The daughters of Adam

[JLVaughn]

In Genesis 6, we see the daughters of men (Hebrew Adam) marrying the sons of God (or gods). I'd like to focus on who the men (Adam) are in this passage.

In Gen. 4:14, Cain was "driven from the face of the ground." This text is followed by Cain's descendants' adventures in the Land of Nod.

In Gen. 5:1, we see Adam's genealogy through Seth. This genealogy doesn't end until Noah dies at the end of Gen. 9. The flood account and the daughters of Adam / sons of God account are inserted in Adam's genealogy.

This would suggest that Cain's descendants are excluded from the context.

Further, Gen. 6 starts, "When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose."

That is, Cain is again excluded from the text, because he was "driven from the face of the ground."

This suggests that, in this case, Adam does not mean men in general, but specifically refers to Adam's descendants through Seth (and whatever other sons and daughters of Adam stayed with Seth).

Thoughts?

[kwrandolph]

In Genesis 6, we see the daughters of men (Hebrew Adam) marrying the sons of God (or gods). I'd like to focus on who the men (Adam) are in this passage.

In Gen. 4:14, Cain was "driven from the face of the ground." This text is followed by Cain's descendants' adventures in the Land of Nod.

This would suggest that Cain's descendants are excluded from the context.

Further, Gen. 6 starts, "When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose."

That is, Cain is again excluded from the text, because he was "driven from the face of the ground."

This suggests that, in this case, Adam does not mean men in general, but specifically refers to Adam's descendants through Seth (and whatever other sons and daughters of Adam stayed with Seth).

Thoughts?

One thought:

Just because Cain was driven from the face of the ground, Tanakh does not say that his descendants were so driven from the face of the ground. So one cannot rule out daughters of man being descendants of Cain, or any of his other brothers as Adam is mentioned in Genesis as having had more sons but they were not named.

Karl W. Randolph.

[JLVaughn]

Thank-you Karl.

Regardless, a common view of this passage is that the daughters of Adam are the daughters of Cain and the sons of God are the sons of Seth. It seems to me that the text disallows that hypothesis.

The daughters of Adam, being predominantly the daughters of Seth and those other sons and daughters of Adam that stayed with Seth, "on the face of the earth," the sons of God are necessarily either angels as another common view of the passage demands, or the sons of non-Adamic rulers in the area at that time. (Rulers in ancient times commonly ruled as gods, sons of gods, divine right, etc.)

I'm interested in pursuing this third option (sons of gods are non-Adamic rulers), which might suggest that the Hebrew words Adam and Iysh, both commonly translated man, might in fact have different meanings.

Thoughts?

[kwrandolph]

Regardless, a common view of this passage is that the daughters of Adam are the daughters of Cain and the sons of God are the sons of Seth. It seems to me that the text disallows that hypothesis.

First of all, it ignores the fact that other children were born to Adam and Eve other than the three named sons, both sons and daughters.

The daughters of Adam, being predominantly the daughters of Seth and those other sons and daughters of Adam that stayed with Seth, "on the face of the earth," the sons of God are necessarily either angels as another common view of the passage demands, or the sons of non-Adamic rulers in the area at that time. (Rulers in ancient times commonly ruled as gods, sons of gods, divine right, etc.)

I'm interested in pursuing this third option (sons of gods are non-Adamic rulers), which might suggest that the Hebrew words Adam and Iysh, both commonly translated man, might in fact have different meanings.

Thoughts?

If you follow Genesis, all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, there are no exceptions.

But the idea that the “sons of gods” refers to the ancient practice that kings insisted that they be worshipped as gods often while still alive, may be the answer to this puzzling passage. Further the “men of name” could refer to tyrants.

Incidentally, the Bible knows of no “divine right of kings”. I suspect that’s a European pre-Christian pagan concept that was enshrined by custom long after “Christianity” became the dominant religion of Europe. When I think of it now, it appears that it refers back to the common practice that kings were to be worshipped as gods, hence had divine rights.

When Noah wrote these words, he understood what they meant, but we today find them puzzling.

Karl W. Randolph.

[SteveMiller]

[quote="JLVaughn"]In Gen. 5:1, we see Adam's genealogy through Seth. This genealogy doesn't end until Noah dies at the end of Gen. 9. The flood account and the daughters of Adam / sons of God account are inserted in Adam's genealogy.

This would suggest that Cain's descendants are excluded from the context.[\quote]

That is a very strange way to read the Bible narrative. In a prophecy, which is given as a riddle not meant to be understood until after it happens, maybe. Even in a prophecy, you would need some solid evidence, which this is not.

[quote="JLVaughn"]Further, Gen. 6 starts, "When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose."

That is, Cain is again excluded from the text, because he was "driven from the face of the ground." [\quote]

That is an interesting observation. What does it mean when Cain said that? If he was driven from the face of the ground, then where would he be? I think Cain meant that he was driven from Adam's settlement. He may have also been exaggerating. There is no reason to exclude Cain's descendants from this. Cain's descendants are included in the wiping out by the flood.

The straightforward way to understand "daughters of Adam" is female human beings, Cain's, Seth's and Adam's other children's descendants. There would need to be a reason in the text to exclude this straightforward meaning to justify another meaning.

"sons of God" in the Old Testament time always refers to angels. Rulers are sometimes elohim, but never sons of elohim.

Gen 6 is straightforward. Some people just can't believe that God would allow such a thing to happen.

Regarding the difference between ish and adam: Adam is a human being. Ish is a male person and can refer to man, angels or God. Out of approx. 1500 uses in the Bible, there is only one verse where ish refers to animals, Gen 7:2,where it refers to the male and its wife. This may mean that the animal pairs that God chose to put on the ark were monogamous. Just a guess. The Samaritan Penteuch has male and female, זכר ונקבה instead of אִ֣ישׁ וְאִשְׁתּ֑וֹ in Gen 7:2.

[Ben Putnam]

John H. Walton in his NIV Application Commentary on Genesis gives what I believe to be a fair assessment of each of these options and proposes a different take on the text here. He offers the explanation that it is talking about an ancient Near Eastern practice of the "right of the first night," where rulers would claim and exercise a right to spend the first night with any woman who is being married, before the groom gets to do so. It was common in the ancient Near East for rulers to be referred to as divine progeny. According to Walton, "From Sumerian times (e.g., Eannatum, Gudea) through Old Babylnian (e.g., Hammurabi), into Middle Assyrian (e.g., Tukulti-Ninurta) and Neo-Assyrian (e.g., Ashurbanipal), it was part of the royal prerogative to claim divine heritage." He clarifies, "the Bible certainly gives no credibility to such claims, but such is the rhetoric of the ancient world." He gives an example from the Gilgamesh Epic as illustrative of this type of rhetoric and also points out several parallels between the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis 6:1–4. (See below.) He is quick to say that these similarities do not mean that Genesis is borrowing from or even referring to Gilgamesh but that there are similar cultural concerns shared by the two. Walton's analysis of the other interpretations of Genesis 6:1–4 and his explanation of how the idea of the "right of the first night" works out in the text are worth reading and considering, in my opinion.

Genesis................Gilgamesh

Sons of God...........Gilgamesh is portrayed as 2/3 god and
......................... 1/3 man (1.48) and "flesh of the gods" (9.49)

Took wives, ..........Gilgamesh practices the right of the first night:
whomever ............"He will couple with the wife-to-be, he first
they chose............of all, the bridegroom after (P 160)

He is mortal; ........The Annunaki (netherworld gods) fix the fates and
his days will ..........have established Death and Life (10.319–322)
be 120 years

Nephilim..............Gilgamesh's heroism (1.30); he is tall (eleven
giants..................cubits in the Hittite version, 1.8), magnificent,
(gibborim)............and terrible (1.37), with a six-cubit stride (1.57)

(Couldn't figure out how to make a table.)

[JLVaughn]

Karl,

The "face of the earth/land/ground" is used throughout the Hebrew Old Testament. It doesn't take long to determine that it almost always refers to what might be called a country and possibly its immediate neighbors. The only exceptions are those where the area in question is not obvious and we've been taught (wrongly?) that it means Planet Earth.

Your "no exceptions" requires that the writer(s) wrote like Western modern historians. John Walton seriously questions that assumption and I believe he is correct.

There are thousands of people running around in the later text of Genesis that aren't explicitly mentioned, yet are obvious once they are pointed out. For example: How many went to Egypt? Only Seventy? Or tens of thousands? Abram circumcised 318 fighting men born in his household. This suggests Abram had a household with thousands of servants, possibly tens of thousands. Their offspring were obviously included in the seventy that went to Egypt.

We see later in the Old Testament, the Cains, the Kenites, the descendants of Cain. And we are told that the Nephilim, the Giants, were on the earth, both before and after the flood. The various texts tell us they are the same Giants, that is, the later ones are the descendants of the earlier ones. (No, they weren't on the ark, nor did they stand in 15 cubits of water with their noses turned up to breathe. They survived the flood by being elsewhere, someplace other than "the face of the earth.")

Of course, there's the whole question who did Cain marry and who was Cain afraid of? His sister? His brothers? Okay then, who did they kill? Why were they driven "from the face of the earth" to Nod? And if it were Cain's brothers that wanted to kill him, why would they let him rule them as king of Enoch?

What's more, Ez. 28 tells us that the King of Tyre was guilty of violating his own covenant with God. Some ancestor of Tyrus was one of the guarding cherubs of Eden. This ancestor had a covenant, much like Nebuchadnezzar's covenant with God, to punish God's people (that is, Adam and any with him). This ancestor, and consequently Tyrus, was made rich with the spoils of Eden.

The writer(s) of Genesis never told us that all men were descended from Adam. They told us that the people important to the history they gave us were descended from Adam.

Jeff

[JLVaughn]

Steve,

What do you consider "solid evidence?" I provided two separate pieces of evidence from the context. What's required for the evidence to be "strong?"

Are "Cain's descendants are included in the wiping out by the flood?" Strong's Numbers 7014, 7017 indicate peoples descended from Cain after the Flood.

"sons of God" in the Old Testament time always refers to angels.

Outside of this passage and the book of Job, I'm not aware other "sons of God" in the Hebrew. All of the "sons of God" in the Greek New Testament are people, human beings. I'm told that some of those are "ben Elohim" or the equivalent in the Aramaic Peshitta.

Regarding the difference between ish and adam: Adam is a human being.

Adam is commonly assumed by the translators to refer to a human being. If the translators have mistakenly assumed that Genesis claims all men descended from Adam, rather than, the descendants of Adam are the men important to the history told here, they would have missed the distinction.

In Psalm 49, a distinction is made between Adam and Ish (or at least between this particular Adam and this particular Ish) and the translators have screwed up the translation of the Psalm by getting the distinction backwards. Jesus alludes to this Psalm in the parable of the Rich Man (the rich Adam of the Psalm) and Lazarus (the poor Ish).

Jeff

[JLVaughn]

Thanks Ben, I'll get that commentary.

A friend of mine has had great success taking Hebrew words that occur in Gen. 1-11, that are listed as

Root Word (Etymology)
Of uncertain derivation

and looking them up in a Sumerian lexicon.

kar: n., embankment; quay-wall; mooring-place; harbor; marketplace; port authority (place + water + to flow, send, take, drive away; cf., kur9, 'entrance')

rib: to be higher in rank; to go away

kar-rib: high ranking port authority (that is, a customs officer in ancient Sumer)

Jeff

[SteveMiller]

Steve,

What do you consider "solid evidence?" I provided two separate pieces of evidence from the context. What's required for the evidence to be "strong?"

I think solid evidence would be "sons of God" always refers to angels in the OT, so sons of God in Gen 6 should be the same.

You have 2 pieces of evidence that mean nothing. Here's how I see your 1st piece of "evidence":
Gen 5 gives the genealogy from Adam to Noah. You say this means that chapter 6 concerns only Shem's descendants. This makes as much sense as saying that Gen 6 concerns only Noah's descendants. Then you think this is confirmed because Gen 10 continues the genealogy from Noah. But we should expect that the genealogy of Noah should be continued in the text at some point.

If God wanted to say that only the children of Shem did this, He could have easily said it. Why should He obfuscate?

Are "Cain's descendants are included in the wiping out by the flood?" Strong's Numbers 7014, 7017 indicate peoples descended from Cain after the Flood.

Unless you have other evidence, this is just different people with the same name. For example there is a Lamech descendant of Cain and Lamech descendant of Shem. There are many of these cases. Amalek was a nation in Abraham's time. Esau had a grandson named Amalek. Are the Amalekites descendants Esau?

"sons of God" in the Old Testament time always refers to angels.

Outside of this passage and the book of Job, I'm not aware other "sons of God" in the Hebrew.

Yes, 3x in Job.

All of the "sons of God" in the Greek New Testament are people, human beings. I'm told that some of those are "ben Elohim" or the equivalent in the Aramaic Peshitta.

The New Testament is a different dispensation. Jesus' incarnation, death and resurrection made it possible for human beings to be born of God to be sons of God.

Regarding the difference between ish and adam: Adam is a human being.

Adam is commonly assumed by the translators to refer to a human being. If the translators have mistakenly assumed that Genesis claims all men descended from Adam, rather than, the descendants of Adam are the men important to the history told here, they would have missed the distinction.

In Psalm 49, a distinction is made between Adam and Ish (or at least between this particular Adam and this particular Ish) and the translators have screwed up the translation of the Psalm by getting the distinction backwards. Jesus alludes to this Psalm in the parable of the Rich Man (the rich Adam of the Psalm) and Lazarus (the poor Ish).

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

The translation of Ps 49:2 does seem questionable, but all seem to translate it that way. The meaning of Ps 49:2a may just be to include all men.
Generally, ish denotes higher status than adam. ish is used for angels and God also.
Here are some other examples that use both words in the same verse Job 11:12; Ps 62:9; Isa 2:9; 5:15; 31:8