[Rough Draft!! - this is a work in progress/subject to change.]
When Dave Hunt was once asked about Genesis 6:2-4 he responded, “I certainly don’t believe that fallen angels can have sex with human women and produce children.” Most Bible commentators agree with him; they say that the passage simply describes intermarriage between the descendants of Shem and the descendants of the world’s first murderer, Cain. Let’s examine who’s right.
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And 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.
4 There 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.
The allegation is that “sons of God” refers to the men who proceeded from Shem’s godly line, and the “daughters of men” refers to women in the cursed bloodline of Cain. The implication is that the men of Shem’s line destroyed their progeny by intermarriage with Cain’s daughters – creating an ungodly population of descendants. It is said God chose Noah, in part, because he was a pure-blooded Shemite and therefore, “perfect in his generations.” (Gen 6:9).
This interpretation avoids dealing with question of how some unidentified “fallen angels” might successfully procreate with human women, but it doesn’t explain why a mere human Shem-Cain mixture would produce supernatural “giants” in the earth – if that is what happened. Nor does it explain why after the flood did Noah’s own descendants reencounter the problem with giants?
If “fallen angels” did this thing, who are they and how did they acquire the ability to mate with humans? Jude’s epistle suggests that certain angels where judged for going after strange flesh – perhaps a reference to the incident in Genesis 6:
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
With the words “Even as” Jude equates the actions of certain angels with the fornicating of the Sodomites, which makes no sense if angels are unable to fornicate. If Jude is not referring to the incident in Genesis 6, then what is he referring to? Whatever it is, Jude assumes he can put his readers “in remembrance” of it. Why would Jude put the Exodus from Egypt and the destruction of Sodom on par with just some obscure “Jewish myths” about fallen angels? We should assume all of his examples are scriptural events unless he said otherwise – and he didn’t.
If Jude’s “angels … who left their own habitation” are the same as the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 – then the Shem-Cain intermarriage theory is rejected – unless “angel” means Shem’s sons.
What “angel” means in the Bible is not entirely clear. Supernatural creatures with wings are called “cherubims” (Gen 3:2) and “seraphims” (Isaiah 6:2) – but what are called “angels” often are often mistaken for being mere men because they look just like men (Hebrews 13:2; Judges 6:22; Genesis 19:5). If they were 100 feet tall and had wings on their backs, they would hardly have been mistaken for being mere men.
But every angel isn’t necessarily an angel. God is certainly not an angel – yet in the Old Testament he often made an appearance as an angel (Genesis 32:30; Judges 6:22; 13:22).
Likewise, Satan is actually a cherub that resembles a seven headed dragon (Ezekiel 28:14; Isaiah 27:1; Revelation 12:3,9), yet the bible says he can transform himself into making an appearance as an angel: “for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” 2 Corinthians 11:14. It doesn’t say he is an angel of light, he just shows up looking like one. And if angels essentially look like men – then when the Serpent shows up he can do it looking like a man. It doesn’t say Eve saw a snake in the garden – she saw that old Serpent who can transform himself into an angel of light. Perhaps the devil looked like a charming young man as he talked with her.
And the devil has his “angels” – “And the great dragon was cast out … and his angels were cast out with him.” Rev. 12:9. Who are they? It doesn’t say – but the appear to be located like stars in outer space (Rev. 12:4).
Jesus Christ says that in the Resurrection men will be like angels (Luke 20:36). He also says that children’s angels behold God’s face in heaven:
“Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 18:10.
This is taken to mean children have guardian angels, but it might mean there is an ‘appearance’ in heaven of the children themselves.
The angel that escorted John in the book of Revelation said that he was a fellow servant with John and the prophets: “I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book….” Rev. 22:9. If this “angel” was a servant of God and a prophet it may have been the prophet Daniel in the state of glory.
The book of Revelation was addressed to seven “angels” over the seven churches of Asia – which may mean the pastors of those churches. When Rhoda told the disciples that she heard Peter knocking at the door, the told her she was mistaken it was only “his angel.” Acts 12:15.
This doesn’t exhaust the ways “angel” is used, but its definition certainly includes a generic term for someone’s supernatural appearance, either on earth or in heaven (e.g., God, Satan, a glorified man, a living man, or little children).
Now if somebody assumes “angel” means a supernatural creature that is not human, then they will reject the idea that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 has anything to do with the devil’s angels or Jude 6. But usage of the term “angel” is actually rather vague. Although Jesus said that “angels of God in heaven” do not marry (Mt. 22:30) – that says nothing about angels who are neither God’s nor in heaven.
The phrase actually used in Genesis 6 is “sons of God”. They next time that phrase appears they said to be accompanied by Satan. “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.” Job 1:6. Whoever the “sons of God” are, some of them evidently predate the foundation of the earth: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? …. When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Job 38:4,7.
Luke says of the first very first human in Christ’s human lineage, “Adam, which was the son of God.” Luke 3:38.
So Adam is a son of God because he was made directly by God. Jesus Christ, of course, is a very special son of God because he became a man out from God himself (John 16:27) thus the special description for the eternal Son of God who became flesh as the “only begotten of the Father” John 1:14 or “the only begotten Son of God” John 3:18.
[Perverted modern Bible versions incorrectly changed John 3:16 to "one and only son" which is plainly incorrect in this regard.]
When the “son of God” Adam, who was originally made in the image of God, had himself a son, that child was not a son of God – he was a son of Adam, and he was now made in Adam’s image. “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:” Genesis 5:3.
So the scriptures define a “son of God” as a man who is an original creation made directly by God. And the word “begat” means a son who comes directly out from his father.
Christians partake of a unique situation where they will be re-made bodily as brand new men via the resurrected body of Jesus Christ, thus all of us becoming “sons of God” by being reborn anew, directly created by God as brothers of Jesus Christ in the new creation. Thus we are “begotten” by Christ as “sons of God” (1 John 5:1).
The Lord Jesus Christ became a man to die on behalf of Adam’s fallen sons, and to rise from the dead as the new-Adam of an eternal, glorified, and sinless race of redeemed men who will serve him forever as priest and kings over all of God’s creation.
[Notice that this is entirely different from the blasphemous claim of Athanasius, repeated by so many unsaved Roman Catholics today, that "God became man to make man God". That wrong statement is inspired by the devil who said "I will be like the most High" and lied to Eve about becoming as gods (Isaiah 14:14; Gen 3:5). We have the Holy Ghost forever, and will have new heavenly bodies from Christ's own body, but the souls of glorified Christians never change - they do not become God. We will always be subsidiary to the one who bought us with his blood, our Lord Jesus Christ.]
All of Adam’s sons, white, yellow, or black, are redeemed by the blood of Christ, and able to get saved. The very first full-blooded gentile saved in the book of Acts was a eunuch from Ethiopia (Acts 8:27). The good black who helped Jeremiah, and got blessed for doing it, was also a eunuch (Jeremiah 38:7; 39:18). These are just these two saved Ethiopians in the entire Bible and both of them are eunuchs – which simply can’t just be a coincidence. The implication is that individual blacks will be saved, but their race itself will be cut off in eternity.
Eunuchs get two other important mentions. Jesus Christ mentions “there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” Matthew 19:12. The kingdom of heaven is not the present spiritual kingdom – it is the physical kingdom to come when Christ returns. Making yourself a eunuch right now is worthless – but there will evidently be certain persons who must consent to become eunuchs to be allowed to live into the kingdom age. For the sake of the kingdom of heaven, they must be castrated to forego having any progeny.
But these same men are mentioned again in the cross-reference describing the second advent at Isaiah 56:3-5, “neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.“
Since the saved Ethiopians are all eunuchs, the undeniable cross-reference to the eunuchs who enter the Kingdom age must be the black race. Some of the sons of Ham will be saved and enter the kingdom, but they will not to procreate any further – they will be made eunuchs.
Notice the difference between the races during the tribulation versus those at the end of the millennium. The Tribulation entails many Hammatic nations attacking Jerusalem, as described in Psalm 83:5-8, “5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee: 6 The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes; 7 Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre; 8 Assur also is joined with them: they have holpen the children of Lot. Selah.“
But these Hammite nations get wiped out, and any surviving Hammites who remain when Christ returns are castrated. One thousand years later and we read that the children of Gog and Magog completely cover the face of the earth: “…the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city…” Revelation 20:8-9. The Hammites are all gone. These who multiplied during the millennium are the descendants of Gog and Magog who survived the destructions of Ezekiel 38-39.
The fact that Jesus Christ will enact racial genocide at his coming is sure to rattle some people’s sensitive little cages. But who ever read the Old Testament without realizing that genocide was, from the start, his revealed will to the nation of Israel?
“I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven…. Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.” Ex 17:14,16
“And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain…” Dt 2:34.
“And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them…” Dt 7:2.
“And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them…” Deut 7:16.
“…of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:” Dt. 20:16
“So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.” Joshua 10:40.
“And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire.” Joshua 11:11.
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” 1 Sam 15:3.
Israel’s failure to wipe out these people only granted them a temporary reprieve. God didn’t change his mind about utterly cutting off these people. When Jesus Christ establishes himself as King of Kings over Israel and the earth – he will wipe out the remnant of these nations, and many others as well.
“… and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.” Zechariah 14:21.
“For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.” Isaiah 14:23.
“Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.” Isaiah 14:21.
God’s undeniable hostility toward certain people and races fills the pages of scripture. If the King James Bible is ever outlawed by the United Nations they will cite two main reasons: “homophobia” and “racism.”
Let’s return to the question of where the “sons of God” came from who show up in Genesis 6.
Since “sons of God” means men made directly by God, these aren’t supernatural spirit beings – but were some sort of men.
1. If they are the “sons of God” from Job 38:7, then they must have been Pre-Adamite men made by God between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
2. However, they might have been men made directly by God at the same time he made Adam.
Either way, they were not suppose to inter-marry into the Adamic race. Assuming Jude 6 is speaking of them, it implies they went after strange flesh when they decided to marry the daughters of men.
Notice also that the daughters were “fair” – a word that means beautiful, but that meaning comes from the sense of being light-skinned. These “sons of God” were attracted by white women.
Abraham said the same thing of his wife Sara when they went down to Egypt, “when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon. Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.” Genesis 12:11-12.
Abraham had no reason to be jealous over his wife who was nearly 90 years old at the time! But now he suddenly became worried because he was taking a white skinned woman into Africa. It didn’t matter that she was 90 years old – her white skin only would make her highly attractive to the Negros in Egypt (“land of Ham” Psalm 105:23). So Abraham worries about their lust for white skin and their reputation for murder.
This passage is the very next one that mentions “fair” after the episode of Genesis 6. The passage is the same sort – violent men taking “fair” women for themselves.
So is it scripturally possible that other Adams were created along with him, and that these were men who would also be called “sons of God” (like Adam) – but different racially?
Adam means “Red”. If his descendants, through Noah’s sons Japheth and Shem, are the pink skinned Orientals and Caucasians – that would explain the similarities of those two races – both ruddy, although one is also like yellow and the other like white (like gold and like silver – Ps 68:13).
But if these two ruddy races are related to the black race, it can only be by a distant relation. The African clearly has many strong foreign elements in him that are totally absent from Orientals and Caucasians. Since his features are dominate genetically, how in the world could this have occurred unless the third brother on the Ark, Ham, carried in him the genes of an entirely different race?
Ham was the son of Noah, as was Shem and Japheth. But it doesn’t say that Ham’s mother was their mother. If Noah had Ham through a black concubine it certainly would not have been a surprise.
At least three reasons suggest Noah did:
Ham saw his father’s nakedness (Genesis 9:22), a phrase implying defiling your father’s wife (Lev 18:8). Defiling one’s step-mother was what Reuben did (Gen 35:22), Absalom did (2 Sam 16:22), and what the fornicator did in 1 Cor 5:1. This suggest that Noah’s wife was only Ham’s step-mother.
It is inexplicably mentioned that “the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.” in Genesis 4:19. Women in the Bible are rarely mentioned except if there is a reason for it. Here, there is no apparent reason for mentioning this woman, unless Naamah did something, such as being the mother of Ham. Her name contains three a’s just like Canaan (Ham’s son), Raamah (Cain’s grandson), and that other bad bible character, Balaam. The other Naamah in the Bible is the Ammonite mother of Solomon’s son King Rehoboam, who turned out rotten.
In the Ark’s raven – an unclean black bird – was first let loose by Noah and did not return to him (Genesis 8:7). Noah’s dove returned to him twice – first to find rest for her feet; secondly to bring back an olive leaf (Genesis 8:9-11). This episode suggests a parallel with the cursed line of Ham and that of the raven, both black and unclean and worthless – entirely different from his two dove-like brothers.
Even if Ham was half-black, he was still Noah’s son, and therefore initially blessed along with Noah’s 2 other sons. (“And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Genesis 9:1). This was augmented by the curse against all of Ham’s sons to perpetual servitude in Genesis 9:26.
If Ham’s wife was also a Negress, then its obviously how his line could have become considerably darker than those of the two brothers.
Assuming this to be the case to describe the origin of the marked difference from the time of Noah between the Africans on the one hand, and the two other races on the other, it still doesn’t describe the origin of the blackness inherited by Ham and his sons.
Cain also was cursed to be a fugitive and a vagabond, and he was marked. A mark is a black spot. It is speculated that over process of time the blackness grew with the sins of his descendants until they were dark black all over, becoming Negroes.
Of course, we are reading the Bible and trying to understand how it solves this mystery through the information that it discloses. Nobody who rejects the Bible is expected to give any of this the least bit of credence.
Now, that may explain how dark skin originated, or how it got worse, but it seems that the difference between blacks and the other races is much more dramatic than just skin colour. In fact, Cain’s religious fervor, murder of his brother in rage and jealousy, his lack of remorse, and his extreme self-pity indicate that he was already different from other humans. How did Adam and Eve produce such a monster?
Is it possible that Cain’s father was not Adam, but a different “son of God”?
Recall that one of Eve’s curses was to “greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception” Gen 3:16. The woman’s present monthly cycle may have been only a once yearly cycle prior to the fall. If that were the case, then the time-frame for impregnation may have been open much longer. It is a relatively common occurrence in female dogs that they have a litter of puppies from two or more males.
Although it is assumed that Cain was Adam’s son, we have reason to doubt it. John wrote, “Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.” 1 John 3:12. If Cain was of that wicked one, then he was the devil’s own. Jesus said, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” John 8:44. The first murderer mentioned in the Bible is Cain. The implication is obvious.
Notice that Jesus also called Judas Iscariot a devil: “Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” John 6:70. He didn’t say he was merely like the devil, or even that he only “had a devil” – but he actually accused Judas of being “a devil.”
By the way, this post is “off the chart” politically incorrect. Isn’t interesting that the same people who brought us rock music, strip clubs, drugs, pornography, atheism, abortion, cigarettes, liquor, buggery, child abuse, national debt, double taxation, funny money, feminism, uncontrolled immigration, AIDS, urban sprawl, evolution, government sponsored cross-in-urine “Artwork”, the United Nations, and internet gambling … These same people also decided that “racism” was a sin.
We are expected to get our bearings concerning right and wrong from the News Media instead of the Bible. And there are millions of Christians who think exactly like that.
Anyhow, back to the topic at hand. We need to explore next (a common question for most black men) where did Cain’s real father come from?
Many have noticed apparent inconsistencies between the creation of man as described in the first and second chapters of Genesis.
“ 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Genesis 1:26-28
“ 4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. ….
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” Genesis 2:4-8, 15.
Could account #1 be the description of several races of men – each one a “son of God” – and account #2 be the description of one the creation of special man, Adam, also a “son of God” ??
Recall that famous question, where did Cain get his wife? The answer is he went into the land of the east and got a wife:
“And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.” Genesis 4:16-17.
If God made several races of man at the beginning, then Cain’s wife was the daughter of one of the other “sons of God.”
Notice this passage:
“And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.” Malachi 2:15.
It is speaking of the creation of Adam and Eve who were made to get married and produce godly offspring – “seed”. The residue of the spirit indicates God could have kept making men himself from the ground instead of through human procreation.
[to be continued]