Lineage questions

1-What happened to, or who is the line of Cain? and what is the correct explanation of who Cain’s wife is? Sister, 1/2 sister, or God created others in addition to Adam & Eve?
2-Are the Nephiliam extinct?

3 Likes

This article below covers all the options in depth. Cain married one of Adam and Eve’s daughters, his sister. It was only in Leviticus 18 that God commanded that there was no more marriage with family members, probably due to the de-generating gene pool that may have started to risk birth defects.

Summary
As far as the account of Cain’s finding a wife when no other people were mentioned except Adam, Eve, and Abel, we can make the following observations:

1. The problem of the identity of Cain’s wife cannot be solved by arguing for some race of Pre-Adamic humans. The Scripture is clear that Adam was the first man and that Eve was the mother of all the living.

2. Some believe that the answer to the population problem is to say that there were older brothers and sisters of Cain and Abel. There is no biblical support for this view but it cannot be totally ruled out.

3. We are not told the age of Cain and Abel when the murder occurred. They could have advanced to a considerable age before Cain killed Abel. The limit the Bible puts on the age of Cain and Abel is 130 years.

4. Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. We are not told specifically how many, but we are told that Adam lived 930 years. This raises the possibility of dozens of children from that couple alone. There were possibly as many as 32,000 people living at the time Cain killed Abel.

5. Genesis 5 tells us that some of Adam’s descendants also had long life spans. Likewise, the Bible says that they gave birth to many sons and daughters.

6. There would not be an issue of incest-parents sexual relationships with their children. This would be a matter of siblings intermarrying-something that was not condemned in Scripture until the Law of Moses. Abraham is one biblical example of a person marrying his half-sister.

7. The Law of Moses condemned intermarriage between brothers and sister to protect the health of the nation as well as the family unit.

8. Because Adam and Eve were created perfect, their gene pool would not have been corrupted until after the Fall. Children of close relatives that married soon after the Fall would not be subject to the same degeneration that would occur in later generations.

9. Genesis 1 says we are to leave father and mother when we get married. That assumes you don’t marry one of them!

In my view (in point 1 above), to suggest there were pre-Adamic races introduces some major problems.

  • Genesis 2:7 specifically states that God made man from dust, not from another existing animal (ie; apes to man evolution is not scriptural).
  • If pre-Adamic races did exist (monkeys to man evolution), and bred with humans (one being Cain’s wife); you have to ask the question at what point in the historic timeline did these pre-Adamic races become morally accountable before God. Animals are not moral beings. Only humans, created completely in God’s image are morally accountable before God.

Who were the Nephalim is a much discussed question; To answer the question ‘are they extinct?’ you’d have to know exactly who they were to start with. My gut feeling is yes they are extinct. :slight_smile:

Here are some articles for further reading, in order of interest…

just a few thoughts, hopefully helpful. :slight_smile:

4 Likes

When it comes to the question of whether or not angels could intermarry with humans, it seems that the laws of genetics would render that impossible. For instance, even now, if you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, you get an impotent mule. It cannot reproduce. We can’t reproduce with anything other than a human – after our kind. As angels are not human, logically it would follow that we could not reproduce with them. Plus there is no where in Scripture, I don’t believe, that would say that humans and angels ever had sexual relations or reproduces. And I am open to being corrected. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

yes, I tend to agree; how can fallen spiritual beings, who have no physical body, cause physical offspring in a human female; doesn’t make sense.
and yet there are passages in the Bible of angels, who are spiritual beings, appearing as messengers in our physical universe (for example Gabriel announced Jesus birth to Mary).

there are lots of discussion on either side and it’s an interesting study.

in the ‘blue letter bible’ article (above); after looking at all the different things; the author lists:

Other Problems With The Angel View
1. Immediate Context Of Passage
2.Phrase Sons of God Is Unclear
3.Cryptic Reference
4.Different Context Than Job

in particular:

5.Angels Do Not Have Physical Form

A major problem with the angel view is that they are ministering spirits-they do not have corporeal form. The Bible says:

In speaking of the angels he says, He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire (Hebrews 1:7).

Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation? (Hebrews 1:14).

Definition Of Angels

Various textbooks on Christian theology note that angels are without bodies.

Angels are created, spiritual beings with moral judgment and high intelligence, but without physical bodies (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology , Zondervan, 1994, p. 397).

angels are spiritual beings; they do not have physical or material bodies. Physical manifestations recorded in Scripture must be regarded as appearances assumed for the occasion (angelophanies) (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology , Baker Book House, 1983,p. 439).

As to the nature of angels, they are described, (1) As pure spirits, i.e., immaterial or incorporeal beings. The Scriptures do not attribute bodies of any kind to them (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology , Volume, 1, Eerdmans, reprinted 1995, p. 637).

Wayne Grudem concludes:

Since angels are spirits (Heb. 1:14) or spiritual creatures, they do not ordinarily have physical bodies (Luke 24:39). Therefore they cannot usually be seen by us unless God gives us a special ability to see them (Num. 22:31; 2 Kings 6:17; Luke 2:13). In their ordinary activities of guarding us and protecting us (Ps. 34:7; 91:11; Heb 1:14), and joining us in worship to God (Heb. 12:22), they are invisible. However from time to time angels took on bodily form to appear to various people in Scripture (Matt 28:5; Heb. 13:2) (Grudem, ibid., p. 397).

Though good angels at times assumed some physical form, it is not the case with evil angels. There is not one biblical example of angels taking on a physical form. God would have to grant them that ability.

it doesn’t bother me either way personally, because it doesn’t (that I can see) effect important doctrine in any way. interesting to read through the various thoughts on it. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

I thought I would interject a thought here on the Nephilim.
We assume they, the Nephilim, were the original problem, they were not, they were the byproduct of the problem, the Watchers. The watchers that not only took the daughters of man but taught mankind all make and manner of evil. Here is a short summary pargraph:

The birth of the Giants is explored in terms of the mingling of “spirits and flesh” (15:8). Angels properly dwell in heaven, and humans properly dwell on earth (15:10), but the nature of the Giants is mixed. This transgression of categories brings terrible results: after their physical death, the Giants’ demonic spirits “come forth from their bodies” to plague humankind (15:9, 11–12; 16:1). According to 1 En[och] 16, the angelic transmission of heavenly knowledge to earthly humans can also be understood as a contamination of distinct categories within God’s orderly Creation. As inhabitants of heaven, the Watchers were privy to all the secrets of heaven; their revelation of this knowledge to the inhabitants of the earth was categorically improper as well as morally destructive.

Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity, 46.
Emphasis mine.

As you can see from the summary that one needs to take into account the book of Enoch. This can be problematic for some folks because Enoch is not in the cannon. but there is little doubt that they influenced the thoughts and writing of the NT writers.

Here are the references from the excerpt:

“But now the giants who are born from the (union of) the spirits and the flesh shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, because their dwelling shall be upon the earth and inside the earth. (1 Enoch 15:9)

10 The dwelling of the spiritual beings of heaven is heaven; but the dwelling of the spirits of the earth, which are born upon the earth, is in the earth. (1 Enoch 15:10)

11 The spirits of the giants oppress each other; they will corrupt, fall, be excited, and fall upon the earth, and cause sorrow. They eat no food, nor become thirsty, nor find obstacles. 12 And these spirits shall rise up against the children of the people and against the women, because they have proceeded forth (from them). (1 Enoch 15:11-12)

16 1* “From the days of the slaughter and destruction, and the death of the giants and the spiritual beings of the spirit, and the flesh, from which they have proceeded forth, which will corrupt without incurring judgment, they will corrupt until the day of the great conclusion, until the great age is consummated, until everything is concluded (upon) the Watchers and the wicked ones. 2 And so to the Watchers on whose behalf you have been sent to intercede—who were formerly in heaven—(say to them), 3 ‘You were (once) in heaven, but not all the mysteries (of heaven) are open to you, and you (only) know the rejected mysteries. Those ones you have broadcast to the women in the hardness of your hearts and by those mysteries the women and men multiply evil deeds upon the earth.’ Tell them, ‘Therefore, you will have no peace!’ ” (1 Enoch 16:1-3

Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 22). New York; London: Yale University Press.

1 Like

Jimmy,

The book of Enoch is not Holy Scripture, as you know. And cannot be used as truth or as support of a truth argument, it is simply assertion. There are proofs for the cannon and test to support it, and the standards are important to reliable truth. If you want to us Enoch for proof and truth then why not the others? I see this as outside the standards of RZIM Connect. I have read MacCabees, but do not use it for truth, and you are using Enoch as truth claim, or at least suggesting it. You may say, no you do not, but some may and will, most likely, quote you here as truth. Charlesworth or not. You may see this as OK and a help to find truth, but truth is not gleaned from myth are legend, or even other historical books. I say our examples are to be from Gods Holy Word and proofed by Gods Holy word, only. Enoch is laid out like scripture not a commentary, therefore easily mistakable.

I am not trying to cause a raw, but you did not include a disclaimer that your statements are not even yours and that they are certainly not the truths of scripture.

Sorry if I have offended you, it is not my intention, I have had to deal with lives hurt and destroyed by myth and false teaching, and I see how persons in here may pick this up and use it for truth. I feel the line here is to close, and so, is dangerous.

thank you…

1 Like

I do appreciate your comments and I do understand that we don’t see eye to eye on this and that is OK. I don’t mind being critiqued or disagreed with as I believe that this is what makes connect such a great place to engage. I will take one exception:

The text in the shaded boxes are quotes from other peoples work and are duly noted.

2 Likes

Jimmy,
Thank you for your response, and I agree completely with you, WE do not always have to agree". And it is OK. That is some of the reason we are here. And I look forward to more of your post and thoughts. I can tell you are a thinker and a studier, and an explorer of truth, and we need more people in the world like that.

thank you…

Matthew, in the context of the spiritual beings who appear as messengers, would you agree that there is zero basis for believing any sexual relations occurred or could occur? That is something that is a great stretch of the imagination at best, it seems. Also, there are definite instances of demon spirits possessing earthy beings, so if a man was demon possessed and raped or slept with a woman who then conceived, it would still be a 100% human child. The spiritual forces that surrounded the conception would still have to use human beings to reproduce human beings.

Very much agree that it is not a core doctrinal issue, and it is an interesting discussion. :slight_smile: Thank you for your input!

1 Like

I think that there are two answers to this, what we believe as 21th century believers and what was believed by the 2nd temple folks. Much of the literature of that period supports the thought that Gen 6:1-4 was understood to be acutrate. In other words there were ‘sons of God’ that indeed rebeled and either procreated with the daughter’s of man or they had creative power that enabled them to impregnate these woman. (Think virgin birth).

For me the question I ask is if they (2nd temple folks) believed this should I?

I hope this sheds some light on the subject. If you are interested in the most up to date info on the topic here is a link to Dr. Michael Hieser’s webpage.

https://drmsh.com/

1 Like

yes I’d agree. as far as I can tell, angels as messengers in the Bible always carried God’s message. I don’t see any reason to link the definite existence of angelic messages to the possibility of Nephilim being the result of demonic. There is no reason to lump them together; they are separate discussions I believe.

One can be firm on angelic messengers, and yet be interested in what ‘Nephilim’ were in an academic sense as it doesn’t effect core doctrine.

@Jimmy_Sellers , this is where I personally would draw the line; the virgin birth is documented as ‘The Holy Ghost’ came upon Mary (that is, the third person of the Trinity); and Jesus Christ was conceived. This, to me, is core Christian doctrine as to Who Jesus Christ was; He did not have a human father.

I would not want to link the virgin birth back to the possibility of sons of God in Genesis may have procreated with human females. I think to make that connection raises a fairly serious problem.

I do like the Spiritual beings videos from the Bible Project which I believe is based on Michael Hieser’s work?

I personally would not hold to the book of Enoch as authoritative in this matter.

Hope that helps… Cheers! :slight_smile: :+1: