Our Lord linked these two periods of history, and said that one is the parallel of the other. The nearness of His coming makes it crucially important that we understand what occurred in the days of Noah.
ON THIS PAGE
Emphasis Mine In Bible Verses
Part I. Defining The Terms
The Daughters of Men”
The “Sons of God"
Noblemen, Aristocrats or Kings
Seth's Descendants
Angelic Beings
(Includes Were The Fallen Angels Demonic Beings? 'Strange' Flesh, Additional Points to Consider,
And Objections to The Fallen Angel Scenario)
One Very Disturbing Reality
 Part II. "Blameless" Noah / 120 Years Until?
Was There a Reason Noah Was Considered Blameless?
Next Page
Part III. The Nephilim
Part - IV. What All This Could Very Well Mean For The Future
Introduction
In warning of the suddenness of His second coming and the need to stay alert and watchful the Lord Jesus said this
""For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. (Matthew 24:37-39 NASB) (Also Luke 17:26-27)
In other words just as it was prior to the flood, in the end times it would be business as usual with literally no one expecting the catastrophe that was about to descend on the planet.
The Bible tells us that in Noah's time man was completely corrupt - his "wickedness was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5). However, neither eating, drinking and marrying nor widespread evil were not unique to that period of time but pretty much the story of man through his history. This raises the question of whether there was something else about the pre-flood conditions that Christ was telling us would be duplicated in the days before His return. What caused Him to specifically linked these two epochs together? The relevant verses in Genesis say this...
(1) Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, (2) that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. (3) Then the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." (4) The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (5) Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (6) The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. (7) The Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." (8) But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. (Genesis 6:1-8 NASB)
An understanding of these verses is not one of the critical issues that affect salvation. However, accurate information is exceedingly important to prepare us for what is to come in the not too distant future. Thus it is imperative that we understand who these sons of God were and what behavior they will replicate. It will not serve us well to gloss over these verses nor blindly accept the commonly proffered 'sanitized' version.
An accurate interpretation of Genesis 6:1-6 hinges upon the definition of three key terms, the sons of God, the daughters of men, and the Nephilim. However, this has to be done honestly... letting the text tell us what it means instead of attempting to force it into saying what we consider palatable or even possible.
Part I - Who Were "The Sons of God" And The Daughters of Men
"Daughters of Men".
The phrase "daughters of men" was translated from the Hebrew Benoth Adam, or daughters of Adam.
If the Bible had said "daughters of Cain", we would have quite correct in assuming the phrase referred to women directly descended from Cain. However Daughters of Adam indicates all Adam's natural female descendants. The terms are quite simply not interchangeable.
Reading "daughters of Cain" into a verse that clearly says "daughters of Adam" is an attempt to force the text to fit our hypothesis
"The Sons of God"
In the verses below, "Sons of God" was translated from the Hebrew B'nai HaElohim (Sons of Elohim). In the Old Testament Elohim (god) most often referred to the one God of the Israelites.
There are three possible answers as to who they were
1. The least likely theory is that they were noblemen or aristocrats of the land who intermarried with women who were not highborn.
2. The second theory advanced by many conservative scholars is that they sons of God were the descendants of Adam and Eve's third son Seth who married unbelieving ungodly women.
3. The third - the view of both the translators of the Septuagint and the early church - is these sons of God were fallen angels who through cohabitation with human women produced hybrid offspring called the "Nephilim.
As all three viewpoints cannot be true we need to examine the pros and cons of each one.
1.) Noblemen, Aristocrats or Kings
In the ancient Near East it was common practice for the pagan ruler to be called the son of one of their deities. For example Egyptian pharaohs like Tutankhamun were called the son of the god Ra. However, besides Adam no one in the Old Testament was ever called "son of God" simply because the term has a very precise definition. More about that below.
Although, on at least one occasion the judges of Israel were referred to as gods, when read in context the term "gods" was used as irony. The judges in Psalm 82 were being condemned for showing partiality to the wicked instead of delivering the weak and needy out of their hands. The statement, "Nevertheless, you will die as men" indicates that far from being gods, they were condemned to death.
I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High." Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes." (Psalm 82:6-7)
2.) Seth's Descendants
Possibly because Seth was born to Adam and Eve in place of Abel, who was killed by Cain (Genesis 4:25) it is often believed that Seth's descendants remained holy and faithful. But, following in their father's footsteps, Cain's descendants were ungodly and rebellious. Thus the term sons of God refer to the Seth's male descendants and the daughters of men Cain's female descendants. The resulting marriages blurred an inferred separation between them.
However, this theory is based on a series of assumptions that have absolutely no Scriptural support. Although Cain was a murderer there is no evidence, stated or implied that all Cain's descendants were ungodly or that all Seth's descendants were godly.
Were All Cain's Descendants Ungodly?
In ancient Israel, names were very important and were generally descriptive of their nature, position, etc. which meant the meaning behind a person's name often disclosed key information about him or her.
Some of Cain's descendants had names that implied the bearer both recognized and revered God. For example, Cain's son Methushael's name meant man of God and Mechujael - his great grandson's name meant smitten of God.
Additionally, about five generations down from Cain, Lamech had three sons who were the inventors of many things that both benefit and greatly enrich life. Jabal - father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock, Jubal- father of all those who play the lyre and pipe, and Tubal-Cain - forger of all implements of bronze and iron (metal working).
It has been said that these were "material pursuits" because the Cainites had a "worldly character" and paid more attention to the practical side of life than the Sethites. I wonder what would be said about the "worldly pursuits" of the modern day Christian.. baseball, concerts, and manufacturing anyone? In reality, some of Lamech's family seemed remarkably inventive and talented.
It is true that Lamech admitted to his wives that he had killed a man which many have taken as a proud boast which is reading into the text details that are neither explicitly stated, nor even implied. The text reads as if Lamech slew the man in self defense. It could just as well be that Lamech was seeking to reassure his wives that he had done no wrong, comforting them with the thought that if Cain who had murdered Abel would be avenged sevenfold, he who had killed in self-defense would be avenged seventy and seven-fold. (Genesis 4:17-24)
Were All Seth's Descendants Righteous?
Certainly among Seth's descendants were righteous men who found favor with God. For example, both Enoch and Noah were direct descendants of Seth - Enoch being Noah's great grandfather. However, much of the argument in favor of Seth's righteous line stems from the last verse of Genesis 4.
To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the Lord. (Genesis 4:26 NASB)
The verse above seems straightforward enough but, on reflection, poses more than one problem. To begin with, the usual understanding of this verse does not make sense. If it was only in the time of Enosh that men began to call on God and worship Him, who did Adam and the righteous Abel call upon? Who did Seth himself call upon and worship? In fact, the Bible tells us that Eve praised the Lord after Abel's birth.. "I have gotten a man child with the help of the Lord." (Genesis 4:1)
Additionally, the text does not say that the line of Seth began to call upon the name of the Lord. It says that in Enosh's time, men began to call upon the name of the Lord, with absolutely no indication of who was being referred to. We have assumed it means Seth's descendants.
There is however, another possibility - one that paints exactly the opposite picture - that the time of Enosh was the beginning of idolatry
The Hebrew Word Châlal
Lets look at Genesis 4:26 again
To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began (Heb. châlal) to call upon the name of the Lord. (NASB)
The English word 'began' was translated from the Hebrew chalal that, according to both Brown-Driver-Briggs and Strong's Hebrew and English Lexicons, means "to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate" etc. There is no question that the word can also mean "to begin (as if by an opening-wedge)". However, of the roughly 130-140 instances of châlal in the Old Testament it has, more often than not, been rendered, profaned, polluted, defiled etc.
If you make an altar of stone for Me, you shall not build it of cut stones, for if you wield your tool on it, you will profane (Heb. châlal) it. (Exodus 20:25 NASB)
Also men of Tyre were living there who imported fish and all kinds of merchandise, and sold them to the sons of Judah on the sabbath, even in Jerusalem. Then I reprimanded the nobles of Judah and said to them, "What is this evil thing you are doing, by profaning (Heb. châlal) the sabbath day? (Nehemiah 13:16-17 NASB)
I will first doubly repay their iniquity and their sin, because they have polluted (Heb. châlal) My land; they have filled My inheritance with the carcasses of their detestable idols and with their abominations." (Jeremiah 16:18 NASB)
Thus it is entirely possible that the verse in question can be simply translated as "Then men began to profane the name of the Lord". This is amply supported by Genesis 6:12, that says ALL flesh was corrupted.
God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. (Genesis 6:12 NASB)
In his commentary, Adam Clarke acknowledges
"that many eminent men have contended that huchal (châlal), which we translate began, should be rendered began profanely, or then profanation began, and from this time they date the origin of idolatry." [01 ]
Further support is found in Jewish commentaries and other old texts ...
Josephus:
In chapter three of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus says that for seven generations the sons of Seth regarded the name of the Lord but fell into moral decay from the seventh generation on and began to worship other gods.
NOW this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers; and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness, whereby they made God to be their enemy. [02]
The Targums
According to Eliezer Segal who holds a Ph.D in Talmud from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and who serves as Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Calgary (Emphasis added)
A "Targum" is a translation, but the term is usually used specifically to designate Aramaic translations of the Bible. According to an ancient Jewish tradition, the public reading of the Bible in the synagogue must be accompanied by a translation into Aramaic which was the spoken language of most Jews in Israel and Babylonia during the Talmudic era ... As the use of Aramaic declined, the practice of reciting the Targum in the synagogue fell into disuse in most Jewish communities. [03]
According to NTCS – the Newsletter for Targumic and Cognate Studies, the Targum of Onkelos reads: (Emphasis Added)
And Adam knew yet his wife, and she bare a son, and called his name Sheth; Because, said she, the Lord hath given me another son instead of Habel, whom Kain slew. And to Sheth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. Then in his days the sons of men desisted (or forbore) from praying in the name of the Lord. [04]
And the Targum of Jonathan says: (Emphasis Added)
And Adam knew his wife again, at the end of a hundred and thirty years after Habel had been slain; and she bare a son, and called his name Sheth; for she said, The Lord hath given me another son instead of Habel whom Kain slew. And to Sheth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the name of the Word of the Lord. [05]
In Summary
There is absolutely no Biblical evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Cain was particularly ungodly or the line of Seth particularly godly. In fact, if all of Seth's line were so pure why were Noah and his sons the only ones saved and the rest of Seth's descendants left out of the Ark to die in the flood? (But then there may be more to this than first meets the eye).
The weight of evidence points to the fact that men did not start turning to God in the time of Enosh but, quite to the contrary. began profaning His name. The verse "Then men began to call upon the name of the Lord" (Genesis 4:26) could just as well be translated 'this is when men began to profane the name of the Lord'. Just before God told Noah to build the ark Genesis 6:12 says "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth" (Genesis 6:12).
Also, the Targums and Jewish commentators agree that it was in the days of Enosh that man began to make themselves idols calling them by the name of the Lord.
Finally, Seth's descendants would not have been referred to as "the sons of God" as shown in the next section.
3.) Angelic Beings
The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (son of the Creator Himself) is only used of someone who is born of a specific divine act of creation.
Adam:
Adam was the only male to be created directly by God which is why he was the only human in the Old Testament to ever be called a Son of God. He is also called a son of God in Christ's genealogy as recorded by Luke (Luke 3:38).
Jesus
was referred to as the Son of God throughout the New Testament because in His human form He was a direct creation of God conceived by the Holy Spirit.
Believers in The New Testament
are called Sons of God because they, being born again of the Spirit of God, are considered to be a new creation.
He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, (John 1:11, 12)
but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:35-36 NASB)
Since Jesus, Adam, and believers can be safely eliminated as the sons of God spoken of in Genesis 6:4, the only remaining option is that the verse is speaking of angels an option that has much in the way of support...
The Angels
directly created by the Father were referred to as B'nai HaElohim or sons of God.
Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 tell us that Satan was among the sons of God who came to present themselves before the Lord, which makes it certain that the sons of God were angelic beings. The seconf quote below speaks of the time when God laid the foundations of the world long before man was created
Now there was a day when the sons of God (Heb. B'nai HaElohim) came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. (Job 1:6 NASB) Job 2:1 says exactly the same thing
When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God (Heb. B'nai HaElohim)shouted for joy? (Job 38:7 NASB)
In Daniel 3:25, when king Nebuchadnezzar looked into the fiery furnace and saw four men, he said "Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!" (Daniel 3:25 NASB). The king used the words bar elohim... a similar form of the phrase B'nai HaElohim used in Genesis 6. In other words, the pagan king applied the term to a being who probably looked majestic enough to be ranked among the gods.
Additionally, it may be worth noting that when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek in the third century before Christ (what we know as The Septuagint) the term sons of God was translated as angels.
Josephus,
like many of the ancient Jewish commentators, believed that Genesis 6 was talking about literal angels. In chapter three of his Antiquities of the Jews, he wrote...
For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land. [06]
I Corinthians: There is a very intriguing verse in I Corinthians which has given rise to no end of speculation and conjecture. In this verse, Paul instructed women to cover their heads as a sign of subjection to her husband but also because of the angels.
for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (1 Corinthians 11:9-10 NASB)
Why this sudden and unexpected reference to angels? Jewish tradition maintained that it was the beauty of the women's long hair that attracted the angels which Paul may very well have believed.
Were The Fallen Angels Demonic Beings?
We simply can not assume that the fallen angels were the same as the demonic beings who rebelled against God and were chucked out of heaven. The fallen angels of Genesis 6 left Heaven of their own volition to intermarry with the daughters of man which does not necessarily make them "evil" in the same sense as demons are 'evil'.
1 Peter 3:18-19 brings up the interesting possibility that Jesus after His resurrection went and preached to these fallen angels who were confined to prison after what they did.
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation (Gk. kerusso) to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. (1 Peter 3:18-20 NASB)
Because the text refers solely to Noah's generation many who assume the captive spirits are people conclude that Jesus went and preached to the people of Noah's generation. However, the text itself reads that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison, not to anyone in Sheol/Hades - the abode of the dead (And yes they are the same place. See Sheol/Hades. This brings up the strong possibility that this message was delivered to the fallen angels.
However, since it is not made explicit in the text, we can not be sure about is what message Jesus proclaimed to the angels. In the 60 plus times it is used in the New Testament kerusso was most often used to proclaim the Gospel. However, in Revelation 5:2 it is means a proclamation or announcement.
And I saw a strong angel proclaiming (Gk. kerusso) with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open the book and to break its seals?" Revelation 5:2 NASB
'Strange' Flesh
Jude explicitly used the Greek word ekporneuo that literally means to indulge in unlawful lust.
And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality (Gk. ekporneuo) and went after strange (Gk.heteros) flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:6-7 NASB)
The Greek word heteros translated strange simply means 'other' or 'different' and is not necessarily a reference to homosexuality. For example 1 Timothy 1:10 says
for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for men stealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other (heteros) thing contrary to the sound doctrine:
Jude was comparing the sin of the fallen angels with the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19). In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah the strange flesh referred to homosexuality; in the case of the angels the strange flesh was female. In both cases an unnatural sexual union was the issue.
Additional Points to Consider
There was Never A Command to Remain Separate There is no evidence that the lines of Seth and Cain were ever instructed to kept themselves separate. Not until Exodus 34 was there a direct command from God to to remain apart from the unbelieving world and avoid intermarriage. The reason for the prohibition being the strong probability that the Israelites would have been enticed to worship idols and bow down to strange gods (Numbers 25:1-2).
Reverse Intermarriage? And why was this supposed intermarriage a one way street? Supposedly male Sethites married female Cainites, but male Cainites never married female Sethites.
Were Seth's Female Descendants all Ugly? If the verse is referring to the sons of Seth one has to ask why they did not find any of the women in their own line attractive. What was so special about the daughters of Cain?
Sin Big Enough to Cause the Flood: It is impossible to reconcile unusual or unnatural intermarriage between the Sethites and Cainites with the destruction of the entire earth, especially since God had never instructed them to remain separate.
Conclusion:
As should be perfectly obvious by now, the hypothesis of the sons of God being Seth's descendants is completely unconvincing. The drastic step of drowning the entire human race presupposes an infinitely more sinister situation than marriages between good and bad people.
On the other hand, cohabitation between angels and humans would be reason aplenty to destroy what would have become an unbelievably tainted gene pool (Genesis 6:12 states that all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth)
Besides which Jesus Himself said that the events of Genesis 6 would parallel the days preceding His return (Matt 24:37 and Luke 17:26). I fail to see how the Sethite - Cainite scenario could duplicate itself.
Arguments Against The Fallen Angel Scenario
Fallen Angels Can Not Be Sons Of God
However, read the text carefully. It simply says the sons of God noticed that the daughters of man were attractive. Because no one is considered a criminal before they commit a crime, it is only after the angels acted on their desires and left their heavenly abode to intermarry with women that they could actually be considered fallen.
Angels Do Not Marry
In answering the Sadducees who tried to trip Him up, Jesus spoke about the state of man after the resurrection of the body. He said
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. (Matthew 22:30-31; Mark 12:25)
When Jesus said people in the world to come would be like angels and would not marry it does not necessarily mean that they were unable to cohabit with whom they chose after they left their proper habitation. As Jude wrote
And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode (Gk. oiketerion), He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, (Jude 1:6 NASB)
It is in heaven they do not marry, but neither will we.
All of which brings us to...
One Often Overlooked But Very Disturbing Reality
It is generally accepted by believers that the one man and woman created by God became the parents of all humans who live on earth. However, we seem to be overlooking one unequivocal fact pointed out in the book of Genesis. Although Adam and Eve were intended to be the sole parents of the human race, it didn't exactly work out that way.
It wasn't very long after they left the garden of Eden that a second non-human strain was added to the human gene pool, a strain that may never have been completely eliminated. ..
Part II - "Blameless" Noah And 120 Years
Was There a Reason Noah Was Considered Blameless?
Both archaeological and literary evidence point to the fact that ancient man was exceptionally violent. See Footnote I. However, was it possible that prior to the flood Noah was found to be the only righteous person on earth? Or apart from moral goodness was there another reason Noah and his family were spared?
Genesis 6:9 says that Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time and that he walked with God. The word "blameless" was translated from the Hebrew tâmîym used some 40 times in the New Testament. What is interesting is that it has very often been used to describe the lambs and bulls that were offered in sacrifice. For example
Your lamb shall be an unblemished (Heb. tâmîym) male a year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. (Exodus 12:5 NASB)
He shall present his offering to the Lord: one male lamb a year old without defect (Heb. tâmîym) for a burnt offering and one ewe-lamb a year old without defect (Heb. tâmîym) for a sin offering and one ram without defect (Heb. tâmîym) for a peace offering, (Numbers 6:14 NASB)
Because animals cannot be morally sound or unsound, the word tâmîym indicates they were to be without physical defect. Although there is little question that Noah was a righteous man (he walked with God), one has to wonder whether he was also without physically perfect ie. had untainted genes. We tend to forget that Noah was not the only one saved. His wife, three sons and their wives were as well. So if their family had somehow steered clear of the "sons of God" they might have been the only humans alive free of genetic contamination.
Christ, the Son of God was promised to be the "seed of the woman" who would defeat Satan and destroy his power over mankind. If the entire human race had been corrupted the Messiah could not have been born on earth to a woman.
And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." (Genesis 3:15 NASB)
It thus makes perfect sense that the gene pool had to be 'cleansed' and the Father specified how much time many had before He took action. The time limit He set was...
A Hundred And Twenty Years
Immediately after saying that the sons of God were attracted to the daughters of men and took wives from among them, the Lord said,
"My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." (Genesis 6:3 NASB)
This verse is often taken to refer to the length of man's life before the flood. In other words, prior to this man often lived several hundred years however, the individual's life span was now limited by God to a hundred and twenty years.
However, considering the context, this is quite certainly a reference to how long the entire human race was going to be allowed to live. In other words, God's long-suffering would endure only for one hundred and twenty more years before He put an end to the then prevalent conditions... It was a period of grace.
But even in that relatively short period of time God did not leave humankind without a warning which, in this case, came in the person of Noah, a righteous man who walked with God. Although it probably took Noah a long time to build the Ark (120 years?), it was apparently ignored by people who had nothing but evil in their hearts.
At the end of the set number of years the cataclysmic flood came.
Foot Note I... Violence in The Ancient World
The Bible's statement that the earth was exceedingly violent in the pre flood days is backed up by both archeological and literary evidence. Although we can not positively and specifically link the prehistoric cultures discovered by archaeology with the pre-flood people, the data strongly indicates that ancient man was exceptionally violent.
The Archeological Data
In his book, War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage, Oxford:1996 Anthropology professor Lawrence Keeley from the University of Illinois at Chicago says..
"The archeological evidence indicates instead that homicide has been practiced since the appearance of modern humankind and that warfare is documented in the archaeological record of the past 10,000 years in every well-studied region - If anything, peace was a scarcer commodity of members of bands, tribes, and chiefdoms than for the average citizen of a civilized state." [p.39]
"Several of the rare burials of earliest modem humans in central and western Europe, dating from 34,000 to 24,000 years ago, show evidence of violent death. At Grimaldi in Italy, a projectile point was embedded in the spinal column of a child's skeleton dating to the Aurignacian (the culture of the earliest modern humans in Europe, ca. 36,000 to 27,000 years ago). One Aurignacian skull from southern France may have been scalped; it has cut-marks on its frontal (forehead). Evidence from the celebrated Upper Palaeolithic cemeteries of Czechoslovakia, dating between 35,000 and 24,000 years ago, implies - either by direct evidence of weapons traumas, especially cranial fractures on adult males, or by the improbability of alternative explanations for mass burials of men, women, and children--that violent conflicts and deaths were common.
In the Nile Valley of Egypt, the earliest evidence of death by homicide is a male burial, dated to about 20,000 years ago, with stone projectile points in the skeleton's abdominal region and another point embedded in its upper arm (a wound that had partially healed before his death). The one earlier human skeleton found in Egypt bears no evidence of violence, but the next more recent human remains there are rife with evidence of homicide...The human skeletons found in a Late Palaeolithic cemetery at Gebel Sahaba in Egyptian Nubia, dating about 12,000 to 14,000 years ago, show that warfare there was very common and particularly brutal. Over 40 percent of the fifty-nine men, women, and children buried in this cemetery had stone projectile points intimately associated with or embedded in their skeletons. Several adults had multiple wounds (as many as twenty), and the wounds found on children were all in the head or neck--that is, execution shots.
The excavator, Fred Wendorf, estimates that more than half the people buried there had died violently. He also notes that homicidal violence at Gebel Sahaba was not a once-in-a-lifetime event, since many of the adults showed healed parry fractures of their forearm bones--a common trauma on victims of violence--and because the cemetery had obviously been used over several generations. The Gebel Sahaba burials offer graphic testimony that prehistoric hunter-gatherers could be as ruthlessly violent as any of their more recent counterparts and that prehistoric warfare continued for long periods of time...In western Europe (and more poorly known North Africa), ample evidence of violent death has been found among the remains of the final hunter-gatherers of the Mesolithic period (ca. 10,000 to 5,000 years ago). One of the most gruesome instances is provided by Ofnet Cave in Germany, where two caches of 'trophy' skulls were found, arranged 'like eggs in a basket,' comprising the disembodied heads of thirty-four men, women, and children, most with multiple holes knocked through their skulls by stone axes. Indeed, some archaeologists, impressed by the abundant evidence of homicide in the European Mesolithic, date the beginnings of "real" war to this period." [14]
The Literary Data
Traditions and Legends about the flood originating in many parts of the world uniformly speak of man's corruption and violence, many of them indicating that the flood was a judgment upon humanity's evil.
The following examples are given by Glenn Miller
"During the era of the fourth Sun, the Sun of Water, the people grew very wicked and ignored the worship of the Gods..." [Aztec, PM:128]
"At a very early point in history, perhaps even before the end of the golden age, humankind grew very wicked and arrogant..." [Greece, PM:128]
"Once there was a period called the Pachachama, when humankind was cruel, barbaric, and murderous. Human beings did whatever they pleased without any fear. They were so busy planning wars and stealing that they completely ignored the gods..." [Incas, PM:134]
"The sun-god Ra, was warned by his father, the Watery Abyss, that humankind had grown too wicked and was on the verge of full rebellion against the gods." [Egypt, PM:135]
"In time, the people began to misbehave, killing each other and ignoring their children, so Madumda sent a great flood..." [Pomo Indian, WR:MNNA:113]
The Atrahasis epic, one of the oldest Flood traditions in the world, ascribe the Flood to humankind's being 'noisy' to their gods. Some see in this reference to noise a reference to violence. So, OT:BBCALL:36:
"In the Atrahasis Epic's account of the flood the reason that the gods decide to send the flood is the 'noise' of mankind. This is not necessarily different from the biblical reason in that 'noise' can be the result of violence. Abel's blood cries out from the ground (4:10) and the outcry against Sodom and Gomorra is great (Gen 18:20). The noise could be generated either by the number of petitions being made to the gods to respond to the violence and bloodshed or by the victims who cry out in their distress"
[PM] Parallel Myths, J.F. Bieflein, Ballantine: 1994.
[OT:BBCALL]The IVP Bible Background Commentary--Old Testament. Walton, Matthews, & Chalvalas. IVP:2000
[WR:MNNA] The Mythology of Native North America, David Leeming and Jake Page, UoklahomaPress:1998. [15] {PLACE IN TEXT}
End Notes
[01] https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/106/eVerseID/106/RTD/clarke/version/AFV
[02] Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews, From The Creation To The Death Of Isaac. Book I. Chapter 3. Concerning The Flood; And After What Manner Noah Was Saved In An Ark, With His Kindred, And Afterwards Dwelt In The Plain Of Shinar, Translated by William Whiston. Christian Classics Ethereal library. http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-1.htm
[03] Eliezer Segal. Targum "Onkelos" to the Torah. http://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/TalmudMap/MG/MGOnkelos.html (link is no longer valid)
[04] J. W. Etheridge, M.A. The Targum of Onkelos. On The Book Berashith or Genesis. Section I. Bereshith Bara Elohim. First Published 1862. http://targum.info/onk/Gen1_6.htm
[05] J. W. Etheridge, M.A. The Targum Of Palestine, Commonly Entitled The Targum Of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, On The Book Of Genesis. Section I. Berashith. First Published 1862. http://targum.info/pj/pjgen1-6.htm
[06] Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews, From The Creation To The Death Of Isaac. Book I. Chapter 3. Concerning The Flood; And After What Manner Noah Was Saved In An Ark, With His Kindred, And Afterwards Dwelt In The Plain Of Shinar, Translated by William Whiston. Christian Classics Ethereal library. http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-1.htm
Continue On To Part II - The Nephilim. There is much support (both Biblical and non Biblical) that points to them being the offspring of angels and women.
The personal pronoun in Daniel's prophecy warns us of what to expect in the future. HERE
|
