In Genesis 6:1-4, we read that the sons of God took wives from the daughters of men.  The offspring were called Nephilim and became mighty men of renown.  In the previous article, we searched the Scriptures to see what they say about the “sons of God” and found that this term almost always refers to believers: human beings who trust in God for salvation and have been adopted into His family (e.g., Deuteronomy 14:1; Galatians 3:23; Ephesians 1:5).  Thus, we infer that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 were believing men who married unbelieving women and whose children fell away from the faith.  However, some people have suggested that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 were fallen angels.  Let us examine this view.

There is an intriguing account in Genesis 6:1-4 of “sons of God” marrying “daughters of men” and having children called Nephilim who became “mighty men” of renown.  This event took place shortly before the global Flood.  Some English versions translate the word Nephilim as “giants.”  Who were these mighty men?  And who were the sons of God?  These four little verses have resulted in a lot of controversy.  And Christians continue to debate what they mean.  Can we discover the identity of the sons of God and the Nephilim?

The term “gospel” means “good news.”  However, the good news can only be properly understood in light of the bad news.  The bad news is found in the history recorded in the book of Genesis – a history that many people now reject because they have been taught that neo-Darwinian evolution is the way life came about, contrary to the Genesis record.  We will see that such a belief is not compatible with the good news of Christ.  Thus, Christians must be prepared to expose the absurdity of particle-to-people evolution so that people can embrace true history and make sense of the Gospel.

In this final article of the series, we will examine some of the logical fallacies in Phillip Dennis’s latest attempt to refute the conventionality thesis of the physics of Einstein.

In this article, we continue to expose the errors in Phillip Dennis’s attempt to overthrow the conventionality thesis of the physics of Einstein.  We have already refuted Dennis’s antibiblical philosophy of presentism and shown it to be incompatible with relativistic physics and the Bible.  Here we refute several more of Dennis’s errors in physics, but we begin with something that Dennis actually got right.

In this article we expose and refute some of Phillip Dennis’s mistakes in physics in his latest attempt to overthrow the conventionality thesis of relativity.  Recall that the conventionality thesis is the position that the one-way speed of light is not a property of nature, but a stipulated convention by which a given observer judges whether two clocks separated by some distance are synchronized.  I showed in my first refutation of Dennis that he had arbitrarily assumed the ESC convention in his attempt to establish the ESC convention over ASC (Lisle 2024).  But this is the fallacy of begging the question.  I also showed in this same paper that the conventionality thesis follows logically from the relativity of simultaneity (Lisle 2024).