0

Was there another mankind on earth when God sent Adam and Eve to earth? Regarding the begininng of the Chapter 6 of Genesis that says:

Genesis 6:1-4: And after that men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose... 4 Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men...

Please clarify if "the sons of God" and "men" are the same? Hearing that "the sons of God went and took daughters of men their wives", one may conclude that these two had been from different origins.

  • 1
    What evidence do you have for the assertion that you make ? The only evidence is in the beginning chapters of Genesis and the beginning chapters of Job. – Nigel J Jun 10 at 12:47
  • @NigelJ I understand the question as asking whether it's the "daughters of men" that are the descendants of Adam here, or the "sons of God". And if either of those is another mankind seperate from Adam and Eve. – kutschkem Jun 10 at 14:41
  • 1
    @kutschkem Yes, indeed. I understood what was being asked. – Nigel J Jun 10 at 16:06
  • 1
    I’m voting to close this question because the OP has not shown sufficient supporting evidence in the text for two distinct races of humans and in a sense is searching for a text which is considered off-topic. – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 11 at 14:17
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? Who were the "sons of God" (bene elohim) in Genesis 6:2? – enegue Jul 12 at 13:51
0

I am using KJV.

Let's get back to reading the plain text. After the serpent beguiled the woman in Genesis 3:13, verses 14-15 then reveal:

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Therefore, these two very important questions need to be answered:

1. What or who is the seed of the woman?

2. What or who is the seed of the serpent?

After Eve bare Cain and Abel, Cain slew Abel and he was “cursed from the earth” (Gen. 4:1-12). This meant that the earth would not bring forth her strength to Cain. Cain’s “fruit of the ground” offering was unacceptable by the LORD. There had been no associated “shedding of blood” with that offering (See: Hebrews 9:22). On the other hand, blood was shed with Abel’s offering of the firstlings of his flock. Cain and Abel both knew full well that the LORD had required the shedding of blood when He clothed their father and mother with coats of skins after they had sinned. Cain continued to have grandchildren for Eve, but Cain was never appointed to pass the seed of the woman—neither before, nor after he slew Abel—according to Genesis 4:25:

And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. (My emphasis)

All of Adam’s children, including both Cain and Seth, were born as Adam’s offspring—each in Adam’s likeness; after Adam’s image—alive in the flesh, but dead in the spirit. Each and every son or daughter, if he or she had so chosen, still had the ability to hear God’s Word and to believe that Word. Cain’s simply being the offspring of Adam and Eve was never reason to believe that he could pass on the seed of the woman. Cain was never actually appointed, so he could never pass on that seed. Only duly-appointed Seth could pass the seed of the woman.

Luke shows the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of man--the seed of the woman. Luke 3:38, after going backwards from Jesus to Adam--son to father--only one son (seed) of each father, we finally see:

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (My emphasis)

So Adam was the first son of God. There are many reasons for this, but clearly, this was not accomplished through childbirth.

Hebrew people showed genealogies flowing from the father to the son, not from the mother to the son. The Notice of the special generations of the seed of the woman begins with Genesis 5:1 saying,

“This is the book of the generations of Adam”.

Genesis chapter 5 continues to track that seed of the woman by the generations of Adam—not Eve—to Noah through Seth—not Cain—one son per generation—one son for each father—one generation after its former. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (My emphasis) …

Following Seth, not every begotten son of Seth was named in this special generational lineage. Only Enos was designated as we see beginning at verse 3. All of Seth’s other sons and daughters were casually referred to in Genesis 5: 6-8, but only Enos was specifically named:

… And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.

Genesis 6:4 is a recap of those days—beginning when Adam’s son Seth begat his own son, Enos—beginning when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they begat children to them:

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (My emphasis)

Some liberal theologians pervert this verse by claiming that “angels” procreated with daughters of men resulting in evil giants. In Matthew 22:29-30, Jesus clarified concerning the angels:

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (My emphasis)

Fallen angels on earth did not have any more power to father children of men than did God’s angels in heaven. Angels are spirits. Only God and man had the power to father a child.

Notice also that first, there were the giants. Only “after that”—after the giants already existed,—when believing Seth began to pass the seed of the woman down through the daughters of men, did those men and their sons become “mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Clearly, this was speaking about those believing sons of God on earth, beginning with Seth. Some giant water creatures were made by the Word of God on the fifth day. He also made earthly giants such as the behemoth on the sixth day—the same day that He made man according to Job 40:15:

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. (My emphasis)

THE SONS OF GOD--THE LINEAGE OF THE SEED OF THE WOMAN.

These special “sons of God” from Seth through Noah to Joseph, the husband of Mary, clearly believed God because they recorded this lineage and passed along God’s message to their children as to mankind’s hope lying in the promised seed of the woman. These believing sons of God distinguished themselves by their belief from all those unbelievers whose names we will never know. Believers are those that are named that we read about and whose faith is recorded in and preserved by the Word of God. They who believed God’s spoken “promise” of the coming Savior were those who lived to become mighty men of old, men of renown. (Read: Heb. 11:1-40 for a list of some of those men of renown). So Seth is the beginning son of the line of the seed of the woman. Genesis 5 continues this lineage from Seth to Enos, and onward, on and on all the way to Noah. That line then continues from Noah through Shem all the way to Abram. Once again as others before, only one of Noah’s three sons, Shem—not Ham and not Japeth—passed along the seed of the woman. Chapter 10 of Genesis shows how the entire earth was populated by Noah and his three sons, but Chapter 11, verses 10-30 records only the believing line of the seed of the woman to Abram:

These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: . . . . Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot. And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. But Sarai was barren; she had no child.

Genesis 6:4 is speaking of "men of renown." The Hebrew word from which "renown" is transliterated from is (H8034) "shem".

The Heb, ***nephîyl*, means excellent, noble, skilful**. That is what the writer of Hebrews understood, plain and simple

THE SEED OF EVIL DOERS SHALL NEVER BE RENOWNED.

Lucifer was a man (Isaiah 14:16)--a certain king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:4-11) who is now dead physically but will be resurrected (Isaiah 14:19). He and the false prophet will be cast alive as resurrected men into the lake of fire a full thousand years before the other unbelievers are resurrected. Lucifer will not join those others who remain in burial for that full thousand years. Verse 20 plainly and clearly details:

Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.

So the idea that angels could possibly father children through the daughters of men is totally speculative and unproven.

This answer uses quotes from pages 8-11 of God's Day-Five Creation, Life by grace through faith in the WORD of God.

| improve this answer | |
  • But there's no actual textual evidence that Seth's line all believed, and by the time of Noah God says he's the only blameless one! It's very clear that the whole world was deeply taken over by sin, except, somehow, Noah. – curiousdannii Jun 10 at 23:35
  • Up to the time of Noah, Adam, and all his sons had no Torah and no Pentateuch. The WORD of God that was spoken to Adam and Eve was passed down from one generation to another. Moreover, God spoke directly to them as in Gen 6:13. Even Noah's father, Lamech, was alive UNTIL the year of the flood. Believing Lamech did not die in the flood. As to whether "these all" believed in the "seed of the woman" which is "Christ", read and believe Heb. 11:24-26. The proof is in Heb 11:39-40, ""these all". – Bill Porter Jun 11 at 1:23
  • Per record, God spoke directly to Adam, Eve, the serpent, Cain, Noah--I assume to Enoch, I'd like to assume to all of Gen 5 including Ham, but up til 5 it's explicitly only those five or six. "These all" in Heb 11 refers to those named or described in 11. Adam was a son of God, Lk 3:38, meaning he was created (directly) by God. Whoever invented the particular 5/6 chapter division in Gen got it right--that 6 is compositionally unrelated to 5. Since the older interpretation was of angels, that's the conservative position. I don't see that Mt 22 makes it 'perverse.' Was Satan created a serpent? – Walter S Jun 13 at 0:50
  • Claiming something to be a conservative position without scripture to back it up has the value of a group voting with everyone who is voting claiming to be lofty conservatives. You are also claiming that someone in the line of Jesus listed in Luke's genealogy of "the seed of the woman" was not a believer? Where is your proof? You ask, "was Satan created a serpent?" All I know for certain (conservatively) is that the Devil is that old serpent, "called" the Devil, and Satan, and for that matter, "is" the Devil and Satan. (Psalm 109; Rev. 12:9; 20:2) – Bill Porter Jun 14 at 3:40
  • Thanks for asking. No, i'm not claiming Lk 3's genealogy contains an unbeliever. Do you opine that Satan, then, maybe was and is not an angel? Rather, as a talking-animal, he's able to transfigure himself into an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14)? My Answer, which you voted against, has (NT) Scripture to support the fallen-angel interpretation. I didn't mean to confuse anyone by saying 'conservative' above. Your Answer introduced the phrase 'liberal theologians.' I simply mean that if the angel-interpretation is more ancient, then definitionally your interpretation is the liberal one. – Walter S Jul 13 at 1:28
-3

Was there another mankind on earth when God sent Adam and Eve to earth? No. And God created Adam and Eve, one from the earth and the other from the other. God didn't 'send' 'em. There were man-like kind on earth after Genesis 1:1 and before Genesis 1:2. That is: before Lucifer's rebellion and fall and God's consequent judgment in 1:2. Namely 'demons.' Which are the disembodied spirits of those 'intelligent,' speaking, beings who [also] rebelled and were flooded out in 1:2. They 'like' the water, if they cannot inhabit a person. Mt 8:28-33. So in that sense, they're still 'on earth' today. They're the first dead referred to in Rv 20:13.

Regarding Genesis 6:1-4--

And when men began to multiply on the surface of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took wives for themselves from all whom they chose. And Jehovah said, My Spirit will not strive with man forever, for he indeed is flesh; so his days will be one hundred twenty years. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days — and also afterward — when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; these were the mighty men who were of old the men of renown.

--that transpires after Isaiah 45:18's event, after John 1:3's event, after Genesis 1:1's and after Genesis 1:2's and after Genesis 1:3--2:25's, and after Genesis 3--5. The 'men,' 'daughters,' 'daughters of men,' and 'wives,' here all refer to purely Adam and Eve's descendants. 'Man' and 'flesh' refer to Adam and Eve's descendants purely and maybe also to those hybrids descended from fallen angelic fathers. The 'sons of God' in this verse refer to angels which not only rebelled with Lucifer, but took this extra egregious step of mating with human women (1 Pet 3:19-20; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6). 'God,' 'Jehovah,' and His 'Spirit' are two in one, God. God is Father, Son, and Spirit (Mt 28:19), three in one. 'The Nephilim,' 'children,' 'mighty men,' and 'men of renown' here are the hybrids, the offspring of the illegal and evil union of the rebellious angels with human women. I would say all Nephilim got wiped out by the '2nd' big flood, that of Noah's time, but that the problem may have continued afterward as evidenced by the word 'afterward' in Gen 6:4, and by 'men' like Goliath.

For the Title Question: another mankind on earth before the sons of God? the answer remains: 'the sons of God' here aren't human beings; and the 'demon-people' before Adam's creation probably didn't precede Jehovah's creation of angels (Lucifer, Gabriel, Michael, the 24 elders of Rv 4:4, believers' personal angels, the rebellious angels, etc).

For further insight I can recommend Mr. Levan Gigineishvili's Answer in the post about Mary the mother of Jesus in Mary's Apparent Non-Sequitur In Luke's Annunciation Account

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    I fess to down-voting this because it is almost entirely speculative with no reliable source or proof. 6:3 sets the lifespan of man to 120 years, not to 40 days and nights. The Lucifer of Isaiah 14 is clearly a former King of Babylon--a man--who will be taunted by a FUTURE proverb, ONLY in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve, That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!" (Isaiah 14-1-4) – Bill Porter Jun 11 at 2:17
  • I differ that Mt 8:28-33; Rv 20:13; Isa 45:18; 1 Pet 3:19-20; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6 are speculative or unreliable. I hadn't mentioned Isa 14; Ezek 28; but since you do: they contain clear types of Lucifer the anointed Cherub, archangel, becoming God's adversary Satan. Mt 4:9; 12:26; Lk 10:18; Ac 26:18; 2 Cor 11:14; 2 Thes 2:9; Rv 2:13; 12; 20:2; Gen 3; Jn 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Eph 2:2; 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:15; Ex 3:19; Rv 11:8. World rulers have typified the authority of darkness. You appear to be blind as to not see typology in the Bible. What's the 120/40 relevance? Do you feel Satan is myth? – Walter S Jun 11 at 7:14
  • You have totally failed to show that God's Word ever called fallen angels "sons of God". You have failed to show why that feller called "Lucifer", is Satan rather than that specifically designated man called "the king of Babylon" in verse 4 and "the man" in verse 16 to whom the proverb of verse 4 is to be directed in the future, and only in the future-- in the day that the LORD shall give thee (Israel) rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve. The 120 years / 40 days is obvious--a major break between verses 3 & 4, and verses 5 onward. – Bill Porter Jun 12 at 3:26
  • So ideally, Gen 6:1-4 would've been chapterized with Gen 5? Since it's a repeat? 'One son per father' is 5, so 6 reminds us women are needed for procreation. (If the Savior is descended from Adam, is He not also from Eve? But nevermind.) Is 'daughters of men' Moses' way of telling us that the godly sons of God didn't commit incest? You mention Sara; Mt mentions Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary; but generally any pretty girl will do (Gen 6:2)? In the midst of recapping 5, 6:3 then mentions 'striving,' 'man,' and 'flesh.' Why? What happened? Weren't the wonderful nephilim around? – Walter S Jun 13 at 7:55
  • Chapter five establishes the subject matter of a "genealogy" which is perfectly carried out within what some souls (trying to be OVERLY helpful) managed to cut off after thirty-two of their uninspired divisions that they called verses. I do not see any genealogy in chapter 6. Why would you attempt to force such a reading of that chapter. Other sources continued to record that one-father-to-one-son genealogy, including the books of Moses and the Kings. In fact, Jesus' lineage was not disputed by the Jews of His day, why should you now? When did God ever call fallen angels "sons of God"? – Bill Porter Jun 14 at 4:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy