Friday, May 23, 2025

Who, or what, were the ancient gods?

by Damien F. Mackey 1. Antediluvian Origins Worship of famous antediluvian ancestors, both male and female, appears to account for at least some of it. Ancestor worship, or veneration of the dead, is still common today in parts of the world. We Catholics venerate, as saints, holy dead people, though we do not worship them, but only God. Some obvious antediluvians who were apotheosised (i.e., raised to the rank of gods) - {see “deified patriarchs” below} - were: Noah Probably the Egyptian god, Nu, or Nun: https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=d88f2f9151e47029&hl=en&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-gbAU979AU979&q=god+nu+water&source=lnms&fbs=ABzOT_BwhWbvgbq2- “Nu ("Watery One") or Nun ("The Inert One in ancient Egyptian religion, is the personification of the primordial watery abyss …”, whose wife, Nut, would then be Noah’s wife: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wives_aboard_Noah%27s_Ark “The Genesis Rabba midrash lists Naamah, the daughter of Lamech and sister of Tubal-Cain, as the wife of Noah …”. Noah was also represented by the Babylonian hero, Ziusudra (Utnapishtim). https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ziusudra “Ziusudra, in Mesopotamian Religion, rough counterpart to the biblical Noah as survivor of a god-sent flood. When the gods had decided to destroy humanity with a flood, the god Enki (Akkadian Ea), who did not agree with the decree, revealed it to Ziusudra, a man well known for his humility and obedience. Ziusudra did as Enki commanded him and built a huge boat, in which he successfully rode out the flood. Afterward, he prostrated himself before the gods An (Anu) and Enlil (Bel), and, as a reward for living a godly life, Ziusudra was given immortality. See Utnapishtim”. The name, Noah, Nu, is found again in Manu, who is the Hindu version of Noah: https://www.skippingstones.org/wp/ “Manu was a sage who dedicated his life to faithfully serving and worshiping Hindu gods. The Lord Vishnu, the preserver in the Hindu trinity, chose Manu to be the survivor of a flood that would cleanse the world”. There are Noah legends, in fact, from all over the world. AI Overview “In Greek mythology, Deucalion is the figurehead of the great flood myth, comparable to Noah's Ark in the Bible”. Japheth Noah’s son, Japheth, is said to have been the father of the Indo-Europeans peoples. Hindu mythology knows him as Pra Japati (Father Japheth), the Lord of Creation. The Romans knew him as Jupiter (Japheth), who was Zeus to the Greeks, Baal to the Canaanites. Japheth was, like his father, Noah, an antediluvian who continued to live on into the post-diluvial world. He is one of the eight progenitors of the human race (I Peter 3:20), corresponding to Egypt’s Ogdoad, or eight primordial deities associated with the water chaos. Tubal Cain Again a biblical character, a descendant of Cain, and a son of Lamech. Tubal Cain (Tuval Cain) was a smith, and master of metallurgy. He is found in Roman mythology under the like name and attributes of Vulcanus, which name we tend to shorten to Vulcan (= TuVALCAIN). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(mythology) “Vulcan (Latin: Vulcanus, in archaically retained spelling also Volcanus, both pronounced [wʊɫˈkaːnʊs]) is the god of fire …. including the fire of volcanoes, deserts, metalworking and the forge in ancient Roman religion and myth. He is often depicted with a blacksmith's hammer. …”. We meet Vulcan again in Greek mythology as Hephaestus, whom the Greeks, in turn, identified with the Egyptian god, Ptah. In Norse mythology, this mighty god is known as Thor. AI Overview “In mythology, Thor and Vulcan represent similar roles as powerful gods of war and craftsmanship. Thor is the Norse god of thunder and lightning, known for his strength and skill in wielding his hammer, Mjolnir. In Roman mythology, Vulcan (also known as Hephaestus in Greek mythology) is the god of fire, blacksmiths, and artisans, responsible for creating weapons and armor. Both figures are associated with forging, strength, and combat, although their specific roles and characteristics differ slightly within their respective mythologies”. Adam Perhaps less obvious may be the first man, Adam, as the Egyptian god, Atum. https://www.eoht.info/page/Atum%20and%20Adam “In religio-mythology, Atum and Adam refers to the conjecture that the Biblical man Adam … is a rescript [sic] of the story of the Egyptian god Atum, who, according to Heliopolis creation myth (2500BC) [sic], raised the first earth land mound (benben or pyramid) out of the water or was the first god to come into existence in the Nun, before the land-mound arose. Overview In 1861, Daniel Haigh, in his The Conquest of Britain by the Saxons, via citation to the work of “Mr. Osburn”, was making the Atum and Adam connection as follows: (Ѻ) “The mythology of Egypt supplies most interesting confirmation of this theory that the gods of heathenism were deified patriarchs, and shows the system extended still farther, so as to embrace even their forefathers who lived before the flood. Thus Atum, ‘King of the gods’, ‘Lord of the worlds’, ‘god of the setting sun’, and ‘of the lower world’, the judge of souls departed, whom he calls children, whilst they call him father, is evidently Adam.” In 1907, Gerald Massey, in his Ancient Egypt, makes the Atum to Adam connection as follows: [1] - “The so-called ‘legends of creation’ would be more correctly termed the ‘legend of human evolution’, although in a different sense from that of Darwinian development. As Semite, they came to us in the latest and least genuine form, with no clue to any true interpretation. In a Maori myth, man was created by the god Tiki from red clay. This he kneaded with his own blood, or with red water from the swamps. Man is Atum in Egyptian, Admu in Assyrian, and Adam in Hebrew.” Later, in his decoding of the story of Cain and Abel, Massey connects Atum and Adam more explicitly as follows: [1] Atum (father) Set & Osiris | → Horus (legitimate heir) Adam (father) Cain & Abel | → Seth (legitimate heir) What we are immediately finding is that the primary antediluvian gods were common to the major cultures of the ancient world, though under different names and with their local variations and idiosyncracies. Some names, like Osiris for instance, appear to connect, as a composite, to a series of biblical characters: Legends about the Egyptian god, Osiris, appear to have elements in common with the accounts of various biblical (Genesis) characters, such as Noah and Joseph, but also of the baby Moses as narrated in the Book of Exodus. Osiris is considered to be a most ancient of ancient gods. Can we find even earlier (prior to Noah) biblical reminiscences of him? Osiris has also been likened to Cain, the son of Adam and Eve. Egyptian myth and religion continue to be a complete puzzle even to the Egyptological experts. Thus we find that the likes of Sir Alan Gardiner and John Walton were at something of a loss to account for (J. Walton): “… the chief cultural content of Egyptian civilization, its religion, its mythological features …”, and (A. Gardiner): “The origin of Osiris remains from me an insoluble mystery”. Fr. A. Mallon had tried to simplify things when explaining in “The Religion of Ancient Egypt” (Studs. in Comparative Religion, CTS, 1956, p. 3) that whilst the Egyptians were “admittedly polytheistic, with a marked inclination towards idolatry … this plurality was of titles rather than of gods”: … this multiplic¬ity [of gods] was but superficial it was a multiplicity of titles, not of gods. The supreme Creator god was called Atum at Heliopolis; at Memphis, Ptah; at Hermopolis … Thoth; Amon at Thebes; Horus at Edfu; Khnum at Elephantine; but if we examine them minutely, we recognize at once that these divinities have everywhere a like nature, the same attributes and properties, an identical role. They differ only in external imagery and in a few accidental features. From the point of view of correlating these gods to some extent to the early antediluvian characters of the Book of Genesis, where I think they originated, it does simplify matters whenever there is available an easy phonetic name correlation, such as: Adam = Atum; Nu = Noah; Seth = Seth (Set) Having said that, I, however - despite the name similarity - cannot see, in the case of Set(h), any positive connection between the biblical patriarch and the Egyptian god. An interesting historical situation: Some Egyptologists have suggested that the early dynastic ruler of Egypt, Peribsen, had actually tried (in Akhnaton fashion) to introduce monotheism into Egypt. In the case of Peribsen, it was the desert (Hebrew?) god, Seth. Was the name based upon the biblical Seth of whom we read in Genesis 4:26: “To Seth also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then people began to call upon the name of the Lord”? Neith The goddess Athena, whose antediluvian origins some would trace to Naamah, the sister of Tubalcain, was, as Neith, a most ancient goddess of the Egyptian pantheon. In “A black Athena?”, I further wrote of: … the Greek goddess Athena, whom biblical aficionados would identify in her origins with the biblical Eve, or with Naamah, the wife of Ham. Thus Roy Schulz: http://www.book.dislib.info/b1-history/4036992-14-compiled-roy-schulz-social-studies-department-imperial-schools-pa.php …. Naamah was a famous individual in the pre-Flood world. Her brother was Tubalcain, a great military leader, and she took on some of his war-like characteristics. The ancient Greeks, who applied to her the name Athena, pictured her brandishing a spear and regarded her as a goddess of war. She is said to have make a war on the giants during the lifetime of Tubalcain. She had an interesting variety of characteristics because she was also pictured as being a goddess of wisdom as well as of war, in addition to being especially famous as the goddess of weaving or womanly industry. In no connection is she ever pictured as a harlot of prostitution as was Venus of Aphrodite. This is the woman who Ham married. She is the one who carried the WAY OF CAIN THROUGH THE FLOOD! The line of Cain did not die with the Flood, as might easily be supposed! A descendant of Cain and Lamech lived on into the post-Flood world. It was none other than this Naamah to whom God calls our attention in Genesis 4:22. This is why her name is in the Bible! From Ham and Naamah came the Negroid stock after the Flood -- the line of Cush (Gen. 10:6). …. [End of quote] In Wikipedia, we read of the interesting goddess Neith: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neith Neith (… also spelled Nit, Net, or Neit) was an early goddess in the Egyptian pantheon. She was the patron deity of Sais, where her cult was centered in the Western Nile Delta of Egypt and attested as early as the First Dynasty. …. The Ancient Egyptian name of this city was Zau. …. Symbolism … Neith was a goddess of war and of hunting and had as her symbol, two arrows crossed over a shield. However, she is a far more complex goddess than is generally known, and of whom ancient texts only hint of her true nature. In her usual representations, she is portrayed as a fierce deity, a human female wearing the Red Crown, occasionally holding or using the bow and arrow, in others a harpoon. In fact, the hieroglyphs of her name are usually followed by a determinative containing the archery elements, with the shield symbol of the name being explained as either double bows (facing one another), intersected by two arrows (usually lashed to the bows), or by other imagery associated with her worship. Her symbol also identified the city of Sais. …. This symbol was displayed on top of her head in Egyptian art. In her form as a goddess of war, she was said to make the weapons of warriors and to guard their bodies when they died. Mackey’s comment: Most interesting here is Neith’s connection with “the Great Flood” and “the primeval waters”: As a deity, Neith is normally shown carrying the was scepter (symbol of rule and power) and the ankh (symbol of life). She is also called such cosmic epithets as the "Cow of Heaven", a sky-goddess similar to Nut, and as the Great Flood, Mehet-Weret (MHt wr.t), as a cow who gives birth to the sun daily. In these forms, she is associated with creation of both the primeval time and daily "re-creation". As protectress of the Royal House, she is represented as a uraeus, and functions with the fiery fury of the sun, In time, this led to her being considered as the personification of the primordial waters of creation. She is identified as a great mother goddess in this role as a creator. As a female deity and personification of the primeval waters, Neith encompasses masculine elements, making her able to give birth (create) without the opposite sex. She is a feminine version of Ptah-Nun, with her feminine nature complemented with masculine attributes symbolized with her association with the bow and arrow. In the same manner, her personification as the primeval waters is Mehetweret (MHt wr.t), the Great Flood, conceptualized as streaming water, related to another use of the verb sti, meaning 'to pour'. Neith is one of the most ancient deities associated with ancient Egyptian culture. Flinders Petrie (Diopolis Parva, 1901) noted the earliest depictions of her standards were known in predynastic periods, as can be seen from a representation of a barque bearing her crossed arrow standards in the Predynastic Period, as displayed in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Her first anthropomorphic representations occur in the early dynastic period, on a diorite vase of King Ny-Netjer of the Second Dynasty, found in the Step Pyramid of Djoser (Third Dynasty) as Saqqara. That her worship predominated the early dynastic periods is shown by a preponderance of theophoric names (personal names which incorporate the name of a deity) within which Neith appears as an element. Predominance of Neith's name in nearly forty percent of early dynastic names, and particularly in the names of four royal women of the First Dynasty, only emphasizes the importance of this goddess in relation to the early society of Egypt, with special emphasis upon the Royal House. In the very early periods of Egyptian history, the main iconographic representations of this goddess appear to have been limited to her hunting and war characteristics, although there is no Egyptian mythological reference to support the concept this was her primary function as a deity. …. It appears from textual/iconographic evidence she was something of a national goddess for Old Kingdom Egypt, with her own sanctuary in Memphis indicated the political high regard held for her, where she was known as "North of her Wall," as counterpoise to Ptah’s "South of his Wall" epithet. While Neith is generally regarded as a deity of Lower Egypt, her worship was not consistently located in that region. …. Neith's symbol and part of her hieroglyph also bore a resemblance to a loom, and so in later syncretisation of Egyptian myths by the Greek ruling class, she also became goddess of weaving. At this time her role as a creator conflated with that of Athena, as a deity who wove all of the world and existence into being on her loom. Mackey’s comment: The article proceeds to tell of Neith’s great antiquity: Neith was considered to be eldest of the gods, and was appealed to as an arbiter in the dispute between Horus and Seth. Neith is said to have been "born the first, in the time when as yet there had been no birth." (St. Clair, Creation Records: 176). In the Pyramid Texts, Neith is paired with Selket as braces for the sky, which places these two deities as the two supports for the heavens (see PT 1040a-d, following J. Gwyn Griffths, The Conflict of Horus and Seth, (London, 1961) p. 1). This ties in with the vignette in the Contendings of Seth and Horus when Neith is asked by the gods, as the most ancient of goddesses, to decide who should rule. In her message of reply, Neith selects Horus, and says she will "cause the sky to crash to the earth" if he is not selected. AI Overview “In the ancient world, Wisdom was often seen as a Goddess. Pre-dynastic Egypt called her Neith, for the Libyans and the Greeks she was owl-eyed Athena, the Romans called her Minerva, and throughout the Islamic Middle East she is Al-Hakim”. Although many of these gods had their origins as human beings in the antediluvian world, they did go on to evolve at their respective cult centres, picking up attributes and legends of later historical heroes, most notably biblical ones. We have already pointed out the example of Osiris in this regard. And Gary Greenberg has listed some striking similarities between Neith and the prophetess Deborah: http://ggreenberg.tripod.com/writings/w-neith-deb.htm Compare elements of this hymn with the Song of Deborah. 1. Deborah and Neith both talk about their role as a mother; 2. Deborah and Neith each talk about how their actions led to an increase in population; 3. In both stories we find a rebellion of new gods battling against heaven; 4. In both stories, the mother, in her role as mother, promise to intervene in the fighting; 5. In both stories, the mother fights on the side of the chief deity; 6. In both stories there is talk about the enemy being struck down; and 7. In both stories the side representing the chief deity wins. Additionally, we note that in the prose version, Barak is made effective by Deborah’s participation, and, in the Hymn to Neith, Re was made effective and vigorous by the actions of the goddess. …. Horus, for his part, will absorb elements from the Book of Exodus, from baby Moses: https://www.thetorah.com/article/moses-is-modeled-on-horus-and-sargon-but-his-story-is-about-king-hezekiah “Moses and Horus are hidden in thickets on the Nile by their mothers … Yet each survives to become a ruler of their people”. And Moses was as late as c. 1500 BC. Another point is that the origins of the most ancient gods is primarily biblically-based, in the sense that these were originally biblically attested patriarchs and matriarchs. Therefore they are not essentially western (Greek, Roman), though they were later absorbed into western pantheons. Take the powerful Greek god, Poseidon, for instance. His name appears to have been derived from the Ancient Near East, from Pa-Sidon, “He of Sidon”. In The Odyssey, Poseidon becomes the relentless pursuer of Odysseus (read Tobit); a story that the Greeks (Homer) appropriated from the Book of Tobit, with its demon, Asmodeus. Again, The Odyssey has the goddess Athena disguised as the mentor of Telemachus (read Tobias), Mentes, appropriating the male appearance, and guidance, of the angel Raphael to/for Tobit and his son, Tobias. Likewise, The Iliad and The Aeneid, have some striking Greco-Roman appropriations of the thrilling Judith (biblical) drama. The origins and inspiration are invariably non-western. Also to be considered are the: Titans and Titanesses These appear to overlap, in part, with some of the antediluvian heroes already mentioned (e.g. Japheth/Iapetus): https://www.theoi.com/greek-mythology/titans.html I. MAJOR TITANS : THE URANIDES & IAPETIONIDES The most important of the Titan gods were the twelve Uranides (Cronus, Oceanus, Iapetus, Hyperion, Crius, Coeus, Rhea, Tethys, Theia, Phoebe, Themis and Mnemosyne) and the four Iapetionides (Atlas, Prometheus, Epimetheus and Menoetius). Of these only … eight … appear in ancient art. II. MINOR TITANS : THE HYPERIONIDES, COEIDES & CREIONIDES Many of the children and grandchildren of the Titans also bore the name of Titan. These included the Hyperionides (Helius, Selene and Eos), the Coeides (Leto, Asteria and Hecate) and the Creionides (Pallas, Astraeus and Perses). The last three were obscure and do not appear in ancient art. The inspiration for them may again, at least in part, have come from the Bible, from the Giants and the Nephilim of the Book of Genesis. Prometheus is interesting, he being the father of the Greek Noah, Deucalion (above). 2. Early Post-diluvian Origins The outstanding character here is Nimrod. Not too long after the Flood there arose a mighty hunter-conqueror known as Nimrod. He, too, was divinised. Nimrod might mark the beginning of a series of heroes and notables down through ancient history who were deified after the Flood, such as the Pharaohs of Egypt, sons of Ra, some Greco-Roman emperors and kings of the New Testament, and wondrous thaumaturgists and sages such as Imhotep, Djedefhor and Amenhotep son of Hapu. Again, these were largely biblical characters, as we shall find. Some have made bold to identify Nimrod, a son of Cush, with the god Bacchus, which they render as Bar-Cush, son of Cush. This may, or may not, be true. AI Overview “Bacchus is the Roman name for the Greek god Dionysus, who is associated with wine, fertility, ecstasy, and theatre. He is often depicted with vines and grapes, and his followers, the Maenads and Satyrs, are known for their energetic dances. In Roman mythology, Bacchus is considered a versatile and elusive god, bringing joy and revelry, but also capable of vengeance”. AI Overview “In some ancient traditions, Nimrod, a figure from the Book of Genesis, was later deified, meaning he was worshipped as a god. Nimrod was a mighty hunter and is also described as the first to be a mighty man on earth. He was also the founder of major cities, including Nineveh and Asshur, and is associated with the construction of the Tower of Babel in some non-biblical accounts. Some accounts portray him as a priest-king who established state worship, including human sacrifice. In some Assyrian and Babylonian traditions, Nimrod was even considered the same as the god Merodach/ Marduk”. Joseph of Egypt, Imhotep of the Third Dynasty, a true wonder-worker in his own lifetime, was deified and canonised, as, for instance, Imouthes of the Greeks, who was also their Asklepios, the god of medicine and healing. The Romans knew him as Aesculapius. And Moses the Lawgiver, the wise sage Djedefhor of Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty, was deified after his death. A similar exalted fate met the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt’s Amenhotep son of Hapu. And, from the Book of Tobit to which we have previously referred, Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar - the Achior of the Book of Judith - of highest status in the Assyrian empire, has come down in history, much magnified, as a sage, a polymath and a thaumaturgist. Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu (and perhaps Ahikar) owe much of their later exaltation to the Ptolemaïc period. 3. New Testament notables The notorious Seleucid king, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ becomes a New Testament character only in my revised history that shunts the Maccabean era into the Nativity period of the life of Jesus Christ. As some Jewish legends have intuited, king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ was the very same as the emperor Hadrian, supposedly a Roman, but, in actual fact, a complete Grecophile, who has been called “a mirror-image” of ‘Epiphanes’. That Hadrian was indeed! Apparently this brute of a king did not even bother to wait for his death to be deified, for, by taking the epitaph Epiphanes (“God Manifest”), Antiochus actually claimed to be Zeus incarnate. The right-hand man of the emperor Augustus, Marcus Agrippa, was also deified. In my revised history, Marcus Agrippa is the same as king Herod (Agrippa) ‘the Great’ of the Nativity era, and emperor Augustus is, once again, ‘Epiphanes’/Hadrian. A later Herod, wrongly thought to be Agrippa, but actually Antipas (at least in my scheme), will die whilst hopefully embracing apotheosis (Acts 12:21-23): On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. They shouted, ‘This is the voice of a god, not of a man’. Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died. A painful experience this becoming a god! The emperor Vespasian was somewhat more sensible about it when he allegedly quipped, when dying: ‘Vae, puto deus fio’, which translates as: ‘Oh dear, I think I'm becoming a god’. Workers of miracles saw the ancient pagans quick to apotheosise (Acts 14:11-13): The people saw what Paul did. They called with loud voices in the language of the people of Lycaonia, ‘The gods have become like men and have come down to us’. They said that Barnabas was Jupiter. Paul was called Mercury because he spoke more than Barnabas. The god of Jupiter was in a building near the gate leading into the city. The religious leader of that place brought cattle and flowers to the gate. He and many other people wanted to burn these as gifts in an act of worship to Paul and Barnabas. 4. Man-made gods Not all of the gods were based on famous people, however. From the most ancient of times people worshipped, as gods, powerful animals. The Bull was especially popular, at least as early as, say, Çatal Hüyük: https://semiramis-speaks.com/the-origins-and-evolution-of-the-bull-cult-in-the-ancient-mediterranean/ “In the Ancient Near East the earliest evidence of a bull cult was found at Çatal Hüyük in Anatolia around 7000 BCE” [sic]. That cult passed on to Crete, and to Egypt. Remember the Golden Calf? Well, we still have it. The Fertility Goddess was amongst the most common of the idolatrous images to be found throughout the ancient world. The enlightened prophet Isaiah, like other prophets of Israel (such as Jeremiah), scathingly described the witless process of setting up one’s own god – a practice that would no doubt have had its inception in antediluvian times (Isaiah 44:9-20): Idolatry Is Ridiculed All those who make idols are worthless, and the gods they prize so highly are useless. Those who worship these gods are blind and ignorant—and they will be disgraced. It does no good to make a metal image to worship as a god! Everyone who worships it will be humiliated. The people who make idols are human beings and nothing more. Let them come and stand trial—they will be terrified and will suffer disgrace. The metalworker takes a piece of metal and works with it over a fire. His strong arm swings a hammer to pound the metal into shape. As he works, he gets hungry, thirsty, and tired. The carpenter measures the wood. He outlines a figure with chalk, carves it out with his tools, and makes it in the form of a man, a handsome human figure, to be placed in his house. He might cut down cedars to use, or choose oak or cypress wood from the forest. Or he might plant a laurel tree and wait for the rain to make it grow. A person uses part of a tree for fuel and part of it for making an idol. With one part he builds a fire to warm himself and bake bread; with the other part he makes a god and worships it. With some of the wood he makes a fire; he roasts meat, eats it, and is satisfied. He warms himself and says, ‘How nice and warm! What a beautiful fire!’ The rest of the wood he makes into an idol, and then he bows down and worships it. He prays to it and says, ‘You are my god—save me!’ Such people are too stupid to know what they are doing. They close their eyes and their minds to the truth. The maker of idols hasn't the wit or the sense to say, ‘Some of the wood I burned up. I baked some bread on the coals, and I roasted meat and ate it. And the rest of the wood I made into an idol. Here I am bowing down to a block of wood!’ It makes as much sense as eating ashes. His foolish ideas have so misled him that he is beyond help. He won't admit to himself that the idol he holds in his hand is not a god at all. While the ancient idols were neither gods nor demons, evil spirits would hasten to grasp the opportunity to urge on superstitious types to worship them - even with the dazzlement of pseudo-miracles - so as to lure them away from the one true God. We Catholics venerate, as saints, holy dead people, though we do not worship them, but only God. St Pio: The Padre of “Pray, Hope, and Don’t Worry!” The Saint Whose Famous Words Against Worry Encourage Us to Keep Hope at All Times

Tuesday, May 20, 2025

Cain, Abel, Seth and Enos

by Damien F. Mackey Initially, then, Cain did not wander very far at all. He may have later. Introduction Whilst most would regard the antediluvian period as narrated in the Book of Genesis (1:1-7:5), prior to 7:6: “And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came on the earth”, as a non-history, ‘Creationists’, who accept all of it as actual fact, would tend to think that, owing to the enormity of a global (as they believe) Flood, any evidence of that old world is now totally unretrievable. What has encouraged me to think otherwise, that the antediluvian landscape was not altogether different from the post-diluvian landscape, is the fact that editor Moses had established a link between the antediluvian riverine system and the post-diluvian one - that, as I wrote: Editor Moses Added Vital Geographical Clues for the Genesis Flood and Sodom (4) Editor Moses Added Vital Geographical Clues for the Genesis Flood and Sodom Paradise (Eden) and the Garden The Edenic Paradise was therefore the very large portion of land irrigated by the four rivers (Genesis 2:11-14): The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. The wondrous Garden of Eden itself, which tradition associates with the site of Jerusalem - as did Jesus Christ (cf. Matthew 23:35) - was apparently situated, by Divine purpose, at the centre of this ancient paradisaïcal land (Ezekiel 5:5): Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘This is Jerusalem; I have set her at the center of the nations ...’. The research of the late Dr. Ernest L. Martin has also proved invaluable with its recognition of: http://askelm.com/temple/t040301.htm The Temple Symbolism in Genesis the parallels between the Garden of Eden and the liturgy associated with it and, later, that of the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem. Fall and “the Land of Nod” This, in turn, enables one to reconstruct the abode of Adam and Eve immediately after the Fall, and also to come to grips with the very tricky matter, with which many struggle, of the location of “the land of Nod” to where Cain was exiled after he had murdered Abel (Genesis 4:16): “So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden”. On this, see my article: Land of Nod and City of “Enoch” https://www.academia.edu/28328715/Land_of_Nod_and_City_of_Enoch_ The “land of Nod”, we find, was immediately adjacent to the Garden, and east of it. By this stage, humankind had not travelled very far at all. So, to seek to identify “the land of Nod”, or Cain’s first city, “Enoch” (4:17): Cain had sexual relations with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Then Cain founded a city, which he named Enoch, after his son [,] in, for instance, faraway southern Mesopotamia, as scholars do - and as I have certainly done in the past - may actually be, geographically, way off beam. No doubt, however, after humankind had made its initial small moves, members of the antediluvian race would now have begun to explore further afield, heading for fertile regions like (what we now call) Syria and Mesopotamia, and northwards to (what we now call) the Black Sea, and, in a different direction again, to (what we now call) Egypt and Ethiopia. The Bible calls Egypt “the land of Ham” (e.g. Psalm 105:22) - whether this name were given to the land before or after the Flood. Ham was, of course, a son of Noah himself (Genesis 6:10). Scholars, relying primarily on the information supplied by Josephus, as a supplement to Genesis - but also using other legends, and by re-interpreting some of the ancient mythology - have made a pretty good fist of re-constructing (but only in barest outline) the antediluvian world. Whilst most, probably, would regard the whole thing as being fanciful and non-historical, some, taking seriously the early chapters of the Book of Genesis as rendering an accurate primeval history of humankind, have endeavoured to bring the whole thing to the fore again. For this the Jewish historian Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews has proved to be essential. Roy Schulz, using sources such as this, has managed to compile what I think is generally a plausible scenario of the antediluvian world (in his article “Exploring Ancient History – The First 2500 Years”): http://www.book.dislib.info/b1-history/4036992-7-compiled-roy-schulz-social-studies-department-imperial-schools-pa.php The following is taken from his Chapter 3 “The Ways of Cain and Seth”. As I do not necessarily agree with everything written here by Roy Schulz, I shall be adding my own critical comments here and there. The first point of interest is that Cain and Abel may have been twins: Cain and Abel The bible continues the account in Genesis 4 with the birth of Cain and Abel. No mention is made of how much time had passed since the expulsion from the garden of Eden but it probably was a period of several decades, possibly as much as half a century. It seems a logical deduction that Adam and Eve, under [God’s] direction, spent considerable time establishing themselves before beginning to raise a family. The indication in verse 2, reports Adam Clarke in his commentary, is that Cain and Abel were twins because it says about Eve, "... she again bare" -- or added in baring -- "his brother Abel." It does not say that she conceived separately again later before Abel was born. So the implication, says Clarke commentary, is they were: born at the same time. Understanding Cain's character is important for the early story of human history. His very name implies what type of person he was -- Cain means "gotten" or "acquired." Cain was selfish; he wanted to get for himself. He was a spoiled child. This becomes very apparent as the story develops. There are definite and startling reasons why Cain turned out as he did. He was, first of all, the product of an unhappy marriage. Adam and Eve did not live in harmony. Eve blamed Adam for the expulsion from Eden and Adam blamed Eve. They probably never really forgave each other for having bungled their golden opportunity. Every argument they had must have ended up focused on this painful memory. However, a savior had been promised (Gen. 3:15). This was something to look forward to. But this promise caused Eve to draw a hasty, false, and extremely harmful assumption. Notice her statement in Gen. 4:1. The King James rendering -- "I have gotten a man from the eternal" -- is not correct. In the original Hebrew, this statement reads, "I have gotten a man -- the eternal." She actually thought that her firstborn son was the promised child, God in the flesh. Under this deception, she treated Cain as if he were a god. And that is why he turned out to be such a monstrous delinquent. The full significance of this will be explained in chapter 6 when the actual meaning of Gen. 6:2 is revealed. Mackey’s comment: The relevant part of Genesis 4:1 reads in Hebrew: קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת-יְהוָה As far as I can tell, Roy Schulz’s interpretation of it, “I have gotten a man -- the eternal”, is reading too much into it - necessary for his explanation of Genesis 6:2 later on. The standard reading: “I have gotten a man from the Lord”, I think still suffices. Roy Schulz continues, now presenting Cain as a disobedient and irresponsible soil damager: Now verse 2 states that Abel was a shepherd but Cain was a farmer. God actually wanted people in this early time to be mainly shepherds instead of farmers so that the soil could slowly be built up from animal waste, leaves from the trees, and so on. He wanted elements to be added to the soil instead of removed from it. But Cain was a farmer, which in itself, was not pleasing to God … he also FORCED the ground, and, by this method, damaged it even more than normal. Cain was selfish and greedy. He wanted what he wanted NOW! …. Thus, when reading of the offering of Cain and Abel in verses 3-5, it is easy to understand why God was displeased with Cain. He not only had a selfish attitude but he used wrong, methods in even growing the fruits he offered. He had not obeyed God at all. …. The First Murder In verses 5-7 God analyzed Cain's attitude for him. He told him he could triumph over sin if he wanted to and that his offerings could be found acceptable if he were genuinely repentant. But Cain never made any attempt to repent. He had an angry look on his face not only because he was disappointed, but because he was premeditating the murder of his brother. He thought this was the quickest way to solve his problem. Verse 8 finds Abel naively out in the field in his wicked brother's company. Little did he realize he would be the victim of the first murder in all human history. How Cain accomplished the deed is not known but, being a farmer and reaper, he might have done it with a cutting instrument such as a scythe. Mackey’s comment: The word for ‘slay’ (σφάζειν) is a link between this Epistle and Revelation (Revelation 6:4 …), occurring nowhere else in N. T. Its original meaning was ‘to cut the throat’ (σφαγή), especially of a victim for sacrifice. Then, after it was over, Cain tried to hide his crime by burying the body. Human society was off to an appropriate start because war and murder have been its prime characteristics through all ages. Mackey’s comment: Roy Schulz now proceeds to discuss the famous Mark of Cain. His explanation of it, as “a WARNING MARKER or BOUNDARY LINE” is at least better than some of the strange attempts that have been made to account for it. But does it accord with the Hebrew? Cain's "Mark" God confronted Cain with his sin. He could have done this in front of the family of Adam. (see Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown commentary.) But Cain was still not repentant. He tried to cover up (verse 9). The eternal did not waste time with Cain. He immediately told him his sentence (verses 10-12). …. After the eternal told Cain that he would be a fugitive and a vagabond as a result of his sin, Cain still did not change his negative attitude. His reply (verses 13-14) shows his consistently self-centered outlook. He blamed God for his problems, not himself. In a sense, he said, "what you're doing to me isn't fair. I don't have a chance. I'm not getting a square deal." God did not execute Cain for his crime. But he separated him -- excommunicated him -- from the rest of the human family. This is the meaning of Cain's "mark" (Gen. 4:15). It was not a brand on his forehead, a long horn growing out of his head, affliction with paralysis, his dog, or any other of the ridiculous guesses that men have put forth. It was a WARNING MARKER or BOUNDARY LINE set up to separate Cain from the rest of Adam's family. A better rendering of the verse would make it more understandable: "and the eternal set up a marker (or, monument) for (or, against) Cain. Lest any finding him should kill him." This was actually a religious segregation because Cain wrong attitude had made it necessary. God was saying, "I won't want Adam's family influenced by your selfish and sinful approach to life." Mackey’s comment: Boundaries were considered highly important in antiquity, as they are now, and they were fought over. We read of a famous Lagash-Umma border conflict, according to which (and compatible with Roy Schulz’s interpretation of the Mark of Cain) the “chief god Enlil” had actually marked out the boundaries of these states, and indeed “in the gu-edena”, in which we can even perceive the biblical word, “Eden” (some biblical overtones here). Moreover, one of the kings involved in the border conflict, Eannatum, even described himself as a “giant”. For my radical biblico-historical reconstruction of Eannatum, though, see e.g. my article: Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma (4) Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma http://studentreader.com/lagash-umma-border-conflict/ According to Inscriptions, the chief god Enlil had demarcated the Lagash-Umma border in the gu'edena (edge of the plain), and the Kish king Mesalim (~2600 BC) [sic] measured it out and set up a boundary marker. Thus, outside arbitration of conflicts had begun early in the Early Dynastic era. Though the boundary had been established, whenever Lagash was powerful enough it would seek to claim the gu'edena. The war was described as a dispute between Ningirsu, god of Lagash, and Shara, god of Umma. Lagashite inscriptions depict their kings as deputies acting on behalf of the gods; the Lagashite king Eannatum even described himself as the giant son of Ningirsu, thus engendering him to fight. Successive Lagashite kings stated in their royal inscriptions that Umma had illegally occupied the gu'edena and that Lagash thus defeated Umma. Since the Lagashite side wrote the inscriptions, they present Umma as the illegal and sacrilegious aggressor in the conflict. However, the continuation of the Lagash-Umma border conflict for centuries shows that battles were in fact inconclusive. The tension persisted so long as more agricultural area was still needed by both states. It is assumed that other states underwent similar interactions, attempting to annex their neighbors' fields, though none are so clear as the issue between Lagash and Umma. [End of quote] Whether the Hebrew word, oth (אוֹת), in Genesis 4:15: “And the LORD set a sign for Cain …”, וַיָּשֶׂם יְהוָה לְקַיִן אוֹת can legitimately be translated as Roy Schulz has proposed, I shall leave it to experts in the language to decide. But certainly in Joshua 4:5-7, oth (אוֹת) is used in connection with some marker or boundary stones. Roy Schulz continues, with reference to Deuteronomy 32:8: “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel”. He also introduces an old racial theory, which does not appear to me to have any solid biblical endorsement, namely, that Cain’s race was dark skinned, whilst the goodly line of Seth was fair: Yes, Cain was unfit to live in the same land with the rest of the people. God told Adam's children, "you stay here in the area of Palestine. The rest of the world is for Cain to wander in" (see Deut. 32:8). Later, this separation included racial segregation; Cain became the ancestor of all the non-white people. …. Mackey’s comment: Whilst Roy Schulz’s attempt to reconstruct the early geography of Cain (Genesis 4:16) is quite vague, Dr. Ernest L. Martin had explained, in “The Temple Symbolism in Genesis”: https://www.askelm.com/temple/t040301.htm that this verse actually refers to a properly identifiable place: In the Garden our first parents were able to talk face to face with God. But note an important point. They only had conversations with Him at certain times of the day. They did not see Him on all occasions. It was “in the cool of the day” that they came into “the presence of the Lord” (Genesis 3:8). The expressions “cool of the day” and “the presence of the Lord” were a part of temple language. 7 “The cool of the day” was the period when the Sun got lower in the sky and the cool sea breezes normally swept over the Palestinian region. This was the time of the evening sacrifice (1 Kings 18:36; Daniel 9:21) — about three in the afternoon. This was the time when the animals were being regularly sacrificed (and also in the morning about nine o’clock). At these times the people were then reckoned as being “in the presence of God” (2 Chronicles 20:19). …. Cain’s punishment involved him being “driven out” from the land he formerly tilled, and away from the “face” of God. “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod [Wandering], on the east side of Eden.” • Genesis 4:16 What marvelous teaching is found in this latter scripture once it is understood that temple language was being used by Moses. Note that Cain was sent OUT OF EDEN. He went East of Eden. And by leaving Eden, he “went out from the presence of the Lord.” Now look at the second diagram. It will be similar to the outline of the temple which we gave earlier, but this time we will involve the story of Adam and Eve, the Garden, the Cherubim with the flaming sword, the altar of Cain and Abel, the land of Eden, and the land of Nod [Wandering]. It has excellent teaching. [End of quote] Initially, then, Cain did not wander very far at all. He may have later. Now, here is Roy Schulz’s account of it, in which he attempts an early chronology. The Curse On Cain Cain was now cut off from God. "Cain went out from the presence of the eternal." (Gen. 4:16) he was now on his own; he was forced to wander; he could no longer call on God. He would have to solve his problems on his own. It was not a pleasant fate. This ostracizing of Cain is analogous to putting an individual out of God's church. Such a person is separated from God's people until he repents. But Cain did not repent. He wanted his own way at all costs and started his own society and practices. When did the excommunication of Cain take place? The indication of Gen. 5:3 is that approximately a century and a quarter had elapsed since Adam's creation. A logical deduction based on this verse is that Seth was born soon after Cain's crime because he was to replace the murdered Abel (Gen. 4:25). Since Seth was born when Adam was 130, the death of Abel must have occurred shortly before that birth. By putting the bible together with Josephus' account. It is possible to determine Cain's activities after he was separated from Adam's family and cut off from God. He and his wife who was, of necessity, his sister, (Gen. 5:4) went to live in an area called "the land of wandering". Which was east of Eden (verses 4:16). Then Josephus tells us that Cain and his wife "travelled over many countries." (Antiquities I, II, 2.) Here is an indication that, after the expulsion: Cain actually spent a century or more wandering over the earth. Mackey’s comment: Roy Schulz will now also propose that Cain (who was apparently no Greenie) had to contend with a different topography and climate upon the earth: Why did Cain become a wanderer or nomad? Why did he not settle down permanently in a specific area? Amazingly, the bible and geology provide the answer. As a result of the sin of Cain the entire history of human society and the earth's surface were remarkably changed. Notice what God had told Cain before his expulsion: "and now art thou cursed from the earth... When thou tillest the ground it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive (or wanderer) and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth" (Gen. 4:11-12). Cain, Josephus records, was the first person who "contrived to plough the ground". In addition, he greedily tried to get more crops faster by "forcing the ground." Cain, in other words, sought to gain his livelihood by farming methods which depleted the soil. For example, he probably used the following method. He would burn down a forest or other vegetation on the land. Then he would plant seed in the ashes which served as fertilizer. Such land would produce well for a few years but after that it was ruined through such harsh abuse. Cain destroyed the soil for the purpose of quick crops. He did not care about conserving fertility for future generations. God wanted the earliest humans to be shepherds so that the soil could be built up -- but Cain forced the ground before it was developed. God put a stop to Cain's way -- the way of getting. If Cain and his heirs had been allowed to continue these agricultural methods, soils all over the world would long ago have been rendered unfit for cultivation. The curse on Cain was not some strange poisoning of the soil. Logically, it could mean only one thing -- A CHANGE IN THE EARTH'S CLIMATE! The geological record tells us what God did to save the soil from utter depletion. Mountain chains arose where there were none before. Seas dried up. The balmy semitropical climate of the world rapidly shifted into torrid and frigid zones. Wherever Cain wandered, his agricultural pursuits came to naught. When it should have rained, the weather turned dry. Just as he was about to reap the ripening crop, in came a storm. Nothing turned out right. Cain was forced to turn to food gathering -- to hunting and gleaning the wild fruits and berries. He and the generations who followed him eaked out a wretched living. Both geology and archaeology testify to these conditions. Mackey’s comment: Bravely, now, Roy Schulz will attempt to bring into line with this scenario the Geological Ages – something that I believe desperately needs to be done, whether or not Schulz has got it right (and I don’t think that he has, entirely): The Proof of Geology In the tertiary geological deposits, which follow the upper Cretaceous, many surface changes are recorded. The climate began to turn cooler. Desert regions developed in the wake of mountain building. Pluvial and arid periods fluctuated. The climate in the northern hemisphere became even cooler. Vast snow falls engulfed the regions now labeled Canada and Europe. The arctic zone expanded. Fluctuations in sea level occurred. All along, the continental shore lines the changing beach levels left their mark. Many may still be seen today. Geologists mislabel this pre-flood period "ice ages." Cain's children were forced to adopt his level of existence. Because of his sin, Cain initiated a degenerate way of life. His descendants became fugitives, wanderers, vagabonds. They too were reduced to hunting and gathering because the soil would not yield normal crops. They began living in caves in regions far removed from the main civilizations in the near east and became shockingly depraved. Mackey’s comment: Dr. John Osgood has, in “A Better Model for the Stone Age” (http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age), surveyed the very same Stone Age scenario in which Roy Schulz has set Cain and his fellow nomads, known as the upper Palaeolithic phase, but Dr. Osgood has identified these nomads as post-Flood peoples. I am more inclined to follow Dr. Osgood here. Roy Schulz will now turn his attention to the city, “Enoch”, that Cain built (4:17). However, I am convinced (in the context of Dr. Osgood’s preferable Stone and Archaeological Ages model) that Roy Schulz has identified a city that well post-dated, not only Cain, but also the Flood: Cain's Famous Walled City At this point Josephus' words about Cain need to be emphasized: Cain "built a city, and fortified it with walls..." The bible speaks of this same city: Cain "builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch." (Gen. 4:17) Though in a sense this is getting ahead of the story, it is appropriate at this point to tell of the significance of the famous walled city, Enoch. In recent years, archaeologists made a startling discovery. In their excavations at the site of ancient Jericho (which is adjacent to present day Jericho in Palestine) they were amazed to uncover a big town in an early "pre-pottery Neolithic" state thousands of years -- as they measure time -before any city of this type should have existed. This vast town existed at a time when only villages of tents or huts should have been in use -- but there it was. It was of large proportion, of great duration -- and had a huge wall around it. When the archaeological findings are correctly interpreted (see the chart on page 80 of the "Bible and the Ancient Near East", edited by G. Ernest Wright), it is evident this city must have existed before the flood. Mackey’s comment: Though I had previously entertained Roy Schulz’s view, a closer study of the stratigraphy of Jericho - especially in relation to the Dr. John Osgood’s firm archaeological location of Abram - would suggest that this impressive “pre-pottery Neolithic” (PPNA) city was built approximately within range of Abram. That is a very long distance, chronologically, from Cain. That Cain’s city was built “in ‘Seth's land’ or Palestine”, according to Roy Schulz, might perhaps indicate that it was in the environs of the Garden (later the site of Jerusalem Temple). Schulz continues: That's right -- CAIN HAD DARED TO COME BACK INTO FORBIDDEN TERRITORY. At an earlier time God had said: "this area is for Seth and his family -- the rest of the world [sic] is for Cain and his children to wander on." But, as we well know, Cain was not noted for being willing to obey any of God's orders. …. …. Josephus said -- that Cain was the inventor of weights and measures implying that he was engaged in trading. But also recall that Cain procured "spoils by robbery." In other words, he must have forced surrounding peoples to pay tribute, and he must have engaged in looting and pillage. …. The Way of Cain The important truth we need to learn from all this is that Cain was the originator of civilization as we know it. Our entire society today is patterned after "the way of Cain" (Jude 11). It is a way of competitiveness, selfishness, and greed. Satan used the family of Cain to perpetuate his philosophy. Cain was "spiritually bankrupt." He had no love for his neighbor at all. The code of Cain was, "get the other fellow before he gets you. Do unto others before they do unto you." This is the way our world is today. Cain was cut off from God. He was wandering on his own. And we live in a world cut off from God too -- groping its way to destruction. …. Cain's way led to the Flood -- the complete destruction of humanity except for eight persons! And it will lead to an unbelievable carnage again in the near future! God has decreed that man must learn once and for all -- in complete finality -- that THE WAY OF CAIN SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK!! When man learns this lesson by hard experience, then he will turn to God in real repentance! But he has not reached that point - yet! Mackey’s comment: Humankind will find peace only when it embraces devotion to the Divine Mercy: The following article by Blessed Michael Sopocko - whose feast day we celebrate Feb. 15 - was first published in the Spring 1956 issue of the Marian Helpers Bulletin. Blessed Michael was the confessor and spiritual director of St. Faustina. As a house on a foundation so our faith is based on the truth of the Resurrection. "... and if Christ has not risen, vain then is our preaching, vain too is your faith." (1 Cor 15:14). In order that the faith of the Apostles in this truth might be strengthened, our Savior often showed Himself to them, permitted Thomas to touch His wounds, and greeted the Apostles with the words, "Peace be to you." Why did He not speak to them thus before His Passion? Because then the work of Redemption was not completed. However, after the eternal enemy of mankind was crushed, original sin removed, reconciliation completed between God and man whom He adopted as His children, He permitted Himself to be called Father, and peace, therefore, returned to earth, "Peace be to you." 1. What is peace? Peace is tranquility of order which, according to St. Augustine, depends upon the order with oneself, with our neighbor, and with God. Peace therefore is not the same as concord. Concord may be had even among perverse people who pool their strength together for wrongdoing, but peace is not to be found among them: "There is no peace to the wicked." (Is 48:22). Order with oneself rests upon internal harmony inasmuch as the lower bodily powers are subject to reason and will, which subjection gives us peace of conscience. Order with our neighbor is based on our loving them as ourselves and rendering to each his due. Finally, order with God amounts to our knowing, praising and loving Him as well as fulfilling His will. Sin upset that order. It destroyed internal harmony within us so much so that in our present condition our intellect and will are beclouded and bound and dragged by our passions prompting us to acts contrary to reason, and causing in us qualms of conscience which are the greatest misfortune for man. Sin destroyed order with God because sin is a revolt against His will. It destroyed also the order with our neighbor; instead of mutual love people hate one another, do not render to each his due but rather wrong their fellow men by denying them the right to life and means necessary to keep them alive. It is in that manner that every worldly man seeks peace and happiness without being able to find them. "Where are you hurrying, O man, on the road of life? Why do you strive for the summit so laboriously? Why all this toil, labor and fight?" "I desire peace," answers he, "I desire to reach the goal and rest therein. I seek comfort, delight, happiness because man exists for these." However, instead of peace, they find disputes, family quarrels, competition and war of social classes and states. Why? Because they refuse to acknowledge God as their Father, and, consequently, they cannot see themselves as brothers. They feel internal discord which nothing and no one can remove from their hearts. 2. There are two who want to give mankind peace; the world and Christ. The peace of the world is external; the peace of Christ is internal. The former ends in confusion and collapse; the latter terminates in victory, strength and everlasting peace. Christ brings wonderful peace, true peace, "such as the world cannot give." His peace does not consist in external concord with others, but above all in concord with God, that produces concord within oneself, a peace of conscience. "A new commandment I give you, that you would love each other." This is a necessary condition of peace with our neighbor. "But I say to you, love your enemies." (Mt 5:44). True peace is given by Him alone who removes the cause of unrest which is sin. The Most Merciful Savior by His death on the Cross created an inexhaustible treasury of His merits. After His Resurrection He set up the Sacraments through which the Church applies those merits to individual souls. First of all, by the Sacrament of Baptism original sin is removed, and in the Sacrament of Penance, which was established on Resurrection day, sins committed after Baptism are forgiven. Through these Sacraments the Divine Mercy pours down true peace unceasingly on those who receive them worthily. He who does not avail himself of those Sacraments finds his life a torture. Even though he be surrounded with the riches and splendor, without the Sacrament of Penance he is like one who lies on a soft bed strewn with thorns. On the contrary, he who properly uses those Sacraments of God's Mercy has internal peace and happiness; he is cheerful for he possesses true peace which soothes the sufferings and miseries of his life. He is at peace with his neighbors whom he loves as brothers, whose labors he respects, whose faults he forgives, and whose forgiveness he begs. Above all else he is at peace with God Whose Will he fulfills and to Whose infinite Mercy he is grateful for having forgiven him his sins. True peace, therefore, flows only from God's Mercy in the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance. This is the reason why Christ after His Resurrection greeted the Apostles with the words, "Peace be to you," and repeated His greeting twice while instituting the Sacrament of Penance. This is also the reason why the Church in the Mass of Low Sunday reminds us of God's Mercy in those Sacraments and encourages us to praise His Mercy, "Praise ye the Lord, for He is good, for His Mercy endures forever." (Ps 105:1). …. Roy Schulz continues: We study history to learn the lesson of human experience so we don't make the same mistakes ourselves (I Cor. 10:6, 11; Rom..15:4.) The history of the past will help the citizens of the World Tomorrow see that God's way is the only way. And so the great truth of these early chapters of the Bible is that Cain started an entire pattern in society which is with us to this day, a way of life which must finally be eradicated from the earth! It is a way which, though our human nature prompts us to follow it, we must exterminate from our daily practices and replace it with the way of God -- the way of love, giving, and sharing!" What was the effect of the "way of Cain" on society down to the Flood. And can we know what ultimately became of Cain? Also, what were the major contributions of the line of Cain to society in pre-Flood times? These are the interesting questions yet to be covered. St. Augustine’s City of God “presents human history as a conflict between what Augustine calls the Earthly City (often colloquially referred to as the City of Man) and the City of God, a conflict that is destined to end in victory for the latter. The City of God is marked by people who forgot earthly pleasure to dedicate themselves to the eternal truths of God, now revealed fully in the Christian faith. The Earthly City, on the other hand, consists of people who have immersed themselves in the cares and pleasures of the present, passing world”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_of_God Antediluvian Man’s Devolution Saint Augustine of Hippo had very much in mind here the divergent paths chosen, now by Cain, now by Abel. Ultimately, though, it was a warfare of cosmic proportions between God and Satan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_of_God Augustine’s thesis depicts the history of the world as universal warfare between God and the Devil. This metaphysical war is not limited by time but only by geography on Earth. In this war, God moves (by divine intervention/ Providence) those governments, political/ideological movements and military forces aligned (or aligned the most) with the Catholic Church (the City of God) in order to oppose by all means—including military—those governments, political/ ideological movements and military forces aligned (or aligned the most) with the Devil (the City of Devil). [End of quote] Augustine himself wrote, in chapter 1: …. I trust we have already done justice to these great and difficult questions regarding the beginning of the world, or of the soul, or of the human race itself. This race we have distributed into two parts, the one consisting of those who live according to man, the other of those who live according to God. And these we also mystically call the two cities, or the two communities of men, of which the one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment with the devil. This, however, is their end, and of it we are to speak afterwards. At present, as we have said enough about their origin, whether among the angels, whose numbers we know not, or in the two first human beings, it seems suitable to attempt an account of their career, from the time when our two first parents began to propagate the race until all human generation shall cease. For this whole time or world-age, in which the dying give place and those who are born succeed, is the career of these two cities concerning which we treat. Of these two first parents of the human race, then, Cain was the first-born, and he belonged to the city of men; after him was born Abel, who belonged to the city of God. For as in the individual the truth of the apostle's statement is discerned, that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual, 1 Corinthians 15:46 whence it comes to pass that each man, being derived from a condemned stock, is first of all born of Adam evil and carnal, and becomes good and spiritual only afterwards, when he is grafted into Christ by regeneration: so was it in the human race as a whole. When these two cities began to run their course by a series of deaths and births, the citizen of this world was the first-born, and after him the stranger in this world, the citizen of the city of God, predestinated by grace, elected by grace, by grace a stranger below, and by grace a citizen above. By grace—for so far as regards himself he is sprung from the same mass, all of which is condemned in its origin; but God, like a potter (for this comparison is introduced by the apostle judiciously, and not without thought), of the same lump made one vessel to honor, another to dishonor. Romans 9:21 But first the vessel to dishonor was made, and after it another to honor. For in each individual, as I have already said, there is first of all that which is reprobate, that from which we must begin, but in which we need not necessarily remain; afterwards is that which is well-approved, to which we may by advancing attain, and in which, when we have reached it we may abide. Not, indeed, that every wicked man shall be good, but that no one will be good who was not first of all wicked; but the sooner any one becomes a good man, the more speedily does he receive this title, and abolish the old name in the new. Accordingly, it is recorded of Cain that he built a city, Genesis 4:17 but Abel, being a sojourner, built none. For the city of the saints is above, although here below it begets citizens, in whom it sojourns till the time of its reign arrives, when it shall gather together all in the day of the resurrection; and then shall the promised kingdom be given to them, in which they shall reign with their Prince, the King of the ages, time without end. [End of quote] As we have read - and is well known - Cain, a man of disobedience, committed the first murder. He slew his own (twin?) brother, Abel. The line of the righteous had to start again, through Seth, and Enosh [Enos] (Genesis 4:25-26): “Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, ‘God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him’. Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh”. The line of Cain, on the other hand, seems to have steadily regressed - devilishly devolved - from that fateful moment that Cain had killed his brother, whose effect was still reverberating at the time of Jesus Christ (Matthew 23:29-36): ‘Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started! You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the Temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation’. King Solomon would reflect way back to this terrible deed by Cain as a “cause” of the great Noachic Flood (Wisdom 10:3-4): But when the unrighteous went away from her in his anger, he perished also in the fury wherewith he murdered his brother. For whose cause the earth being drowned with the flood, wisdom again preserved it, and directed the course of the righteous in a piece of wood of small value. Likewise, the Apostle Jude told about the Enochian judgment in store for any of those who had “taken the way of Cain” (Jude 1:11-16): Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion. These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: ‘See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him’. These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage. That is not to say that absolutely every person who would descend from Cain was a reprobate. Nor would each one of those who belonged to the Seth-ite line be a paragon of righteousness. Especially by about the time of Noah, “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them”, 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”, and “the earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Genesis 6:1, 5, 11), did the Seth-ite line apparently begin to follow the way of Cain. Perhaps one of the star attractions for the Seth-ites was the exciting new technology. For it was from the line of Cain, at the time of Lamech and Tubalcain, and their families, that there arose some marvellous technological developments. With the rapid advancement of technology (though it was nothing as compared with our own times), there appears to have been a corresponding decline in wisdom, which betokens Deity - somewhat akin to how, in the modern Age of Enlightenment, the new physics would replace that higher form of human endeavour, metaphysics. But, likely, even those more philosophically-minded amongst the Cain-ites and the Seth-ites had by now yielded to mere intellectual routine. That the frenetic pursuit of technology alone - which characterises our own era - is not actually civilising, is argued in the following section from Berkeley’s Renovation of Philosophy (Martinus Nijhoff, 1968, pp. 136-137), written by Dr. Gavin Ardley (by far my favourite philosopher of the modern sciences): …. (4) Emergence from tribe Readers of Plato's Republic are wont to suppose, complacently, that the men in Plato's Cave are common vulgar men given to sensual enjoyment. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are ourselves. Especially are they ourselves insofar as we compliment ourselves on our intellectual attainments. When we allow techne to develop into tribe … [tribe: empirical routine devoid of insight e.g. Gorgias 463 b]; allow work (of whatever kind) to sink into meaningless routine, an end in itself; when wonder is no longer there to enliven; when humility has departed; and standards have drifted into identification with particulars: Then we are sorry Cave-dwellers. The craftsman who allows his intelligence to atrophy, sinks into a state of contentment with routine, has forsaken techne for tribe. But his case is mild compared with the tribe of men given to intellectual pursuits. The vice is magnified by the exalted level from which such men have fallen. And most grievous of all is the case of the fallen philosopher: he is the guardian, the man who should be keeping wonder alive. When he allows wonder to die within him, he continues to go through the motions of philosophising; to outward appearance he is a wise man; but inwardly he is merely exercising his intellectual dexterity in an endless round of futility. Dialectic for him ossifies into conditioned response, or is transformed into its savage counterpart, eristic. Metaphysics declines into mere system, or revolts into the realms of the absurd. Tribe is the art of the absurd. [End of quote] Dr. Gavin Ardley’s marvellous Plato-based distinctions between these two vastly different states of being complement St. Augustine’s more religiously-based assessment of the two cities. I suggest that these be kept in mind as we consider the two family lines descending from Adam and Eve. I conclude here with Roy Schulz’s discussion (not all of which I would agree with) of the divergent lines, Cain-ite and the Seth-ite (op. cit.): The Line of Cain vs. The Line of Seth and Enos To put the picture in as simple terms as possible. It may be stated that the story of the pre-flood society is the story of the line of Cain as opposed to that of Seth and Enos. What was the interrelationship of these two major groups …? As indicated previously, Cain and Abel may have been twins. But they were un-like twins. Cain was originally separated because of religious reasons, because of his rebellious attitude. But, later, this division also became racial in significance. In other words, Cain was the father of the Non-white race before the flood. [sic] Seth was the ancestor of the contrasting WHITE line. And these two lines were to remain separate. This is what God wanted. And, for a long time, they were -- but this changed in Lamech's day (Gen. 4:19) who lived in the generation that existed just before the flood came upon the earth. The important concept to bear in mind, then, about the situation before the flood is this: biologically (racially), culturally, intellectually, and spiritually there were just two basic ways of life -- the way of God which was preserved in the family of Seth, and the way of Satan which was promoted by the descendants of Cain! …. Seth and Enos What kind of a person was Seth, the son born to Adam and Eve after Abel's murder? (Gen. 4:25) (Josephus Antiquities I, II, 3) provides some interesting information. Seth was a man of character! His children were properly reared and imitated his good character. All of them had good dispositions and lived together in the same country without fighting and warring. This implies that the family of Seth was separate from the family of Cain as God had intended. As shall be noted shortly, the family of Cain carried on fights, feuds, quarrels, and dissensions. It is only natural that the philosophy of Cain should breed such results. But the family of Seth, for centuries, was separate from the sins and mistakes of the line of Cain. God certainly must have protected them and given them blessing and favour. …. Seth was born when Adam was 130 years of age. …. Enos was Seth's first son (Gen. 5:6). Notice, at this point, that Genesis chapters 4 and 5 are not in direct sequence. To find out anything additional about Enos, it is necessary to go back to Gen. 4:26. "... Then began men to call upon the name of the eternal." Now understand this point: the Hebrew here rendered "call upon" can mean, just as correctly, to "preach" or to "publish." (compare, for example, Matt. 24:14 and Mark 13:10 -- in the first the gospel is prophesied to be preached but, in the second instance. It is to be published.) In short, this verse may be properly understood as, "then began men to preach or publish in the name of or by the authority of the eternal." In other words, this Hebrew expression means to communicate in general without distinguishing as to whether it is writing or speaking. And it may include both these methods. A few Jewish commentators have understood this verse to mark the beginning or origins of WRITING! In other words, the first people to use the written language and records (as well as to spread the knowledge of God by preaching) was the family of Seth and Enos. Adam and Eve, back in the garden of Eden, had a spoken language. God put into Adam's mind … the … knowledge necessary to understand and to speak a verbal language in order to communicate with God. But God did not give man a ready-made written system of communication. Something's God leaves to man to develop and perfect. Writing was one of these arts. God wants man to work and build character in acquiring and preserving knowledge. Thus he left the development of this skill to man. The fact that the line of Seth, in the lifetime of Enos, perfected a beginning form of written communication is supported by verse 1 of chapter 5: "this is the book ..." Records were being kept. This chapter 5 is a simple genealogy, an uncomplicated type of writing with no particular style or form, another indication that this was the beginning of written records. Eight Preachers of Righteousness A verse in the new testament, II Peter 2:5, provides a major point about the line of Seth. Notice that the word "person" is in italics. The way the verse stands in the King James version, the impression is given that Noah was the eighth person of the eight that were in the ark, but, in the original Greek, the meaning of the verse is this: "and spared not the old world, but saved Noah, the eighth preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly ..." Noah, then, was the eighth preacher of righteousness in his line, beginning with Seth, Methuselah is not included -- he died the year of the flood. For the other six preachers of righteousness before the flood, see Genesis 5 and the accompanying chart. To repeat: the major cultural and social contribution of the family of Seth, in the society before the flood, was the art and skill of written language. The next question is, "what were the contributions of the family of Cain?" And "what were the results of their contributions?" Immense Length of Life Before the Flood Before answering these questions, it would be helpful in arriving at an understanding of the pre-flood world, to realize the impact of the great length of life these people experienced and what effect they had on the entire society. The oldest human fossil remains prove this. One of the chief characteristics of all these remains is the extreme longevity characteristic of the skeletons. The massive proportions of the body. The great development of the muscular processes, the extreme wearing of the teeth -- without our characteristic amount of decay -- the obliteration of the sutures or seams between the various bones of the skull and the indications of slow ossification of the ends of the long bones, all point to the inevitable conclusion that the earliest man matured slowly and attained great length of life -- just as Genesis declares. Such characteristics of the skeletal frame are completely absent from modern degenerate man. That these ancient men did attain great age is demonstrated by the fact that their remains are usually found with fragmentary skeletons of youths and babies not exhibiting those characteristics. (chapter 5, "The Meeting Place of Geology and History" by Sir J. William Dawson, pp. 62-63.) These genuinely scientific findings do not prove that man has evolved. Rather, they substantiate the truth of the Bible that men in ancient times, unlike today, experienced centuries of physical life. It is also worthwhile to note in regard to this topic that in Antiquities I, III, 9, Josephus lists eleven ancient writers -- Manetho, Berossus, and [Hesiod] among them -- all of whom "relate that the ancients lived (nearly) a thousand year." True science and the records of ancient times again serve to corroborate the Bible. …. … in [the] seventh generation -- starting to count with Seth -- both the population and the sins of man began to multiply tremendously. This is what is recorded in Genesis 6:1: "... when man began to multiply on the face of the earth" -- "explode" -- then sins began to increase to such an extent that God had to exterminate the human race and make a fresh start with the family of Noah. How, in greater detail, this result came about is the story that remains to be told.

Thursday, May 15, 2025

A nice symmetry if Moses, a second Noah, built the Ark of the Covenant where Noah had built the Ark

by Damien F. Mackey A tentative theory, which may provide nothing more than just a nice symmetry. Introduction When it comes to the place where Noah built the Ark there appear to be no firm traditions to offer us any helpful clues. This I find surprising, considering the significance of the event. It may simply be that, down through the ages, it has been presumed that the great Flood was so total that it destroyed every single vestige of anything on the ground that had preceded it. A complete tabula rasa effect. And, whereas that was also my early opinion, it is not any more. For instance, the four rivers of Genesis 2:10-14, far from having been erased from the face of the earth, were still flowing as late as Sirach’s day (Sirach 24:25-27), conventionally estimated as being the C2nd BC (about two millennia after the Flood). Indeed, they still flow to this very day (16th May, 2025). More significantly, from the testimony of Jesus Christ we learn that the Jerusalemites, who murdered the prophets down through time, were located geographically where Cain and Abel had been, in Eden/Jerusalem (Luke 11:50-51): ‘Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all’. This would be unfair had there been no tangible connection between the two epochs. What it also means is that the great Genesis Flood did not cause any irrevocable disconnection between the antediluvian and postdiluvian worlds. Here I propose to suggest another pre-Flood/post-Flood connection, namely between the place where Noah built the Ark and the place where we know that Moses, considered by some to have been a second Noah, built the Ark of the Covenant. This will have a nice symmetry to it, but it is not a view that I can insist upon with any certainty at this stage, it being nothing more than tentative. If my proposal has any weight, then how ironic would be the taunt aimed at professor Emmanuel Anati about his claim to have found the holy mountain of Sinai, or Horeb: ‘Next you should look for Noah’s Ark’. As I have previously written on this: Professor Emmanuel Anati’s emphatic view that Mount Har Karkom - and not Jebel Musa - is the true biblical Mount Sinai, received this taunt from some of his colleagues, as he tells: “We became used to sarcastic comments such as ‘Did you find the broken Tablets of the Law?’, or, 'Next you should look for Noah’s Ark’.” These colleagues may have been right, though unwittingly, in referring to Noah and the Exodus in the one breath, given the view of certain scholars that the Exodus story of Moses is a miniature Flood story. On this, see e.g. my article: Moses as a second Noah (3) Moses as a second Noah I, however, have recently shifted away from Har Karkom - to an un-named mountain (Mount 788) in the middle of the Karkom valley - as likely being the sacred mountain: Mysterious mountain in the Karkom valley may be the sacred Mount Horeb (3) Mysterious mountain in the Karkom valley may be the sacred Mount Horeb Why was this mountain (Horeb) holy? Contrary to professor Anati’s estimations of this un-named mountain as being of late interest (Hellenistic) as a sacred mountain, Flavio Barbiero and his brother, Claudio, who worked with the professor, found evidence that this sacredness dated right back to the Stone Ages (to Chalcolithic). Flavio Barbiero has written of it in his ground-breaking article: THE CAVE OF TREASURES ON MOUNT HOREB (3) THE CAVE OF TREASURES ON MOUNT HOREB Pp. 78-79 (emphasis added): …. Isolated as it is in the centre of the valley, with its unmistakable silhouette, it constitutes a unique natural landmark, so conspicuous that the Israeli Air Force had used it as a target for its live-fire exercises. They placed a wooden target right on the small temple and shot against it. The collapsed stones of the wall were riddled with machine gun fire. All around, on the rocks, the signs produced by the missiles’ explosion could be seen. We had also found missiles’ parts along the climbing path, which we had been careful not to touch in compliance with the permanent instructions that had been given to us on the day of our entry into Har Karkom. We were under strict orders to stay away from anything that wasn't archaeological. We immediately made a transgression for that target fixed to the temple: we dashed it down into the valley. We devoted the rest of the day to a first inspection of the site. All around the acropolis, both at its base and at half height, there was a series of shelters and small caves. We collected much pottery, inside and around the temple and also at the base of the rock. In the evening, we made a full report on the discoveries of that extraordinary day. There was excitement among the camp members but also a subtle vein of embarrassment. Another sacred mountain right in front of Har Karkom? Because there was no doubt that it was a holy mountain. How did it reconcile with Anati's hypotheses? Anati immediately found the solution to the problem. The pottery we brought back from the Acropolis belonged to the Hellenistic period. Even the small temple, with its square plan and a construction technique that had no comparison in the area with BAC constructions, was, according to Emmanuel, Hellenistic. Finally, the acropolis was connected to the Hellenistic site BK 480, the location of which was chosen to be as close as possible to the access path. According to Anati, Mount 788 had only become sacred in the Hellenistic era, and there was no evidence that it had already been so in the time of Moses. He was wrong. We later found evidence that it had been sacred since Chalcolithic times, at least three thousand years earlier. …. [End of quote] For some proper biblical perspective, Late Chalcolithic En-gedi has been firmly determined by Dr. John Osgood to have been contemporaneous with the patriarch Abram and the invasion of the four kings of Genesis 14, resulting in the demise of Ghassul IV in Palestine. It also corresponds to the Gerzean phase in Egypt. Was Noah ever in Egypt, or whatever it may then have been called? As with the place where Noah built the Ark, there is precious little to go on here. I have read a vague tradition that Noah had gone to Egypt to escape violent men. If so, it is a situation that Noah would have shared in common with the Holy Family. Following through on the hopeful symmetry with Moses, I can only suggest that Noah eventually migrated from Egypt to the Karkom valley region, which in those days would have been paradisiacal, and there with his family (and any supporters) built the mighty Ark - where Moses, the second Noah, would build the Ark of the Covenant. Flavio Barbero, at least, has no doubts that Noah had once dwelt at this sacred site (op. cit., p. 116-117): …. In the apocalypse of Moses, the sequence of burials in the cave of treasures is interrupted by Noah, because of devastation sent by God to punish the lineage of the priests, announced by Enoch: "When Enoch saw that God intended to take him back with him, he called Matusala, Lamech, and Noah to him and said to them, 'I know that God is angry with our seed and will cause judgment without mercy to descend upon them'" From the rest of the account it is clear that the author is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the subsequent Babylonian exile. In fact, at the death of Methuselah, Noah "anointed his body with myrrh and cinnamon Then Noah and his sons buried him in the cave of treasures... When they came down from the holy mountain, they erupted sobbing in tears, for they were deprived of the holy place of their fathers. They lifted their eyes to paradise, wept in sorrow, mourned desolately, and said: 'Rest in peace, holy paradise, abode of our father Adam, .... Even after death he is driven away from his country and cast out into a foreign land with his children, into a land of sorrows, where his children will be afflicted by pain, disease, work, fatigue and adversity." This lament seems to echo the lamentations of the children of Israel forced into Babylonian exile. More than for the pains of exile, however, the Noah of the Apocalypse of Moses seems afflicted by the loss of the sacred mountain and the cave where his ancestors rest. He continues: "Rest in peace, cave of treasures. Rest in peace, home and inheritance of our father ... Rest in peace, holy mountain! Rest in peace, port and abode of angels. O fathers, pray for us, in the pain of having been deprived of the connection with you!" Did a Flood ever overlie the Karkom valley region? Well, yes one did, but supposedly millions of years before any of this. We find evidence for this in professor Anati’s book, The Mountain of God. Previously I wrote about this: …. Returning to hypothesis, might even the Eocene (Tethys?) Sea (supposedly to be dated somewhere between 56 to 33.9 million years ago) be connected with the Noachic Flood? Terry Lawrence (N.Z.) has proposed a Flood-related revision of some of the Geological Ages and the Ice Age that, if realistic, would bring this closer to being a possibility: Pick up a copy of Kummel’s History of the Earth and glance at pp.447-455 and you will see the fallacy of this time-gap. The maps on these pages clearly show that during the Tertiary Age Europe, North Africa and Asia Minor were in a state of complete ruin, being mostly under water. Note in particular the Great Tethys or Central Sea which stretches 9000 miles from Spain to India and is up to 2000 miles wide. On p.453 the map for the Oligocene subdivision of the Tertiary shows that the sea invasion of Europe plainly stops at the boundary of the area covered by the ice age in Scandinavia. This is curious because under the conventional scheme the ice age does not occur for another 23 million years. During the Eocene subdivision of the Tertiary the sea covered the south of England up to a point where the later ice age reached, supposedly 38 million years later. During the whole period of these disastrous sea invasions and large scale fresh water floodings the northern part of the British Isles along with Scandinavia was not touched. In North America it is a similar story for the Canadian Shield. While the rest of the continent was subject to sea incursions, rain storm flooding in the mid-west and volcanic eruptions in the Rockies and Central America all was tranquil in north-east Canada. It is absolutely impossible that while the rest of the world was drowning, most of the British Isles, Scandinavia and Canada escaped. There can only be one solution, i.e. the ice age struck these lands at the same time as the Noachian Deluge. Conventional geologists have therefore reconstructed the ages of the past incorrectly by placing too much time between the end of the Tertiary and the ice age. If either follows immediately or happens at the same time as the subdivisions of the Tertiary i.e. the Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene and Pliocene periods are all contemporary with one another). …. Whether or not Lawrence has his model exactly right, I believe that he is on the right track, at least, by his use of the Flood sequence as an aid towards bringing some degree of sensible manageability to the grossly inflated Geological (Ice) Ages. In a similar fashion we shall find later, when searching for the historical “new Noah”, Moses, in Egyptian history, that he, Moses, will serve to bring some manageability to the grossly inflated Egyptian history, its supposed Kingdoms and dynasties. The Eocene Sea, which professor Anati has found to have only just covered Har Karkom (Mount Sinai), ought to be considered as a hydrographical candidate for the Flood inundation, I suggest, along with the Great Tethys Sea as referred to by Lawrence. Dr. John Osgood, who (to my knowledge) has not ventured into those murky Geological Ages, has undertaken an important revision of the Stone Ages in relation to the Flood, however, identifying the latter’s watery traces in the very regions where I would expect these to appear, in Iraq and the Middle East, Anatolia, Sinai and Egypt – all pointing to, for him, the great Genesis Flood. Conventionally-minded (often evolutionary-minded) geologists, palaeontologists, archaeologists and historians tend to adhere rigidly to an ‘Indian file’, or ‘chest-of-drawers’, linear arrangement – with little or no overlap amidst their neatly filed compartments. Revisionist scholars on the other hand, such as Dr. John Osgood, have found that such an arrangement does not always reflect the testimony of the received data, and hence can be quite artificial. ….

Noah’s Ark foreshadows Jesus as Saviour

“The ark saved Noah and his family from destruction, but Jesus is the greater ark—rescuing all who trust in Him from the final judgment to come (1 Thessalonians 1:10). Just as Noah had to enter the ark to be saved, we must be in Christ to receive eternal life”. Stephanie Solberg Stephanie Solberg I am a truth seeker https://makinghimknown.tv/the-ark-of-salvation/ …. Throughout the Old Testament, God uses prophetic symbols to foreshadow people and events in the New Testament. These symbols reveal who God is and give us pictures of His future salvation. The ark that Noah built is one of these prophetic symbols. Last time, in “Sunk in Sin,” we examined Moses’s faith and how God showed him grace in a world immersed in sin. Now, we will examine the flood story as an image of God’s redemptive plan for mankind. Jesus Is Our Ark: How Genesis 6-8 Reveals God’s Salvation Plan God sent the flood as both a judgment on sin and a fresh start for creation. Only 8 or 9 generations passed between Adam and Noah. Yet, sin ravaged God’s beautiful creation so completely that when God looked at it, He saw that every intent of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually (Genesis 6:5). Instead of wiping out humanity, God provided a way out—an ark of salvation. Because Noah found favor with God, God presented Noah the way to be saved from the wrath He was about to rain down on earth. Through Noah, God gave the world a witness of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), warning them of judgment. Yet, the people ignored the warning, continuing in their wickedness until it was too late (Matthew 24:37-39). Noah’s Ark provided temporary salvation from physical death, but Jesus offers eternal salvation from sin and judgment. The ark saved Noah and his family from destruction, but Jesus is the greater ark—rescuing all who trust in Him from the final judgment to come (1 Thessalonians 1:10). Just as Noah had to enter the ark to be saved, we must be in Christ to receive eternal life. There are many ways the ark is a shadow of Jesus, a better version of the ark to come. Noah’s Ark: A Picture of Salvation and Jesus God commanded Noah to build just one door in the ark (Genesis 6:16), the only entrance to salvation for his family. In the same way, Jesus is the only door to the Father, our salvation (John 14:16). Jesus, Our Refuge in Life’s Storms Jesus himself said, “I am the door; if anyone enters by Me, he will be saved…” (John 10:9). The ark was Noah’s refuge from the storm (Genesis 6:17-19), just as Jesus is our refuge from God’s wrath (Romans 5:9). Finding Rest in Jesus, Our Ark of Salvation God did not command Noah to go on the ark but invited him to “come” on it instead (Genesis 7:1). Noah’s work was over, and now he could rest. Jesus also invites us to come to Him where we can find rest (Matthew 11:28). The choice is ours: Do we go to Him and be saved, or do we run from Him and be condemned? Eternal Security in Christ: Sealed Like Noah in the Ark Once Noah was in the ark, he was secure. The Lord shut him in (Genesis 6:17). We can also be confident that we are secure in Christ. God, through the Holy Spirit, has sealed us as His own, guaranteeing our salvation to come (Ephesians 1:13). …. Jesus: God’s Gift of Salvation, Foreshadowed in the Ark God gave Noah the ark as a gift. Without it, Noah would have perished like the rest of the world. God also gave us Jesus, His only Son, so that if we believe in Him, we will not perish (John 3:16). God’s Covenant With Noah and His Promise to Us As the waters rose above the mountains, so did the ark. It continued to float on the water’s surface until it rested on Mount Ararat. Some scholars note that this event aligns with the Hebrew month of Nisan, the same month Jesus would later rise from the dead—showing yet another way the ark foreshadows Christ’s salvation. The ark’s work was done, and Noah emerged from it to a clean world with new possibilities. God blessed Noah and gave him dominion over the new earth as Adam and Eve did ten generations earlier. He told Noah and his family to be fruitful and increase in number across the earth (Genesis 9:7). God then made a covenant with Noah that He would never again destroy the world with water (Genesis 9:8-11). This covenant pointed forward to the greater covenant in Christ, where God provides eternal salvation, not just temporary rescue. Just as the ark delivered Noah through the waters, Jesus delivers us through the waters of judgment, sealing us in a covenant of grace (Luke 22:20, Hebrews 9:15). God remembered Noah, and He remembers us, too. Noah didn’t deserve to be on the ark, and we don’t deserve Jesus either. Despite our unworthiness, God offers us a way to salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ. When the rains of life pour down, when the waters begin to rise, Jesus offers us refuge and rest. We need not fear the rising waters because we are secure in Him. Just as Noah and his family were safe in the ark, we are safe in Christ. No storm can shake us, no flood can overwhelm us, because our salvation is sealed in Him. We have a better version of the ark; we have Jesus!