Deathisdefeated

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

In the previous article http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-problem-of-conte..., we established that the flood account was embedded in the Genesis 5 genealogy.  That genealogy ended with the last two verses of Genesis 9.


In Genesis 6, the embedded account starts with

1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.


Hebrew has two words that are typically translated as man, men, or mankind.  One is “Adam,” the name of the “first Adam.”  The other is “ish” and it’s various forms.  Both have been used by the author(s) by this point and both have been translated man or men.  In the passage above Adam is used exclusively.  Replacing men with Adam, the text reads.

1 Now it came to pass, when Adam began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of Adam, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

Why is this important?  Adam is used in the context of a genealogy of Adam.  This Adam is not all mankind.  It is limited by context to the Adam of the genealogy and his descendants mentioned in that genealogy.  This is a fairly subtle, but very important distinction.  The two sets of people, all mankind and the descendants of Adam, are defined differently.  They might very well be the same people, but that needs to be determined, not assumed as the translators have done.

Let’s look at Genesis 5:3-5 again.

3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.  After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.  So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

Does this include Cain?  If it doesn’t include Cain, then Cain (and his descendants) is also not in Adam in Genesis 6.

Genesis 6:1 tells us where Adam began to multiply.  This was “the face of the earth.”  The same Hebrew phrase is translated “the face of the ground” about as often as it is translated, “the face of the earth.”  Does it mean the surface of Planet Earth?  In most places, absolutely not.  Here?  It has been widely claimed that it means the surface of Planet Earth, but it has not been demonstrated.  (We have an extended discussion on this phrase in Chapter 8 of Beyond Creation Science, 3rd Edition, 2007.)

In Genesis 4:14, we find that Cain was “driven from the face of the ground.”  This is the same phrase as “face of the earth” in Genesis 6:1.  Genesis is telling us, where Cain was driven from, Adam remained and multiplied there.  Cain left this place called “the face of the earth” and went elsewhere.

As we continue in Genesis 4, we see that Cain built a city in the “land (another word commonly translated earth and ground) of Nod.”  Cain’s descendants and anyone else who settled in that land and city were not in the land called “the face of the earth.”

This is followed by Cain’s genealogy, which includes people who were the fathers of those who came after them.

Once this account is complete, the text goes back to discussing Adam and his descendants in the land called “the face of the earth.”  Cain was not there.  Cain was not included.  Cain was not in Adam in Genesis 6.  Neither were his descendants.

Since Cain was not in Adam, in Genesis 5-6, Adam here does not mean all mankind. Not all mankind was in Adam.

Views: 1014

Comment by Internet_Troll on February 13, 2015 at 2:11am

Who are the sons of God  who saw that daughters of Adam were beautiful?

Comment by Eohn Rhodes on February 13, 2015 at 4:39am

That is the same question that came to mind when I read this. Who are the sons of God who saw the daughters of the son of God; Adam? I thought it was proper to marry those in covenant. 

Comment by Doug on February 13, 2015 at 7:00am

The sons of God also came to God in heaven in the book of Job. This does NOT mean angelic beings.

But the question I ask is that if Cain was "disenfranchised" from Adam, we would now have THREE groups of people

1. The sons of God

2. Adam and those in him

3. Cain and mankind.

So making a distinction between Cain and Adam necessarily brings in the question about what to do with the "sons of God"

What do you think Jeff?

Comment by Eohn Rhodes on February 14, 2015 at 10:42am

Jeff, 

Does "sons of the Elohim" refer to a people group or groups other than the sons or daughters of Adam (children of Yahweh)?

Whether each people group was ruled by a pharaoh or an angel or a king or an actual deity called a watcher, I don't know. But those that were being ruled by Yahweh had a better  image, thus they produced attractive daughters. The male humans failed to protect the female humans from those who lived nearby in inferior community creations or the woman just wouldn't listen.

Genesis 6:2 and the sons of the Elohim see that the daughters of human are goodly; and they take all they want for wives. 

Genesis 6:6  And Yahweh sighs that he made human on the land and it twists in his heart:

Yahwey  1. the proper name of the one true God

elohym 1. (plural)  

  a. rulers, judges  
  b. divine ones  
  c. angels  
  d. gods

Comment by JL Vaughn on February 14, 2015 at 11:23am

Eohn,

In this series, I'm trying to focus on things that can be settled close to absolutely.

Have I demonstrated that "men" here refers to Adam of 5:3 and his descendants referred to in that genealogy that follows?

Have I demonstrated that "men" does not include Cain and his descendants?

If so, I've succeeded in my goal for this article.  Not all men (in Gen. 6) are in Adam.  Some are in Cain.  (I've purposefully left open the question whether there are any men who are neither in Adam nor in Cain).

This would suggest that the "daughters of Adam" were from the line of Seth and other sons and daughters.  That is, they are not the daughters of Cain as many suggest.

The "sons of God/gods" are also not the sons of Cain, nor are they the sons of Seth.  Two possibilities:  They are either human, but not descended from Adam or his son Cain (definition a of elohym) or they are not human (definitions b, c, or d of elohym). 

If a is correct, then there were a lot of people not in Adam, nor in Cain.  So many people, that the number of rulers/judges they had was comparable to the total number of people in Adam.  Since Moses set up judges over 50 and judges over 100, this would suggest that the number of men not in Adam who lived in this place called "the face of the earth/land/ground," number at least 50 times as many as were in Adam.  That's a pretty substantial population.

If b, c, or d is correct, that has different implications.

Comment by Eohn Rhodes on February 14, 2015 at 6:01pm

Jeff,

Yes you demonstrated that well. That alone would do away with the universalism of the new covenant. I'm still trying to figure out your last comment about Moses.

Comment by JL Vaughn on February 14, 2015 at 8:38pm

Eohn,

If definition a tells us the identity of the "sons of God/gods," then they are rulers/judges of non-Adamites.  Agreed?

If so, how many non-Adamites lived in "the face of the earth/ground/land?"

Comment by davo on February 14, 2015 at 9:35pm

Since Cain was not in Adam, in Genesis 5-6, Adam here does not mean all mankind. Not all mankind was in Adam.

I think Peter Enns makes a good case for “Adam” being “proto-Israel”. 

 

As I see it… “the sons of God” who “took wives for themselves” is Israel’s story where they intermixed/married with those “outside the camp”… something they were not supposed to have done; such sin had consequences in terms of dulling Israel’s light as Yahweh’s light bearers to those beyond “sitting in darkness” – the very position from which Adam/Israel had been called (created) out of. 

 

So no… “not all mankind was in Adam” BUT, Adam/Israel REPRESENTED all mankind.

Comment by Eohn Rhodes on February 14, 2015 at 9:40pm

Jeff,

Just because they saw and took wives from the family of Adam does not mean they lived in the same covenant land. The serpent did not necessarily live in the garden of Eden. He was maybe a son of an elohim not a son of Yahweh, if that is how this is explained. But even if they were moving in with each other there is no limit to non-adamites. Adam named all the other creations and did not find a suitable wife. Was he really considering birds and cattle or do these animal creations represent people groups prior to Adam? They were obviously not suitable for human marriage just prior to the flood either.

Belshazzar was not really Nebuchadnezzars son. He is called a son because he took on his rule. So Adam may be called God's son because he was given God's rule after being formed out of one of the populations; otherwise known as the dust of the land. 

Cain found a population to rule over. 

I still don't see why definition a demands 50 times as many non-adamite rulers as the number of adamites. I am feeling a little dense.

Comment by JL Vaughn on February 14, 2015 at 10:36pm

No Davo, Adam, in Genesis 6, did not represent all mankind.

Comment

You need to be a member of Deathisdefeated to add comments!

Join Deathisdefeated

Events

Forum

Adam as Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll Nov 5. 9 Replies

The parousia and judgment of nations

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Joseph Rehby Jul 6. 16 Replies

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by John Aug 8, 2016. 17 Replies

The 10 Tribes of Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 22, 2016. 9 Replies

Online Teaching Elders

Started by Eohn Rhodes in Eschatology. Last reply by Doug Dec 22, 2015. 4 Replies

Who is the abomination of desolation ?

Started by Stairway To Heaven in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Dec 11, 2015. 3 Replies

Divine council

Started by Sharon Q in Eschatology. Last reply by Sharon Q Oct 3, 2015. 5 Replies

Marriage and Divorce Motif Between God and Israel

Started by Andrew Reish in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Jul 5, 2015. 5 Replies

Millennium

Started by Mark Baker in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 4, 2015. 48 Replies

Fulfilled prophecies of Jesus

Started by joy sung in Eschatology Mar 22, 2015. 0 Replies

The End of the Old Covenat

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll Jan 21, 2015. 60 Replies

© 2017   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service