On Genesis, Part 9: Perfect in His Race

On Genesis, Part 9: Perfect in His Race

According to all of the evidence which we had discussed in our last presentation, The Giants and the Sons of God, we would assert that we have justification based on the merits of many valid reasons for our interpretation of the text of Genesis chapter 6. Therefore, where in the Masoretic Text it mentions “sons of God” in verses 2 and 4 of the chapter, we would amend it to instead read “sons of heaven”, or perhaps “angels”. Then where the popular translations have the word “giants”, we would interpret the Hebrew word nephilim to instead read “fallen ones”, which Wilhelm Gesenius himself had admitted was a valid reading, even if it was not the reading which he preferred, and as he also admitted, that it was also the choice of more than one presumably academic interpreter of the past. Doing this, the Genesis chapter 6 account is fully reconciled with the words of Yahshua Christ and his apostles in the New Testament, where if we ignore the witnesses which lead us to these conclusions, then Genesis remains in conflict with Christ and the apostles, or at the very least, it offers no support for many of their statements. But as Christians, we have an obligation to understand Genesis through the understanding which Christ has provided, and therefore we shall not disregard the evidence by which Genesis agrees with His words. This is what Paul of Tarsus had meant when he asserted that “16… we have the mind of Christ” in 1 Corinthians chapter 2, that word for mind describing the perceiving and understanding which we can have through His words. Therefore we have no obligation to cling to the Masoretic Text if valid and more ancient sources are found to better agree with the words of Christ.

In his one short epistle, the apostle Jude warned about certain men who had infiltrated the body of Christ, and admonished Christians to defend “the faith having been delivered to the saints”, whereafter he wrote: “4 For some men have stolen in, those of old having been written about beforetime for this judgment, godless men, substituting the favor of our God for licentiousness and denying our only Master and Prince, Yahshua Christ.” Here it is evident that first, these men can not in any way be appropriate candidates for conversion to Christianity even if they had entered and joined Christian assemblies. Then secondly, Jude is identifying them with “those of old having been written about beforetime for this judgment”, where it is evident that their origins cannot be from of Israel, or even from of God, as Christ had also said to His adversaries that “ye are from beneath” and “ye are not of God”, among other things which had denied them the claim that God was their father, as it is recorded in John chapter 8. These things, along with the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares and other things which had been explained by Christ, all make it evident that there was a race, or races, of men whose origin is other than that of Adam, and who were condemned from the beginning. So, speaking directly of certain men, Christ had also said that “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted shall be uprooted!” The only way to account for these things in Genesis is in our interpretation of this chapter, and in the identifying of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Serpent of the garden with the fallen angels of Revelation chapter 12, which is also the identification provided by Christ Himself. Furthermore, where Jude wrote “those of old having been written about beforetime for this judgment”, he must have been referring to writings which are now deemed apocryphal, such as Enoch whom he cites later in his epistle, because these condemnations are not found explicitly on these same terms in our Old Testament canon as it is presently.

So continuing with Jude, he elaborates and identifies those infiltrators: “5 But I desire to remind you, you all knowing that once for all the Prince having delivered the people from the land of Egypt, the second time destroyed those not believing, 6 and the messengers not having kept their first dominion but having forsaken their own habitation are kept under darkness in everlasting bindings for the judgment of the great day, 7 as Sodom and Gomorra and the cities around them in like manner with them committing fornication and having gone after different flesh are set forth an example, undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” Here where Jude spoke of Egypt, he is warning the Christians of his own time not to fall away once again. But here there is an indication that the epistle may have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, where it says “the second time has destroyed those not believing”, as Jude seems to be comparing the Roman destruction of Jerusalem to the destruction of Egypt in the days of Moses. Then where he described the people of Sodom and Gomorrah having committed fornication “in like manner with them”, he was associating the sins of Sodom with those same fallen angels whom he mentioned previously. Here in Genesis chapter 6, it is those very Nephilim or Fallen Ones, the so-called “giants in the earth in those days” whose presence is otherwise unaccounted for unless it is explained in Revelation chapter 12, who were pursuing different flesh, or as the King James Version has it, strange flesh, by taking the daughters of Adam as it is described here in Genesis chapter 6.

Now where Jude continues, he is still speaking of the fallen angels, but as if they are contemporary to his own time: “8 Whereas likewise also these dreamers indeed defile the flesh while they reject authority and they blaspheme honor. 9 Yet Michael the chief messenger, when contending with the False Accuser [or Devil] he argued over the body of Moses, did not venture to bring a judgment for blasphemy, but said ‘The Prince should censure you!’” Christ Himself associated the Devil with the fallen angels, in Revelation chapter 12. The “body of Moses” here is the Law, which is the Torah or what Christians had traditionally called the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses. While the reference to this incident seems to be obscure, we do not accept the spurious so-called Assumption of Moses as his source. The Scripture clearly informs us that Yahweh had buried Moses in a valley in the land of Moab, in Deuteronomy chapter 34. Furthermore, the reference to Michael cannot be a reference to Christ, as some have claimed, since Christ is the Lord, as the King James Version translates κύριος, for which we have Prince here.

Now Jude compares these ancient fallen angels with other sins: “10 But these indeed blaspheme whatever they do not know [which is anything of the spirit], yet whatever is natural they understand like irrational beasts, by these things they destroy themselves. 11 Woe to them, because they have gone in the way of Kain and in deception they pour forth of the wages of Balaam and are destroyed in the disputation of Kore!” First, while Kore, or Korah in Numbers chapter 16, was indeed an Israelite and a son of Aaron, he had attempted to organize a priesthood other than that which Yahweh God had ordained, for which he was rejected and punished. Therefore the gainsaying of Korah was similar to the reason for which Cain’s sacrifice was rejected, in Genesis chapter 4: Korah was not the son of Aaron chosen for the line of priests, and because Cain had been illegitimate, he could not be the legitimate priest of the family of Adam. But like Sodom and Gomorrah, Balaam had earned his wages by instructing Balaak the king of Moab to have his women lure the men of Israel into acts of fornication, as it is recorded in Numbers chapter 25. The men of Israel joined themselves to the daughters of Moab, and not merely to their idols. However the fact that Balaam counseled Balak in that regard is is not in the Book of Numbers as we know it now, and it is only revealed here in Jude, in Micah chapter 6 and in Revelation chapter 2 where we read in the words of Yahshua Christ in His message to the church at Pergamos: “14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there those holding the teaching of Balaam, who had taught Balak to put a trap before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication.” That same message indicates that the Adversary, the satanic Edomite Jewish rabbis, had moved to Pergamos after Jerusalem was destroyed, at least initially.

Where Jude continues, we find that the fallen angels to which he refers are still in the earth, since he is describing people who are contemporaries and continues to associate them with the fallen angels, and writing in the present tense, he also explains that they are the ones infiltrating the Christian assemblies of his own time in order to pervert them: “12 These are the spots in your feasts of charity, feasting together without fear, tending to themselves, clouds without water being carried away by the winds, late-autumn trees without fruit, twice dead being uprooted, 13 stormy waves of the sea foaming up their own shame, wandering stars for whom the gloom of darkness is kept forever!” By using the term “wandering stars” Jude evokes the description of the fallen angels in chapter 12 of the Revelation, where they were described as a third of the stars of heaven which had followed the Great Dragon, or “that old serpent”, and they were described as having all been cast down into the earth. So these infiltrators into the Body of Christ, which is the collective body of Christian assemblies, were never meant to be Christians in the first place. Jude is not blaming their failure on any specific sins they would commit, but on their very origin and nature which they had before they entered those assemblies, and which they would maintain in spite of their entry. He is not describing them as sinners from within, but as infiltrators from without.

This evokes the statement by John, speaking of antichrists in chapter 2 of his first epistle, where he wrote “18 Little children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the Antichrist comes, even now many Antichrists have been born, from which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They came out from us but they were not from of us. For if they were from of us, they would have abided with us, but so that they would be made manifest that they are all not from of us.” This also evokes the words of Christ in Matthew chapter 7: “21 Not all who say to Me ‘Prince, Prince!’ shall enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but he doing the will of My Father who is in the heavens. 22 Many shall say to Me in that day ‘Prince, Prince, have we not prophesied in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and have done many works of power in Your name?’ 23 And then shall I profess to them that ‘Never have I known you! Depart from Me, those who are working at lawlessness!’” Furthermore, this evokes the words of Paul of Tarsus as he warned the elders of Ephesus in Acts chapter 20 that “29 I know that after my departure oppressive wolves shall come in to you, not being sparing of the sheep!” In spite of any profession of belief, there are clearly men who cannot possibly attain salvation for the simple fact that Christ does not know them. So in John chapter 10 He is recorded as having said “27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them and they follow Me”, where He had also told His adversaries that “26 … you do not believe, because you are not My sheep!” However on the other hand, in that same place He had also spoken of those who enter into the sheepfold by some means other than the door, which is Himself, and therefore “12 The hired hand, who also not being the shepherd, of whom the sheep are not his own, watches the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf seizes and scatters them, 13 because he is a hired hand and there is no care in him concerning the sheep!” As Jude describes them here, the infiltrators into the Body of Christ do not necessarily believe Christ, and they are not of the sheep, so they feast with Christians without fear while tending to themselves, and they are only doing so in pursuit of their own interests.

Finally, where Jude explained that Enoch had written of these men, we should understand that for that very reason, they could not be of Israel or of Adam, and that the only other alternative is that they must be of the Nephilim or fallen angels. So, citing some ancient version of Enoch which we may no longer have, he wrote: “14 And Enoch, seventh from Adam, prophesied to these saying ‘Behold, the Prince has come with ten thousands of His saints 15 to execute judgment against all and to convict every soul for all of their impious deeds which they committed impiously and for all of the harsh things which the impious wrongdoers have spoken against Him!’” Then Jude continues by turning back to explain that they are the infiltrators of his own time and wrote: “16 These are grumbling murmurers going in accordance with their own lusts, and their mouths speak excesses, admiring appearances for the sake of advantage.” Then Jude admonished Christians once again and says: “17 But you, beloved, must be mindful of the words spoken beforehand by the ambassadors of our Prince Yahshua Christ, 18 that they said to you that at the end of time there shall be scoffers going in accordance with their own lusts for impious things. 19 These are those making divisions, animals, not having the Spirit.” Of course, these are related to the same men whom he identified in verse 4 as “those of old having been written about beforetime for this judgment.”

While it is not our intention to include a commentary on the entire epistle of Jude, or even a complete commentary on the verses which we have just cited, this much is necessary as it demonstrates beyond doubt that the apostles of Christ had recognized a race, or perhaps races, of men who had absolutely no opportunity for salvation, as they had an origin other than Adam and Israel, and for that reason they were also condemned from the beginning, “from of old”, and should have no part with Israel or with Christ. For this same reason, speaking of men, Christ had often said that “the tree is known by its fruit” which means that a man’s origin is known by his conduct. Either a man is from of Adam, and therefore from of the Tree of Life, or a man is a bastard, and therefore his origin must be at least partly from of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Besides the Tree of Life, that is the only tree which was in the Garden of Eden which Yahweh did not plant, and its origin is explained in Revelation chapter 12, albeit in different terms.

However all men, being fleshly, are susceptible to sin, and therefore all men sin, as Paul of Tarsus had written in Romans chapter 3, “23 for all have sinned and fall short of the honor of Yahweh”, and for which reason David had written in the 143rd Psalm, addressing Yahweh God, that “2 … in thy sight shall no living man be justified.” So now, as we proceed with Genesis chapter 6, we shall see that it is not the Nephilim who are punished explicitly for the sin of miscegenation, or race-mixing, which was described in the opening verses of this chapter, but the explicitly stated purpose of the flood was to punish the Adamic race. So to begin, we shall read the opening verses of Genesis chapter 6 in accordance with our explanations of the text which had been provided in our last presentation, The Giants and the Sons of God:

“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 heaven 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 the Nephilim [or fallen angels] in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of heaven 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 New American Standard Bible actually has the Nephilim in its text here, rather than giants.

Now as we continue in Genesis chapter 6 in verse 5, the race of Adam is held accountable for their share in these sins, as there is no explicit attestation here in Genesis that they had resisted or even opposed this transgression:

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

We had conjectured in relation to the closing verse of Genesis chapter 4, that perhaps this situation had been a cause for concern where we read that in the time of Enos men began to call upon the name of Yahweh. However even if that is true, evidently the subsequent generations had no care for righteousness. Yet in the words of the apostle Peter in his first epistle, even these men would be preserved in spirit, and have an opportunity to repent when presented the Gospel of Christ. This is outside of the promises made to the children of Israel, but it accords with the more general promise of eternal life expressed in Genesis chapter 3. So we read in 1 Peter chapter 3 that: “18 Because Christ also suffered once for all sins, the just on behalf of the unjust, in order that He may lead you to Yahweh, indeed dying in the flesh but being made to live by the Spirit. 19 At which also going He proclaimed to those spirits in prison, 20 who at one time had been disobedient – when the forbearance of Yahweh awaited in the days of Noah’s preparing the vessel in which a few, that is eight souls, had been preserved through the water.” Then referring to this event again in chapter 4: “6 Indeed for this also to the dead the good message has been announced, that they may indeed be judged like men in the flesh, but live like Yahweh in the Spirit.” Writing those things, Peter corroborated the statement of Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 that “22 Just as in Adam all die, then in that manner in Christ all shall be produced alive.” Paul had also elaborated on that statement at length in Romans chapter 5, where he concluded, in part, that “18 So then, as that one transgression [the sin of Adam] is for all men for a sentence of condemnation, in this manner then through one decision of judgment [the sacrifice of Christ] for all men is for a judgment of life.”

As it is described in Genesis chapter 19, the sin of Sodom is the same sin from which we have its traditional English name, Sodomy, which, at the behest of Satan, is now called by the euphemism homosexuality. However the apostle Jude had informed us that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were also committing fornication in the pursuit of strange, or different flesh, which is miscegenation. In this passage of Genesis chapter 6, it is evident that the descendants of Adam were guilty of other sins as well, however there was not yet given any law forbidding other sins. So the opening verses of the chapter describe the sin of miscegenation with the Nephilim, and it must be for that reason that they had been punished.

As Paul of Tarsus had explained in Romans chapter 5, although sin was in the world from Adam to Moses, “13… sin is not imputed when there is no law.” However sin was imputed here, as the Adamic man is about to be destroyed in the flood of Noah for reason that “all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” Yet the only law for which man may be held accountable up to this point is found in Genesis chapter 2, where Adam had been told “17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Therefore, as we had seen with Adam and Eve in Genesis chapter 3, so it is here, that the race-mixing fornication between the Nephilim and the children of Adam is one and the same as the eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, since that is the only law by which the children of Adam could have transgressed here, the same law which Adam and Eve had transgressed.

Here we must digress, as this situation must also be considered within the context our own modern world. While race-mixing has occurred in diverse places throughout history, usually as a consequence of war or the slave trade or for other political or even pagan religious reasons, it was never prevalent throughout White Christian society until recent decades. So we read in a warning of Christ in Luke chapter 17, or as it is in relation to the “end of the world” in Matthew chapter 24, that “37 For just as the days of Noah, thusly shall be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as they were in those days before the deluge eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the vessel, 39 and they did not know until the deluge had come and all were taken, thusly shall be the coming of the Son of Man.”

However while Christ had indeed spoken these words, there is no sin in the mere acts of marrying and giving in marriage, or of eating and drinking. The children of Adam were in fact told to “be fruitful and multiply” from the very beginning. But here, it is evident that they were marrying and giving in marriage with another race, or even races, represented by the word nephilim or fallen ones. Then Jude called them spots in Christian feasts of charity, as they were eating and drinking with Christians. So these are the sins of which Christ had warned would precipitate His return. We await that very event presently. But even with that, we still cannot know the exact time when that shall be, and must bear in mind the fact that the last remnant, that of the time of Noah, was only eight souls.

So for the crime of miscegenation, or race-mixing, here in Genesis we now read:

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Here the text precipitates a theological issue, as there is debate over whether Yahweh God may actually ever need to repent, something which represents a change of ones mind, while the Scripture informs us of His words where He had said through Malachi (3:6) that “I am Yahweh, I change not”, and in the 15th Psalm we read in part that Yahweh “sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.” Then again, in Hebrews chapter 13 Paul of Tarsus had declared “8 Yahshua Christ: the same yesterday, and today, and for the ages”, also implying that God does not change.

But while the Hebrew word נחם or nacham (# 5162) may mean repent, it has a wider sense of meanings and does not necessarily convey the concept of changing one’s mind. According to Strong’s Concordance, in the King James Version of the Old Testament it was translated as comfort much more often than it was translated as repent. Of course, Yahshua Christ being “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”, and Yahweh being God, He knew long before He had created the Adamic man what would transpire both here and throughout history. In the Greek Septuagint, this word nacham was translated with a passive form of the Greek verb θυμόω in verse 7, which is to be enraged or angry. A similar word with a similar meaning, the same verb with a prefix, the [passive form ἐνθυμέομαι, appears in the Septuagint in verse 6. So Genesis chapter 6 verses 6 and 7 should not cause any theological debate, since the Word of God should never be interpreted in a manner which forces Yahweh God to contradict Himself, and such a practice is blatantly deceptive wherever options which do not cause contradictions are open to the translator. So where it says repent in these verses, it should be translated as grieve, or even as enrage, as it was translated into Greek in the 3rd century BC in the Septuagint where it has θυμόω.

Just as the law had said “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”, that must be the law for which this sentence of death is announced upon the entire Adamic race. However Yahweh had attested here that He would also destroy the beasts. Perhaps the beasts had also been corrupted, although that may be conjecture. Often there are commandments in the law demanding that certain corrupt beasts are put to death. Thus we read in Leviticus: “13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

The Enoch literature, in what is called The Book of Giants, describes the race of fallen angels as having perpetrated the corruption of species, perhaps in this very manner. In The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, on page 247, in a translation of the scroll identified as 1Q23, fragments 1 and 6, we find the following, although the text is quite fragmented and many portions of it are missing: “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, in 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.” Then once again, in 4Q532, column 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 [...]”. Accounts such as these from the Enoch literature certainly seem to be what the destruction of the beasts here is suggesting, although because the sources and their context are obscure, we would not insist upon its acceptance as a doctrine. On the other hand, the destruction of the beasts may only have been collateral damage in the destruction of Adam, but Enoch certainly suggests otherwise.

Now, in stark contrast to this corrupt world, we read:

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

For me, this evokes the words of Paul of Tarsus in Philippians chapter 2, as we translate them, where he wrote: “12 Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not while in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, with fear and trembling you achieve your own preservation. 13 For it is Yahweh who is operating in you, both to desire and to work for that approval. 14 Do all things apart from murmuring and disputing, 15 that you would be perfect and with unmixed blood, blameless children of Yahweh in the midst of a race crooked and perverted - among whom you appear as luminaries in the Society, 16 upholding the Word of Life for a boast with me in the day of Christ, that not in vain have I run nor in vain have I labored.” While we cannot explain it here, we have discussed our differences with the translation of that passage as it is found in the King James Version and others in our January, 2016 commentary on Philippians, in a presentation titled Repairers of the Breach. Paul, speaking there about the end result of the purpose of Christ, he had understood the implications of the words of Christ where in the Gospel He had spoken of the end and said “as it was in the days of Noah”, and therefore Paul had urged his readers to keep themselves pure by keeping the law.

Next, the reason why Noah had found grace is explained:

9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Some commentators, with varying degrees of corruption, have claimed that the meaning of the phrase “perfect in his generations” means that Noah was without sin, which is not true. For example, the New American Standard Bible translated the same phrase as “blameless in his time”, which is an innovation reflecting that claim. But since “23 … all have sinned and fall short of the honor of Yahweh”, as Paul of Tarsus wrote in Romans chapter 3, and as David had written in the Psalms that no man in the flesh may be justified before Yahweh, then we cannot assume that Noah was without sin, as those commentators and translations certainly imply. Of all men, only Yahshua Christ is without sin. For that, the apostle John had written in chapter 1 of his first epistle that “8 If we should say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we would admit our sins, He is trustworthy and just, that He would remit the sins for us and would cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we should say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.” Then further on, in chapter 3, John wrote: “5 And you know that He has been made manifest that He may remove sins, and there is no sin in Him.” Paul of Tarsus had also professed, in Romans chapter 5, that “12 For this reason, just as by one man sin entered into the Society, and by that sin death, and in that manner death has passed to all men, on account that all have sinned.” So while Noah was a just man, as the text itself declares, even that does not mean that he was without sin, so that cannot be the reason why he was considered just.

Rather, the word for generations in the first clause here, where we read that “These are the generations of Noah”, is the Hebrew word תולדה or towledah, which means descent or descendants, and in that sense it may mean generations or even genealogies. For that reason, we interpreted it as race in Genesis 5:1 where we read that “This is the book of the race of Adam.” But the word for generations in the second clause here, where we read that “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations”, is the Hebrew word דור or דר, which is dowr or dor. However, while it is disputed among modern academics, the word dor here may also be translated as race in this context.

In fact, in the Greek Septuagint, in this very passage, men who were native speakers of ancient Hebrew had translated this verse employing the Greek words γένεσις for towledah and γενεά for dor: “9 αὗται δὲ αἱ γενέσεις Νωε Νωε ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος τέλειος ὢν ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ αὐτοῦ τῷ θεῷ εὐηρέστησεν Νωε.” Yet neither γένεσις nor γενεά by themselves have anything to do with sin in reference to Noah, unless one is born from parents of diverse races, by which means one is a bastard and not a son. But in this context, which is the generations of Noah’s descent and descendants, who are introduced in the verse which follows, γενεά can only honestly be translated as race. The Greek sentence may be translated to read: “Now these are the generations of Noah. Noah being a just man, perfect in his race, Noah pleased God.” Here the word generations is from the Greek word γένεσις, which is an origin or beginning, a descent, or a race or family, and a generation of a race in the sense of something which has been produced, but not merely in the sense of a period of time, which is a dishonest interpretation because it ignores the true meaning of the word. We would only translate the Greek term γένεσις as generations here because it is plural, and refers to the sons of Noah as much or even more than it does to his ancestors. So the modern interpreters who insist that the Hebrew word dor has nothing to do with the race of Noah are actually asserting that they themselves understand Hebrew better than the men who had translated the Septuagint in the 3rd century BC.

The Greek word γενεά appears in the Septuagint in approximately 170 verses of Scripture, and according to the Hatch and Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint, on most of those occasions it was translated from the Hebrew word dor or dowr, there being listed only about a dozen exceptions where it was translated from other Hebrew words. But dor or dowr was never translated to γένεσις, except that in this particular verse, Genesis 6:9, the Codex Alexandrinus has γένεσις rather than γενεά. The 9th edition of the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon defines γενεά “of the persons in a family, 1. race, family…” and then as “2. race, generation…” In relation to time or place it may refer to one’s birth or age or time of life, but even in these instances where it may describe a generation or a birth, the concept of race cannot be completely removed from the meaning of the word. As a period of time, it describes the generation of a particular race where it is used in that sense, and not a generation of any and every race. In that same sense, Brown, Driver and Briggs include posterity in their definition of dor, citing the “thousand generations” of Deuteronomy 7:9.

As a digression, today in modern English the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines the word posterity as “all the people who live in the future”. In some versions of that dictionary, an archaic definition is supplied which reads “the descendants of a person”, and that is the correct definition. When modern dictionaries change a definition, they seek to change the meaning of a word in the minds of the greater society, which did not necessarily authorize that change. But this also changes the meaning of the word as readers understand it in ancient literature, and that meaning is often not what the original translators or authors of the literature had intended. To its credit, the primary meaning of posterity as it is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is “the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation”, although they also have added a secondary definition which expresses the deceitful claim that the word may mean “all future generations”, which is not true outside of the scope of the primary meaning of the word, at least they have not yet dismissed the actual meaning of the word as being archaic. So it is with posterity, and so it is with generation, in the period in which the King James Version was translated, a generation was the posterity generated, or produced, by a man or his family or nation, and which lived at any given time. The word did not mean only “all the people alive at one time” or “all future generations” regardless of their relationship to a particular subject. This phenomenon of corruptions in language reflects the same desire of the ancient Nephilim being witnessed here in Genesis, as their modern descendants seek any means by which they may have the daughters of Adam for themselves, and destroy his race.

But while the Hebrew word dor was translated into a singular form of the Greek word γενεά here in the Septuagint, in the Hebrew passage it appears in the plural, דרת or doreth. In his Hebrew-Chaldee lexicon, Gesenius defines dor (# 1755) as “an age, generation of men, as if the period and circuit of the years of life”. Then further on he wrote “The idea of age, or generation being neglected, it often means a race of men” [with this we must disagree, as this meaning may also readily be seen to encompass the time element, rather than neglecting it], adding the Septuagint translation to the Greek word γενεά as an example. Of the plural, as the word appears here, Gesenius then adds that “ In the plural there are two forms…. The former occurs in one expression” which he translates as “for ever and ever, signifying perpetuity” and “the later is frequently used of generations, ages to come…” While these definitions are not necessarily wrong, they are incomplete, because they do not answer why dor is a generation in the sense of the period or circuit of the years of a life.

There is another Hebrew noun (# 1754) with this same spelling, דור or דר, dowr or dor, which simply means a circle. But there are also two verbal forms of dor with the same spelling, the differences in all of these words only being in the artificial rabbinical vowel points, one of which (# 1753) is defined as to dwell or to inhabit, and the other (# 1752) Gesenius defines as to go around, to go in a circle, and therefore also to remain, to delay, to inhabit [1]. It is this last definition which is most pertinent here. Noah being perfect in his generations, we may assert that as a noun, a "dor" also represents what has remained, something which is still in its original form or habitation. Even the Brown Driver Briggs lexicon has the phrase “usually of duration to come” in its definition of the word dor. So in light of the race-mixing miscegenation which was transpiring in Noah’s time, Noah was just because he was not participating in the race-mixing, thereby being “perfect in his race” since his own immediate progeny represented the duration, or what was left, of the Adamic race on the earth. We also make the assertion that race is a proper translation of dor in Genesis 6:9, because the word is plural and therefore it encompasses not just Noah, but Noah’s entire towledah, or all of the generations of his descent, including that of his sons who are mentioned in verse 10.

[1 Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Baker Books, 1979, p. 193-194.]

There is another digression which we must take, in order to consider what certain of the ancients thought of the statement that Noah was “perfect in his generations”. We have already mentioned here the Genesis Apocryphon, which is basically a work of commentary in Aramaic in which the lives of Enoch, Lamech, Noah and his sons, and Abraham are all embellished, which evidently belonged to the Qumran community and was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. While it is certainly not canon, and while Christians should not seek to derive from it any doctrines, it does reveal how at least certain of the ancients, who were evidently independent of the authority of the Pharisees and Sadducees, had understood particular passages of Scripture.

While we have already cited this portion of this work earlier in this Commentary on Genesis, the context here compels us to cite it again. In the Qumran scroll labeled 1QapGen ar, which is also 1Q20 or 1QGenesis Apocryphon, Column II, the following words are attributed to the patriarch Lamech, who, as he also had been in the Book of Noah, is portrayed as having been grieved at the appearance of Noah when he was born, and we read: “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 ... […]” [2]

From Column V of the same scroll: “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 [...] ... [...]”. [2]

[2 The Dead Sea Scrolls edited by Florentino G. Martinez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, Brill, William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1997, Volume I, pp. 28-31.]

These texts compare to what is also found in 1 Enoch chapter 106 (106:1-6), which, as we had explained in our last presentation in this chapter, The Giants and the Sons of God, is a fragment of the apocryphal Book of Noah. So from that book we we read: “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’.” Similar to the passage cited from 1 Enoch are fragments from Qumran labeled 1Q19 and 1Q19bis (1QNoah), which are also called 1QBook of Noah, but while enough has survived to see the resemblance in the narratives found in the texts, the fragments are very incomplete and we will not include them here. Note that in the New Testament wherever the apostles describe angels, or men presumed to be angels, they are always very white, and wearing shining white garments.

We have no assurance that the fragments of Enoch which survive in the Dead Sea Scrolls represent precisely what Jude had cited, but we have nothing closer. We would not make doctrine out of any of the apocryphal writings cited here for that same reason. However our purpose here presently is only to state that where this account in Genesis chapter 6 was embellished in the Book of Noah or by the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the phrase which is translated as “perfect in his generations” was interpreted to mean that Noah was so white, that “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” to the point where his own father thought it impossible that Noah was his son. Therefore the state of being wholly White is what it means for an Adamic man to be “perfect in his generations”, and therefore, to be preserved by Yahweh God, as Noah had been preserved.

The genealogy of Noah being perfect, and the word for generations where Noah was described as being “perfect in his generations” actually being a plural form, then his sons must also have been perfect in that same manner, where we now read in verse 10:

10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

The Hebrew word שם or shem (# 8035) primarily means name, and for that reason also good name or reputation or a celebrated name, among other similar things [2]. The word יפת iapet or iapheth (# 3315) is from a verb which means opened, or as Gesenius explains, it bears the sense of widely-extending [3]. The word חם or cham (# 2526) is hot or warm, and in another entry (# 2527) the same word is heat [4]. As Genesis proceeds, and especially in chapter 9, it shall become evident that these names are descriptive of the traits of these patriarchs, or the blessings or curses which at a later time had been bestowed upon each of their posterities.

These three men, Shem, Ham and Japheth, would go on to be the progenitors of the race of Adam even until modern times, and the nations of their descendants, which are listed in Genesis chapter 10, can, for the most part, be identified in ancient history and archaeology, along with the help of later Scriptures. But this is the only direct mention of them here in Genesis chapter 6, and their own sons were not born until after the flood, which does not become evident until Genesis chapter 11. From the data provided in that chapter, we learn that the sons of Noah were born about 100 years before the flood, but the identification of Noah as a just man may have been as long as 120 years before the flood.

Yahweh willing, we shall return to our commentary on Genesis chapter 6 and the flood of Noah is in the near future.

[3 Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Baker Books, 1979, p. 833; 3 ibid., p. 359; 4 ibid., p. 285.]