ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Pre-flood Genesis: Cain, His City, and His Descendants

Updated on January 20, 2017

God Created Evolution

'God Created Evolution' is a project consisting of multiple articles that evaluate the first 11 books of Genesis in the context of known history and modern science.
'God Created Evolution' is a project consisting of multiple articles that evaluate the first 11 books of Genesis in the context of known history and modern science.

In a continuing effort to unravel the mystery that is pre-flood Genesis, I want to focus specifically on the fourth chapter, the one about Cain. It seems reasonable to assume that the author choosing to include so much about Cain's life beyond his slaying of Abel means it's significant and relevant information.

Genesis doesn't give us much about the world before the flood, just over five chapters, but even as little as there is it seems to cover a lot of ground. The tricky part about this portion of Genesis is that Adam has traditionally been counted as the first human God created, and even though Genesis 5 lists generations of descendants living many years each and having many children, the population bottlenecks at the flood where only eight people are said to have survived via Noah's ark.

So then why would the author of Genesis feel it necessary, out of the 1,656 years that passed between Adam's creation and the flood, to spend half a chapter on Cain and his descendants? Unless the wives of Noah or his sons were of Cain's bloodline, presumably they all would have died. Yet, with the exception of Noah, pre-flood Genesis provides more specific information about Cain and his bloodline than anyone on Seth's side of the family.

Cain's Story Following Abel's Death

Most everyone is familiar with the story in Genesis where Cain killed Abel and was driven from the land. The whole other half of chapter 4 that details Cain's life beyond his banishment isn't nearly as well known because its meaning and purpose for inclusion is unclear.

A primary reason for this is, according to the traditional view, Cain was only the third human on earth. Yet the remainder of Genesis 4 talks about mysterious unnamed figures who could potentially harm him outside of his homeland, a city he built, and specifically named descendants who, along with their skilled 'children', died in a global flood not long after, presumably. All of this followed by a quote from Lamech, possibly a poem often referred to as 'The Song of The Sword', where he confesses to murder in retaliation for being wounded by ... someone. Finally, the chapter closes with one last bit of intrigue by saying that 'men began to call upon the name of the Lord' when Enoch, third generation from Adam, was born.

Who Did Cain Fear Would Kill Him?

Genesis 4:13 - Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear.
Genesis 4:14 - Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

In the context of Adam being the first human, the only people in existence after Abel's death specifically named are Adam, Eve, and Cain. Beyond that it's possible there could have been unnamed siblings and children. However, Cain was banished from the land. He was voicing concern for 'whoever' he encounters while restlessly wandering the earth outside of God's 'presence'. He was clearly speaking about others he anticipated encountering 'in the land of Nod'.

Genesis 4:15 - But the LORD said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.

It's possible Cain's concern could simply be fear of the unknown, except that in God's reply He validates Cain's concern as legitimate by marking him to protect him. Obviously, vengeful encounters with any potential unnamed brothers/sisters/nephews/nieces while wondering the land of Nod would be because they already knew who Cain was and what he had done. A mark to remind them seems unnecessary. Not to mention Adam, Eve, and Cain had all already proven capable of disobeying God and doing what they wanted instead. It's clear that where Cain was headed there were others that posed a very real threat to his well being. Others who would apparently not kill him because he was marked.

Wait a Second, Did it Say Cain Built a City?

Genesis 4:16 - So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
Genesis 4:17 - And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.

So let's assess the situation up to this point. Following Abel's death, God explained that spilling Abel's blood had cursed Cain so that when he worked the ground it would no longer yield crops for him. God said he'd be a 'restless wanderer on the earth' (v12). Assuming Cain's curse wasn't regional, he more or less had been cursed to devolve back to migrating, 'restlessly wandering' to survive.

Yet, in verse 16 it says Cain 'lived' in the land of 'Nod', east of Eden. The word translated as 'Nod' in itself is the root of the verb that basically means 'to wander', so that doesn't necessarily mean he settled. However, the following verse says he built a city at some point after his wife bore Enoch.

Obviously, if Cain and his descendants were the only population in the 'land of Nod' this wouldn't have been much of a city, especially considering the city was built around the time his son was born. More of a homestead for just two, maybe three, generations worth of family. Other possible translations for the Hebrew word translated here as 'city' are 'town', 'township', or 'burg', none of which really apply to a place where a rather small family dwells. Beyond this, there is nothing else about this city mentioned. The author then shifts the focus to the descendants of Enoch, the son Cain named his city after.

Seven Generations from Adam: Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-Cain, and Naamah

Genesis 4:19 - Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah.
Genesis 4:20 - Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock.
Genesis 4:21 - His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes.
Genesis 4:22 - Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.


Verse 18 lists the three generations of sons from Enoch to Lamech, quickly advancing to verses 19 through 22 where the author deemed it necessary to name four specific sixth generation descendants: Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-Cain, and Tubal-Cain's sister, Naamah. The two sons of Lamech's wife Adah, Jubal and Jabal, are said to be the 'fathers' of those who possessed specific skills. Tubal-Cain's skill is noted as well.

Jubal ... Father of those who live in tents and raise livestock
Jabal ... Father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes
Tubal-Cain ... Forged tools out of bronze and iron

These four descendants are the same number of generations from Adam as Methuselah in Genesis 5. A quick bit of math will reveal that Methuselah died the same year as the flood, possibly in it. So it would seem that taking the time to specifically mention these four descendants, along with the various skills they introduced into the world, would be pointless if they and everyone they 'fathered' died in the flood too.

Genesis 4
Genesis 5
Born/Died (Gen 5)
Cain
Seth
130 to 1042(After Adam)
Enoch
Enosh
235 to 1140
Irad
Kenan
325 to 1235
Mehujael
Mahalalel
395 to 1290
Methushael
Jared
460 to 1422
Lamech
Enoch
622 to 987
Jabal/Jubal/Tubal-Cain/Naamah
Methuselah
687 to 1656(Flood Year)

Some have speculated that Naamah was specifically mentioned here because she was perhaps Noah's wife. Others see a more metaphorical meaning to all four descendants, assigning goodness and light to Jubal and Jabal, while casting Tubal-Cain as the 'sword maker' and Naamah as a temptress to represent evil and darkness. This hardly seems fair. Especially for Naamah since all the text says is that she was Tubal-Cain's sister.

Lamech and The 'Song of the Sword'

Genesis 4:23 - Lamech said to his wives,
“Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
wives of Lamech, hear my words.
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for injuring me.
Genesis 4:24 - If Cain is avenged seven times,
then Lamech seventy-seven times.”

Depending on the translation, this can sound like Lamech killed one man for wounding him like in the NIV translation above, or it can sound like two people, a man and a young man who both injured him, like in the KJV ("I have slain a man for my wounding, and a young man for my hurt"). Either way, because Lamech felt he'd be 'avenged' one can only assume his wound was fatal.

One third of Genesis 4 focuses on Cain's descendants, ending with this mention of Lamech being wounded by ... someone. Much has been made of these few lines of text. This portion is often referred to as the 'song of the sword'. The idea being that Tubal-Cain, being a metal worker, invented swords which then somehow played a role in the story Lamech is describing.

The general consensus is that this event is most likely mentioned because it is directly related to the flood that followed by way of God's promise for vengeance if Cain were to be killed.

Abel's Replacement

Genesis 4:25 - Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.”

Genesis 5:3 - When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

Based on these two verses, Cain's slaying of Abel and subsequent banishment happened sometime within the first 130 years of Adam's existence. Cain left for the land of Nod, east of Eden, away from his parents and any other potential family that may or may not have existed. Considering he was voicing this concern just a handful of decades into Adam's lifetime and before the birth of Seth, it's highly unlikely that he was speaking of anyone in his family. Cain feared being harmed by 'others' outside of his native land and God confirmed that fear as valid by marking him to protect him.

So, a man who presumably lived a similar length lifetime to that of his father, Adam, and brother, Seth, with knowledge of farming and agriculture, cursed so that he could not grow food himself and bearing a mark that protected him from harm, went out into a populated region and somehow overcame his 'restlessly wondering' fate by settling and building a city where at least seven generations of descendents existed for over 1500 years.

Source

The region and timeframe where Cain's story took place

Genesis shows there to be twenty generations from Adam to Abraham (Gen 5/11), who, according to Genesis 12, interacted with an Egyptian Pharaoh. Through modern science we have learned relatively recently that humanity's existence on the earth predates this time frame by tens of thousands of years. Even with the extended lifespans, there's no way Adam could have been the first human in existence. These events could not have happened any earlier than 6000 BC.

The entire inhabitable world was populated by Homo sapiens by 10,000 BC. They also happened to be the only remaining species of the Homo genus in existence and had established themselves as the dominant species in the animal kingdom by this point.

Over the course of thousands of years Neanderthals systematically hunted the once dominant mega-fauna species (Saber-toothed tigers, mammoths, dire wolves) throughout ancient Europe. Within 30,000 years of Homo sapiens (Neanderthals distant African cousins) first migrating north out of Africa, they literally pushed Neanderthals out of existence.

Over the next 20,000 years Homo sapiens were fruitful and multiplied, and filled and subdued the earth. Along the way mega-fauna disappear completely from the fossil record, in large part due to Homo sapiens, officially establishing themselves as the dominant species in the animal kingdom and the sole surviving species of early humans.

This was the state of the human presence on earth in the age that Genesis 2 forward is speaking of. Clearly, a very real threat to anyone who may be out wondering the wilderness.


Eridu today, first established during the Ubaid Period (5300 BC)
Eridu today, first established during the Ubaid Period (5300 BC) | Source

Mesopotamia, the birthplace of the City

The notable characteristics of the Ubaid period are the simultaneous emergence of an irrigation-dependent farming system, economic differentiation, regional centralization, and ritual elaboration. - Near Eastern Archaeologist Gil Stein


The first cities to ever exist were located in Mesopotamia, the same region where Genesis 2 established its setting. This period in southern Mesopotamia is known as the Ubaid period. Though date ranges differ in when this period officially began, most place its beginning around the latter half of the 6th millennium BC and lasting through to roughly 4000 BC. While there were already established settlements made up of relatively large human populations that existed prior to this, mainly in the Europe and northern Mesopotamia, the Ubaid culture marks the establishment of the first human cities. They are categorized this way because it's in these city-states where we see the first signs of social inequality with a ruling class and a working class, separated by wealth and status, with the ruling class coordinating and dictating the actions of the lower class.

Different than simply farming, agricultural work in this region and time period made use of intricate canal systems for controlled irrigation. A revolutionary leap forward in human pre-history that changed the way we live on this planet from that point on happened in a relatively short amount of time in the region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and allowed for the first time the establishment of an economy.

Some of those first ancient human cities of Mesopotamia are estimated to have had populations in excess of ten thousand by 4000 BC. Where before the terrain only had a smattering of tribes in small settled locations or passing through on their migration paths to survive, once cities with the ability to mass produce food arose in the region, the human population became much more dense. They began to 'increase in number [in the land]' (Gen6:1).


The Sumerians: Humanity's first prolific inventors and writers of fiction?

The Sumerians are the earliest known human civilization. They are accredited as the inventors of civilization, of large-scale agriculture, of the first calendar, irrigation, government (the first monarchy), astronomy/astrology, mathematics, stringed instruments, and writing, just to name a few. Ancient Sumerian civilization marks a vital turning point in humanity's existence, yet everything currently known about them has only been learned over the past century or so.

The first Sumerian cities existed 3000 years before their system of writing became advanced enough to allow for the recording of their own oral historical tales. When they finally did, these stories told throughout the generations did not glorify their ancestors and all of the advancements they managed to bring about, but rather gave credit to their gods. Their immortal, human in form, male and female, walking on the earth, eating, breathing, moody gods.

According to Sumerian mythology they were given decrees by their gods, each known as a 'me', that made civilization possible. The Sumerians, a self-applied name which translates to 'the black-headed people', believed they were created by these gods to serve them. Their mythological stories say these gods physically lived in the temple found at the center of each city. Archaeological evidence and administrative-type cunieform tablets support that the temple was provided for abundantly. The Sumerians say their gods taught them the ways of agriculture and government and civilized life, and they in turn provided the fruits of their labor to the temple god.

Though the Sumerian tablets containing their mythological stories predate the oldest surviving copies of the books of Moses, they share many similar themes. They both speak of a 'first' man/woman created who chose not to have eternal life, of a catastrophic flood survived by a handful of people and a bunch of animals because one of them was warned ahead of time and built a boat, and of a once universal language confused into many. They also both illustrate extremely long lifespans before the 'great deluge', or flood, with a gradual decrease from generation to generation for those that lived after.


The Sumerians in the bible

Genesis 11: 27-28 - Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begot Lot. And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldeans.
Joshua 24:2 - And Joshua said unto all the people, "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel: `Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the river in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor; and they served other gods.


Ur was a Sumerian city, but it was not the first. That distinction belongs to Eridu, founded around 5300 BC during the Ubaid period in pre-historic Mesopotamia.

According to Sumerian Mythology Eridu was one of the first five cities that existed before the great flood and was the first city where the 'kingship' resided. The first line of the Sumerian Kings List says, "After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridu". In the Sumerian tales Enki was the patron god of Eridu, a city he established and called home.

The remains of Eridu are located near the mouth of the Euphrates river just north of the Persian gulf. In the age it was first established, the shoreline stood much closer to the site than it does today due to silt deposits collected over the past 7000 years.

According to archaeological evidence, the establishment of Eridu appears to be the result of a combination of three different cultures living three different lifestyles. The earliest settlement built mud-brick buildings and employed agricultural practices reminiscent of how the Sumarra culture to the north had been doing things for a century or so prior. A second culture seemed to be more hunters and fishers than farmers. They lived in reed huts and are thought to be the ones responsible for mounds of discarded shells found along the coastline. This culture is suspected by many to be the original Sumerians. Then there's a third culture also represented in the earlier eras of Eridu who herded sheep and goats and lived in tents, much like those that Genesis 4:20 says Jubal 'fathered'.

Though Ur is not counted among the pre-flood cities by the Sumerians and shows to be the bearer of the kingship long after the flood according to the Kings List, archaeological evidence shows a human presence in the region that would become Ur as far back as the Ubaid period as well. The site of Ur is literally within eyesight of Eridu, as many of the first Sumerian cities were.

These layers of earth that show an Ubaid period human occupation of Ur sit just beneath a layer of sterile deposit that indicates a flood somewhere around 4000 BC. In fact, all Ubaid period culture in this region comes to an abrupt end around the same time. For several centuries after there is no evidence of any human presence in this region. This is a period of ancient Mesopotamian pre-history sometimes referred to as the "Dark Millennium".

This period of sparse human existence in southern Mesopotamia is often thought to be a result of a climatological event known as the 5.9 kiloyear event. This is an aridification event that happened sometime around 3900 BC that initiated the most recent transformation of the Sahara into a desert and triggered extensive migrations of human populations to river valleys throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East. This is thought by some to be the catalyst that spurred on the advancement of civilizations both in Sumer and in Egypt just a few centuries later that sprang up along these same river valleys.

Ur re-emerged as a place of importance throughout the Early Bronze Age of Mesopotamia during the third millennium BC. Being a Sumerian city, they did in fact 'serve other gods' as the verse from Joshua above states. Ur only became known as 'Ur of the Chaldeans' when the Chaldeans settled there sometime before 850 BC, which is one of the indicators that tell scholars that this portion of Genesis as we know it today was probably written around this time in the Kingdom of Judah. However, few doubt the city named as the birthplace of Abram's father was in fact the Sumerian city of Ur.

According to the genealogy given in Genesis, Abraham's father was born 1880 years after Adam. Assuming Adam's creation were just a century or two before Eridu, this places Abraham right in the time frame where Sumerian and Egyptian civilization first began to emerge.

Comparing Cain to the Sumerian god Enki

Genesis 6:1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”


If a 120 year lifespan is 'mortal', what does that make Adam and his descendants?

Just as is the case regarding the mention of 'others' that posed a threat to Cain in Genesis 4, the first four verses of Genesis 6 have always been a point of confusion because of the limited number of people in existence according to the traditional view. It speaks of 'sons of God', 'daughters of humans', as well as men called the Nephilim, all already in existence by Noah's time. All of who, presumably, came from Eve. Then again, some believe the 'sons of God' were rebellious angels and the Nephilim their off-spring, but that's for another article.

It also mentions that humans are mortal and only live 120 years. So, if the ages given in Genesis 5 for Adam and his descendants through Noah are correct in that they lived for centuries, does that not mean that they were something other than 'mortal'? Something more? And does that not also mean there were humans, other than Adam and his family, who were mortal in comparison?

This would mean that Adam, Eve, Cain and his descendants, and Seth and his descendants would be immortal, or god-like, in the eyes of mortal humans, with each of them living the equivalent of seven to ten mortal human lifespans.

Like Cain in Genesis, according to Sumerian Mythology Enki established the first city. Enki was the patron god of Eridu in Sumerian mythology, and was considered by them the deity of crafts, water, intelligence, creation, and mischief. Like the sixth generation of Cain specifically named in Genesis, six generations of gods after Enki, the seventh generation, known in this version of the story as the younger Igigi gods, began to rebel and refused to work anymore. Enki then suggested they create servants for the gods, which is when they say humankind was made.

Genesis shows there to have been 1656 years between the creation of Adam and the flood, followed by the confusing of languages and dispersion of Noah's descendants a century or two later, presumably during Peleg's lifetime (1759 to 1998 years after Adam). Between Genesis 4 and 5 it can be determined that Cain's banishment happened sometime within the first 130 years of Adam's life, or just over 1500 years before the flood.

Eridu, the city established by Enki according to the Sumerians, was established about 5300 BC. 1300 to 1400 years later there's evidence of a flood in Ur, followed by a drastic aridification event that literally dispersed the populations of humans in the Mesopotamian plain in all directions.


Conclusion

The latter half of Genesis 4 gives specific details about Cain and his descendants that have an ambiguous uncertain meaning in the context of traditional interpretation. Yet when placed in a setting of known history for the time and place specified it bares remarkable similarities to the mythological tales of the people who existed in that region, and subsequent chapters appear to line up rather well with the archaeological evidence if Cain's city and Eridu are one and the same.


Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 15 months ago from Texas

      Thank you for your comment Carrine. Personally, I think it's important to recognize the bible as a man-made fallible text. I think these stories are indeed records of when this God interacted with humans, but I do not hold the bible up as some infallible 'word of God'.

      For example, the wife-sister narrative. In Genesis 12, 20, and 26 it tells a very similar story. In the first two Abraham goes to Egypt with his wife. Because Sarah is so beautiful they decide to tell the Egyptians she is his sister, and not his wife, because they were afraid the Egyptians would kill Abraham to take Sarah. The pharaoh then did take Sarah, but was stopped by God who corrected him. Sarah was then returned to Abraham and they were sent away. In Genesis 26 the same thing happens, only this time it's Isaac instead of Abraham.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife–sister_na...

      So, which is the more likely explanation, that this same series of events happened three times, two of those times to the same Egyptian ruler, Abimalech? Or do you think the more likely situation is that this story got conflated somewhere along the way, applied at the incorrect period of Abraham's life at one point, or incorrectly assigned to Isaac somewhere along the way?

      I think it is important to recognize that the bible is not perfect, but that doesn't mean it's any less important. I do believe it has a lot of important things to teach, but I think it's a mistake to treat it as if it's perfect truth.

    • profile image

      Carrine 15 months ago

      The Bible is True and it is Life for those who choose it,

      All of this other stuff is the devil dirt, trying to corrupt The Truth. :.. Why? .. Because the devil knows he is doomed to the Pit. He is trying to take some people with him.

      Some of this other stuff, is just 5000 years of myths from those who knew bits and pieces about the Israelite people and their True and mighty God.

      Forget the legends and myths. Ignore those who want to go to the pit. ... Choose The Father Holy God in Heaven. Choose Him through His birth Son called Jesus. ... This world will soon be on fire. Choose the True God in Heaven. God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel.

    • profile image

      Secrets of genesis 3 years ago

      Cains decendants exist even today. They will only reveal themselves to one that has the love of God in their hearts. They live among man even in the land of my inheritance., they are found. They live in societies such as humans, they are both physical and spiritual. They live more spiritual. A few of them are my friends and I wish not to disclose them to unnecessarily

    • profile image

      Edgar M Leonard Sr 3 years ago

      The most important aspect of the scriptures on which we must concentrate is that there is no other god besides Almighty God , and therefore, it is our duty and obligation to return to Almighty God in this life, surrender and submit ourselves to Almighty God, worship and serve Almighty God only, do good works to our fellow man, and believe in the LAST DAY, and that to Almighty God all of us shall return. Only Almighty God is Lord and Saviour, and HE has no begotten son, and there is no trinity.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      I'm not having that issue. I viewed the page in Firefox and IE, signed in and not signed in, and the text appears to line up as it should. Are you guys having this problem on multiple HP pages, or just this one?

      Vladimir, I completely agree. Angels are never referred to as sons of God. I'm actually working on a hub right now that addresses this specifically.

    • Vladimir Uhri profile image

      Vladimir Uhri 4 years ago from HubPages, FB

      Heateplothe, I had the same problem.

      To all: As theories and guessing is concern, as far I know God never!!! call angels sons of God. They are only servants of God and men.

      Only men could be sons or "sons of Satan"

    • profile image

      Heateplothe 4 years ago

      I don't know if it's just me or if perhaps everyone else encountering problems with your website. It looks like some of the text on your content are running off the screen. Can somebody else please comment and let me know if this is happening to them too? This may be a issue with my web browser because I've had this happen before. Many thanks registry scanner

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly,

      Can you list some spiritual characteristics of True God

      and separate one for Satan, Cain and Jacob / Israel?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Sagittarius,

      The confusion over those first few verses of Genesis 6 is a prime example of how muddy this whole thing can get in the wrong context. Because the assumption has always been that Adam was the first human to ever exist, elaborate theories were formed around these verses talking about 'sons of God' having children with 'daughters of humans' because in that context there were only those who were 'of Eve'. If you do indeed take both the OT and NT as valid as you pull from both here, then you must also accept that the 'sons of God' are clearly not angels...

      In the OT, God only referred to the Israelites as His sons, like in Exodus 4...

      Exodus 4:22-23 – Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.”‘

      Or Solomon in 2 Samuel 7:11 - “… The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands.”

      In the NT, before Jesus' death/resurrection, it was all the Jews from Adam all the way through to Jesus...

      Luke 3:23-37 – Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai..... the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

      Then, after Jesus' resurrection, believers in Him were then counted as sons of God ...

      John 1:12 – But as many as received him [Jesus Christ], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.

      Romans 8:14 – For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

      1 John 3:1 – Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.

      In fact, Jesus said directly contradicted that view. He said angels do not pair up and marry. Why would they even be capable of procreation?

      Mark 12:25 - When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

      And here it specifically says that angels are not 'sons of God' ...

      Hebrews 1:5 – For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my son”?

      In John 8 you skipped right over the verse where Jesus acknowledges that they are indeed descended from Abraham ...

      John 8:37 - I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me,(AQ) because you have no room for my word.

      In fact, in John 8 it's clear that he's not talking about actual physical lineage. He's talking about whether or not it is God or sin who you serve. He was not saying that Satan was Cain's biological father, but that through Cain's actions it's clear where his priorities were.

      We are the creators of sin, like cancerous cells are the creators of cancer. They're considered cancerous when they stop behaving as DNA/God/Authority dictates. The only way free will works is if we acknowledge God (DNA) as the authority, otherwise we are cancerous cells that are destructive. It's not physical lineage tied directly to satan, and the Jews were certainly not descendants of a separate line from Cain, with satan being his father. That just confuses matters. Especially when Genesis 4 directly states that Cain was Adam/Eve's son.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, God, the Almighty creator of Heaven and Earth, is the Creator of good things; however, He is not the only creator. 

      Angels (Spirits, Sons of God) , like Satan, can also produce children; it happened with Cain in Genesis 4:

      "she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, 

      I have gotten a man from the Lord."

      In 1 John 3 (KJV) we get explanation whose son was Cain: 

      "11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 

      12 not as Cain who was 

      of the wicked one (Satan)

      and murdered his brother."

      It did happened again in Genesis 6 that Spirits (sons of God) produced children:

      "Genesis 6 

       1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

       2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

       3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

       4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

      Have you notice this verse?

      "4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,"

      We had Noah's flood which wiped out the children of  the Angels (Spirits, sons of God),  however "after that" refers to the times after flood. 

      This verse indicates that, after the flood, Serpent had another child or children.

      When you go now to NT, to the Parable of Weeds or John 8, it should guide you to the chapter of the Bible which explains who was the after flood son of Satan.

      Let's have a look first at parable of weeds:

      Matthew 13:24-29

      http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?s...

      The Parable of the Weeds

      " 24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.

       25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 

      26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

         27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

       28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

         “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

        29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 

      30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

      In this Parable of Weeds,  Christ was explaining what did happened in Genesis 25. In this chapter we read how Isaac was praying for a son, but somehow he got more than he was praying for: 

      " 21And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

       22And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.

       23And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger."

      Obviously, the true children of God - the New Creation, were created to serve one another.

      In John 8, Christ tells openly to the Jews who was their ancestor, and this was the reason that they wanted to kill Him, and eventually had crucify Him.

      As Jesus said in John 8:

      " 31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

       39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

         “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. 

      40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 

      41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

         “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

       42 Jesus said to them, 

      “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 

      43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 

      44 You belong 

      to your father, the devil, 

      and you want to carry out your father’s desires. 

      He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. 

      When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 

      45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 

      46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 

      47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

      Jews were descendants of Judah son of Jacob; Jacob, the second son whom the Spirit granted to Isaac in Genesis 25.

       "23And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger."

      Headly, I've almost forgot; explaining the Blessing of Isaac, we stopped at the positive blessing. However, there was also the negative part - the curse. We should look at this part also; it was the "blessing" for the descendents of the deceiver - son of Satan.

    • profile image

      John King IV 4 years ago

      sigh. Isaiah 6.5

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      I had read before, but had forgotten about, your claim that Cain was actually the son of Satan, which I simply cannot accept. But to then say he also fathered Israel is just plain confusing. From what I understand you've never eluded to Esau and Jacob not being twins of the same father, so I'm not sure how you get that.

      I have, however, heard elsewhere about this idea that the bible is actually speaking about two different Gods. I'm not sure if your view is the same or not, but where I've heard that from others they generally refer to the two different Gods being the God called Yahweh in some of the texts versus the God called Elohim elsewhere. I assume you probably already know that Genesis itself is made up of at least three different sources, the two primary ones being the Yahwist source and the Elohist source (documentary hypothesis).

      All of Genesis, as well as the first portion of Exodus, does appear to be two very distinct yet very similar stories edited together, with small bits here and there from a 3rd source (mainly lineages like what's in Gen5/10 that probably come from what's referred to as the Priestly source). The biggest indicator that these are different sources is the fact that God's name is different between the two. One seems to focus more on historical accounts, the other seems to focus more on the spiritual aspects of the stories.

      Personally I find cohesion and consistency throughout the old testament and therefore it makes no sense to me how these could be two different Gods. When compared with history the events it speaks of match up to actual events, but the bigger point here is that the depictions of God throughout consistently describe a being who's actions allowed for free will to happen. Even those things spoken about, like the slaughters you mentioned, make much more sense in this context. From what I can tell these kinds of arguments are formed by those who just cannot see how the loving God they were taught could do such things, which then leads to rationalizations like these that suggest that maybe those parts weren't actually talking about that God. There's just not enough solid ground there to stand on in my opinion.

    • profile image

      John King IV 4 years ago

      Sag. I hate your gods.

    • profile image

      John King IV 4 years ago

      Sag I will answer you in my own "the evolution of the bible". I think it is apprpriate to address anything here to Headly. It is also best for communication porpuses.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      John, I think you confuse God of the Universe with the god who fathered Cain and Israel. Obviously, the Bible talks about two gods.

      God who created Universe and who made covenant with Noah, made it very clear that - Thou Shalt Not Kill.

      In Genesis 9 we read:

      God’s Covenant with Noah

      “1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth….

      5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. 

      And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. 

      6 “Whoever sheds human blood, 

           by humans shall their blood be shed; 

           for in the image of God 

           has God made mankind. “”

      You see John, killing innocent people was never God’s intention. According to the Bible it took hundreds of years, since Noah’s time, before the first innocent people has been slaughter; it was done by people who ironically call themselves the “God's chosen ones”.

      Example: Genesis 34 reads:

      "Dinah and the Shechemites

      1 Now Dinah, the daughter Leah had borne to Jacob (Israel), went out to visit the women of the land. 

      2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and defiled her.

      3 His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. 

      4 And Shechem said to his father Hamor, “Get me this girl as my wife.”… 

      …24 All the men who went out of the city gate agreed with Hamor and his son Shechem, and every male in the city was circumcised. 

      25 Three days later, while all of them were still in pain, two of Jacob’s (Israel’s) sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and attacked the unsuspecting city, killing every male. 

      26 They put Hamor and his son Shechem to the sword and took Dinah from Shechem’s house and left. 

      27 The sons of Jacob came upon the dead bodies and looted the city where their sister had been defiled.

      28 They seized their flocks and herds and donkeys and everything else of theirs in the city and out in the fields. 29 They carried off all their wealth and all their women and children, taking as plunder everything in the houses. “

      The Bible is loaded with examples when Israelites slaughtered innocent people; obviously they did not respect the rule of Noah's God, the God of the Universe.

      They follow their own god, the cheater, deceiver, usurper, liar, murder, and they followed their god's desire; the god Jesus told about in John Chapter 8 : 44.

    • profile image

      John King IV 4 years ago

      Headly: Forgot about this conversation for a little while) Anyway...

      You are a rare one to have the "boldness" to say "God hates the sinner". I agree with this statement however. (But this view unfortunately is not very popular at all).

      I so love how you explain how God opperates by using scientific and biological terminology. Again, I also see God as operating in this manner.

      I see free will as a good thing, since anything created by God (in nature), is good in my view. A good analogy: Man creates a gun. The gun I see as having a good porpuse, yet anyone can choose to misuse it for evil criminal porpuses.

      But all in all, your God sounds like the one that I know. (a God of the universe, of nature, rather than a god of a bible book or any other image or creation of man).

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      John King IV,

      Yes, I think we have emotions because God has emotions. I think being human is to be a reflection of His image, and I think our full range of emotions is part of that. Emotions are what make life meaningful. You know one emotion through also knowing the other on the opposite end of the spectrum. Like, to know happiness you must also know sadness. One defines the other and vise versa. And if God can love someone, then there must be another He does not. If all were the same then there would be no need to make the distinction.

      I think God hates sin and hates the sinner because sin is destructive. The commandments can be boiled down to what Jesus said, love God and love one another. Some say to worship no other but Him, the rest have to do with how we treat each other. God created an entire universe and an entire planet just to create us. To create beings with their own will and their own mind. Independent of God's will. But having a will apart from God's means we're capable, and prone, to behave in ways that are contradictory to Him and His nature. Natural law. Emotions are natural. It is only our free will that makes us capable of 'unnatural' behavior.

      This is why I believe the first commandments specified putting no other before Him. This would be like cells in your body deciding they know better than the DNA code how they should behave. DNA has been honed over many generations. It is proven. It is the authority. Cells are short-lived. Like us. To have an independent will and yet still behave in a manner that is not destructive, you must adhere to the authority. And of course how we treat each other can be destructive as well. Like cells, we can influence those around us. In this way, sin can be seen as a cancer. Cells that no longer adhere to DNA, that no longer behave as programmed, ultimately endanger the body as a whole. This is why I think God hates sin. Sin is like a cancer. Sinners are like cells with malignant tendencies, capable of destruction. There is no eternity with sin. To have free will sin is inevitable. All will fail and fall short. For free will to be possible, this is how it must be. And because this is how it must be, there will be some that God hates and some that God loves.

    • profile image

      John King IV 4 years ago

      In my view God hates people for good resons. Those who sin shall die and spend their days in hell.

      Headly, Sag. any opinions on this?

    • Vladimir Uhri profile image

      Vladimir Uhri 4 years ago from HubPages, FB

      Hello John. Bible is amazing Book to me. The words are ancient and have to be understood. One dictionary said that instead of hate one word is God loved Esau less. It is good to learn Hebrew and Greek which I do by myself. There were many mysteries in the Bible but man misunderstands them. One reason was mans' spirit "processor" was sleeping actually dead. God revealed to us that He loves the man but hating sin. God never changes but may change circumstances. Thanks Him for this. Otherwise I would be lost forever.

      There was serious reason for mystery. Devil was informed that seed of woman will crash his skull. Then he rushed to crush anyone who will be potentially that seed. It was reason why Cain killed Abel. Cain generation of course drowns in flood but spirit is living and is eternal. It jumped to current generations. I am sure "the star man" will not like it. I just finished Hub Jacob and Esau. Many decades ago I was editor of my friend who was writer of Biblical OT characters, very special way.

    • profile image

      John King IV 4 years ago

      "Esau have I hated...

      I think this is the second time you bring this issue into question.

      Apperantly God is capable of hate, if you believe what the scriptures teach.

      I understand that this is a difficult teaching. But again, as I was disscussing with Headly earlier on, God created free will, and God's creation is deemed "good".

      Obviously, as we have disscussed earlier on, Cain and people like Cain who are under a philosophy of pure grace, do as they please. This includes the choice to commit the sin of murder. (And murder springs from hate).

      God can hate and kill. But the big difference is that God is pure justice and truth. Humans hate and kill out of injustice, irrationality, like the dumb and savage beasts of nature.

      This was why God established punishment and hell. (Both for individuals and for whole nations who travel down the path of lawlessness and sin.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      John, if as you say "The God of Israel was seen as infinite and as deity who DOES as he PLEASES",  

      and Paul in Romans 9 writes that god of Israel hated  the children who were even 

      "not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil", 

      then this Hateful god of Israel is not the same as the Loving and Caring God of Job, Socrates, Minoans or mine.

      Let's read some verses from the Bible, and not only, about God:

      The Book of Job says:

      Job 34 (NIV)

      "34 Then Elihu said:...

      10 “So listen to me, you men of understanding. 

          Far be it from God to do evil, 

          from the Almighty to do wrong. 

      11 He repays everyone for what they have done; 

          he brings on them what their conduct deserves. 

      12 It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, 

          that the Almighty would pervert justice."

      Socrates said in The Republic by Plato

      http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plato/p71r/

      BOOK II: THE INDIVIDUAL, THE STATE, AND EDUCATION (SOCRATES, GLAUCON.)

      "....Then God, if he be good, is not the author of all things, as the many assert, but he is the cause of a few things only, and not of most things that occur to men. 

      For few are the goods of human life, and many are the evils, and the good is to be attributed to God alone; of the evils the causes are to be sought elsewhere, and not in him."" ... God is not the author of all things, but of good only...." 

      Wadd was Minoan / Minaean God of Love and Friendship; Snakes were sacred symbol to Wadd. BTW. Do you remember what Moses showed to Israelites in Sinai Dessert, or what is the Rod of Asclepius?

      So John, the God of Job, Socrates and Minoans is the Loving, Caring, Healing God, author of good things only; "He repays everyone for what they have done; 

          he brings on them what their conduct deserves."

      But on the other hand, the god of Paul and of uthe whole Israel, is the god who DOES as he PLEASES.

      In Romans 9 (NKJV)  we read:

      "10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac

       11 (for the children

       not yet being born, 

      nor having done any good or evil, 

      that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works 

      but of Him who calls), ...

       13 As it is written,

       “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

      John, does your God hates people even before they have been born and have done any good or evil? 

      And your works don't matter for your God?

      Obviously, the Bible talks about two gods; 

      the one - caring, loving, creator of good things only, 

      and the other god, who hates, kills and DOES as he PLEASES.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      John King IV,

      Defining 'natural law' can definitely be a tricky prospect. That's part of what I feel this view could help clarify if it's as accurate as it appears to be to me. It was this era and this time frame when humans changed on a fundamental level. Like what can be seen in the Ubaid culture of Eridu, then again, after the flood, in Uruk. Where humans by this point in history had been settling and building populated communities through the practice of horticulture for many centuries, since 8000 BC or so, it wasn't until Eridu that we see organized, centralized leadership directing the actions of a lower working class. It's also in both of these periods that we see the appearance of many new inventions. It's currently being suggested by many beyond just myself that this is the point in history when the human ego emerged, or at least became much more pronounced.

      There's distinct differences between the humans of primal/tribal cultures and those of 'civilized' societies. For thousands of years humanity in every imaginable environment all around the world shared very common characteristics with one another. And these were not just limited to migrating hunter-gatherer cultures, but were the standard amongst the settled cultures as well. There's a very limited sense of property or ownership in general. No one individual is ever considered deserving of any more than any other. Land ownership was certainly never considered because most, if not all, of these cultures viewed the earth as belonging to everyone equally. Burial sites show no favoritism towards a particular sex or particular class. Bodies are not found to be buried with riches or prized possessions unequally. And this is still the case in those primal/tribal cultures that still exist today. They simply don't have the same level of individual awareness of themselves as anything more than any other member of their tribe. Food and resources are always shared equally, no matter how plentiful or sparse they may have been.

      It's in this region and age that the first signs of human selfishness are seen. Class stratification, the prizing of possessions. Greatly differing grave sites between those of importance and those of the lower class. This is the age of the first government and the first laws. And it's in this time frame that you first begin to see artifacts of war. Defensive walls around settled communities. Burial sites where warriors are buried with weapons. Artwork that depicts battles between organized forces in large numbers. Not to mention all the inventions. And it's in this age that man first adopted arguably the most important of inventions, writing. And even writing finds its roots in the need to track what's owed to an individual, whether it be wages for work or commodities that were purchased.

      I see the events of Babel, not as punishment or as an act of mercy, but more as a means to advance God's overall purpose in general. Everything 'natural' in the world was created in Genesis 1, including humans. God simply spoke His will and it happened. It's in Eden that He creates just one individual and places him in an environment not unlike a scientific experiment. Where before everything would behave exactly as God willed it, here He was testing this creation, as this particular being was now capable of behaving of his own individual will, and not of God's will. Then, once the offspring of this individual decided of their own individual wills to marry and breed with humans, there arose that 'wicked element' in humans that Genesis 6 speaks of. So God chooses one individual who He deems worthy and wipes out the rest.

      In Genesis 11 it addresses these people who were building the city and tower specifically as 'children of men'. Only one pre-flood individual was chosen, along with his sons and their wives, to carry on. Considering the sharp decline in ages from this point on, it's likely that they, the descendents of the 'sons of God/Adam' were in the minority, and that the majority of the available gene pool was of natural human descent. Within just a handful of generations, having one language, they were beginning to show the same signs of a pronounced ego as those who came before the flood in exercising their creativity... "now nothing will be withheld from them which they have imagined to do."

      So, basically, it seems to me the first setup was to allow Adam/Eve to continue to live according to God's will, by adhering to the one commandment, or to choose for themselves to live of their own will. Then they chose, which eventually led to wickedness that had to be wiped out, which is why I think they were placed in a region that's the geological equivalent of a storm drain. If it got out of hand, they could be wiped out. The next step was to then take that same gift of free will and populate the world with it. That was what He did at Babel in my view. The world was already populated. Now He simply dispersed these people with this gift in all directions, like planting seeds. And those seeds quickly sprouted into civilizations in Sumer, then Egypt, then the Indus Valley, Akkad, Greece, Rome, Syria, China. Basically, I see the first 11 chapters of Genesis describing exactly how God set the stage for human history to play out. Our gift was free will, and this life is the means in which God is teaching us how to wield it.

    • profile image

      John King IV 4 years ago

      Very interesting notions you bring up:

      Free will can mean something besides the will of God. Never thought of it that way.

      Another excellent notion: God's will as being "natural law" (This is actually how I interpret it). But of course one can ask: And what is natural law? Or what is truth? One can write books about these things.

      Yet another interesting thought you brought up: The story of the people of the Tower of Babel, their dispersing and confusion. You do not view it as a punishment. (While I do see it as a punishment, I can actually see it in another fashion as well.) Perhaps it was a mercy from God, who freed these people from slavery and under one tyranical empire of Nimrod.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Haha... I got what you were saying.

      By free will I mean a will apart from God's. Humans, since Adam, are capable of behavior outside of God's will/natural law unlike any other. If you'll notice, both the statement about humans being created in God's image/likeness, as well as all of God's creation being deemed 'good', are in Genesis 1. This is one of the clues that tells me the creation of humans in Gen1 and the creation of Adam in Gen2 were definitely not the same event, which clears up much of the seeming contradictions you mentioned.

      Humans were created in the same image/likeness as how God is described when He makes a 'physical' appearance, like when Moses asked to see Him on the mountain. What little it describes it gives the sense that God has a physical form; hands, a back, and a face ...

      Exodus 33:22-23 - "When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”"

      And the same goes for when He's described on His throne in heaven, watching over the earth, like in Psalm 11 or Isaiah 63. He has a physical form. Humans were created in this way, in this likeness, which is another of the many things that differentiate us from the rest of the natural world, our physical form.

      The main clue here is the fact that God commanded humans to do specific things that would take many generations to accomplish; be fruitful/multiply, populate/subdue the earth, establish dominance in the animal kingdom. Then it says God looked on all His creation and deemed it 'good'. If these humans were as capable of disobeying God as Adam/Eve/Cain clearly were, would they be capable of carrying out these commands?

      We know pretty well the progression of human evolution and population. We know that homo sapiens did exactly what the humans in Gen1 were specifically commanded to do. They were fruitful and multiplied, obviously, they actually did populate and 'subdue' the entire inhabitable earth, and they established themselves as the dominant species. And all of this by about 10,000 BC. Then Gen1 goes on to describe God showing humans the seed-baring plants that yield more seed-baring plants. This coincides with the discovery of early agriculture, or technically, horticulture, which happened in Mesopotamia roughly 8000 BC.

      Then came Adam. Adam was different. Genesis 1 illustrates how the entirety of creation, whether animate or inanimate, behaved exactly as God willed it. He simply commanded and it happened. But with Adam, he was only told one thing not to do and did it anyway. He disobeyed, Eve disobeyed, and Cain disobeyed. Then after the 'sons of God' and daughters of humans' intermingled, humans had become 'wicked'.

      As for Babel, I don't think God dispersing them and confusing their language was a punishment.

    • profile image

      John King IV 5 years ago

      Very interesting.

      I am however puzzled by what you mean by free will. The God of Israel was seen as infinite and as a deity who does as he pleases. Such a creator is not limited by any doctrine or programming of free will. Human are said to be in this God's image, according to Genesis. Adam was given a command. A choice. He,just like god his father, and all other humans, are portrayed like this. I agree with you in that it is seen as the source of evil and sin. Yet everything that god created, according to Genesis is "good". It seems that humans are not robots, and that this is good. Yet they are free to choose evil, and this can not be good. Do you know how many philosophers throughout the ages struggled with this issue? In a sense one could argue that evil was authorized by God, and that this is good! (Thus Satan, Hell, freedom to sin, are linked to God, since he deemed free will to choose a good thing!)

      All I am certain of, is that free will is a reality, and that a doctrine of the fall of man, a need for sacrifice, or some sort of universal salvation, will not change a thing.

      As for creation. God also deemed that men where to have different languages, and punished those who tried to unite all humans to think alike as one programmed whole. Anyway, I am going all over the place, and am digressing. I went from history to philosophy or theology.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I agree the flood was local. I see the creation of Adam as the introduction of free will (like God, knowing good and evil). Those 'of Eve' were those with free will. Only those with free will are capable of wickedness. The rest of the natural world, including the naturally evolved humans of Genesis 1, behaved according to God's will/natural law. The flood would only have to be a local event because only those 'of Eve' were capable of wickedness.

      And those of Adam/Eve were also different in comparison to 'mortal humans' in that they lived much longer lives. And if Gen6/Num13 is any indication, they were potentially large in stature in comparison as well.....

      Genesis 6:1-4 is the beginning of the explanation for what warranted the flood. It says that the 'sons of God' (those of Adam/Eve) began to marry/breed with 'daughters of humans' (naturally evolved humans). It also says that in contrast to the 'sons of God', which Genesis 5 says lived for centuries, humans were mortal and only live 120 years. To a mortal human, Adam's descendants would seem god-like, living the equivalent of seven and eight mortal lifespans.

      These two bloodlines intermingling would explain the gradual decrease in ages after the flood, which the Sumerians corroborate. Just as it says, God's spirit (the breath of life given to Adam) would not contend with humans forever. And just as it says in Ezra 9, the priority for the Israelites was to not dilute the 'holy seed'. Which is why they were given 613 laws, many of which specified how close they could mate within their blood line without getting too close, and a few specifically saying not to intermingle with other bloodlines.

      Genesis 6 also says the Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and after. They're described as heroes of old, MEN of renown. If we're to take from this that the Nephilim were the offspring of the 'sons of God'/'daughters of humans' then these were beings (Titans/demigods) who also possessed free will/knowledge of good and evil, lived extended lifespans, and who were, according to Numbers 13, large in stature. Though the Israelites had spent generations as slaves of Egypt and 40 years in the desert long after the 'children of men' were dispersed at Babel, they recognized them as being descendants of the Nephilim. Survivors of the flood.

      I think the bible and Sumerian mythology share a lot of commonalities because they're talking about the same things. Only the Sumerian take was from an outside perspective looking in, trying to understand these gods that taught them civilization, who inhabited their temples, and who they believed they were created by to provide for.

      What I'm trying to convey in these hubs is the accuracy of Genesis in comparison to any other ancient text when compared to known history. If placed a little further back than when most people consider as 'biblical times', those first 11 chapters of Genesis line up, down to the number of centuries between, with actual events that shaped human history.

      The length of time between Cain's banishment to the flood is roughly 1500 years, which is the same length of time the Ubaid culture existed in southern Mesopotamia. It was during this period that the first (pre-flood) Sumerian city-states were built, starting with Eridu in 5300 BC. This was not the first large settled human community, but this was the first time a city-state was established with a centralized government and where a lower class of workers provided for the upper class. The Sumerian stories say the kingship descended from heaven at Eridu, and passed to each subsequent city-state until the flood. Among the 'mes' (gifts of civilization) given by the gods according to the Sumerians were both things like kingship, sheppardship (Jabal, Gen4), music and musical instruments (Jubal, Gen4), as well as capabilities that resemble what Adam/Eve gained from the tree of knowledge like truth and falsehood, wisdom, and strife. The Ubaid culture came to an abrupt end around 4000 BC. Ur in particular shows the layers of the Ubaid culture sealed off by a 'sterile deposit' that indicates a flood.

      (List of 'mes' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_%28mythology%29#Li...

      The events at Babel happened about 100 years after the flood in Genesis. It just so happens that a major climatological change happened around 3900 BC (5.9 kiloyear event) that actually did trigger large human migrations out of the Sahara region, which transformed into desert. Uruk was one of the first post-deluvian city-states according to the Sumerian King's list. In archaeology, the 'Ubaid period' (5300-4000BC) is immediately followed by the 'Uruk Period' (4000-3100BC). The city-state of Uruk was established around the beginning of this period. The bible says it was established by Nimrod not long after the flood/babel. The Sumerians say it was Enmerkar. Both are noted as mighty hunters. Uruk is where the Sumerians first began to establish suburban life, and it spread from there and eventually led to the Sumerian civilization of the 4th millennium BC.

      If placed here in history, Genesis lines up incredibly well not just with actual events in history down to the specified timeframe, but these events actually had the same effects as what's described. And Genesis also manages to stay rather consistent both with the historical development of Sumer as well as the mythological stories about those ancient times. If Adam and his descendants really did exist as described, then that would explain who these mythological gods were that the Sumerians claim they learned from in doing things we know they actually did.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      That's just it, though. Nobody knows the actual age of the books of Moses, or at least the parts that make up the whole. The oldest surviving copies of the Torah had already been pieced together by that point out of even older sources. And the older hypothetical source texts are dated based on how it's written; names and titles used and such (Documentary Hypothesis). But even those things we know were updated over time to be better understood by their contemporaries. For example, Ur is called Ur of the Chaldeans as Abraham's father's birthplace, yet the Chaldeans didn't settle the region of Ur until 950 BC or so. Considering the Kingdom of Judah was already established by that time, we know that is not what Ur was called in the age of Abraham.

      And nobody knows when Moses lived. The assumptions that say that the Sumerian texts are the originals are simply based on what we've found and dated so far. But then there are things that just don't work in that context. The description of the ark is a good example of this. In the Sumerian version the ark is described as box-shaped, yet in the books of Moses it describes dimensions in detail of a very much sea-worthy vessel. It's hard to believe that Moses or whoever wrote these books would have knowledge of what makes a boat of that size capable of staying afloat.

    • profile image

      John King IV 5 years ago

      But as to the Nephilim. In the ancient world their was many giants (or heroes). These people where not necessarily seen as connected with the older gods or their children, the giants.

      For instance, the Philistine Goliath, was a giant, yet un-related to the gods or heroes. Also the 2 amorite kings Og and Sihon in days of Moses. Amorites also are not necessarily descendants of the gods and their sons the giants.

      I see the biblical flood as a local event that happened in southern mesopotamia, rather than as a world wide flood as in the movie water world. (Such a belief for me is simply absurd).

    • profile image

      John King IV 5 years ago

      It seems to me that we are entering into historical anachronism.

      Number ch. 13 takes place by the south of the land of Canaan, in days of Moses, perhaps around the 1200's BCE.

      The Sumerian tale of Gilgamesh is centered in Mesopotamia, and is much older than Torah. The tale may go back to events dating to around 2,500 BCE, over 1,000 years before Moses.

      The epic of gilgamesh could have been used as a source by the legendary author of Torah's book of genesis. (about the days of the fallen angels and the giants, just prior to the flood).

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      The connection is the Nephilim. Notice how they were described. Not only were they survivors of the flood (Gen6/Num13), which is something that angered Enlil (God) in the Sumerian tale, but they were described as so large that the Israelites said they must have seemed like 'grasshoppers' to them. I find it interesting that in the Hebrew version, after the 40 years in the wilderness, their first order of business was to deal with descendants of beings who survived the flood.

    • profile image

      John King IV 5 years ago

      It is a pleasure to again hear a quote from one of the world's oldest story: the epic of gilgamesh"

      I strongly believe that Moses (the traditional source or author of Genesis) used this, and other similar documents as a source for his Genesis tales.

      I fail to see a connection with Numbers 13. How does a tale of jewish cowards compare with this tale of heroes and gods of the days of noah? (the epic of gilgamesh)?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      John King IV,

      " According to Hesiod, Zeus began a revolution to exterminate and punish the old order of Gods (the titans). After, the victory of Zeus, a new superior male system of religion was introduced. This may reflect the transistion from the Minoan culture to the Homeric Mycenean culture."

      I wonder if this could maybe echo what's seen in Numbers 13. The Israelites were told to go into Hebron, I think it was and to take out the inheritance. When the spies were sent ahead they came back with a report that large beings inhabited this land who were descendants of Anak, who was a descendant of the Nephilim. These were survivors of the flood.

      In the Sumerian version in the Epic of Gilgamesh, after the flood, it says that Enlil was angered that there were survivors....

      " Utnapishtim explains that the gods decided to send a great flood. To save Utnapishtim the god Ea told him to build a boat. He gave him precise dimensions, and it was sealed with pitch and bitumen. His entire family went aboard, together with his craftsmen and "all the animals of the field". A violent storm then arose which caused the terrified gods to retreat to the heavens. Ishtar lamented the wholesale destruction of humanity, and the other gods wept beside her. The storm lasted six days and nights, after which "all the human beings turned to clay". Utnapishtim weeps when he sees the destruction. His boat lodges on a mountain, and he releases a dove, a swallow, and a raven. When the raven fails to return, he opens the ark and frees its inhabitants. Utnapishtim offers a sacrifice to the gods, who smell the sweet savor and gather around. Ishtar vows that just as she will never forget the brilliant necklace that hangs around her neck, she will always remember this time. When Enlil arrives, angry that there are survivors, she condemns him for instigating the flood. Ea also castigates him for sending a disproportionate punishment. Enlil blesses Utnapishtim and his wife, and rewards them with eternal life. This account matches the flood story that concludes the Epic of Atrahasis (see also Gilgamesh flood myth)."

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Also, Sagittarius, I wanted to thank you for the information about Hesiod's Catalogues of Women. I too see the mythologies of the Sumerians/Akkadians/Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, etc, as a kind of embellished but real history.

      If there were indeed beings that appeared and lived in Mesopotamia between 5500 and 4000 BC who lived for centuries in comparison to mortal humans who live less than 120, then these beings, you would think, would have a pretty significant impact on these indigenous inhabitants. That's why I found the potential correlation between Naamah of Cain's bloodline and the inhabitants of Crete so intriguing, as that culture on Crete was another place where advanced agriculture appeared rather early, around 5000 BC.

      The fantastical stories that you'd expect to see if this were a real possibility certainly exist, and the sudden advances in technology and craftsmanship in this region in a very short amount of time is another indicator that you'd expect to see that is indeed there. So, basically, any potential correlation between mythological gods and the descendants of Adam/Eve/Cain/Noah/Ham/Shem/Japheth is of the utmost interest.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Sagittarius 2012,

      Thank you for all the information on Job. I find it really interesting that Augustine specifically talked about Job as being descended from the Edomites. If Job was indeed descended from Edom then this would mean he lived centuries after the flood. For a time I had wondered if Job existed in the 1656 years between Adam's creation and the flood because of the first two chapters that depict the 'sons of God' and 'Satan' conversing with God. I see the 'sons of God' much like it's stated in Luke 3, it's Adam and his descendants. Then it's the Israelites like when God referred to them as his 'firstborn son' when conveying His message through Moses to the Pharaoh.

      In regards to your comment in the 'Adam wasn't the first human' hub about this hub being about Edom and not Cain's descendants, here's why I don't feel that is the case. Here I'm talking about the 1500 years or so of pre-deluvian events described in Genesis, which includes the building of a city and seven generations of Cain's family, including those who 'fathered' the people that lived in tents and raised livestock/played stringed instruments/made metal tools.

      According to my view, pre-flood Genesis spans roughly 5500 BC to 4000 BC when a flood and subsequent aridification event abruptly ended the Ubaid culture in Mesopotamia. In this era in that region, there were multiple city-states constructed, there were advances in agriculture and irrigation, there were temples built, and the first metal tools. Sumerian mythology also says that there were multiple city-states, each governed by a king and each having a temple at the center which was the home of that city-state's patron god. The Sumerians say they were taught by these gods the 'gifts of civilization'.

      Edom, which appears to be named for Esau and didn't exist until after him, would have been many centuries after the flood. Isaac was born roughly 400 years after the flood, about 2050 years after Adam's creation. This would place Esau right square in the middle of the centuries where civilization really came into being. What's described in those subsequent chapters of Genesis regarding Abraham, Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness, the Amalekites, the Edomites, all of that fit nicely with this timeline.

      5500-ish ... Adam/Eve created

      5350-ish ... Cain banished and later builds a city

      5300-ish ... Sumerian city of Eridu first established

      by 4000 BC ... Ubaid culture had built multiple city-states supported by irrigation systems and advanced agriculture

      around 4000 BC ... Flood abruptly ended Ubaid culture, at least in region of Ur

      3900 BC ... aridification event triggers mass migrations to river valleys

      1656 years between Adam's creation and the flood, with Babel about a century later. Cain's banishment happened before Adam was 130, leaving about 1500 years or so between that and the flood. This is the same approximate time the Ubaid culture existed.

      Sumer really first began to take off around 3500 BC. In the next couple of centuries the same goes for Egypt, with an already established northern and southern kingdom unifying under one ruler around 3200 BC. This is roughly the same time period for the Indus Valley culture in India, where people of unknown origin settled in that valley and before long began building remarkable cities and established their own writing system. Akkadian history also supports rulers dating back to around this time who had already established themselves in regions to the north.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 5 years ago from Canada

      Oh, almost forgot; Job is also mentioned in Hesiod's Catalogues of Women; by Hesiod  Job is called "the great-hearted Iobates, the worshipful king … lord (of)".

        Hesiod, Homeric Hymns, Epic Cycle, Homerica.  1922.

       

      Hesiod

      The Catalogues of Women and Eoiae

      http://www.bartleby.com/241/108.html

      15.

        “And the daughter of Arabus, whom worthy Hermaon begat with Thronia, daughter of the lord Belus.” 

      7.

        “… Eurynome the daughter of Nisus, Pandion’s son, to whom Pallas Athene taught all her art, both wit and wisdom too; for she was as wise as the gods. A marvellous scent rose from her silvern raiment as she moved, and beauty was wafted from her eyes. Her, then, Glaucus sought to win by Athena’s advising, and he drove oxen 2 for her. But he knew not at all the intent of Zeus who holds the aegis. So Glaucus came seeking her to wife with gifts; but cloud-driving Zeus, king of the deathless gods, bent his head in oath that the … son of Sisyphus should never have children born of one father. 3 So she lay in the arms of Poseidon and bare in the house of Glaucus blameless Bellerophon, surpassing all men in … over the boundless sea. And when he began to roam, his father gave him Pegasus who would bear him most swiftly on his wings, and flew unwearying everywhere over the earth, for like the gales he would course along. With him Bellerophon caught and slew the fire-breathing Chimera. And he wedded the dear child of the great-hearted Iobates, the worshipful king … lord (of) … and she bare….”

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 5 years ago from Canada

      Years ago, searching for the footprints of Job, I was exploring Greek mythology, and look what I’ve found.

      "According to Pherycides (3F21), Belus also had a daughter named Damno who married her uncle (Belus' brother) Agenor and bore to him Phoenix and two daughters named Isaie, and Melia, these becoming wives respectively to their cousins Aegyptus and Danaus...

      In the Eoiae (see Hesiod) Belus was also the father of a daughter named Thronia on whom Hermaon, that is Hermes, fathered Arabus, presumably the eponym of Arabia." 

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belus_(Egyptian)

      Let's try to connect Belus and Arabus to the ARABIAN wife of Job, mentioned in Septuagint; because it looks like Arabus, the son of Thronia and grandson of Belus, was the ancestor of ARABIAN people, and father in law of Job.

      Most people think that Greek mythology are a made up stories, while in fact, it is a bit twisted history, still containing many useful genealogical information; and the Catalogue of Woman - Ehoiae by Hesiod, is the best example of it.

      We don't know too much about Arabus, however, Belus, father of Thornia and grandfather of Arabus, is a well-known person in ancient history.

      Belus in the Septuagint - Book of Job 42:17 is called Balac.

      “And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but after Balac, Jobab, who is called Job…”

      In the Bible Genesis 36: Belus is called Bela and he is also listed as the first king of Edom. 

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...36&vers...

      New International Version (NIV)

      “Genesis 36

      Esau’s Descendants

      The Rulers of Edom

      "31 These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned: 

      32 Bela son of Beor became king of Edom. His city was named Dinhabah. 

      33 When Bela died, Jobab son of Zerah from Bozrah succeeded him as king….”

      The second king of Edom is Jobab, and as the Septuagint explains, Jobab is Job - whose Arabian wife bore to him seven sons and three daughters, the most beautiful women in the World and ancestors of famous ancient Arabs.

      I thought that kingdom of Edom was elective kingdom, because Job was not the son of Bela/Belus, but son of Zare son of Reul - the Ishmaelite (friend of God). However, I had to reconsider this idea.

      Bela/Belus, the first king of Edom, is listed in the Bible as the son of Beor, and Beor is the son of Laban (The Book of Jasher), who is the brother of Rebecca wife of Isaac, whose first born son Esau, husband of Princess Basemath, fathered Reul(name meaning - friend of God). And Reul was grandfather of Job, by his son Zerah.

      So, most likely, the Arabian wife of Job, who bore to him the three beautiful Arabian princesses and seven sons, was a daughter of Arabus; granddaughter of Thornia and Hermes - deity of commerce for what Arabian people were so well known; and the great-granddaughter of Belus the first King of Edom and Egypt, during the times of Hyksos. 

      The descendants of Arabus settled in the Jordan Valley, what was known in the time of Moses as the Arabah Valley. 

      Job was born and ruled from Bozrah, the Capitol city of Edom, overlooking  Arabah Valley.

      At the first, it all look pretty confusing, however, if you take a pen and piece of paper, and drew genealogical trees, then look at the map of ancient northern Arabia, it will all make perfect sense.

      Arabus - ancestor of Arabs; Job - Patriarch of the famous ancient Arabs.

      Let's have a look on some more of Job's teaching from the Book of Job - the masterpiece of ancient Arabian literature.

      Let’s learn about some of the values of this ancient Arabian King of Edom and his Kingdom:

      Job chapter 29 reads:

      "1 Job further continued his discourse, and said:

      2 “Oh, that I were as in months past,

      As in the days when God watched over me;

      3 When His lamp shone upon my head,

      And when by His light I walked through darkness;

      4 Just as I was in the days of my prime,

      When the friendly counsel of God was over my tent;

      5 When the Almighty was yet with me,

      When my children were around me;

      6 When my steps were bathed with cream,

      And the rock poured out rivers of oil for me!

      7 “When I went out to the gate by the city,

      When I took my seat in the open square,

      8 The young men saw me and hid,

      And the aged arose and stood;

      9 The princes refrained from talking,

      And put their hand on their mouth;

      10 The voice of nobles was hushed,

      And their tongue stuck to the roof of their mouth.

      11 When the ear heard, then it blessed me,

      And when the eye saw, then it approved me;

      12 Because I delivered the poor who cried out,

      The fatherless and the one who had no helper.

      13 The blessing of a perishing man came upon me,

      And I caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy.

      14 I put on righteousness, and it clothed me;

      My justice was like a robe and a turban.

      15 I was eyes to the blind,

      And I was feet to the lame.

      16 I was a father to the poor,

      And I searched out the case that I did not know.

      17 I broke the fangs of the wicked,

      And plucked the victim from his teeth...."

    • profile image

      John King IV 5 years ago

      Headly: Going way back to your mention of a Minoan goddess. I think you refer to the common "idols" or images of the so called snake goddess. This Creatan Minoan image is allmost always portrayed with exposed breasts and holding to snakes. This is only evidence for the influence of women in religion only, not of political power. The bull cult of the Minoans resembled something like the later beast spectacles of Rome, or the modern bull fights of Spain.

      The Minoans may have had a religion based on ancient prostitution rites. Males would compete and give a high priestess some offerings and sacrifices, in exchange for her love and grace and of course her "services". The games may also have been a display for the government and the public. The legends of the Minotaur and theseua reflect these things.

      According to Hesiod, Zeus began a revolution to exterminate and punish the old order of Gods (the titans). After, the victory of Zeus, a new superior male system of religion was introduced. This may reflect the transistion from the Minoan culture to the Homeric Mycenean culture.

    • profile image

      John King IV 5 years ago

      Sagittarrius:

      I got to admit, it is letters like this that show you do indeed have access to great wisdom. You have a knowledge of more modern and mysterious literature, that is not known very well by most people.

      In your knowledge of Job, I think you are beyond me.

      In Job, we see the doctrine of the ressurection of the dead already asserted, by a gentile. Throughout the ages many jews came to accept it, with the exception of the Saducees.

      Did Job die? In the spiritual sense, yes he experienced hell. But in reality he only suffered and did not die. Yet, like any other human mortal, Job eventually died in the literal, and does not exist as a ghost who intercedes for us to this very day.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 5 years ago from Canada

      Headly, I'd like to share with you something regarding pre-Colombian cultures of  America.

      On YouTube you will find intriguing video about ancient script found on the rocks of Colorado.

      Interesting is, that the same ancient script has been found on the rocks of Dhofar region, in Southern Oman. 

      Salalah, capital city of Dhofar region, is the place where where the ancient Frankincense Trail ends, and where Biblical Job's Tomb is located.

      Search for:

      ancient Arabs in America - YouTube

      ► 2:59► 2:59

      www.youtube.com/watc...

      24 Feb 2007

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 5 years ago from Canada

      A careful reading of the Book of Job shows that even before his great testing, Job was a person of very high rank amongst his contemporaries. The opening chapter tells of his great wealth and piety, and significantly adds:

      “This man was the greatest of all the men of the east” (Job Ch.1:1).  His high rank, then, cannot be doubted; but this is not all. Further on in the Book of Job we find that Job occupied and held the leading position in the National Council with the sheiks of his people (Job 29:2, 7-9, and 21-24). He sat “chief” and “dwelt as a king in the army” (29vs.25). If he laughed at anyone’s counsel, showing thereby that he esteemed it poor advice, then others at once rejected it too, and “believed it not” (vs.24). They all recognized that Job’s intellectual ability, keen insight, and wide knowledge far exceeded all other members of the council; and they relied heavily upon him.   After his distressing trial was over, we are told that Job was greater and more blessed than even before (Job 42:12). That being so, it would be no surprise that upon the death of Bela, the first king of Edom, the National Council, composed of sheiks and otherwise men, would elevate Job to the kingship. Indeed, we might well say it was a natural and logical step.      http://nabataea.net/edomch4.html

       The English name of “Job” is derived from the Latin word “Iob”. The original name is bwya Aiyob; and its orthography is followed by the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic.

      This name is well attested as a West Semitic name in the second millennium B.C.; Egyptian Execration Text of the 17th century B.C. refers to Job as a king of Shutu, and Shutu is the name given in ancient Akkadian  language sources to certain nomadic groups of the Trans-Jordanian highlands. The name of Job is also known from 18th century B.C. Mari tablets, 18th century B.C. Alalakh cuneiform tablets, 16th century B.C. Ugaritic Documents and 15th century Amarana Letters. 

      All these documents indicate that Job was a well-known figure in sixteen and seventeen century B.C.E.. 

      Job was the king, the second King of Edom.

      However, what and where was Edom?"

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 5 years ago from Canada

      Headly, before sharing wit you the "sacred" knowledge let me help you to investigate who Job was. 

      Years ago I have written research essay about Job,  and I think you may find in it some useful information for your investigation.

      "Classical scholarship has not doubted Job existence; he was seen as a real and powerful figure.

      In the New Testament St. James (Jam. 5:11) refers to Job as an example of “patience,” which he would not have been likely to do had Job been only a fictitious person. Christian scholars like Thomas Aquinas (Expositio), Augustine of Hippo (City of God), St. Jerome or Matthew Henry never doubted that Job and those who engaged in debate with him were genuine historical persons.

       Augustine of Hippo (Nov. 13, 354 – Aug. 28, 430) was one of the most important figures in the development of Western Christianity. In Roman Catholicism, he is a saint and pre-eminent Doctor of the Church. In the introduction to his book City of God, Etienne Gilson writes “SAINT AUGUSTINE was one of those towering figures who so dominated his age that the age itself bears his name.”

      In this book, City of God (BOOK XVIII Ch 47) Saint Augustine wrote:

      “For in very deed there was no other people who were specially called the people of God; but they cannot deny that there have been certain men even of other nations who belonged, not by earthly but heavenly fellowship, to the true Israelites, the citizens of the country that is above.  Because, if they deny this, they can be most easily confuted by the case of the holy and wonderful man Job, who was neither a native nor a proselyte, that is, a stranger joining the people of Israel, but, being bred of the Idumea (Edomite) race, arose there and died there too, and who is so praised by the divine oracle, that no man of his times is put on a level with him as regards justice and piety.”

      NPNF1-02. St. Augustin’s City ofGodand Christian Doctrine

      http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVIII.4...

      In the Bible Eze.14:14, (compare Eze.14:16, 20), speaks of “Job” in conjunction with “Noah and Daniel,” real persons.

      As you know, the Septuagint, LXX is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament in to Greek and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah). The Septuagint was translated into Konya Greek for the newly established library of Alexandria during the reign of king Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.). Its oldest existing manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) was written in fourth century AD. In the Septuagint translation of the Book of Job, there is a long subscription; similar subscription is found in Coptic and Arabic versions and it says:

      Septuagint, LXX (Job CH 42:17)

      “17 And Job died, an old man and full of days: and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. This man is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab;  and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam. And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but after Balac, Jobab, who is called Job, and after him Asom, who was governor out of the country of Thaeman: and after him Adad, the son of Barad, who destroyed Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim. And his friends who came to him were Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, king of the Thaemanites, Baldad sovereign the Sauchaeans, Sophar king of the Minaeans.”

         ABRAHAM

       HAGAR (wife) (Gen.16:3)       SARAH (wife) (Gen.17:15)

       

       ISHMAEL (firstborn son) (Gen.16:15)    ISAAC (promised son) (Gen.17:19)    -    1st generation

       

      Basemath (daughter of Ishmael) married ESAU (firstborn son of Issac) (Gen.36:3)      -     2nd generation

      REUL (son of ESAU and BASEMATH) (Gen.36:4)              III

       

      ZERAH (son of REUL) (Gen.36:13)                                 IV

       

      JOB (son of ZERAH) (Septuagint-Job42:17d)         Generation – V

       

       After reading the Book of Job and comparing its protagonist with king Jobab from the list of elective kingship of Edomites in the Book of Genesis (Ch.36:32-39) and the Book of Chronicles1 (Ch.1:43-54) which says:

      “31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.                            

      32 And Bela the son of Beor reigned in Edom: and the name of his city was Dinhabah.                                                                            

      33 And Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah  reigned in his stead.”                                                                                   one can see numerous similarities between Job and Jobab; the second king of Edom.

       Job was not the son of the first king of Edom - Bela, but, as mentioned previously, was the son of Zerah, the son of Ruel, a son of Esau. His reign is briefly recorded as follows:

      “And Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah  reigned in his stead.” (Gen. 36: 33.)

       

      In the Qur’a Job is known as Ayyūb (Arabic: أيوب ) and is considered a main prophet in Islam. In the Arabic language the name Ayyūb is symbolic of the virtue of patience and Job is mentioned in several passages in the Qur’an. According to Ibn Ishaag, an eighth-century commentator on the Qur’an, Job was a Rumi (Byzantium?), an Edomite, who lived during the time of the Hebrew patriarchs.

      Some scholars of Orthodox Judaism maintain that Job was in fact one of the three advisors that Pharaoh consulted, prior to taking action against the increasingly multiplying “Children of Israel” mentioned in the Book of Exodus before the time of Moses’ birth. The episode is mentioned in the Talmud (Tractate Sotah): Balaam gives evil advice urging Pharaoh to kill the male new-born babies; Jethro opposes Pharoh and tells him not to harm the Israelites at all, and Job keeps silent and does not reveal even though he was personally opposed to Pharaoh’s destructive plans.

      The Book of Jasher Chapter 66:v15-22 tells slightly different story. The Book of Jasher is a so called - "lost book", mentioned in the Bible (Joshua 10:13 & 2Sam. 1:18).:

       "Is not this written in the Book of Jasher?"--Joshua, 10-13.

      "Behold it is written in the Book of Jasher."--II Samuel, 1-18

       FAITHFULLY TRANSLATED (1840)

      FROM THE ORIGINAL HEBREW INTO ENGLISH

      A Reprint of PHOTO LITHOGRAPHIC REPRINT

      OF EXACT EDITION PUBLISHED BY J.H. PARRY & COMPANY

      SALT LAKE CITY: 1887

       

      “15 And an officer, one of the king's counselors, whose name was Job, from Mesopotamia, in the land of Uz, answered the king, saying,

      16 If it please the king, let him hear the counsel of his servant; and the king said to him, Speak.

      17 And Job spoke before the king, the princes, and before all the elders of Egypt, saying,

      18 Behold the counsel of the king which he advised formerly respecting the labor of the children of Yisrael is very good, and you must not remove from them that labor forever.

      19 But this is the advice counseled by which you may lessen them, if it seems good to the king to afflict them.

      20 Behold we have feared war for a long time, and we said, When Yisrael becomes fruitful in the land, they will drive us from the land if a war should take place.

      21 If it pleases the king, let a royal decree go forth, and let it be written in the laws of Egypt which will not be revoked, that every male child born to the Yisraelites, his blood will be spilled upon the ground.

       22 And by your doing this, when all the male children of Yisrael will have died, the evil of their wars will cease; let the king do so and send for all the Hebrew midwives and order them in this matter to execute it; so the thing pleased the king and the princes, and the king did according to the word of Job.”

      The Talmud in Tractate Baba Batra 15a-16b goes to great lengths trying to ascertain when Job actually lived, citing many opinions and interpretation by leading sages.

      A careful reading of the Book of Job shows

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Sagittarius2012, I think I see where you're going with your original post. In the link you provided, the note about Jobab being Job, and ruler of Edom, appears to actually be a note included at the bottom of page containing the book of Job, citing the Syriac version of the old testament, but the verse itself listing the kings of Edom looks to be referring to Genesis 36.

      I got to reading about that and about the history of Crete and didn't get my proper reply to you done. I'm intrigued by the possibility of Job being a descendant of Esau and a king of Edom. I plan on investigating this further.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      John King IV, your observations noting similarities between the pre-historic and pre-columbian cultures and civilizations is a good comparison. For a long time the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans were a stumbling block in what otherwise seemed an incredibly cohesive theory. They were an anomaly.

      Initially, it was much like you said, social and sexual equality in the hunter-gatherer migrating tribes, then in the primitive settled horticultural cultures. This was the case across the board in the Americas, with 3 notable exceptions: Caribbean Mesoamerica (where the Aztecs and Maya lived), Peru (where the Incas lived), and the northwest Pacific coast of Canada. These were the regions where male-dominated socially stratified cultures existed. There are cultural and linguistic similarities between all 3 of these cultures that suggests they're related. What's even more interesting is that there are also linguistic similarities, and cultural similarities (in artwork, clothing, drums, and diet) between the Indians of the Pacific northwest and, believe it or not, dynastic Chinese culture. There are some (like James DeMeo) that speculate this means there people from China, possibly Japan, who reached North America on the northwest Pacific coast and migrated south.

      Then there's another interesting theory regarding the origin of the Olmec civilization of south-central Mexico. The Olmec culture flourished between somewhere around 1200 and 400 BC. They built the first temples in Mesoamerica and they had a kind of government run state where an elite group ruled over the peasant laboring masses. Chinese Archaeologist H.M. Xu suggests the Olmecs may have been immigrants from China. In his book 'The Origin of the Olmec Civilization' he suggests the Olmecs sailed to Mexico from China after the fall of the Shang Dynasty in 1122 BC, noting the disappearance of 250,000 people in China around this time, thinking that at least some of these ended up in Mesoamerica. And again, like above, there are similarities that suggest Chinese roots. Namely very strong similarities in art, in architecture, in religion, in astronomical knowledge, and the presence of what appear to be Chinese symbols in Olmec written records.

      If the catalysts that spawned those advanced societies of North and South America were people migrating from China, then again the roots of these male-dominated, violence-prone, class stratified cultures can ultimately be traced back to the people flushed from the Saharasian region by the 5.9 kiloyear event, as they were also the catalyst that spawned Chinese civilization.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Sagittarius, the short answer is I'm not really concerned about it. If there really is a secret conspiracy hell-bent on hiding a truth that would cause their infrastructure built on lies to topple, then that's just inevitability. I'm going to keep searching because that's just what I do. Always have.

      From what I can tell the answers are already right there in plain site under all of our noses. Everyday it comes more into focus. We're filling in our knowledge of actual history through scientific exploration, and the facts are void of fallible human influence. Laid side by side, the book of scripture and the book of nature reveal the truth. If at any time the two appear to conflict, then it's human interpretation that is flawed.

      Any attempt to hide a truth is a futile effort with an expiration date.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 5 years ago from Canada

      Headly, I admire your vast knowledge of Bronze Era events, and I know that you can help me to put some events from the Bible and history together.

       However, before I will let you get engaged in to this discussion, I will have to ask you something.

      There is war on earth about secret knowledge, about sacred knowledge; a closing end of a secret  has been concealed by Judaism and Catholic Church for nearly two thousand years, a secret so disturbing that it can change our view of Christian history and Christianity itself.

      We are in the middle of a war, one that's been going on for over thousand years, on one side stands the people who do care about the TRUTH .......and on the other, an ancient group of despots, members hidden in high ranking positions surrounding world governments and the church. This council of shadows trays to destroy the proof of ancient blood line, that why throughout the history they seek out and kill the living descendants of this blood line, and those who search for it.

      What if the world discovers that one of the world’s greatest religions is actually a lie?

      Judeo Christian religion will face a crisis of faith unprecedented in our history.

      But if reviled, it will devastate the very foundation of Judaeo-Christian religion.

      If you still want to know, you ask what will be worth killing for; because it is a witness to the biggest cover up in human history

      There is a hoax in religion history, multitude of lies to cover up the truth and demoralize our human society. Understanding our past determinates actively our ability to understand the present, so, how do we sift Truth from the lies, how do we write our history personally of culturally, and then by defining ourselves and how do we penetrate years - centuries of historical distortion to find original truth.

      Are you sure you want to be part of this quest?

    • profile image

      John King IV 5 years ago

      Headly von noggin...allow me to introduce...Sagittarius. (or Mr. Edom) I say this because I have noticed a pattern with him. He always mentions Edom. Every time!

      He also connects everything with the bible. (not that this is a bad thing, it is just original).

      The latest connection: Edomites where the Minoans. Sagitarius why not just say that all the world's nations are descended from Edom. I really believe that you see edom/jesus as a personal devil.

      But you know what? I actually am starting to believe this. (In this interpretation that the esau spirit is an evil spirit of some sort of devil).

      Anyway. How can one connect the Minoans with Esau? You tell me your mythology.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Oh, no Sagittarius, I didn't miss the point you were making. I plan on replying to each yours and JKIV's posts specifically and in more detail later. I just threw that out there as John and I were discussing Naamah just recently and I found that quite interesting to see that name come up again. I know it was also the name of a city in Canaan and is a pretty commonly used female name in that age in general.

      Yes, you're right in that the island of Crete was one of the last to be affected by the onset of violence in that region, most likely due to their location.

      I am also very interested in hearing more about this name change to hide his original lineage. Can you maybe give me some material to read more about this, or tell me which translation is the most untainted in your mind, if any?

      The Book of Job is something I plan on delving into at some point because of it's content primarily, because it is so old, and because both the Sumerians and the Egyptians also have very similar stories in their ancient texts as well.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 5 years ago from Canada

      Headly,

      you have missed my point; " ... no evidence exists for a Minoan army, or for Minoan domination of peoples outside Crete. Few signs of warfare appear in Minoan art. "Although a few archaeologists see war scenes in a few pieces of Minoan art, others interpret even these scenes as festivals, sacred dance, or sports events" (Studebaker, 2004, p. 27).”

      Minoans were peaceful people.

      Sophar king of he Minaeans, was son of Eliphaz the king of Thaemeans, and Eliphaz was the firstborn of Esau / Edom. (Genesis 36)

      Spohar the king of Minoans had nothing to do with Naamah and Cain. The name Zophar  Naamahite was added  in the present bibles by Jews, who hated him and wanted to  hide his true genealogy.

      And it was also the case with Minoan's God. 

      God of Zophar, at the time of Minoans greatest prosperity, was the same God as God of Job, and you can learn about the true God of Minoans from the dialogs between Zophar, Job, Eliphaz, Elihu and Bildad, in the oldest book of the Bible - The Book of Job.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      John King IV and Sagittarius 2012, thank you both for the interesting and engaging discussion.

      I'm at work now, but plan on replying to you both, probably later this evening. Where time permits I'm doing a little reading and ran across a really interesting tidbit that pertains to something both of you have mentioned and that I find utterly fascinating.

      I had never before made a correlation between Job's friend Sophar and the Minoans. If there is indeed a connection, then I find it really interesting that most translations of Job refer to Sophar as a 'Naamathite' (KJ21/NIV), or 'Zophar from Naamah'(CEB). This piqued my interest because Naamah was the name of Tubal-Cain's sister mentioned specifically in Genesis 4. She's the only one of Cain's 7th generation that's mentioned that's not associated with specified skills, and is the only pre-deluvian female descendant of Adam/Eve mentioned at all.

      As I'm sure you're both familiar, the Minoans are known for primarily worshiping a goddess. Assuming there were many other descendants of Cain in that 7th generation not specifically mentioned, chances are Naamah being named specifically is significant. If there's any correlation between Naamah of Genesis 4 and the goddess worshiped by the Minoans, then that would certainly explain her being specifically named along with her skilled brother and half-brothers.

      I'll be back to reply to you both in more detail later tonight. In the meantime, please feel free to share your thoughts. I'll be following along throughout the day.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 5 years ago from Canada

      The Minoan (Minaean) civilization was a Bronze Age civilization which arose on the island of Crete and Santorini. 

      The Minoan culture flourished around Agean Sea from approximately 2700 to 1600 BC....

      Minoans were traders, and their cultural contacts reached far beyond the island of Crete and Santorini — from present Norway to Southern Arabia.

      The Minoans were primarily a mercantile people engaged in overseas trade. 

      Their culture, from 1700 BC onward, shows a high degree of organization. “

      BTW - At that time, Minoans/Minaeans had a king whose name was Sophar. He was mentioned in the Book of Job as one of Job’s friends.

      http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Job/index.htm

      Job Chapter 2 (Septuagint)

      11 Now his three friends having heard of all the evil that was come upon him, came to him each from his own country: Eliphaz the king of the Thaemans, Baldad sovereign of the Saucheans, 

      Sophar king of he Minaeans:

       and they came to him with one accord, to comfort and to visit him.” 

      "Concentration of wealth played a large role in the structure of Minoan/Minaean society. Multiroom constructions were discovered in even the ‘poor’ areas of town, revealing a social equality and even distribution of wealth.

      Furthermore, no evidence exists for a Minoan army, or for Minoan domination of peoples outside Crete. Few signs of warfare appear in Minoan art. "Although a few archaeologists see war scenes in a few pieces of Minoan art, others interpret even these scenes as festivals, sacred dance, or sports events" (Studebaker, 2004, p. 27).”

      There was also another peacefull Bronze Age civilisation which was called EDOM, and Job, whom Sophar king of  Minaeans / Minoans visited was the king of Edom.

      Job Chapter 42 reads:

      ...And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but after Balac, Jobab, who is called Job,...

      http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Job/index.htm

      And Job wrote in his book:

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...31&vers...

      Job 31 (New International Version)

      13 "If I have denied justice to my menservants and maidservants when they had a grievance against me, 

      14 what will I do when God confronts me? 

      What will I answer when called to account? 

      15 Did not he who made me in the womb make them? 

      Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? 

      16 "If I have denied the desires of the poor or let the eyes of the widow grow weary, 

      17 if I have kept my bread to myself, not sharing it with the fatherless- 

      18 but from my youth I reared him as would a father, and from my birth I guided the widow- 

      19 if I have seen anyone perishing for lack of clothing, or a needy man without a garment, 

      20 and his heart did not bless me for warming him with the fleece from my sheep, 

      21 if I have raised my hand against the fatherless, knowing that I had influence in court, 

      22 then let my arm fall from the shoulder, let it be broken off at the joint. 

      23 For I dreaded destruction from God, and for fear of his splendor I could not do such things. 

      24 "If I have put my trust in gold or said to pure gold, 'You are my security,' 

      25 if I have rejoiced over my great wealth, the fortune my hands had gained, 

      26 if I have regarded the sun in its radiance or the moon moving in splendor, 

      27 so that my heart was secretly enticed and my hand offered them a kiss of homage, 

      28 then these also would be sins to be judged, 

      for I would have been unfaithful to God on high.

      29 "If I have rejoiced at my enemy's misfortune or gloated over the trouble that came to him- 

      30 I have not allowed my mouth to sin by invoking a curse against his life- 

      31 if the men of my household have never said, 

      'Who has not had his fill of Job's meat?'- 

      32 but no stranger had to spend the night in the street, for my door was always open to the traveler- .

      ..

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...31&vers...

      Headly and John, what do you think about these ancient civilizations of Minoans and Edomites. 

    • profile image

      John King IV 5 years ago

      Very interesting views.

      Here is how I see it.

      The pre-historic world resembled the pre-columbian civilizations, because it was filled with diversity.

      For instance: Some natives had stone age life styles. (Because they practiced hunting and gathering, where nomadic, and in some cases even had egalitarean or even matri-leneal based socities. The women had big roles to play in these primitive governments.

      Other native tribes however seemed to be more "advanced" (meaning they had permanent villages and places to live, they had governments which included laws, an army, and social classes. (These societies seemed to be run by males for the most part).

      Then their was the really advanced societies, such as the Inca, Maya, or Aztec. These guys where comparable to ancient Egypt and Mesopotamian civilizations in their "progress" Why? Because they had writing, science, even advanced governments, laws, religions, and empires. They seemed to be all male run societies, they had the strongest military, literature and writing, science, yet also wars, slavery, cruelty, and injustice as well.

      I think pre-historic humans where like this. They had diverse types of lifestyles. The successful ones, the ones who prevailed and assimilated others, seemed to be the advanced patriarchal civilizations that developed a strong army, law codes, and sophisticated government organizations.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Historically, archaeologically, we can actually trace the beginnings of male-dominated societies and the emergence of organized war-like behaviors. While the view that these were natural progressions brought about by denser populations and limited resources is certainly logical, the evidence simply does not back it up. Settled communities existed well before the notably violent turn in humans for thousands of years. There was such a large population in the European region that some dub that the first actual civilization. However, these people lived in utter harmony with one another with no social stratification, no central leadership, nothing of the sort. Which is why the vast majority do not deem them a civilization. There was sexual equality and there was no desire for possessions. Just as every ancient culture throughout that region speaks of a 'golden age' before men's hearts desired possessions, the transition of human behavior was a notable change.

      In fact, the mere idea of land ownership was completely foreign to early humans and even still today in the cultures you mentioned. Individual ownership of any kind was simply not a concept they can even grasp. Aborigines, for example, don't even keep the same name throughout life, but rather their names are passed around throughout the tribe throughout their lives. To them the land, the earth, belongs to all. It's alive, full of spirits, from the animals to the weather and the rocks and the trees. This was, and in some cases still is, the standard.

      In each case, whether told through ancient written texts, or parsed together through archaeological investigation, the true catalyst seems to be the arrival of Semitic and Indo-European speaking nomads from the growing Sahara desert. It was these people who carried all the traits that soon took over everywhere they went. They were male-dominant, they were often violent and took things for themselves, and social stratification came with them as well. But they also brought quick advances in technology and craftsmanship. These people were not the product of settled life styles, defending their patch of land. They came from the desert.

      This was, I believe the spreading of human individuality/ego/free will....

      Judaism/Christianity

      "It's significant that the Bible tells us that the Fall occurred as a result of Eve eating from the tree of knwoledge. This suggests that the Fall was connected to gaining a new intellectual power of awareness. We're told that now Adam and Eve were "given understanding" and, even more significantly, that now they "realised that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and covered themselves." This suggests that the Fall was linked to the development of a new self-awareness within human beings, which gave them a new ability to observe and judge themselves."

      Hindu/Indian Mythology

      The ancient Indian epic of Mahabharata says that the "holy men of old' were "self-subdued and free from envy," suggesting a lack of self-awareness and self-assertion.

      Chinese Mythology

      "While according to the Chinese myth of the Age of Perfect Virtue, when human beings fell out of the Tao they developed a new kind of individuality and self-sufficiency. They started to live by their own will rather than the will of nature."

    • profile image

      John King IV 5 years ago

      I understand. I share this broad view. (That Enoch is to be associated with Eridu).

      Your explanation of the older proto-Sumerian culture is really good. In particular what stands out is the femenine old culture, which was replaced by a more masculine modern culture. I have heard this old view of the scholars and archeologists before.

      I have my own views on this issue. The earliest evidence of H. Sapien cultures, considt of Venus idols. They usually depict a fat young pregnant girl with over-sized breasts. (Immidiately I think of Namaah daughter of Lamech, sister of Tubal Cain (Gen. 4.22). Namaah means fatness in Hebrerw.

      This evidence of the Venus figures of course are extremely old, and date to before the Neo-lithic times. (Before 10,000 BCE or so).

      Many have interpreted this, and also based on observations of primitive stone age cultures that survive in modern times, such as the native Australians or some African tribes, as proof that in the past their was much more sexual equality among the sexes.

      I see this view as too simplistic and even inferior. Military cultures of the past in fact where probably associated with the stronger sex, males. Today however, even a baby could pull a trigger or press a button to launch a missle. But in the past warriors relied on strength, and thus it was ideal for the male sex, who tend to be stronger and more aggressive in general. Any Anthropologist will agree that civilization and the military are linked, just as it is with government and law. If people gather together in great numbers it is necessary to have an army to conttrol and protect the members of its society. Males are ideal people to fill the roles in the army and government. I might agree with the view that Females where in charge, and/or the focus of the first religions, but definitely not of governments.

      Even Genesis reflects these things, by stating only male patriarchs as the founders or the rulers.

      I think these stories of Genesis all have basis to historical realities, even though their main focus is on moral teachings.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      My referring to the Ubaid culture as Ubaidians in contrast to Sumerians is more in borrowing from the common archaeological terms for clarity. I do think of the Ubaid culture as early Sumerians basically because the Sumerians of the later civilized culture considered those cities and those stories their history. Language-wise, it's not really known to my knowledge. This was a good 1500+ years before writing.

      Personally, I see the Ubaid culture as the natural indigenous people of that region influenced by the presence of beings who seemed god-like and immortal in comparison. I think the city that Cain built was Eridu and that he and his descendants taught the early humans to work the soil, as he was a farmer.

      According to the Sumerians, whose name literally means 'black-headed ones', they were created by their gods to serve them. The gods gave them the gifts of civilization and in return they worked the fields and provided food for the god of the temple.

      It's during the Ubaid period in this small region that we first begin to see social stratification. Different classes separating those who were the workers and those who were the leaders. Before this, one of the key traits consistent throughout tens of thousands of years of homo sapien history is that there was never social stratification, or male-dominance, or violence, or any sort of hording or prizing of possessions. It's here that this began to change.

      As I'm sure you know, the genealogy in Genesis 5 was added later, probably to explain who Noah was before getting into the flood story. So in the original story the end of Cain's chapter and the beginning of the story of the flood were together. Genesis 6 starts off by saying "When human beings began to increase in number on the earth [in the land]..."

      I think this increase in the human population in the region is due to Cain's establishment of a more domesticated lifestyle built around the introduction of wide-scale agriculture and irrigation. 1656 years passed between Adam's creation and the flood, roughly 1500 years after Cain was first banished. That's roughly the same stretch of time as the Ubaid culture existed before it came to an 'abrupt end'.

      Gen6:1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

      At some point the descendants of Adam/Eve/Cain began intermingling with mortal humans. This is why I think the kings of ancient Sumerian mythology are said to have had such long lives, and why both the king's list and Genesis illustrate and gradual decline in ages throughout the generations. Like it says, God's Spirit would not contend with mortal humans forever.

      It was this intermingling, and the now rampant spread of free will/individual ego (being that they were 'of Eve') that eventually led to the 'wickedness' in humanity that warranted a localized flood. And why it then says God 'regretted putting humans on the earth'.

      After the flood, there were still numerous humans on the earth still living more traditional lifestyles, and there were others who survived too, possibly descendants of Adam/Eve/Cain, like the Nephilim (Gen6/Num13). The dispersion of Noah's descendants at Babel was like planting seeds, spreading free will/individual egos throughout the region and eventually the world.

      Every civilization in that region tells similar mythological tales of immortal gods, human in form, male and female, who were moody, unpredictable, often at odds with each other, and who often bred with mortals, making demi-gods. Were these just really imaginative stories? Or were they inspired by something much more on point?

    • profile image

      John King IV 5 years ago

      Fascinating!

      You are very informed. This is such glorious wisdom.

      I wonder though about one thing you mentioned. This culture or civilization that came before Sumer. I always treated them as Sumerians, and not as something else. In other words, I guess what I am puzzled by, is whether you see the early culture at Eridu as non-Sumerian, and why? Did not the civilization contain Sumerian like elements in their culture? Did they not speak Sumerian, and eventually used the Sumerian language, (before the Uruk periode)?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Even from translation to translation it changes ...

      G10:10 (KJV21) - And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

      G10:10 (NIV) - The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Shinar.

      The city of Akkad itself is still a bit of a mystery. It's actual location has never been found. But what is known is that the Akkadian language has been around since well before 3000 BC to the north of Sumer. By the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC there were numerous places where rulers with Akkadian names had already established themselves in northern Mesopotamia. Throughout the following centuries there was a mixing of the Akkadians of the north and the Sumerians of the south. The Akkadian language gradually took over as the predominant language, but the Sumerian language was still used for religious and scientific purposes (kind of like latin today).

      What's interesting to me is that the Sumerian King's list says that Kish was the first city to have kings following the deluge. I find that really interesting because Nimrod's father's name was Cush. Sargon, who is considered by some as the first ruler of a unified Akkad/Sumer Empire, first came to power in Kish towards the end of the 3rd Millennium BC, long after the two peoples had begun to integrate.

      Eridu has been found, as is dated to have been established somewhere around 5300 BC. I agree that it was pre-diluvian. According to the Sumerian king's list it was one of 5 pre-diluvian cities. The Ubaid period, which marks the existence of the culture (often called Ubaidians) that began at Eridu and spread north, stretches from 5300 to roughly 4000 BC where it came to an abrupt end. Metal work first appeared during this period, which is one of the skills attributed to a descendant of Cain, and Eridu was inhabited by 3 distinct people, one of which is noted as living in tents and keeping livestock, which is a trait attributed to another of Cain's descendants.

      The Sumerian culture first began to take form during the Uruk period (4000 to 3100 BC), where urban life first emerged in Mesopotamia and gradually built into full blown civilization. One of the main hubs of this urban then civilized transition was the city of Uruk, which was built by Nimrod according to Genesis, and was built by Enmerkar according to the Sumerian kings list. -KAR means "hunter", which is how Genesis describes Nimrod.

      Personally, I think the biblical flood is referring to the same flood that according to archaeological evidence appears to have stopped the Ubaid culture dead in its tracks in Ur around 4000 BC. About a century later, which would correspond with when the events of Babel were to have taken place, there was an aridification event, known as the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900BC), that turned the Sahara into a desert and that actually spawned mass migrations of the populations of the people that inhabited that region in all directions, causing them to migrate from the growing desert and integrate with the cultures established along the river sides, namely the Tigris/Euphrates and the Nile. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event)

      Written Egyptian history begins against the backdrop of a growing desert and the arrival of nomads from the Sahara. In fact, the quick advances in technology and craftsmanship noted in both Egypt and Sumer during the middle of the 4th millennium appear to have come on the heels of the arrival of semetic speaking nomads. Like Cain and his descendants, the descendants of Noah dispersed at Babel were all of Adam/Eve, which Genesis describes as being the first humans with free will, or the ability to behave outside of God's will. They were also said to have gained wisdom. I think this is why the people of this region became so inventive, because they now had an individual ego that could do whatever it could imagine. They became creators, so to speak.

      There are others, from a non-christian perspective, who also see a correlation between the semetic and indo-european speaking nomads that came from Sahara and the emergence of the human ego, which they also see as the catalyst that spawned human invention and the birth of civilzation. See the book titled 'The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era' for way more on this. It notes the distinct difference between early humans/indigenous tribal cultures and the 'civilized' humans that first emerged in Mesopotamia and spread from there.

      I think Eridu was the location of the tower and city referred to as Babel that Genesis notes God coming to see as what the 'children of men' built. The ziggurat ruins of Eridu are much larger and much older than any others. Babel is often associated with Babylon as being the namesake of the city, and as noted before, both Eridu and Babylon are taken from the same Sumerian word "NUN.KI".

      If what I think is true, then that Ubaid culture would have been the descendants of Cain and the Sumerian culture that took over after the abrupt end of that culture were the descendants of Noah. If they were dispersed in all directions with confused languages around 3900 BC, then that would coincide with the emergence of Sumer throughout those centuries, then the emergence of Egypt to the west around the middle of the millennium,. then the Indus Valley culture in India to the east. And of course Akkad to the north. Each of these having their own languages.

    • profile image

      John King IV 5 years ago

      The sargon of Akkad article in wikipedia, is a good brief of the history.

      One ancient source says Sargon founded Babylon (ca 2,300 BCE)

      Yet other more ancient chronocles of Sumeria, mention some Sumerian chiefs who built an empire before Sargon's time.

      one important thing: Babylon is not necessarily the same as Babel. Babel could refer to a land, a fortress, or perhaps to just a great zigurat tower.

    • profile image

      John King IV 5 years ago

      Gen. 10.10: "and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel , erech, (uruk?), akkad, calneh, in the land of shinar (sumer)."

      If this Nimrod founded these cities in the land of Shinar (sumer), one ought to try and identify who this Nimrod was, and the dates to his existence.

      Let us remember that all Historians know that Akkad was founded much later than most of the ancient Sumerian city states, such as Eridu. I for one am leaning towards another interpretation. That Eridu is much older than Babel, and than Nimrod. I think Eridu is pre-diluvian. (before the great flood of Noah).

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Yes, correct. Eridu predates Babylon by a good 3000 years. The point I was making is that the mention of Babylon in Gen10:10 is most likely talking about Eridu. The two often get confused because in Sumerian cuneiform they were written the same. Because Nimrod was only 3 generations after Noah then it's highly unlikely this was Babylon. Whether the great flood refers to the great flood of Ur around 4000 bc or the great flood of 2900 bc that you mentioned, in either case Babylon was established much too late to be attributed to Noahs great grandson.

      When Babylon was established it was a kind of new Eridu.

      I appreciate the discussion. You and I definitely share many common interests.

    • profile image

      John King IV 5 years ago

      Headly vonNoggin: We share manycommon interests, it is a pleasure to read and comment...

      Eridu was clearly a Sumerian city state, perhaps the first one. If I recall the archaic relics correctly: "it came down from heaven"

      Babylon however comes much later. (it only becomes a great city by around the time of Hamurabi (ca. around 1800's BCE). However it was probably founded a little earlier by around the reign of Sargon of Akkad (ca. 2300's BCE). Babylon does not appear to have a Sumerian origin. The records of this time are so fragmentary and rare. My guess is that Babylon was founded by barbarians who entered into the land of Sumer, such as the Akkadians, or Ammorites. Can you find a reference to Babylon that pre-dates Sargon the great? (I have never heard of it). Such things make me think that the biblical "Babel" was something different to the more famous Neo-Babylonian Dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar 2. (ca. 600-530's BCE).

      Thank you for that very informative reference to Enki... That is a fascinating connection to the Babel tale...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Hey John King IV, thanks for reading and for the comment.

      I do think Shinar refers to Sumer. In Gen4 it of course says Cain built a city. By Gen10, Nimrod (Noah's great grandson, Noah>Ham>Cush>Nimrod) established kingdoms "in Babylon, Uruk, Akkad, and Kalneh, in 'Shinar'." (Gen10:10). Babylon here probably refers to Eridu** (note below), Uruk is of course a Sumerian city, and Akkad is a city to the north that the Akkadians eventually came from centuries later, all of which were located in the region known as Sumer.

      ** "One name of Eridu in cuneiform logograms was pronounced "NUN.KI" ("the Mighty Place") in Sumerian, but much later the same "NUN.KI" was understood to mean the city of Babylon." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridu#Possible_locati...

      There are many documents that speak of Enki. I mainly focus on the earlier ones, as Enki was discussed for many centuries throughout the ages of the Akkadians and the Babylonians. There's a poem called "Enki and the World Order" that details him passing on the decrees, known as 'Mes' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_%28mythology%29) that made civilization possible. These gifts of civilization themselves are spoken about in more detail in "Inanna and Enki: The Transfer of the Arts of Civilization from Eridu to Uruk". In "Enki and the Making of Man" it speaks about the 'Igigi gods', after six generations of gods, acting up. This is the same number of generations discussed in Gen4 and is the same number of generations between Adam and Methuselah (died same year as flood) In Gen5.

      Enki also plays a prominent role in the 'confusing of languages' story in "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta", and in the great flood story in the Sumerian creation myth. Enki is intimately associate with Eridu all throughout Sumerian mythology as he was the founder and patron god of that city and inhabited the temple located in the middle of the city.

    • profile image

      John King IV 5 years ago

      The city of eridu and the city of Enoch....

      Yes very convincing, they may indeed have a connection.

      What do you think the biblical "shinar" reffers to? (Many assume refers to the land of Sumer).

      The legend of Enki. Oh it sounds so familiar to me.... what document do you refer to as your source for this, if you know?

      Good Hub!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Thank you for sharing that hub, Cam. Someone else who sees what I see. Each time I find some one I feel a little less crazy, which is nice. She sees Adam as the first farmer, I see him as the introduction of free will, but the gist is the same.

    • cam8510 profile image

      Chris Mills 5 years ago from Maple City, Michigan

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      That's cool, Art. And if I hadn't said so enough, I really do appreciate the time you put into this. While I don't agree with you, I do feel you gave this a good, honest assessment.

      We'll just agree to disagree. I do feel like you looked into this well enough to understand what I'm claiming. Just keep it in the back of your mind as you're reading this and that later and I think you'll find that I've been consistent and that everything I spoke of from the scientific and historical realm is accurate and widely accepted.

      I noticed you removed all my involvement in your hub. That's too bad. I thought there was some good stuff there and I was looking forward to addressing the rest of it.

      Please understand that I am totally open to being wrong. The whole reason I published this stuff was not to witness to the 'science-minded'. I published this because it makes a lot of sense to me and I could see no flaws, but fully acknowledge that there very well could be flaws somewhere. Like I say in my profile, I'm publishing this stuff to be "considered, confirmed, or proven utterly ridiculous". I mean that.

      But to prove something wrong you're going to have to convince me, and you just hadn't provided anything convincing. Years worth of study have gone into this. I know I sometimes can come off as a know-it-all, but understand I have studied the bible, science, and history extensively, always looking for those particulars that are relevant here, so I'm already very familiar in key areas we've discussed here that many simply are not because not everyone is keyed in on the same things as I am. And yes I confirm sources. I'm building my own personal understanding, so I'm not going to build on shaky, unproven, untested ground.

      And please know I'm open to discuss this anytime. If you run across something weeks or months from now you feel blows my theory out of the water, please pass it along. I am not nearly as close-minded as many think I am. I'm doing this to learn. To understand. That is, and has always been, my goal.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      "What I'm doing here is I'm attempting to establish Genesis as a legitimate source of factual information based on the ample evidence I've provided to back up my claim."

      First I never turned this into a philosophical debate, I mentioned twice that YOUR Hub is about God and The bible.

      Second, I have an entire hub that states how your connections with science and the Bible are flawed and wrong... cherry pick my words all you like but all it takes is someone to read through your argument and not even look at mine to see you are making connections where there are none and then contradicting your own statements when these assertions are challenged.

      You don't even acknowledge the possibility that you have made a mistake and you dance around the argument and claim that I am the one without evidence to the contrary.

      I also NEVER made the claim that I am the authority on ANY sort of knowledge I have disseminated here to you. I am merely stating that you are wrong based on such and such laws of physics and you dance around that again. It's why we can't have a civil argument! You putting words in my mouth, you telling me what I think of you, I have never made any sort of judgement on you except to say the reason for me to end this conversation is because you have diverted from it to talk about straw man, ad hominem attacks that I never made... maybe you are getting me mixed up with f_hruz.

      Here is the deal, you have failed to convince me of any connections with Genesis of the Bible to the formation of the world. Not because I do not believe in the Bible but because there are none... If the Authors of the Bible had correctly written down the correct form the Earth was in (in order) and it was 100% accurate, I would freely admit it and talk about how amazing it was.

      I pointed out why you were wrong, I even explained why you were wrong, I didn't give you every detailed evidential description (which you can look up btw) but that would take us months and I am not about to hold your hand and be your nonpaid college teacher.

      You want easy, free, online science and math...

      www.khanacademy.com

      www.youtube.com/user/minutephysics?feature=chclk

      http://www.extremescience.com

      However, this only gives you a fraction of what college can teach you. even if you were to absorb into your brain all the science the internet has to offer you you would still be only getting .001% of what science in college has to offer you.

      Goodbye, good luck, I'm not asking you to stop, you can do what you want but if you don't want to look foolish to actual people of science I suggest you actually do research on our responses rather than claim to have done research on a particular subject from sources of questionable value.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "[Your statements] run on the assumption that everything in the bible is fact, that god is fact and there is a connection between the two. The one problem I found with your statement and theirs (which helped me become an atheist) was neither you nor they have any evidence to back up any of your claims."

      The un-provability of God's existence has been established. What I'm doing here is I'm attempting to establish Genesis as a legitimate source of factual information based on the ample evidence I've provided to back up my claim. Evidence that you continually dodge addressing by trying to turn this into a philosophical debate.

      Here we are again, with you speaking as the knowledgeable authority alluding to 'obvious' flaws in my grasp of the evidence I provide with nothing to detail what makes you think so that doesn't stem from our fundamental philosophical differences.

      This approach works fine in discussions with a believer that rejects scientific findings because it's their word versus the experts who established or confirmed the findings they're rejecting. However, I'm not only agreeing with these scientific findings, I'm using them as evidence to support my claim. I'm not contesting the experts. So then all that's left is our philosophical differences, which are totally subjective and cannot be proven in any material fashion.

      So yes, I'll continue to write and will continue to research. Meanwhile, maybe you can point out whatever it is that I have so wrong that makes it obvious to you, beyond your philosophical objections, that my grasp of the scientifically sound evidence I use is flawed so that I can maybe correct myself.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      If you say so but both statements in the history of the bible and yre history of civilization from both yourself and the bible study group (both trying to reconcile reality and fantasy) run on the assumption that everything in the bible is fact, that god is fact and there is a connection between the two. The one problem I found with your statement and theirs (which helped me become an atheist) was neither you nor they have any evidence to back up any of your claims. In fact the actual facts show much of the details to be mythological fantasy. But that's more of a research based conclusion I don't expect you to come up with. Because much of your "research" IS based on assumption of facts you didn't find. Let me put it another way. How many of those connections came from literary findings and how many came from research sources (from archeological studies done by actual archeologists in the field)?

      Look, you don't even need to try to answer this because I already know. Many of your answers I find.... Let's just say I have yet to say one word to the negative and I do so out of courtesy and civility.

      Anyway, let me put this in the best possible way. You need to do more research and make less assumptions, it doesn't necessity making a book, but if you have that much actual factual information and you have the patience to write one then do so.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "Oh so if a few people come to the same bible conclusions it makes them legitimate? That must make every religion (despite the fact that they are all different from each other) and all the sects that arise from each religion legitimate. Okay. That's logical."

      That's a gross over-simplification. Assigning the same historical events to the same biblical events based on careful analysis and interpretation of the text compared to known history is in no way similar to the differing opinions of spiritual and philosophical matters. One is obviously much more subjective than the other.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      Oh so if a few people come to the same bible conclusions it makes them legitimate? That must make every religion (despite the fact that they are all different from each other) and all the sects that arise from each religion legitimate. Okay. That's logical.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      So you had a bible study teacher tell you that Adam was not the first human? That the humans created at the end of Genesis 1 were the hominids/homo erectus/homo habilis/ homo heidelbergensis/homo neanderthalensis/homo sapiens? That the earth was already fully populated by the time Adam was created? That the Sumerian myths of Enki are actually talking about Cain? That Cain's city in Genesis 4 was Eridu? That the 5.9 kiloyear event is what dispersed the people at Babel? You're right, if this has been taught in sunday school somewhere I was not aware of it. I've read countless articles on the topic, I've talked to dozens and dozens of people on both sides of the fence, and never once have I heard anyone else claim the same thing. Though if they did that would only make this more legitimate.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      Like I said, it was in a Bible study, I read through it and I have heard this from a Bible study teacher.... don't think you understand that none of anything you have said is original, that includes your first hub and this one.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "I read through some of it but realized it's the same Bible study type ideas that I grew up with...."

      Well that tells me about how much you read because if you had read more there's no way you'd say this is 'the same bible study type ideas' you've heard before. I assure you you haven't heard this in any bible study.

      I start off describing what the second half of Genesis 4 says and what some of the traditional interpretations of those lines are. It's after that that I first go into detail about the archaeological evidence of those first Mesopotamian city-states during the Ubaid period, then the rise of civilizations during the Uruk period in Sumer, Egypt, and the Indus Valley. I also detail the mythological stories told by the people that lived in that region during that time and how they relate to what Genesis is saying.

      You're right, most mythology is based on something, then can become embellished afterwards, which is exactly how Sumerian mythology reads. However, they were based on something and they did actually invent all the things those stories say their gods taught them. That all actually happened.

      I won't press if you don't want to discuss. I can certainly understand that. But don't just think this is yet another bible study. This is illustrating the parallel between what early Genesis describes, what actually happened in that region, and what the mythology of those that lived in that region says. It all ties together.

      Again, this isn't to convert you or anyone else to Christianity. This is to illustrate that what Genesis is talking about is genuine and should be reassessed for what it really is. We as humanity in general could learn a lot about ourselves if what I'm trying to point out is true. Simply trying to ignore or dismiss it is ill-advised. Again, I'm not trying to advance some religious agenda. I'm trying to show how accurate a text written 2500+ years ago is incredibly accurate and that the story it's actually telling is detailing how civilized humanity became what it is today. This should be vastly important to anyone, no matter what you believe.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      I read through some of it but realized it's the same Bible study type ideas that I grew up with....

      You and everyone else who reads the Bible must realize that these are all myths... some of the people might have been based on real people but the details are obviously blown out of proportion, the supernatural is injected into it for explanation of inspiration and explanation of the unexplainable natural phenomenon.

      Sorry to say also that I don't intend to continue to debate this since it's just Bible study and I'm not interested in the Bible... been there, done that, too many times...

      I guess my deal is making sure that people know that when they try to reconcile science and the Bible... it's futile because they don't match, you can't force religion or convince people of the truth of your personal religion, when the facts of reality contradict religion, the Christian one as well as all others.

      Thanks, this was fun.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I've explained plenty. I have shown very clearly how it's all based in reality. I have shown how it all matches up to actual events in history.

      So let me get this straight. I have illustrated in great detail how Genesis 1 correlates to actual events in earth's history spanning nearly 5 billion years, and here I have shown how events in subsequent chapters line up with actual human history and with the dawning of civilization.

      13 specific details and 6 major eras in Genesis 1, plus the establishment of the first city, of mass agriculture, then a flood and an aridification event, all of which actually happened in the same region that Genesis specifies, and all of which line up with what Genesis describes.

      I've provided all of this and you have nothing of substance to dispute any of it? Nothing? Countless details from archaeological and paleontological evidence, to climatological and geological evidence, to biological and genetic evidence have been sited to support it, and you can't dispute any of it? You can't tell me one thing I have wrong to prove what you're saying about me is true? Really?

      Why don't you prove me wrong first? You simply saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong. Prove it. That way, when you go on and on about how flawed my thinking is, your statements have some sort of legitimacy.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      You are starting with the same brain dead statement you have not explained or shown to have any basis in reality - which god created anything and how?

      Why does the natural reality require any man made gods to unfold and function so well even before humans evolved on planet earth?

      You sure sound like you are totally stuck in your mindless religious god delusion and all the mythology from an outdated story book you can't get over it?

      What a wast of time!