The daughters of Adam

[JLVaughn]

Steve,

You appear to have missed my point about the genealogies. They define the context. One genealogy defines the context as Cain's descendants. The other defines the context as Adam's other descendants. Cain's descendants were already discussed. We are done with them for now. So let's discuss Adam's other descendants. Adam's other descendants, those who remained in the land (on the face of the earth), committed evil with the "sons of gods." Because of this evil, God chose to judge them with a flood that destroyed that land (the face of the earth).


Sons of X and X are used interchangeably throughout Scripture to refer to the same people. Elohim are sometimes rulers. In the New Testament, the sons of God are human rulers, God's people.

In the Old Testament, you and I only know of two places that use the phrase "sons of God (or gods)." We don't even know which of these is the proper rendering.

In one case, these "sons of gods" are having offspring, a very human enterprise. What evidence do we have that angels were capable of having sex and producing offspring? Do you really believe that they were like God and could create men in their own image?

In the other, the "sons of gods" presented themselves before God and were later claimed to have shouted for joy. Starting with Adam in Genesis, I see time and again, men presenting themselves before God. I don't remember seeing angels doing that. What evidence do you have that these "sons of gods" in Job are angels? There is no evidence in the text.

I thought you were telling us that your so-called non-adamic men were the rich and powerful in Gen 6.

Do you really think that all non-adamic men would be kings? Don't kings usually have subjects?

Yes, all seem to translate Ps. 49:2 as "Both low (sons of Adam) and high (sons of Iysh), rich and poor together," as a chiasm. The sons of Adam are low and the sons of Iysh are high. But that's not what the Psalm says? The sons of Adam are the high rich ones. The sons of Iysh are the low and poor.

As for other verses, Numbers 23:19, "God is not a Iysh, that He should lie, Nor a son of Adam, that He should repent." Men in general lie. But only men in covenant with God would be expected to repent. The sons of Adam are God's own people.

Job 11:12, "For vain Iysh would be wise, though Adam be born like a wild ass's colt." You can't prove your claim by this verse. All I see here is Zophar calling Job vain, witless, or empty.

Ps 62:9, "Surely the sons of Adam are but a breath, the sons of Iysh are but a lie. If weighed on a balance, they are nothing; together they are only a breath." The translators have assumed Iysh means higher status, like they did in Ps. 49, but there's no evidence of it being true here. If there is a difference between Adam and Iysh, the Psalm is addressed to Adam who is accused of murdering Iysh.

Isa 2:9, 11, 17 "So Adam is humbled, and Iysh are brought low--forgive them not! ... The haughty looks of Adam shall be brought low, and the pride of Iysh shall be humbled; and the LORD alone will be exalted in that day. ... And the haughtiness of Adam shall be humbled, and the pride of Iysh shall be brought low; and the LORD alone will be exalted in that day." I certainly don't see a difference of rank here, though some translations seem to believe one exists.

Isa 5:15, "Adam is bowed down, and Iysh are brought low, and the eyes of the haughty are humbled."

Isa 31:7-8, "For in that day Iysh shall cast away his idols of silver and his idols of gold, which your hands have sinfully made for you.And the Assyrian shall fall by a sword, not of Iysh; and a sword, not of Adam, shall devour him; and he shall flee from the sword, and his young men shall be put to forced labor." The Assyrian won't fall from Iysh's sword, nor Adam's sword.

No, I don't see any evidence that Iysh denotes higher status except in the minds of some translators. It's not there in the text. Just the opposite in Ps. 49. In these other passages you listed, they are either different people with equivalent status or the same people, with different names for linguistic effect.

Blessings,
Jeff

[SteveMiller]

Sons of X and X are used interchangeably throughout Scripture to refer to the same people. Elohim are sometimes rulers.

Elohim are in rare instances human rulers, only when God or angels cannot fit the context. We never have sons of Elohim as rulers. I don't know why you think the sons of human rulers and daughters of Adam would produce giants.

In the New Testament, the sons of God are human rulers, God's people.

Sons of God in the NT are not human rulers. God's people are not human rulers. The overcomers among God's people are to be rulers in the next age.

In the Old Testament, you and I only know of two places that use the phrase "sons of God (or gods)."

There are 4.

In one case, these "sons of gods" are having offspring, a very human enterprise. What evidence do we have that angels were capable of having sex and producing offspring? Do you really believe that they were like God and could create men in their own image?

No one ever said that the angels created men. The Bible doesn't tell us much about the nature of angels. We don't know how they were created. It just says what they did here in Gen 6, and also in 2Peter and Jude.

In the other, the "sons of gods" presented themselves before God and were later claimed to have shouted for joy. Starting with Adam in Genesis, I see time and again, men presenting themselves before God. I don't remember seeing angels doing that. What evidence do you have that these "sons of gods" in Job are angels? There is no evidence in the text.

The sons of God shouted for joy when God laid the foundations of the earth. That was before man was created. Who could that be?
The sons of God presenting themselves before God is not like any group of men presenting themselves before God. It was on an appointed day. God talked to them face to face. Satan was one of them, and satan was previously an archangel.

I thought you were telling us that your so-called non-adamic men were the rich and powerful in Gen 6.

Do you really think that all non-adamic men would be kings? Don't kings usually have subjects?

I was just quoting what you said. I don't think there is any such thing as non-adamic human beings. It is not in the Bible. For something like this which has such a major impact on your world view, wouldn't it have been a good idea for God to have mentioned something about it in plain words?
God *created* Adam on the 6th day. The word *create* is something only God can do. It means to make something that has never existed before.

No, I don't see any evidence that Iysh denotes higher status except in the minds of some translators. It's not there in the text. Just the opposite in Ps. 49. In these other passages you listed, they are either different people with equivalent status or the same people, with different names for linguistic effect.

You are right. I don't see any evidence in those verses for the higher status of ish either. The only evidence that I can think of is that ish is also used for angels and God. I also don't see any evidence for your claim that adam is higher than ish.

[JLVaughn]

Steve,

Elohim are in rare instances human rulers, only when God or angels cannot fit the context. We never have sons of Elohim as rulers. I don't know why you think the sons of human rulers and daughters of Adam would produce giants.

When Adam began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them,
the sons of God saw that the daughters of Adam were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose.
Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in Adam for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of Adam, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

Where does the text say they produced giants? "The giants were on the earth in those days, and also after." Before the Flood and after the Flood, giants were on the earth. The text says nothing about where they came from.

"[T]he sons of God came in to the daughters of Adam, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown." The children were "the mighty men of old." It doesn't say they were giants. The giants are a different "race" of people.

Sons of God in the NT are not human rulers. God's people are not human rulers. The overcomers among God's people are to be rulers in the next age.

And he said to him, 'Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.'

Whatever.

There are 4.

Gen. 6 and the book of Job. Where else?

No one ever said that the angels created men. The Bible doesn't tell us much about the nature of angels. We don't know how they were created. It just says what they did here in Gen 6, and also in 2Peter and Jude.

For if God did not spare the messengers when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment;

And the messengers that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day;

Besides tradition, is there any clear indication that these are heavenly beings?

The sons of God shouted for joy when God laid the foundations of the earth. That was before man was created. Who could that be?

That was before Adam was created. Have you read John Walton's book, The Lost World of Genesis One? He makes a case for a "functional creation." Things don't exist until they have been assigned a purpose.

The word *create* is something only God can do. It means to make something that has never existed before.

Funny, my concordance says the word "create" is used 54 times and is the verb root of "covenant." "In the beginning, God cut the heavens and the earth." "In the beginning, God fattened the heavens and the earth." "In the beginning, God covenanted the heavens and the earth." All of these are reasonable, literal translations of Gen. 1:1. And they all suggest different things about the passage.

You are right. I don't see any evidence in those verses for the higher status of ish either. The only evidence that I can think of is that ish is also used for angels and God. I also don't see any evidence for your claim that adam is higher than ish.

Since I only made that claim concerning Ps. 49, it shouldn't take you very long to go through that Psalm.

Vs. 7, "Truly no Iysh can ransom himself, or give to God the price of his life,"

Vs. 12, "Adam cannot abide in his pomp, he is like the beasts that perish." And again in vs. 20. The low, poor man wouldn't have any "pomp" to "abide in."

Vs. 16, "Be not afraid when Iysh becomes rich, when the glory of his house increases."

Maybe you'll disagree once you read the Psalm carefully. Fine. But please don't put words in my mouth suggesting that I said those other verses showed a higher status for Adam.

I know the traditional view. It doesn't hold up against Scripture as well as you imagine. I asked about an alternate view. Okay, you aren't interested. Not a problem. You want to defend the traditional view. Also fine. But please, when you seek to defend a view, please try to look at your defense from some other viewpoint other than assuming tradition is correct. There are a lot of traditions. They all can't be correct, and likely, in this case, none of them are.

Does that mean what I'm suggesting is correct? No. But we won't know unless we test it against Scripture, not against tradition. Paul chastised the Thessalonians because they tested what he said against tradition. He praised the Bereans because they tested what Paul said against Scripture. Test everything against Scripture, including tradition.

Blessings,
Jeff

[SteveMiller]

Funny, my concordance says the word "create" is used 54 times and is the verb root of "covenant." "In the beginning, God cut the heavens and the earth." "In the beginning, God fattened the heavens and the earth." "In the beginning, God covenanted the heavens and the earth." All of these are reasonable, literal translations of Gen. 1:1. And they all suggest different things about the passage.

Jeff,
You're confusing a lot of things and passing on someone's opinion as fact.
Create is not the root of covenant. If your concordance says that, that is the author's opinion based on (?).
Here is what HALOT says on covenant:
The etymology of the word is uncertain. It may be related to the Akkadian word burru which means "to establish a legal situation by testimony with an oath" (CAD baru, p. 125); but some (O. Loretz, VT 16: 239-41) tie it to the Akkadian word birtu "a fetter" which is a derivative of the word meaning "between." L. Kohler claims the word was related to the root brµ which has to do with the food and eating involved in the covenant meal (JSS 1: 4-7). The root is nowhere used as a verb in the OT nor is any other derivative of this root used, but the action involving covenant making employs the idiom "to cut a covenant" (Gen 15:18 ; etc.), that is making a bloody sacrifice as part of the covenant ritual, Kohler then would have the animal eaten in the covenant meal.

HALOT is not fact either, but even if create was the root of covenant, does not mean that you can substitute covenant for create. They are different words, and the root of a word and a derivative often have very different meanings.

"cut" is the meaning of the piel form of the verb create. "fattened" is the hiphil form of the verb. The form we have in Gen 1-2 is qal. In order to give an alternate translation of Hebrew verbs, you usually need to separate the Qal, Hiphil and Piel because they can have different meanings. As HALOT says below, the piel form may actually be a totally different word. HALOT considers the Hiphil meaning of "make fat" as a different word. It is only used in 1Sam 2:29.

Here is most of the HALOT entry on bara create:
The root b¹r¹° has the basic meaning "to create." It differs from y¹ƒar "to fashion" in that the latter primarily emphasizes the shaping of an object while b¹r¹° emphasizes the initiation of the object.

The question of the meaning of the root b¹r¹° is complicated by its connotation in the Piel of "cut down" (Josh 17:15, 18; Ezek 23:47). This meaning may also obtain in the use of the word in Ezek 21:19 [H 24] where it need not connote carving a signpost, but simply the act of cutting down a branch or sapling as a marker). If this meaning attests to the concrete form of the Qal, the word may have meant "to form," "to fashion" in the sense of carving or cutting out. But it is possible that the Piel form may represent an entirely different root. KB (2d ed.) posits a second root used in the Piel meaning "to cut down." THOT (in loc.) follows KB (3d ed.) that there is one root with the basic meaning "separate," "divide." This would explain the usages of the Piel, but, as is often the case, is not decisive for the nuance of the meaning "create" in the Qal. And, since the word is used in such a distinctive sense in the Qal it is best to consider the meaning of the root solely on the basis of usage.

The word is used in the Qal only of God's activity and is thus a purely theological term. This distinctive use of the word is especially appropriate to the concept of creation by divine flat.

The root b¹r¹° denotes the concept of "initiating something new" in a number of passages. In Isa 41:20 it is used of the changes that will take place in the Restoration when God effects that which is new and different. It is used of the creation of new things (µ¦d¹shôt) in Isa 48:6-7 and the creation of the new heavens and the new earth (Isa 65:17). Marvels never seen before are described by this word (Exo 34:10), and Jeremiah uses the term of a fundamental change that will take place in the natural order (Jer 31:22). The Psalmist prayed that God would create in him a clean heart (Psa 51:10 [H 12]) and coupled this with the petition that God would put a new spirit within him (See also Num 16:30; Isa 4:5; Isa 65:18).

The word also possesses the meaning of "bringing into existence" in several passages (Isa 43:1; Ezek 21:30 [H 35]; Ezek 28:13 , 15).

It is not surprising that this word with its distinctive emphases is used most frequently to describe the creation of the universe and the natural phenomena ( Gen 1:1, 21, 27; Gen 2:3 etc.). The usages of the term in this sense present a clearly defined theology. The magnitude of God's power is exemplified in creation. This has implications for the weak (Isa 40:26; cf. Isa 40:27-31 ) and for the unfolding of God's purposes in history (Isa 42:5; Isa 45:12). Creation displays the majesty (Amos 4:13), orderliness (Isa 45:18), and sovereignty (Psa 89:12 [H 13]) of God. Anthropologically, the common creation of man forms a plea for unity in Mal 2:10. And man is seen as created for vanity in Psa 89:47 [H 48].

On the rest of your theory we'll just agree to disagree.

[SteveMiller]

Replace HALOT in my previous post with TWOT. The BibleWorks lexicon display confused me.

[kwrandolph]

Funny, my concordance says the word "create" is used 54 times and is the verb root of "covenant." "In the beginning, God cut the heavens and the earth." "In the beginning, God fattened the heavens and the earth." "In the beginning, God covenanted the heavens and the earth." All of these are reasonable, literal translations of Gen. 1:1. And they all suggest different things about the passage.

Jeff,
You're confusing a lot of things and passing on someone's opinion as fact.

I understand part of his confusion, and that is poorly written dictionaries.

Back when I was young, the “scholarly” dictionary was BDB and the easier one a translation of Gesenius. The one to avoid was Davidson analytical. Therefore I used Davidson analytical until it fell apart, from which I learn how to recognize roots, and also to question attributed roots. Equally important, if not more so, was getting a copy of Lisowski concordance and using that to try to understand poorly written glosses in the other dictionaries.

Here is what HALOT says on covenant:
The etymology of the word is uncertain. It may be related to the Akkadian word burru which means "to establish a legal situation by testimony with an oath" (CAD baru, p. 125); but some (O. Loretz, VT 16: 239-41) tie it to the Akkadian word birtu "a fetter" which is a derivative of the word meaning "between." L. Kohler claims the word was related to the root brµ which has to do with the food and eating involved in the covenant meal (JSS 1: 4-7). The root is nowhere used as a verb in the OT nor is any other derivative of this root used, but the action involving covenant making employs the idiom "to cut a covenant" (Gen 15:18 ; etc.), that is making a bloody sacrifice as part of the covenant ritual, Kohler then would have the animal eaten in the covenant meal.

So the root is ברה to be fed? It fits the derivation practices.

HALOT is not fact either, but even if create was the root of covenant, does not mean that you can substitute covenant for create. They are different words, and the root of a word and a derivative often have very different meanings.

It’s worse than that. I don’t know how many times I looked at a word in the dictionary and asked, “How is this word derived from that root?” Too often it makes no sense.

Too many words in Tanakh don’t have a Hebrew root extant in Tanakh. Some are known loan words, how many are also loan words but are not so recognized today? For how many words have the roots been lost? But let’s not go to the other extreme like James Barr and deny the validity of recognizing the connectedness of roots and derivatives.

"cut" is the meaning of the piel form of the verb create. "fattened" is the hiphil form of the verb. The form we have in Gen 1-2 is qal. In order to give an alternate translation of Hebrew verbs, you usually need to separate the Qal, Hiphil and Piel because they can have different meanings. As HALOT says below, the piel form may actually be a totally different word. HALOT considers the Hiphil meaning of "make fat" as a different word. It is only used in 1Sam 2:29.

Here is most of the HALOT entry on bara create:
The root b¹r¹° has the basic meaning "to create." It differs from y¹ƒar "to fashion" in that the latter primarily emphasizes the shaping of an object while b¹r¹° emphasizes the initiation of the object.

Initiation? Always?

The question of the meaning of the root b¹r¹° is complicated by its connotation in the Piel of "cut down" (Josh 17:15, 18; Ezek 23:47). This meaning may also obtain in the use of the word in Ezek 21:19 [H 24] where it need not connote carving a signpost, but simply the act of cutting down a branch or sapling as a marker). If this meaning attests to the concrete form of the Qal, the word may have meant "to form," "to fashion" in the sense of carving or cutting out. But it is possible that the Piel form may represent an entirely different root. KB (2d ed.) posits a second root used in the Piel meaning "to cut down." THOT (in loc.) follows KB (3d ed.) that there is one root with the basic meaning "separate," "divide." This would explain the usages of the Piel, but, as is often the case, is not decisive for the nuance of the meaning "create" in the Qal. And, since the word is used in such a distinctive sense in the Qal it is best to consider the meaning of the root solely on the basis of usage.

That point has got to be emphasized — to consider the meaning of a word on the basis of usage. At the same time, especially when a word is seldom used, looking at roots and other words derived from the same root can sometimes help understand a word. But be careful.

The word is used in the Qal only of God's activity and is thus a purely theological term. This distinctive use of the word is especially appropriate to the concept of creation by divine flat.

The root b¹r¹° denotes the concept of "initiating something new" in a number of passages. In Isa 41:20 it is used of the changes that will take place in the Restoration when God effects that which is new and different. It is used of the creation of new things (µ¦d¹shôt) in Isa 48:6-7 and the creation of the new heavens and the new earth (Isa 65:17). Marvels never seen before are described by this word (Exo 34:10), and Jeremiah uses the term of a fundamental change that will take place in the natural order (Jer 31:22). The Psalmist prayed that God would create in him a clean heart (Psa 51:10 [H 12]) and coupled this with the petition that God would put a new spirit within him (See also Num 16:30; Isa 4:5; Isa 65:18).

The word also possesses the meaning of "bringing into existence" in several passages (Isa 43:1; Ezek 21:30 [H 35]; Ezek 28:13 , 15).

It is not surprising that this word with its distinctive emphases is used most frequently to describe the creation of the universe and the natural phenomena ( Gen 1:1, 21, 27; Gen 2:3 etc.). The usages of the term in this sense present a clearly defined theology. The magnitude of God's power is exemplified in creation. This has implications for the weak (Isa 40:26; cf. Isa 40:27-31 ) and for the unfolding of God's purposes in history (Isa 42:5; Isa 45:12). Creation displays the majesty (Amos 4:13), orderliness (Isa 45:18), and sovereignty (Psa 89:12 [H 13]) of God. Anthropologically, the common creation of man forms a plea for unity in Mal 2:10. And man is seen as created for vanity in Psa 89:47 [H 48].

I saw your correction that this was from TWOT. (By the way, you can edit messages after you post them if you have made a mistake.)

First, we don’t know what were the original binynim of the verbs, often an individual verb in the unpointed text could be one of more than one possible binyan. The points reflect a medieval understanding, not necessarily the original intent of the authors.

Thanks for posting those claims from TWOT. A couple of the claims caused me to scratch my head and say “Really?” so I went and looked them up. Just because something is posted in HALOT or TWOT doesn’t mean that it’s correct. But it might be, so it’s worth verifying, or falsifying, whichever the case might be.

One claim that ברא is always done by God is false — Ezekiel 21:24 Ezekiel created a pointer on the road.

Are there three different roots? Lisowski agrees with TWOT, but I’m not sure. The three verses that are listed as showing the meaning “to cut down”, Joshua 17:15, 18, Ezekiel 23:47 don’t necessarily have the understanding of cutting down. Right now I’m not saying that that meaning doesn’t fit, buuut … I see no necessary evidence for it.

It’s possible that “create” may be a derived, not primary, meaning of ברא even though it seems to be the most often used meaning in Tanakh.

Thanks again for posting those thoughts.

Karl W. Randolph.

[seekinganswers]

Jeff,

A point that hasn't been focused on, up to this point, is the meaning of "face of the ground."

You, correctly in my opinion, bring up an interesting factor in that Cain was driven from the "face of the ground." The "face of the ground" was destroyed in the flood. So what people were destroyed on "the face of the ground" in Genesis 6? Cain and/or his descendants wouldn't have been present.

The text clearly indicates that Cain was somewhere else. And it is not sound exegesis, in my opinion, to say that Cain's descendants or relatives "might" have been present, although Cain was driven from the face of the ground. Heads of household had an impact on the entire family unit. In other words, if Cain was cursed then his whole family was cursed. If Cain was driven to another land, then his family was driven to another land as well.

Dustin...

[George Athas]

The sons of Adam are simply 'human women'. They are not specifically descended through Seth. They are any women in the human race. The sons of Elohim are divine beings. Call them gods, angels, whatever. They're in the narrative portion of Job, presenting themselves before Yahweh in the heavenly court. In both cases, the use of בני and בנות indicate members of a group/class/species that is specified by the absolute noun (אדם and אלהים). In Genesis, we see a story of boundaries being crossed illegitimately, and two separate classes of beings coupling to produce a new hybrid (and therefore unwanted and unholy) group. Just as humans and animals are not to mate, so gods and humans are not to mate.

[kwrandolph]

A point that hasn't been focused on, up to this point, is the meaning of "face of the ground."

The context should make it clear. Cain was a farmer. His curse was that he could no longer be a farmer, rather he would be a wanderer “in the land.” There’s no indication that his children were also wanderers.

You, correctly in my opinion, bring up an interesting factor in that Cain was driven from the "face of the ground." The "face of the ground" was destroyed in the flood. So what people were destroyed on "the face of the ground" in Genesis 6? Cain and/or his descendants wouldn't have been present.

The text clearly indicates that Cain was somewhere else. And it is not sound exegesis, in my opinion, to say that Cain's descendants or relatives "might" have been present, although Cain was driven from the face of the ground. Heads of household had an impact on the entire family unit. In other words, if Cain was cursed then his whole family was cursed. If Cain was driven to another land, then his family was driven to another land as well.

Are you suggesting that Cain and his descendants climbed into rocket ships and went to different planets? If not, then there’s no question that Cain’s descendants were present at the Flood. And were wiped out. The flood covered the whole earth and everyone not in the ship died. When Noah and his sons climbed out, they were alone on the earth.

Cain was cursed, but that doesn’t mean that his whole family was cursed. God doesn’t act that way. Instead God says that fathers shall not die for the sins of their children, nor children for the sins of their fathers.

According to the record, even in the antediluvian era, family was traced from father to son, so it’s possible that intermarriage with the daughters happened and wasn’t counted.

Karl W. Randolph.

[JLVaughn]

Karl,

In no way am I suggesting rocket ships.

Planet Earth is a concept Johannes Kepler invented at the time the King James translators were working.

"The face of the earth" does not mean Planet Earth as you have assumed. It is used to designate a large region, a country and possibly its immediate neighbors. I certainly can't imagine people traveling thousands of miles to Egypt to buy grain during the famine that covered "the face of the earth." Can you?

Outside of the flood account, everybody agrees that "the face of the earth" refers to a limited region, not Planet Earth. There's no good reason to mske an exception there.

Blessings,
Jeff