper to which we have just 
listened. 
Lieut.-Colonel M. A. Atves.—Referring to a remark by one of 
the speakers as regards “the sons of God” and the “ Nephilim,” 
the former phrase seems to be confined to direct creations of God, 
as ¢.g., Satan (Job i, 6, and ii, 1), Adam (Luke iii, 38) and regener 
ated descendants of Adam (1 John iii, 1, 2); angels would be 
among such; and, if they marry, they do not keep their first 
estate. Jude 6 seems to be a reference to Gen. vi, 4, which, in my 
judgment, teaches that some fallen angels formed alliances with 
women, the result being the Nephilim, whose presence on the 
earth is associated with violence. Og and Goliath appear to have 
been of this stock; for “the Nephilim were on the earth in those 
days, and also after that. . . .” 
As regards the history of the creation in Gen. i, I think that 
verse | alludes to an ordered state, followed in verse 2 by a fall into 
ruin, the remainder of the chapter describing a restoration by a 
series of miracles in rapid succession. I think so for a three-fold 
reason :— 
I. Gen. i, 2, says ‘the Earth was (or became) Tohu. . . .” 
Now Isaiah says, “ He created it not Tohu. . . .’ 
II. The crust of the earth gives evidence of a long period in 
the making. 
III. Plant life appears on the third day, and sentient life not 
until the fifth. 
As all the higher plant life needs insects to fertilize it, the period 
between the third and fifth days must have been short, and we 
must therefore relegate the long geological period to the Ist verse 
and not to the third and following. 
I consider that Gen. ii, vv. 7 ff. is an expansion of Gen. i, 26-31, 
and not a different story. Man is God’s great work; and, after a 
general summary of all His work, it is only reasonable to suppose 
that Man’s creation should be dealt with in more detail than the 
rest of His creation. 
Dr. THrrRTLE.—Adverting to a remark by Mr. Tuckwell, I call 
