The Problem With Genesis 6:1-4

A Christogenea commentary On the Gospel of John has recently been completed. Many passages simply do not say what the modern churches think they mean! Don't miss this important and ground-breaking work proving that Christian Identity is indeed fully supported by Scripture.

A Commentary on Genesis is now being presented. Here we endeavor to explain the very first book of the Christian Bible from a perspective which reconciles both the Old and New Testaments with archaeology and ancient history, through eyes which have been opened by the Gospel of Christ.

A Commentary on the Epistles of Paul has been completed at This lengthy and in-depth series reveals the true Paul as an apostle of God, a prophet in his own right, and the first teacher of what we call Christian Identity.

Don't miss our recently-completed series of commentaries on the Minor Prophets of the Bible, which has also been used as a vehicle to prove the historicity of the Bible as well as the Provenance of God.

Visit Clifton Emahiser's Watchman's Teaching Ministries at for his many foundational Christian Identity studies.

Christogenea Books: Christian Truths in Black and White!
Visit our store at

© 2007 William Finck

Various theories have been developed around the text found at Gen. 6:1-4, and it is quite often that discussions concerning these verses, like many others in the Bible, become emotionally charged. This is because people often tend to build their own personal belief systems upon a single Biblical passage, or perhaps a couple of passages, rather than upon the entire body of Scripture accompanied with sound studies in language, archaeology, and history, which truly are necessary in order to obtain an honest understanding of Scripture. For instance, upon examining this particular passage, it is quite obvious that it contains a conflict which is irresoluble within the Masoretic Text or Septuagint alone, when compared to other passages throughout both the Old and New Testaments. Here, an explanation of this conflict shall be provided, and a resolution offered. Yet in order to do so we shall peruse Biblical literature, deemed apocryphal by many, found outside of the Masoretic Text upon which today’s popular Bible versions are based.

In the King James version, Genesis 6:1-4 reads thusly: “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 [Yahweh] 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.” From Gen. 6:5 ff. we see the evil which these illicit unions between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” had wrought, resulting in Yahweh’s destruction of that old society in the great flood. Yet Noah, who was “perfect in his generations”, was spared with his family. The word rendered “generations” in the A.V. at Gen. 6:9 is Strong’s Hebrew dictionary #8435 toledah, and means “descent”. In other words, the blood of Noah and his offspring hadn’t been tainted by the race-mixing described in the preceding verses.

Yet the conflict in this passage lies here: with one exception, the words “man” and “men” in Gen. 6:1-4 are from the Hebrew word adam, Strong’s #120, signifying those of the White Adamic race descended from Adam through Seth. The word for “man” at Gen. 6:5-7 is also adam. Yet the Hebrew word rendered “men” in the phrase “men of renown” in 6:4 is enosh, Strong’s #582, a different, less specific word for man. Sometimes used of Adamic men, enosh is often used disparagingly, or also in contrast to adam, where men of non-Adamic races are referred to. For examples see Dan. 2:43 (where the Aramaic equivalent enash, Strong’s #606, is found), and in the Psalms at 8:4; 9:19-20; 10: 18; 90:3 and 144:3, where it is advisable that one examine the various Hebrew words used for “man” and “men” in these passages, using a Strong’s Concordance or other similar reference tool. Now Scripture tells us elsewhere that Adam was the son of God (Yahweh), at Luke 3:38. This is verified of Adam’s descendants, and especially of the chosen line of the children of Israel, at Deut. 14:1; Isa. 43:6; 45:11; Hos. 1:10; 1 John 3:1-2 and elsewhere, but also of other branches of the Adamic race, for instance of the Ionian Greeks (descendants of Javan, Gen. 10:2) at Acts 17:28. Now if the children of Adam are the children of Yahweh, which Scripture verifies in so many places, then there should be nothing wrong with the events described at Gen. 6:1-4, and with unions between the sons of Yahweh and the daughters of Adam! For the children of Adam were specifically told to “be fruitful, and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Yet because the events described at Gen. 6:1-4 were indeed the cause of much evil – even for Yahweh to destroy nearly all of Adam-kind – certainly it is evident that this passage contains contradictions which require further research in order to resolve.

Three sources for ancient texts shall be employed here in order to present a solution resolving the conflict found in Gen. 6:1-4. They are The Dead Sea Scrolls by Florentino G. Martinez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar (hereinafter TDSS), The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich (hereinafter TDSSB), and the edition of the Book of Enoch translated by R.H. Charles, first published in 1912 but still available in reprints from several publishers (i.e. www.,; hereinafter 1 Enoch, as the book itself is commonly labeled). TDSSB is a translation of all of the Dead Sea Scrolls which are ancient copies of Biblical books. TDSS is a translation of all of the Dead Sea Scrolls which are peculiar to the Qumran sect which produced the scrolls, not known from other sources or clearly sectarian in nature, in addition to books found among the scrolls which are known from elsewhere but are considered to be apocryphal, such as copies of the Book of Enoch.

According to TDSSB, fragments of twenty-four ancient manuscripts of Genesis have been found: twenty at Qumran and four elsewhere in the Judaean desert. Quite interestingly, none of these have preserved for us any portion of the passages found in the Bible at Gen. 3:15-4:1 or 6:1-12. Yet among the Dead Sea Scrolls is found the Genesis Apocryphon, of which TDSSB says on p.3: “Retelling portions of Genesis was a popular business in the Qumran community. The Genesis Apocryphon, preserved to a length of twenty-three somewhat fragmentary columns, is an Aramaic work that rehearses the lives of Enoch, Lamech, Noah and his sons, and Abraham. The creation, the flood, and events in the life of Abraham were extremely popular with the writers of the Second Temple period. Theological issues found their beginnings in Genesis as well. Discussions concerning the pollution of humans and divine beings by sin were centered on the mysterious union of ‘the sons of God and the daughters of men’ in Genesis 6:1-4, and messianic musings were founded on the blessings to the tribe of Judah in Genesis 49:10.” It is apparent here that TDSSB commentators have not distinguished one very important fact: that the Septuagint and later Hebrew Masoretic texts as we know them are the products of the respective priestly establishments of their days; the former is Judaean, of the Second Temple period, the latter is jewish, of the early Medieval Age. Examining the Genesis Apocryphon, 1 Enoch, and the fragments of Enoch literature among the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with other sources both official and apocryphal, it is evident that there is a tradition concerning Gen. 6:1-4, and Gen. 4:1 also, which is contrary to the one that has been preserved by the religious establishment at Jerusalem and the later Masoretes. As we shall see, this alternate tradition not only resolves the conflict found in our Bibles in Gen. 6, described above, but also dovetails quite perfectly with the versions of Genesis 4:1 found in the Aramaic targums, and other “apocryphal” passages which allude to the events recorded there. All of these “apocryphal” works are representative of the understanding of religious people of the time who were independent of both the later Second Temple priesthood and the jewish rabbis. Even if the details of the Genesis Apocryphon were contrived, and at least some of them apparently were, the general theme nevertheless represents an understanding of the Biblical account by certain early writers, which when put together with other independent ancient sources cannot be discarded. The same is true even if the Book of Enoch wasn’t actually written by the patriarch Enoch. Evidence shows that it actually consists of several books later combined into one, which were written at various times. This alternate tradition shall now be presented here.

First another related tradition, which may have grown from the text of Gen. 6:9, has it that when Noah was born, he was of magnificent effulgence. From 1 Enoch 106:1-6, a fragment of the apocryphal Book of Noah (which is believed to have originally been a separate work and evidently incorporated into the Book of Enoch, as Charles explains in his Introduction, on pp. 46-47): “1. And after some days my son Methuselah took a wife for his son Lamech, and she became pregnant by him and bore a son. 2. And his body was white as snow and red as the blooming of a rose, and the hair of his head and his long locks were as white as wool [Charles notes that ‘long locks’ is a likely corruption], and his eyes beautiful. And when he opened his eyes, he lighted up the whole house like the sun, and the whole house was very bright ... 4. And his father Lamech was afraid of him and fled, and came to his father Methuselah. 5. And he said unto him: ‘I have begotten a strange son, diverse from and unlike man, and resembling the sons of the God of heaven; and his nature is different and he is not like us, and his eyes are as the rays of the sun, and his countenance is glorious. 6. And it seems to me that he is not sprung from me but from the angels, and I fear that in his days a wonder may be wrought on the earth’.” While there does seem to be a discrepancy here, comparing verses 5 and 6, where apparently “angels” are perceived by the writer to be the “sons of the God of heaven”, Biblical Scripture tells us that the race of Adam are the sons of Yahweh, the God of heaven, already cited above. More may be said about this in relation to the Scripture found in Matt. 22:30 and 1 Cor. 15:39-58, and since the fate of the children of Adam is to be “like the angels of God in heaven”, then it is evident that certain “angels” are also the children of Yahweh, yet this does not resolve the problem with Genesis 6:1-4. Similar to the passage cited above are fragments from Qumran labeled 1Q19 and 1Q19bis (1QNoah), called 1QBook of Noah, Frag. 3, from TDSS: “1 [...] ... [...] 2 [...] ... were aston[ished ...] 3 [ ...(not like the children of men) the fir]st-born is born, but the glorious ones [...] 4 [...] his father, and when Lamech saw [...] 5 [...]the chambers of the house like the beams of the sun [...] 6 [...] to frighten the [...] 7 [...] ... [...]”. While these fragments are very incomplete, there is enough to see that the tradition concerning Noah and his birth were also extant among the people of the Qumran community.

This concern of Lamech with the condition of his son Noah, as portrayed by the writers of these apocryphal documents, fully reflects what these early writers believed had been transpiring during the age of the ante-diluvian patriarchs, of which the events of Gen. 6:1-4 were a part. From 1 Enoch 6:1-2: “1. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. 2. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children’.” Seeing all of this, now the concern attributed to Lamech, as portrayed in surviving fragments of the Genesis Apocryphon, may be understood. From the Qumran scroll labeled 1QapGen ar, or 1QGenesis Apocryphon, Col. II from TDSS, we have these words attributed to Lamech: “1 Behold, then, I thought in my heart that the conception was (the work) of the Watchers, and the pregnancy of the Holy Ones, and it belonged to the Nephil[in] 2 and my heart within me was upset on account of this boy. Blank 3 Then I, Lamech, was frightened and turned to Bitenosh, my wife, [and said:] 4 [Behold,] I adjure you by the Most High, by the Great Lord, by the King of all A[ges, ...] 5 [...] the sons of heaven, that you tell me in truth everything, whether [...] 6 [...] Tell me without lies whether this ... [...] 7 by the King of all Ages that you are speaking to me frankly and without lies [...] 8 Then Bitenosh, my wife, spoke to me very harshly, and ... [...] 9 and said: Oh my brother and lord! Remember my sexual pleasure ... [...] 10 in the heat of intercourse, and the gasping of my breath in my breast. I shall tell you everything accurately [...] 11 [...] ... very much my heart within me and I was still upset. Blank 12 When Bitenosh, my wife, realized that my countenance had altered ... [...] 13 then she suppressed her anger, speaking to me and saying to me: O my lord and brother! [Remember] 14 my sexual pleasure. I swear to you by the Great Holy One, by the King of the hea[ven]s ... [...] 15 that this seed comes from you, that this pregnancy comes from you, that the planting of [this] fruit comes from you, [...] 16 and not from any foreigner nor from any of the watchers or sons of heav[en. Why is the expression] 17 of your face so changed and distorted, and your spirit so depressed? [... Behold I] 18 speak truthfully to you. Blank [...] 19 Then I, Lamech, /ran/ to my father, Methuselah, and to[ld] him everything, [... Enoch,] 20 his father and would know everything for certain from him, since he is the beloved and the favourite [of God, and with the holy ones] 21 his inheritance is found and they show him everything. Blank When Methusela[h] heard [these things] 22 [he ran] to Enoch, his father, in order to know everything reliably ... [...] 23 his will. And he left for the higher level, to Parvaim, and there he met Enoch, [his father ...] 24 He said to Enoch, his father: O my father and lord, to whom I have co[me ...] 25 [...] I say to you: Do not be annoyed with me because I came here to [...] you [...] 26 fear (?) before you ... [...] 27 ... [...]”

From Col. V of the same scroll from TDSS: “1 and he wrote ... [...] 2 Blank And to you Methuselah [my] s[on ...] of this boy. 3 Behold, when I, Enoch ... [... and] n[ot] from the sons of 4 heaven but from Lamech your son [...] 5 and he does not resemble [...] 6 ... [... ] 7 and Lamech your son is afraid of his appearance ... [...] 8 in veritable truth that ... Blank 9 Now I tell you my son, and I let you know ... [...] 10 Go, tell Lamech, your son ... [...] 11 his [...] on the earth, and every deed ... [...] 12 his face has lifted to me and his eyes shine like [the] s[un ...] 13 (of) this boy is a flame and he ... [...] 14-15 ... [...] 16 then they were confounded ... [...] 17 eternal they give ... [...] 18 using enormous violence, they will do until [...] 19 ... and all the paths of ... [...] 20 And now, I make known to you the mystery of ... [...] 21 your son make known this mystery ... [...] 22 ... [...] 23 Praise the Lord of all ... [...] 24 When Methuselah heard [...] 25 and with Lamech, his son he spoke in secret [...] 26 When I, Lamech ... [...] 27 ... which he brought out of me ... [...] 28 Blank 29 [...] book of the words of Noah [...] 30 [...] ... [...]”.

The fragments of the Book of Enoch found among the Dead Sea Scrolls agree to a great extent with Charles’ Book of Enoch which was translated from an entirely different source: texts found in Ethiopia which had been maintained there for many centuries. While they shall not all be cited here, representative of the Enoch literature relating to Genesis 6 events is 4Q202 (or 4QEnb ar), 4QEnochb ar, Col. II, a text which corresponds to 1 Enoch 5:9-6:4 and 6:7-8:1, from TDSS: “1 [al]l the [d]ays [of their life ...] 2 It happened that wh[en in those days the sons of men increased,] 3 pretty and [attractive daughters were born to them. The Watchers, sons of the sky, saw them and lusted for them] 4 and sa[id to each other: « Let’s go and choose out women from among the daughters of men and sire for ourselves] 5 [sons ». However ...”. The reconstructions in this translation are corroborated from other scrolls, such as 4Q201 and 4Q204 et al. The offspring which resulted from these unions are later called bastards, for instance in 4Q204,“Exterminate all the spirits of the bastards and the sons of the Watchers”, which seems to have been speaking prophetically. That “Watchers” is a word used of certain angels is evident from the Biblical book of Daniel at 4:13, 17 and 23, where it is without doubt used of angels. The word also appears in a similar context in a very unlikely place (to the casual observer and to those unschooled in Israel Identity), in the Greek poet Hesiod’s Works And Days, lines 252-255: “For upon the bounteous earth Zeus has thrice ten thousand spirits, watchers of mortal men, and these keep watch on judgments and deeds of wrong as they roam, clothed in mist, all over the earth.”

The version of events relating to Gen. 6:1-4 which is being presented here is not contained in the Enochic and other apocryphal literature alone. In Brenton’s edition of The Septuagint with Apocrypha, a footnote at Gen. 6:3 (which is 6:4 in the A.V.), is found at the phrase “sons of God” which says: “Alex. angels of God”, and so we see that the Alexandrine text of the Greek Old Testament, in this one place, agrees with the apocryphal literature. Brenton chose to base his Septuagint edition primarily upon the Vaticanus text.

Examining the epistle of Jude found in our Bibles, it is readily evident that the apostle drew heavily from the Book of Enoch for this one short letter, even quoting it directly (cf. Jude 14; 1 Enoch 1:9), and from those same sections of the Book of Enoch cited here, where he discusses “the angels which kept not their first estate” (Jude 6). For instance, in 1 Enoch 15:1-3: “1. And He answered and said to me, and I heard His voice: ‘Fear not, Enoch, thou righteous man and scribe of righteousness: approach hither and hear my voice. 2. And go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: ‘You should intercede for men, and not men for you: 3. Wherefore have ye left the high, holy and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons ...’”

The word translated “giant” at Gen. 6:4, which also appears at Num. 13:33, is nephilim, a word derived from the verb naphal, “to fall” (Strong’s #5307), and is interpreted by many to mean in the plural fallen ones (although this is not Strong’s definition, for which see #5303). This word appears as a label for certain of the “sons of heaven” in the Genesis Apocryphon, Col. II v. 1, cited above. Yahshua Christ Himself tells us at Luke 10:18: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven”, and at 10:19 relates this “Satan”, or adversary, to “serpents and scorpions”. An illustration of this same thing is provided to us in the Revelation at 12:7-9: “7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” 1 Enoch 15:4-12, from where we left off while discussing Jude above, continues thusly: “‘... 4. And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also who do die and perish. 5. Therefore I have given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. 6. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. 7. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling. 8. And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. 9. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men, and from the holy watchers is their beginning and primal origin; they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called. [10. As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.] 11. And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, but nevertheless hunger and thirst, and cause offences, 12. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded from them ...’”

If we allow the testimony of the Book of Enoch, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Alexandrine text of the Septuagint, and the NT passages of Luke 10:18-19, Rev. 12:7-9 and Jude, all together, to be in this one place an authority of greater weight than the versions of Gen. 6:1-4 found in the other Septuagint and in the Masoretic texts of the Old Testament, which are known to contain errors and to have suffered emendations in other places, and so they are far from perfect, then we can allow ourselves to correct the phrase “sons of God” at Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 to instead read “sons of heaven”, referring to those rebellious angels described in the New Testament passages cited above.

With this in mind, it is now possible to understand how a “serpent”, a member of this fallen race, could have seduced Eve, as the account in Genesis chapters 2 and 3 relates. This race, called the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:9, 17) in that account, which itself is a parable, was unmentioned in the creation account of Genesis 1:1-2:3 simply because it was not a part of the creation here on this earth, which is the perspective of the creation story, itself a sort of prophetic vision of things past. The word translated “day” in these verses is more practicably rendered “age” in context, and therefore the earth may well have existed for four billion or so years before Adam, and many other races of people have been here before the appearance of modern White man, as the fossil record reveals. Yet no other race of men except Adamic White man can be accounted for as having been created by Yahweh, the God of the Bible. In the Enochic literature, in what is called The Book of Giants, the race of fallen angels is said to have perpetrated the corruption of species. From another edition of the Qumran scrolls, The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, on page 247, a translation of 1Q23, fragments 1 and 6: “1 [... two hundred] 2 donkeys, two hundred asses, two hund[red ... rams of the] 3 flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [... beast of the] 4 field from every animal, from every [bird ...] 5 [...] for miscegenation [...]”. And in the same source, 4Q531, fragment 2: “1 [...] they defiled [...] 2 [... they begot] giants and monsters [...] 3 [...] they begot, and, behold, all [the earth was corrupted ...] 4 [...] with its blood and by the hand of [...] 5 [giants] which did not suffice for them and [...] 6 [...] and they were seeking to devour many [...]  7 [...] 8 the monsters attacked it.” Again, 4Q532, Col. 2 fragments 1-6: “2 [...] flesh [...] 3 al[l ...] monsters [...] will be [...] 4 [...] they would arise [...] lacking in true knowledge [...] because [...] 5 [...] the earth [grew corrupt ...] mighty [...] 6 [...] they were considering [...] 7 [...] from the angels upon [...] 8 [...] in the end it will perish and die [...] 9 [...] they caused great corruption in the [earth ...] 10 [... this did not] suffice to [...] 11 they will be [...]”. While quite fragmentary, the general theme of these fragments from what is known as the Book of Giants is readily evident. A very similar version of what is related here is found in 1 Enoch, i.e. chapters 86 and 88. It is highly probable that accounts such as these were the inspiration for the ancient chimera myths of both Greek and Near East mythology.

Furthermore, it is also now possible to understand how Paul of Tarsus could blame angels for the world’s false religions, as is apparent at Col. 2:18 and 1 Cor. 10:20. Col. 2:17-19 reads in part: “... Whereas the body is of the Anointed, 18 let no one find you unworthy of reward, being willing with humiliation even in worship of the Messengers [angels] ; stepping into things which one sees, heedlessly inflated by the mind of one’s flesh, 19 and not grasping the Head ...”, and the “worship of angels” can in context only refer to the pagan religions which the Greek Colossians had at one time followed. 1 Cor. 10:18-20 reads thusly: “18 Behold Israel down through the flesh: are not those who are eating the sacrifices partners of the altar? 19 What then do I say? That that which is sacrificed to an idol is anything? Or that an idol is anything? 20 Rather, that whatever the Nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to Yahweh. Now I do not wish for you to be partners with demons.” Parallel to this, from 1 Enoch 19:1: “1. And Uriel said to me: ‘Here shall stand the angels who have connected themselves with women, and their spirits assuming many different forms are defiling mankind and shall lead them astray into sacrificing to demons as gods, (here shall they stand), till the day of the great judgement in which they shall be judged till they are made an end of’.” The Greek word rendered “demons” in 1 Cor. 10:20 is daimonion, a diminutive of daimon, Strong’s #1140, for which Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament has: “2. a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men ... elsewhere in the Scripture used, without an adjunct, of evil spirits ...” Thayer’s says at daimon, #1142: “1. In Greek authors a god, a goddess; an inferior deity ... 2. In the N.T. an evil spirit ...” All of these ancient writings, together with so many passages of both the New Testament and the Old (i.e. Mic. 4:5; Mal. 2:11), create one consistent picture when the apocryphal literature is employed to help understand Genesis chapters 3 and 6. Otherwise, all of the Scriptures cited here seem to be nothing but a mishmash of mysterious statements which shall forever remain in obscurity, as organized religions surely would prefer it. This interpretation of Scripture also gives greater insight to another obscure passage, Luke 4:5-6, where a satan’s claim of sovereignty over all the world’s kingdoms is not disputed. That the serpent was the symbol of rulership in the ancient world is evident in both Assyria and Egypt, and the records of those nations tell us as much. See, for examples, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, pp. 263 and 276.

And now it behooves us to review certain of the Aramaic targums of Genesis 4:1 [we must remember that Aramaic paraphrases are sanctioned in Scripture at Nehemiah 8:7-8, where it says in part, “So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” -CAE] From the targum called pseudo-Jonathan: “And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the Angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And he was like those on high and not like those below. And she said: ‘I have got a man from the angel of the Lord’.” While this interpretation of Gen. 4:1 may not be exactly as the original, which we may never have, it surely does reflect the belief of many of the common people of Judaea around the time of Christ, and they must have gotten their ideas from some Scripture which they had at one time possessed. Other early targums contain similar interpretations of Gen. 4:1, and the Hebrew text of that verse as we have it in the Masoretic Text is known by scholars to be corrupt (i.e. The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 1, p. 517). Further examples of this are found in other apocryphal books. For instance, in Brenton’s Septuagint, at 4 Maccabees 18:7-8, we find a woman who is obviously being compared to Eve: “7 And the righteous mother of the seven children spake also as follows to her offspring: I was a pure virgin, and went not beyond my father’s house; but I took care of the built-up rib. 8 No destroyer of the desert, [or] ravisher of the plain, injured me; nor did the destructive, deceitful, snake, make spoil of my chaste virginity; and I remained with my husband during the period of my prime.” Likewise, in another ancient writing, The Protevangelion, which gives an account of Joseph and Mary in the days leading up to the birth of Christ, in chapter 10, upon Joseph’s learning that Mary had become pregnant without his marriage to her having yet been consummated, he is portrayed as having exclaimed: “5 Is not the history of Adam exactly accomplished in me? 6 For in the very instant of his glory, the serpent came and found Eve alone, and seduced her. 7 Just after the same manner it has happened to me ...” Other statements similar to these are found in other apocryphal writings, yet it should be quite evident that many of the people of Judaea believed that someone other than Adam had fathered Cain (as John the apostle also believed, for which see 1 John 3:12; and Yahshua Christ Himself, i.e. John 8:44), and that this someone was a “serpent”, one of those fallen angels of Rev. 12:7-9.

Indeed, there are many who shall scoff at this interpretation of Scripture and insist that the versions of Gen. 4:1 and 6:1-4 as they are found in the Septuagint and the A.V., and other versions which follow the Masoretic Text, must have another meaning. Yet only with the interpretation presented here, taken wholly from ancient “apocryphal” sources, are these Genesis passages reconciled to the rest of Scripture, and especially to the New Testament, in a manner which is devoid of all conflict. Context should be a primary judge over one’s investigation of the Scripture, rather than conclusions based upon one’s personal emotions. The scoffers shall always scoff, for “these are murmerers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaking great swelling words ...”, as Jude wrote speaking of these very same events discussed here (Jude 16; cf. Jude 1-18).

While not wanting to sound arrogant or pretentious, it must be said that this perspective of Biblical literature may well be a first step in the direction of properly reconciling the Bible with natural history and the archaeological record as we know it. For instance, as stated above, many races of human beings are found upon the earth, however the Bible relates to us the creation by Yahweh our God of Adamic White man alone, and it can certainly be demonstrated in archaeology and history that all of the Genesis 10 Adamic families were indeed originally White. Yet it is also evident from the archaeological records, and especially from many of the prehistoric megalithic monuments, that intelligent races were upon the earth long before Adamic history began. And, if brain size is an indication of intelligence, as scientists generally agree that it is, the so-called Neanderthal man, an older and distinct species from modern White man, had both a larger bone structure and a greater cranial capacity than we have. Yet other species which the evolutionary anthropologists claim to be human ancestors, such as Australopithecus afarensis (of which the famous “Lucy” is a specimen), have clearly been shown to be much more closely related to the small-brained apes of the wild (see for example, “The New Face of Evolution”, Archaeology, Archaeological Institute of America, Jan.-Feb. 2007, p. 27). The other races here presently have neither brains as large as the White man, nor do they have any semblance of cultural or technological achievement comparable to that of the White man. Today, anything of value which the non-white races do have, they obtained from the White man. These other races may have “evolved” (more likely they came to be through species hybridization) from the lesser apes and other such creatures, however such is not true – nor even remotely possible – of the White man. This interpretation of Scripture and science, which certainly deserves further study and discussion, is absolutely “politically incorrect” and shall be scoffed at by many. No credentialed academic would dare even consider it. Yet such a reconciliation between the Biblical texts, history and science is worthy of all due consideration: for there is no disparity between God’s Word and God’s creation.

All of this also holds serious implications for today, since being poisoned with the jewish doctrines of diversity, globalism and multiculturalism so many White Adamites are freely intermingling with those of the other races. When asked about the time of the end, Yahshua Christ responded: “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Matt. 24:38-39). The Children of Adam had been partying and mating with devils then, and they are partying and mating with devils today. Examining other scriptures, it is the evil who shall be taken out of the world, and not the good, who shall forever be preserved. WRF

The Problem With Genesis 6_1-4.pdf — Downloaded 2577 times
LXX_Swete.pdf — Downloaded 1723 times
Genesis_6-2_angels.odt — Downloaded 95 times


The Text of Genesis 6:2-4 in the Codex Alexandrinus

This comment will serve as an addendum to our paper The Problem With Genesis 6:1-4. It was inspired by an inquiry concerning the reading of Genesis 6:2 which is found in the Codex Alexandrinus, which was made by a social media contact of ours. Our friend had obtained a copy of The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, by Henry Barclay Swete, published in 1887. Here we have included a link to Volume 1, Genesis to IV Kings.

Admittedly, I have never heard of that publication, but have since found that it is referenced in a preface of my copy of the Rahlfs-Hanhart edition of the text of the Septuagint, which along with Brenton’s edition are the texts to which I often refer here at Christogenea. The Rahlfs-Hanhart edition mentions Swete in its Explanation of Symbols, as Swete’s edition is evidently referenced in the critical apparatus of alternate readings along with many other old Septuagint editions going back to the 16th century.

But our friend’s interest was roused because, as we have cited Brenton in our paper The Problem With Genesis 6:1-4, according to Swete’s Septuagint the opening words of Genesis 6:2 read: ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, Which translates to say “Then the angels of God seeing the daughters of men…”

While Brenton’s edition of the Septuagint follows the Codex Vaticanus, it contains occasional notes informing the reader of alternate readings found in the Alexandrinus or in the Masoretic Text. When it was first published in 1851, the Codex Sinaiticus had only very recently been discovered. But Swete, who published his first edition in 1887, had access to and discusses the Sinaiticus. Unfortunately, most of Genesis is wanting in the Sinaiticus, and this portion is also wanting in the fragments of the Book of Genesis found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The critical apparatus in Swete’s edition is much more complete than Brenton’s occasional notes, and in them are cited the Codices Sinaiticus [4th century], Alexandrinus [5th century], Vaticanus [4th century], Cottonianus [4th-5th century], Bodleianus Geneseos [8th century, vide Swete p. xxvi] and Ambrosianus [4th-5th century, vide Swete p. xxvi]. His introduction discusses previous publications of each of these manuscripts.

As a digression, I have noted on occasion that while I have referred to the Codex Alexandrinus and its derivative or related manuscipts as the “Alexandrian tradition”, modern scholars have changed from that 19th century designation to instead refer to it as the “Byzantine Text Type”. Personally, I have always though tthe change of designation to be absurd. Now I find support for my position in Swete’s introduction, on p. xxiii, where there is a footnote which states the following: “It seems probable that A [Alexandrinus], which as far back as the furthest period to which we can trace its history was preserved in Egypt, had been originally written there ; and as Mr E. M. Thompson has pointed out, the occurrence of Egyptian forms of the Greek letters in the superscriptions and colophons of the Books proves that ‘the MS. if not absolutely written in Egypt must have been immediately afterwards removed thither.’ The editors of the Roman facsimile find a slender argument for the Egyptian origin of the Vatican M.S. in the occasional patching of its leaves with papyrus. On the other hand Dr Hort in 1881 was ‘induced to surmise that B [Vaticanus] and א [Sinaiticus] were both written in the West, probably at Rome.’ More recently Mr Rendel Harris has been led to conjecture that both these MSS. came from the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea….” Swete then referred his readers to books discussing the relation of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts to the traditional text of the Septuagint, by authors who had written in Italian and German. But by repeating all of this, I only hope to elucidate the many circumstances and opinions that are debated in relation to these manuscripts, and also the dishonesty of imagining that the Codex Alexandrinus should be labelled as the “Byzantine Text Type”, as if it had originated in Byzantium or in some other place other than Egypt.

In his introduction, I could not find where Swete had claimed to follow any one specific manuscript in the formation of his Greek text. However in Genesis 6:2 while he evidently followed the Codex Cottonianus, the reading fully agrees with the Codex Alexandrinus, and the reading of angels rather than sons also agrees with the footnote at that passage which is found in Brenton’s Septuagint. So we thanks our friend for pointing that out, as the Rahlfs-Hanhart edition of the Septuagint has the reading found in the Codex Vaticanus, which agrees with the King James Version of the Masoretic Text. But now Swete is another witness to our assertions made in this paper, and this also encouraged us to examine the Codex Alexandrinus for ourselves.

So to begin, from Genesis 6:2, from Swete’s edition of the Septuagint, page 9:

ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαί εἰσιν, ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ πασῶν ὧν ἐξελέξαντο.

My translation of that text:

Then the angels of God seeing the daughters of men, that they are beautiful, took for themsleves wives from of all whomsoever they chose.

Remarkably, Swete felt no need to make any critical note for the reading of ἄγγελοι, or angels, rather than υἱοὶ, or sons, although the difference in meaning is considerable and most of the other texts read υἱοὶ. With Genesis chapter 6 beginning near the end of column B of page 6 of the Codex Vaticanus as it is presented at the Vatican Library, the last word in that column is ἰδόντες, and at the top of column C, while it is difficult to read, the writing being nearly a form of shorthand, it certainly says sons, and not angels. For whatever reason, Swete must have made a conscious decision to ignore that reading in his apparatus.

Now here we have a portion of the Codex Alexandrinus, from the bottom of the right-hand column of page 26 of The Codex Alexandrinus in Reduced Photographic Facsimile, Old Testament Part I Genesis- Ruth, published by the British Museum in 1915. The portion pictured here contains the text from the end of chapter 5 through most of Genesis 6:4, the balance of that verse being at the top of page 27.

Here is a line-by-line transcription from the line which begins at Genesis 6:1. The text is heavily smudged in palces, and therefore difficult to read, so I may have made a mistake or two. Note that 6:4 begins on the same line where 6:3 ends, and often, a word is broken at the end of a line and continued on the next without any indications in the text. It must be noted that the Codex Alexandrinus abbreviates ΚΥΡΙΟΣ with ΚΣ and ΘΕΟΣ with ΘΣ, and follows that in other cases, so the gentive would be ΚΥ and ΘΥ, etc. The word ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΣ, or man, is also abbreviated. I will add dashes to the end of lines where words are broken, but they are not in the original.





















The balance of the verse is not pictured here, but begins the top of the next page:



After a short but intentional empty space, the text of verse 5 begins in the middle of the second line.

Here we see that in Genesis 6:4 the Codex Alexandrinus has “sons of God” where Brenton has in his translation “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men”. Yet in verse 2 the Codex Alexandrinus has “angels of God”. I cannot account for this, because it should be obvious that we may never know the original reading, and we cannot trust the Masoretic Text to reflect the original, being demonstrably corrupt in many other places. In any event, it is apparent that there was no revelation that the children of Adam were the children of God until Deuteronomy chapter 14, and Moses may very well have been recording the perspective of earlier men, that by them were the angels perceived to be the children of God. That is, if the phrase “sons of God” is truly original in the text.