GENESIS 1-11: PART 2 -- QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Genesis 5:1-31 What do you think of the miraculous fact that the meanings of the names listed in 

Genesis 5 make the following sentence if read together in order? “Man is appointed mortal sorrow. 

Blessed God shall come down teaching and his death shall bring the despairing rest and comfort.”

I think it is more forced and fanciful than it is miraculous. To arrive at this sentence, one

must add verbs not present and change some of the nouns into adjectives or verbs. In

addition, the names have entirely different original meanings in most cases according

to Strong’s Conordance :

Adam                 man

Seth                   compensation, sprout

Enosh                mortal

Kenan               one acquired or begotten

Mahalalel         God is splendor

Enoch               tuition, teacher

Methuselah      man of the spear

Lamech            overthrower, wild man

Noah                rest, comforts

Jared                contend

Genesis 6:1-4 Who or what are the NephIlim?

Start with the immediate context. The chapters preceding give Cain and Seth’s genealogies while the 

chapters following deal with God punishing man for disobedience. This immediate context doesn’t 

give much help because individual verses may have nothing to do with surroundings other than 

belonging to the same chronological period. Many translations even put these verses in parentheses.

Three major possibilities:

Sons of                                   Daughters

Elohim                                   of Men                                             Nephilim

a. Angels (sons of God)         women                                             giants,

or demons (sons                                                                             Neanderthals

of gods)

b. Godly line of Seth             line of Cain                                      heroes

c. local tribal rulers              harems                                              princes, great men, aristocrats

First view – pro

Sons of God = angels in Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 29:1 and other OT passages.

Literally, it reads “sons of gods (elohim)” so it may refer to demons (not that different from angels led 

by Satan).

Septuagint translates sons of God as “angels.” This view has been held by most commentators up to the 

present time. The intertestamental books I Enoch and Jubilees elaborate on the angels' sin. The former 

book states, “Come, let us select wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children...Then they 

took wives, each choosing for himself...”

Ronald Hendel (Bible Review, Summer 1987) points out the parallel language (“multiply”) in Genesis 

6:1 and Genesis 6:5. The Flood is the last time God will intervene to prevent a “cosmic imbalance,” the 

other times being the prevention of Adam and Eve from eating of the tree of life and preventing the 

Tower of Babel from “reaching heaven.”

First view – con

Some reject it as being too bizarre and too much like Greek and Roman fables. They would be happier 

with a more “rational” explanation.

Mark 12:25 (Matthew 22:30) states that angels do not marry. But this is the situation in heaven and not 

necessarily on earth, and refers to present and future, but not to times past.

The main sin here is the unnatural coupling of angels with men. But why would mankind be punished 

for the angels' sins? Only if it included demon-possessed mankind or mankind which was overly 

influenced to sin by the straying angels. Others point out that animals and plants were also punished in 

the flood even though they were innocent.

Genesis 6:4 would seem to argue against this view since a mixed breed race would have been wiped 

out in the flood. But (a) the order of verses makes it not really clear that the Nephilim were actually the 

offspring being talked about. (b) Also, it may only mean that the name lived on to be applied to any 

large or powerful men. (c) A third possibility is that it referred to the angels themselves since the root 

meaning to Nephilim is “to fall.” Numbers 13:32-33 is only other reference to Nephilim, where it 

apparently referred to people of large stature (through association with Anakim). But there is the very 

real possibility of discounting the evidence of the spies as negative hyperbole (“men as grasshoppers 

and a land that eats people”).

A variation of this theme found on the Internet has Neanderthal men as the offspring of angels and 

women. The problem is that they were rather short in stature, not giants at all.

Second view

This is not as popular as it once was, mainly due to lack of any evidence linking sons of God and 

daughters of men with any genealogical line.

But it does fit best with the context of the preceding chapters.

If it refers to Seth's line, then the sin is the unequal yoking of believers with non-believers.

This could explain survival of wholly human offspring through the flood, as does the third view..

Third view

“Sons of gods” is a term used in pagan cultures to denote princes or kings. Ancient rulers often claimed 

divine status. If so, then the earth is being partially punished for the sins of bigamy, forceful taking of 

women, and pride of its rulers.

The offspring are apparently called gibborim, which means a person of mighty valor or wealth. Nimrod 

was called a gibbor in Genesis 10:8, and he was obviously just a human king or ruler.

New Testament Evidence

2 Peter 2:4 alludes to angels who sinned, but does not point out the nature of their sin. This could 

possibly be associated with war in heaven between loyal angels and angels who followed Satan (as in 

the Book of Revelation) and have nothing to do with Genesis 6.

See also Isaiah 24:21-22, which may refer to evil spiritual forces mentioned in Ephesians 6:12.

Jude 6-7 seems to be more applicable. It has similarities to a passage in I Enoch referring to Genesis 6.

In verse 6, some of the angels are said to have left their proper place. This could mean that they 

attempted to take over God's place in heaven, or that they left heaven to go live on earth. Much hinges 

on what the word “they” in verse 7 refers back to-- the angels or Sodom and Gomorrah. If the latter, 

then there is a strong parallel between Genesis 6 (angels lusting after humans) and Sodom and 

Gomorrah (humans lusting after angels).

Genesis 6:3 The Lord said man’s days would be 120 years. I have typically understood this to mean 

man would no longer live past 120 years. However, the Bible records numerous figures living past 120 

years after this time. What does that mean?

The Daily Bible notes explain this to mean that God would wait 120 years before destroying all 

mankind (except for Noah's family) in the flood.

Alternatively, it may be a prophecy that lifetimes on earth would gradually decrease until they 

eventually reached a maximum of 120 years. If this is the proper understanding, then it would be 

similar to God's prophecy to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden that they would die on the day they 

ate of the forbidden tree. On the day they did eat, they not only experienced a form of spiritual death, 

but the aging process began in their bodies that would lead to their physical deaths many years later.

 

Genesis 6:5 Is this the only reason for the Flood or do the previous verses in chapters 5 and 6 have 

anything to do with it?

One of the biggest problems regarding the Flood Story is determining its proper context, i.e., what led up to it. There are actually three different passages preceding the actual account beginning in Genesis 6:5, and each of them at one time or another has been claimed to somehow be the precipitating factor. But keep in mind that none of these may have directly contributed to God's decision; it may have been solely because of mankind's general sinfulness, as stated in this verse.

1. The genealogy of Seth's line is given in 5:1-6:8. To see why it is placed there, consider the overall plan of Genesis, which alternates between genealogies and narratives:

I. Narratives (1:1-4:26)

    II. Genealogy of Chosen Line (5:1-6:8)

III. Narrative: The Flood (6:9-9:28)

    IV. Genealogy of Chosen Line (10:1-31)

VI. Narrative: Tower of Babel (10:32-11:9)

    VII. Genealogy of Chosen Line (11:10-26)

VIII. Narrative: Abraham (11:27-25:11)

    IX. Genealogy of Divergent Line (25:12-18)

X. Narrative: Isaac/Jacob (25:19-35:29)

    XI. Genealogy of Divergent Line (36:1-43)

    XII. Narrative: Joseph (37:1-50:29)

From this overall pattern you can see that it is unlikely that mere mention of Seth's chosen line before the Flood has no more to do with that particular event than the continuation of that line in Section IV is somehow responsible for the Tower of Babel incident that follows it. Similarly, it is obvious that the non-chosen lines described in IX and XI have little to do directly with the narratives that follow them.

2. Following the genealogy of Seth is the highly cryptic story of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men intermarrying. This story has been interpreted in various way, none entirely satisfactory. Those who feel that it involves angels cohabiting with human women say that this horrible sin was directly responsible for God purging the earth. I don't really follow the reasoning since it appears that the human beings involved had little choice in the matter, and God is specifically said to be punishing mankind (not angels) for its sin.

Others feel that “Sons of God” means powerful warlords and other rulers who took by force any women (of Seth's line particularly) that they desired. If so, that would fit God's stated reason for the Flood a little better as one example of mankind's sin, but why punish the women also? A minority view actually treats the Sons of God as those of Seth's line who were marrying women outside of their own clan. If so, it is strange that there is no prohibition by God given up to this point (that I am aware of) against this sort of intermarriage.

3. The next brief account in Gen. 6:4 involves the Nephilim. Those who connect these people with 

what has directly preceded assume that they were the offspring of the Sons of God and the Daughters 

of Men. This is not necessarily so and some translations actually place this verse in parentheses as an 

indication that it is an unrelated comment by the author. If the two facts are related, then the Nephilim 

are either powerful ruling classes of the time or mutant half angel-half humans. In the latter case, some 

have even equated them with Neanderthal men to explain their disappearance in the subsequent Flood. 

In either case, verse 4 states that they were still around after the flood, so they must have been pretty 

good swimmers. That fact alone is possible evidence for a limited flood.

 

Genesis 8:21 Does this verse teach that God reversed the original curse on the land found in Genesis 

3:17?

That is a minority opinion among scholars. Victor Hamilton (The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, p. 

309-310) notes that there is no evidence that the other aspects of the original curse, such as toil in 

childbearing or manual labor in agriculture, were eliminated at the time of Noah. Also, this view 

demands that a key Hebrew word be translated as “view as accursed” instead of “curse,” which has no 

justification elsewhere. Also, completely different Hebrew words for curse appear here and in Genesis 

3.

A third argument in favor of Genesis 8:21 having nothing to do with the Genesis 3 curse is that the 

following verses (21-22) explain exactly what God means when he says he will not curse the land 

again – there will be no major upset in the normal balance of nature and the order of creation with its 

seasons will continue (also in International Bible Commentary, p. 122 and Allen P. Ross, Creation and 

Blessing, p. 198)

Michael Grisanti (Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol. 1, p. 272) points out that 

the similar language between Genesis 6:5b and 8:21c refutes the idea that the Genesis 3 curse is in 

mind in the latter verse. M. G. Kline (New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 89) agrees with this 

argument.

A further explanation behind God's promise in 8:21 is given in Genesis 9:11,15, as Victor Hamilton 

(Handbook on the Pentateuch, p. 72) points out.

The strongest argument, however, to support the idea that the curse of Genesis 3 is still in effect is 

found in Romans 8:18-23. This clearly points back to the Genesis 3 curse, as noted in three one-

volume commentaries I consulted, three devotional commentaries by influential authors (John Stott, 

William Barclay and Warren Wiersbe), and in four scholarly commentaries from differing theological 

perspectives (by Leon Morris, Joseph Fitzmyer, Ernst Kasemann, and John Murray).

 

Genesis 9:3-4 – This passage states after the flood God gave man everything for food. Was man 

originally vegetarian prior to this? If God gave them everything to eat after the flood, why did the 

Israelites observe some animals as being “unclean” and not permitted to eat?

Concerning the first question, most commentators feel that mankind was vegetarian before the flood, as 

referenced in Genesis 1:29. The only problem that some people see with this interpretation is that the 

same language (having green plants for food) is applied to all animals in 1:30, even those that are 

strictly carnivores today. Thus, others explain the Genesis 1 references as just meaning that all animals, 

even carnivores, ultimately depend on plants for food since that is the food utilized by the animals they 

in turn eat.

As far as the second question goes, remember that this was a covenant given to all mankind—the so-

called Noachian Covenant. At this point in history, there was no such thing as an Israelite people at all. 

Much later, when God chose one particular family to be the basis of the Jewish race, a holy nation 

separated unto himself, further restrictions on which animals were clean to eat were imposed on them 

to help emphasize their distinction from the rest of humanity. (The earlier mention of clean and unclean 

animals in Genesis 7 probably refers only to which animals were acceptable for sacrificing to God.)

This is the background for the decision of Jerusalem Conference described in Acts 15:19-22 whereby 

the Christian Gentiles were freed from the Jewish dietary laws but told to still keep the command given 

to Noah to refrain from eating animals from which the blood had not been first drained.

 

Genesis 8:4 When the water was gone where, geographical, did Noah end up?

The ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat, which are located right at the border between present 

day Turkey and the Republic of Armenia.

Genesis 9:5-7 I don't understand the Laws of Life.

The life-for-a-life law, or principle, is a strict prohibition against murder. Since all human life is sacred to God, He will require an accounting of every human life taken. The prohibition stands today for all mankind; but God, not man, is the ultimate judge for those who disobey this commandment, whether or not the State literally enforces the prohibition.

It is somewhat related to the later eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth legislation given to Israel. This legislation is often maligned as being contrary to Jesus' command to love our enemies, but the original intent was to strictly limit any retribution one person or family might require of another to prevent clan warfare which would have disrupted the unity of the Twelve Tribes.

Genesis 9:18-27 I understand that the curse on Ham has been used to justify subjugation of black peoples. Is that what these verses teach?

Those who used to quote these verses in that manner were being very selective in their reading. First, note the interesting fact that every time Ham is mentioned in these verses, he is called “the father of Canaan.” And in fact, Noah only brings down curses on Ham's son Canaan in verses 25-27, not Ham himself. So who was Canaan the ancestor of? It was obviously the Canaanites, as spelled out in Genesis 10:15-20. This explains and justifies to some extent why Israel was later given the command to subjugate or destroy the people occupying the Promised Land. By contrast, those peoples occupying Africa are said to be the descendants of Ham's other sons, who had no curse pronounced on them by God.