Genesis 6 to 10

[pebbles]

Well, this is the story of the Noah and the flood.  However, what caught my eye is Genesis 6:1-4.  I didn't notice before that there is a story, like a myth for superhuman beings in the bible.    Like “son of God” ...sort of like Hercules.  In CCB, it used the word “giant”.  In JB, it used the word NEPHILIM. 

[odhiambo]

Sorry pebbles, but can we go back a little to Genesis 4:16and 17.
Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. (Genesis 4:16)
Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son. (Genesis 4:17)
What does the Church say about the apparent presence of other people from whom Cain chose a wife? It confuses me somewhat

[pebbles]

Ok, you’re making me think .  And hopefully my answer would be in line with Catholic teaching

What I think is this.  Adam and Eve is our connection to God.  I mean that we all have for our ancestors Adam and Eve and they came from God and so basically, God is our true “parent”.   I don’t think we should take it literally that Adam and Eve begat sons and daughter and they intermarry with each other.  Adam and Eve’s story is the story of “how” man was created and “who” created man.  And “what” (disobedience) made them fall from grace.

God could have created “mankind” in every part of the world he created. I say this because we have the bible for the story of the creation of man. And in other cultures they have also stories about the creation of the universe and man.  In my culture (Philippines), we have a story of the creation and the creation of man and woman.  God split a giant bamboo and inside is man and woman.  Although in our myth, the man’s name is Malakas (strong) and the woman’s name is Maganda (beautiful).  Other Asian countries (I forgot which) has a story of how God created the different human races (of course favoring their race )  Like this story:

God wanted to create man.  And so he fashioned some mud into human form and put it in an oven.  However, he was very busy creating the universe that he forgot the human in the oven.  And so when he took it out, it was burnt.  And so he tried again but this time he was impatient and took out the human before it was cooked and so it looked pale.  And for his third try, he timed it and took out the human at the right time and the human was baked perfectly and it looked brown…
And so from the burnt ones came the black race, from the pale one came the white race and from the perfectly baked ones, the brown race.
(I hope I’m not offending anybody…this is not a story I created.)

And also, in our myth, we have our own version of the story of the flood.  It didn’t have the ark but it had the crow and the dove.  And only a couple survived.

And so, I think God created a lot of human races and tested one in every race…but only Abram passed   which is why the Jews became the chosen people from whom Jesus the savior will come. 

[odhiambo]

God could have created “mankind” in every part of the world he created. I say this because we have the bible for the story of the creation of man. And in other cultures they have also stories about the creation of the universe and man.  In my culture (Philippines), we have a story of the creation and the creation of man and woman.  God split a giant bamboo and inside is man and woman.  Although in our myth, the man’s name is Malakas (strong) and the woman’s name is Maganda (beautiful).  Other Asian countries (I forgot which) has a story of how God created the different human races (of course favoring their race )  Like this story:
God wanted to create man.  And so he fashioned some mud into human form and put it in an oven.  However, he was very busy creating the universe that he forgot the human in the oven.  And so when he took it out, it was burnt.  And so he tried again but this time he was impatient and took out the human before it was cooked and so it looked pale.  And for his third try, he timed it and took out the human at the right time and the human was baked perfectly and it looked brown…
And so from the burnt ones came the black race, from the pale one came the white race and from the perfectly baked ones, the brown race.
And also, in our myth, we have our own version of the story of the flood.  It didn’t have the ark but it had the crow and the dove.  And only a couple survived.

Quite a myth pebbles.

[odhiambo]

Well, this is the story of the Noah and the flood.  However, what caught my eye is Genesis 6:1-4.  I didn't notice before that there is a story, like a myth for superhuman beings in the bible.    Like “son of God” ...sort of like Hercules.  In CCB, it used the word “giant”.  In JB, it used the word NEPHILIM.  

My understanding of the Bible is that this race of people actually lived before the flood. Their origin, though, I never understood until today. Some people are of the opinion that “sons of God” were (fallen) angels, but I am of the opinion that  fallen angels ceased to be "sons of God" when they were banished from heaven, so they could not have been the ancestors of the Nephilim.
I read an answer by Father Echert at EWTN, to the question "who were the Nephilim?". I was satisfied with his explanation as to the origin of this race. This is what he writes, and I quote:

Genesis records a strange hybrid which resulted from sexual unions between the "daughters of men" and the “sons of God.
6:1 When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
While many scholars prefer to dismiss this entirely as myth which is borrowed from pagans cultures of the ancient near east, it is more appropriate to look for some truth and reality behind this mythical sounding text. Some of the Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria suggested that the “sons of God” may refer to righteous descendants (men) of Seth who took descendants (women) of Cain as wives. In such a case, “sons of God” associates the men with the goodness of God whereas “daughters of men” would be intended as a contrast to this. This is typical of ancient Semitic expressions which must not be interpreted literally as we understand such constructions but in accord with the customary use of language at the time. Knowing the background of Cain as a killer and the bad blood of his descendants, it is no wonder that such unions would be regarded in a negative light, which unions led to a situation in which humanity was corrupted and unacceptable to God. On the other hand, it is said of Seth and his line that these were the first to reverence the Name of Yahweh. The word “Nephalim” literally means “fallen ones” which sense would be consistent with an interpretation that views this group as a corrupt mixture of good and bad blood. Other commentators have suggested that the “sons of God” were (fallen) angels who somehow mated with human women, but this does present metaphysical complications in light of the natures of each. For now, I find the Patristic solution the most satisfying.

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 1/22/2006

[Shin]

I don’t think we should take it literally that Adam and Eve begat sons and daughter and they intermarry with each other.

Actually, as Catholics we're required by Faith to believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve and that all people are descended from them. All people gain original sin through that descent. The other idea, called 'polygenism' from the words 'poly' 'many' and 'genesis' is stated to be incorrect by Pope Pius XII:

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis)

So the idea that other people were created spontaneously by God after Adam and Eve but not descended of them, is forbidden by the Church. It sounds like a reasonable theory from afar but if you look into the history of Church teachings, it's one that's not allowed.

Naturally we tend towards it as we don't like the idea of near relations marrying, but it seems God permitted this for a time, as it would be necessary for the existence of the human race. What would have happened if there had not been original sin? Well..

In any case the Patristic answer is of course the right answer. We should always go to the saints! 

The different spiritual lineages in the scriptures have a great deal of meaning to them, I remember reading about them in the past. They show how the apple does not fall far from the tree, so to speak. Children follow after their parents in sanctity or lack thereof. There is always a holy line throughout the scriptures, and always darker more worldly lines (Canaan).

I once listened to a sermon which basically put forth the truth that while the Jewish creation stories are all the correct ones, quite naturally since everyone comes from this source they have similar stories intermixed with errors and myth. This is proof all the more of the truth of the creation stories, the flood, etc. Everywhere we find people who have been touched by the original truth.

I'm happy to hear about these stories.

[Shin]

The holy line of course goes down all the way through to Noah. And then we see how his own children either continue it or start lines that are not.

Since Cain's line was full of people who were farther from God, and this influenced both the husbands and the children negatively, it is like an early lesson in why the Church has always preached against marrying outside of the Faith.

The Douay's Haydock commentary says:

[2] The sons of God: The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called sons of God from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in their choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion.

[3] His days shall be: The meaning is, that man's days, which before the flood were usually 900 years, should now be reduced to 120 years. Or rather, that God would allow men this term of 120 years, for their repentance and conversion, before he would send the deluge.

[Shin]

I read that men in that time were giants at the least in their vices and virtues. . that going along with the ages well, when people go bad one can only imagine how bad they would go if they lived longer than one hundred years...

It's a very sad story.. when it comes down to the time of Noah.. where only he and his family please God..

'In the time of Noah, the entire human race was submerged by the Deluge, and only eight people were saved in the Ark. Saint Peter says, "This ark was the figure of the Church," while Saint Augustine adds, "And these eight people who were saved signify that very few Christians are saved, because there are very few who sincerely renounce the world, and those who renounce it only in words do not belong to the mystery represented by that ark." The Bible also tells us that only two Hebrews out of two million entered the Promised Land after going out of Egypt, and that only four escaped the fire of Sodom and the other burning cities that perished with it. All of this means that the number of the damned who will be cast into fire like straw is far greater than that of the saved, whom the heavenly Father will one day gather into His barns like precious wheat.'

St. Leonard of Port Maurice

When I think of the Ark as the figure of the Church and I think of Mary it's quite soothing. Rather like being in the midst of a stormy sea and seeing a stately and solid ship come to your rescue.

[Patricia]

What is 'patristic' ?

[odhiambo]

The Douay's Haydock commentary says:
[2] The sons of God: The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called sons of God from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men.

Thank you Shin.
That settles nicely the question of who the "sons of God" were.

[odhiambo]

I don’t think we should take it literally that Adam and Eve begat sons and daughter and they intermarry with each other.

Actually, as Catholics we're required by Faith to believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve and that all people are descended from them. All people gain original sin through that descent.

Reading similar threads on CAF, it appears that a significant number of Catholics are of the opinion that the story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally. 

[martin]

This is an interesting thread. 

Reading similar threads on CAF, it appears that a significant number of Catholics are of the opinion that the story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally.  Sad

Yes... It has become quite the thing in recent times for individual speculation to be considered as worthy of a hearing but when it is divorced from the wisdom and divinely inspired knowledge of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church, it can go off in an unorthodox tangent and end up the total opposite of what was previously held to be infallible truth.

I listened to a sermon on Audio Sancto on how every civilization (even the pagan ones) can trace their ancestry back to those who disembarked from the ark after the flood. It is worth listening to. I'll post the title of it when I can find it.

[pebbles]

Quite a myth pebbles.  

Yes.  I'm just fascinated that other cultures have their own stories of creation and flood even though they are not Christian (they don't have the bible).  I think it only says that in every human being the belief in God cannot be denied. Whether it's mono or poly theism.  


Actually, as Catholics we're required by Faith to believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve and that all people are descended from them. All people gain original sin through that descent. The other idea, called 'polygenism' from the words 'poly' 'many' and 'genesis' is stated to be incorrect by Pope Pius XII:

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis)

So the idea that other people were created spontaneously by God after Adam and Eve but not descended of them, is forbidden by the Church. It sounds like a reasonable theory from afar but if you look into the history of Church teachings, it's one that's not allowed.

Ah... ok. So it's actually wrong to speculate that God created other human beings for Cain. Hmm... I have no problem with this since in my speculation, it is always open for the correction of what the Catholic church actually teaches.  And this answers:

Reading similar threads on CAF, it appears that a significant number of Catholics are of the opinion that the story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally.  

For in truth, for people who do not know this teaching (like I do... like many Catholics out there) they will speculate.  Most especially for non-believers who will reason only by logic.  For them, logically, they will believe that God created other human.  Especially if they don't believe in original sin.  Because based on the teaching, we are bound to believe by Faith.  Now, I'm wondering, how do Protestants explain this? Hmmm..  

The teaching did not actually say that "No. God did not create other humans." But that we are only limited to believe (due to logical explanation based on faith) that we cannot believe other humans were created since these "new" humans would not have descended from Adam and Eve and would not have inherited "original sin" and it is in our faith that we inherited original sin, therefore, we all descended from Adam and Eve.  

I think it's like imprimatur(?) it's not really an endorsement of the Catholic church but that it is just a seal(?) that says "this book does not contain anything that is contrary to Catholic belief."  (Is that right?)  And it's also the same for the apparitions of Mama Mary.

Like the infallibility of the pope.  It doesn't mean he does not make mistakes, but that he CANNOT teach anything contrary to our faith.

I know there are terms for these things...something with "negative"... I just can't remember...It's what real apologists use (so...sorry if I sort of explain stuffs rather weirdly     )

And so my new speculation is:  Cain being able to have someone to marry is just a way to make the story foster "generations". A continuation of the story.  Like Adam and Eve begat Cain, Cain begat, Enoch, Enoch begat....  

I've always believed that Adam and Eve are our first parents, but I guess my logic will be flawed if I speculated that there were other humans God created.  I'm glad that got settled 

[odhiambo]

Again sorry for taking us back 
My understanding is that the Book of Genesis was written by at least three authors, each with his own characteristic style or form of writing. These were the Yahwist, the Elohist and the Priestly. The first two I understand, but who were the Priestly authors? What was their form of writing? And while we are at it, what of the Deuteronic authors?

[Shin]

Since Moses has always been understood to be the author of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) and this is what the Church teaches (in scripture as well as elsewhere), I have not paid any real attention to the various 'scholarly' articles about any other influences, though I notice them constantly changing over time, and going outside of this truth.

There's a brief response from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, from back aways, dealing with the subject and insisting on Mosaic authorship, while allowing it may be speculated that he worked through assistants, and selected under the inspiration of God from other source materials.

When I read the scriptures I look for the spiritually inspired commentary and understandings about them, rather than the sort of commentary and footnotes one finds in most modern Bibles, often with a 'Catholic' label that in fact contradict teachings of the Faith often enough, as well as deal with subjects that are simply not useful whatsoever to the spiritual life but are matters of quibbles about various historical matters that are either already established traditionally or about matters no one can know the answer to, and which laypeople certainly aren't going to learn anything from or be able to engage in discussions about the details of.

I like to learn the spiritual and moral lessons, the Catholic spirituality.

And I think that's where we laypeople can best benefit and discuss without being too out of our field.

[Shin]

Ah, here we go:

The Biblical Commission answers the following questions:

1. Authenticity — Whether the arguments amassed by critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the sacred books designated by the name Pentateuch are of sufficient weight, notwithstanding the very many evidences to the contrary contained in both Testaments, taken collectively, the persistent agreement of the Jewish people, the constant tradition of the Church, and internal arguments derived from the text itself, to justify the statement that these books have not Moses for their author but have been complied from sources for the most part posterior to the time of Moses.

Answer: In the negative.

2. Writer — Whether the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch necessarily postulates such a redaction of the whole work as to render it absolutely imperative to maintain that Moses wrote with his own hand or dictated to amanuenses all and everything contained in it; or whether it is possible to admit the hypothesis of those who think that he entrusted the composition of the work itself, conceived by himself under the influence of divine inspiration, to some other person or persons, but in such a manner that they render faithfully his own thoughts, wrote nothing contrary to his will, and omitted nothing; and that the work thus produced, approved by Moses as the principal and inspired author, was made public under his name.

Answer: In the negative to the first part, in the affirmative to the second part.

3. Sources — Whether it may be granted, without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch, that Moses employed sources in the production of his work, i.e., written documents or oral traditions, from which, to suit his special purpose and under the influence of divine inspiration, he selected some things and inserted them in his work, either literally or in substance, summarized or amplified.

Answer: In the affirmative.

4. Changes and Textual Corruptions — Whether, granted the substantial Mosaic authenticity and the integrity of the Pentateuch, it may be admitted that in the long course of centuries some modifications have been introduced into the work, such as additions after the death of Moses, either appended by an inspired author or inserted into the text as glosses and explanations; certain words and forms translated from the ancient language to a more recent language, and finally, faulty readings to be ascribed to the error of amanuenses, concerning which it is lawful to investigate and judge according to the laws of criticism.

Answer: In the affirmative, subject to the judgment of the Church.