• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

They took as their wives any they chose...

Scarecrow

Scarecrow

Member
Genesis 4:19-24 And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. Lamech said to his wives: "Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech's is seventy-sevenfold."

Although Lamech may have been boastful in that the punishment he gave out for an individual that harmed him was beyond restitution, he was acting in self defense when a man harmed him.

Genesis 6:1-6 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Then the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

From my studies it appears that the prominent understanding of the sons of God is that they are descendants of Seth who are not considered evil men.

I have seen both these passages used to indicate that polygyny is evil or at least sinful, and I can't find a way to make that correlation. Am I missing something?
 
Plausible, not provable...

Hey guys, this is an area of fascination for me. I have not found a commonly accepted theory that satisfactorily answers the questions for me. I have a THEORY and only a theory that I want to share for discussion. For me, it provides answers to several of the mysteries through Genesis 6. Before the fall Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. I have no reason to suppose that they were shy about such a command, a perfect man and a perfect woman could very easily produce offspring prolificly and likely without the pain later associated with childbirth. Assuming that they could have had children in the garden and did, those children would not have inherited the curse that came upon their parents and all future siblings. These children of the garden may have remained when Adam and Eve left. They would likely have continued to reproduce without the curse of sin. These children could be identified as the sons of God that saw the daughters of men. One of the girls could be the wife of Cain. Their genetic purity could be the source of the giants and the nephilim. Their complete intermarriage would explain the actions of God causing Him to declare that the imaginations of men's hearts was only evil continually and start over with Noah and family.

Again, it;s just a theory, but it is as plausable as anything else I have read. Please be gentle, :) I like my theory. :lol:
 
It is an interesting theory. It is as good as any I think. Without the Bible actually saying though it is hard to say for sure.
 
There is a supposition that Adam and company were supposed to look like us but better, but we might be close. However, two things happened that may indicate we may not be equiped genetically to compare ourselves with the best from the garden, not even close.

First Adam was created by the hands of God directly and then sin and the fall brought death. This changed them. After the fall they realized they were naked. Physically, their awareness of themselves changed. Did God's original creation of man and woman glow, have a shroud of glory, hair different, or possibly something else beautiful? Perhaps something or several things very obvious were lost or changed when sin arrived.

The second thing was the flood. There were many people that died in the flood. These people were at least as diverse as we moderns are in appearance and I suspect they were very much more diverse. We have the genetic traits that only came with the eight people that made it through the flood (even if one were to slide in more than eight, my point remains). Take any eight people on the face of the earth today and give them the responsibility of carrying on the human race and it would be fair to say that much would be lost. Therefore the eight on the Ark we have to thank but they couldn't have carried everything genetically. To those that drowned we wonder what you looked like. Perhaps a hair color that no one on the earth now has. Perhaps an eye color of orange or purple. Perhaps the best athletes tried to out-swim the flood and were lost. I doubt that the most intelligent even were on the Ark. The most rational always seem to miss the boat, ha!
It is all such a tragic story of our species. We need rescued. Christ has done it.
 
Amen and amen. As long as we are being pathetically hypothetical, how much of the "pre-fall" state do you think will be restored prior to the return of Yeshua? There are already women who are giving birth with pressure and not pain....
 
You are correct, I think, to say it is already in process. The disciples (at least Peter, James, and John) when the Lord was transfigured made the error of trying to either find basis for finishing restoration or it not yet happening, and questioned it as either done or not done because Elias was present. The Lord corrected them but only corrected them to the point of telling them to not reveal what had just happened until after the resurrection. The Lord showed John the Baptist started the process, and did not desire this truth withheld any later then after the resurrection.

9And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
10And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. 12But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. 13Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
(Mt. 17:9-13)

However, the restoration of all things can of course not be completed until all things are actually restored. When the Lord said it is finished, his work on the cross was. The process however we can witness as you mentioned.

The following verse is a 'present tense' NT verse and yet still speaks of the future.

“19Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began..” (Acts 3:19-21)

If we are living in the days of Elijah then we must give God glory, not just for current events, but for coming events and until Christ comes back to us from heaven. However until then we are not comfortless. From ourselves we may have little glory worthy to offer, yet the Holy Spirit enables us to give God glory and praise for this restoration.
 
I always understood that "sons of Elohim" were actually angels that had came out of Heaven and taken brides here in Genesis 6. Wrong/right?
 
"I always understood that "sons of Elohim" were actually angels that had came out of Heaven and taken brides here in Genesis 6. Wrong/right?"

I actually thought that was a likely scenario for some time. But we have to consider this...

IF a fallen angel could manifest himself and reproduce with a human woman would that not leave the door open to discount the virgin birth of Jesus? We would be forced to consider that there is at least the possibility of a fallen angel manifesting himself and impregnated Mary, and therefore Jesus is not the son of God.

While the Bible does give us a number of descriptions of angels appearing like men, we do not ever read of them interacting sexually with humans.

Hebrews 13:2 Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

We do not actually know who the "Sons of God" are that are spoken of in Genesis 6, but the most probable situation is a mixing of the two different lineages...one considered righteous the other not so.
 
Sacrecrow said:

IF a fallen angel could manifest himself and reproduce with a human woman would that not leave the door open to discount the virgin birth of Jesus? We would be forced to consider that there is at least the possibility of a fallen angel manifesting himself and impregnated Mary, and therefore Jesus is not the son of God.
Click to expand...

We would still have plenty of of evidential arguments for Christ's divinity: the direct statements of Scripture, what took place at his baptism, his tempting by Satan, and the biggest one of all, his resurrection.

BUT Scarecrow think about this: it would explain how the antichrist will in the final days culminate in a man.

Keep in mind that God is one and he has manifested himself in the Father, Son, and Spirit. He is those three yet they are all perfectly one. What does Satan try to do in the end? He trys to be like the most high God, which was what he did in the beginning. He manifests himself as the beast, false prophet, and the antichrist. He will energize himself in three beings in the end and one of those will likely be a supernatural being that has human and supernatural elements to him and it will be like what happened with the Genesis 6 individuals. The antichrist will be human like Christ but he will also have been produced, or indwelt, or possibly even conceived by Satan and thus will have in that day some supernatural ability which resembles the supernatural ability of Christ and that ability gives him the ability to do great and mighty things that will draw millions to himself as he decieves the nations with his great skill and power.
 
Jesus said, Matt 22:29-30
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.

Luke 20:34-36
And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
Click to expand...

I discount the idea that angels, fallen or otherwise, conceived seed or will ever do so, based on these verses and the fact (assuredly so) that there is no record of Satan or any of his angels, or even the angels of God ever doing anything of creatve nature or power, anywhere in the Word of God. Now Rosemary's Baby or Omen are another story, indeed.

Isn't theorizing fun!!! It allows our imaginations to run wild and develop ideas from a starting point of truth and end up somewhere close to reality or maybe out in left field. It is a blessing from God to be able to do this and we can enjoy it as long as we do not forget the difference between theory and fact. Sadly, there are and always will be those things and events that will always hover just above our mental grasp, remaining mysteries to us. It is alright that this is so, for we are finite men delving into the realm of the infinite God. We can expect no less.
 
Scarecrow said:
Genesis 4:19-24 And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. Lamech said to his wives: "Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech's is seventy-sevenfold."

Although Lamech may have been boastful in that the punishment he gave out for an individual that harmed him was beyond restitution, he was acting in self defense when a man harmed him.
Click to expand...

The same verses in the KJV read a bit differently.

And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
Click to expand...

I am not an expert but I'm wondering if the difference in wording points to something other than self-defense ? "To my wounding" and "to my hurt" make it seem as though Lamech's act would wind up hurting him..To "his" (Lamech's) wounding, to "his" (Lamech's) hurt. In other words, killing the young man would cause problems for Lamech.
Not an expert....just asking :)

Blessings,
Fairlight
 
I looked into some commentaries to see what I could find...

And Lamech said unto his wives - The speech of Lamech to his wives is in hemistichs in the original, and consequently, as nothing of this kind occurs before this time, it is very probably the oldest piece of poetry in the world. The following is, as nearly as possible, a literal translation:

“And Lamech said unto his wives,
Adah and Tsillah, hear ye my voice;
Wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech;
For I have slain a man for wounding me,
And a young man for having bruised me.
If Cain shall be avenged seven-fold,
Also Lamech seventy and seven.”

It is supposed that Lamech had slain a man in his own defense, and that his wives being alarmed lest the kindred of the deceased should seek his life in return, to quiet their fears he makes this speech, in which he endeavors to prove that there was no room for fear on this account; for if the slayer of the wilful murderer, Cain, should suffer a seven-fold punishment, surely he, who should kill Lamech for having slain a man in self-defense, might expect a seventy-seven-fold punishment.

Clarke Commentary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top