Cain as Ruler

Alice C. Linsley


If Adam is the first man in biblical parlance, Cain is the first ruler. The Bible reluctantly grants him this status as is evident from a study of what Cain symbolizes in Scripture. In this essay we will explore the symbolism of Cain as ruler.

Cain is one of three sons mentioned in Genesis. The sons are Cain, the first born, Abel the second born, and Seth the third born. Cain killed his brother Abel, not an uncommon occurrence when a dispute arises between brothers, especially brothers listed as rulers. Genesis 4 and 5, when taken together, represent the oldest known list of ruler-priests. These are the first ruler-priests among many who came to control the Afro-Asiatic Dominion, the heart of which was Eden.

The Bible tells us many details about Cain, all of them pointing to his rank as a ruler. When he was born his mother declared kan-itti.  E.A. Speiser noted that Qany(ty) or Qan itti shows close affinity to the Akkadian itti, as in itti šarrim, which means "with the king".  Akkadian was the language of the empire during Nimrod's time (BC 2290-2215). Genesis 10 tells us that Nimrod was a Kushite, so it is not surprising to find that Akkadian shares many words with Nilotic languages. Among the Oromo of Ethiopia and Somalia, itti is attached to names. Examples include Kaartuumitti, Finfinneetti and Dimashqitti. That itti is associated with Nilotic rulers is evident in the name Nefertitti.

Cain was a tiller of the soil (Gen. 4:2). He controlled a territory as did Noah, one of his descendents, who was said to have planted a vineyard.

Cain married his cousin, the royal daughter of Enoch (Nok) as evidenced by analysis of the Genesis 4-5 kinship pattern.

He was a city builder (Gen. 4:17) as was his descendent Nimrod. These cities represent sacred centers of larger territories.

Cain is associated with metal smiths and one of his descendents – Tubal-Cain – is said to be the “father” of smiths. Smiths held a high social status in the ancient world. Early in the upper Nile, Badari smiths smelted copper. These are the same people who used ritual flint knives for circumcision, such at that used by Zipporah.

Cain’s name is derived from the word meaning “possession” or “lot”. As the first born son, he inherited the role of ruler. We might ask if he inherited it from Adam or by marrying into the House of Enoch (Nok).

He was a religious man, offering sacrifice to God, though his sacrifice wasn’t always acceptable (Gen. 4:5).

His bride named their first-born son after her father, which was the pattern among the ruler-priests of Abraham’s people.

Cain’s first-born son married his patrilineal parallel cousin, a daughter of Seth, and she named their first born son Irad. Irad’s daughter married her patrilineal cousin, Mahalalel and named their first-born son Jared after her father. Irad and Jared are linguistically equivalent, and the name means descent.

One of Cain’s daughters married her cousin Enosh and named their first-born son Kenan or Kain, after her father. Factoring the daughters into the genealogical picture of Genesis 4-5 clarifies the kinship pattern of Abraham's ancestors. The consistency of the pattern supports the biblical claim that this genealogical material presents biological father-son descent rather than a telescopic view. It also makes it clear that the repetition of names in Genesis 4 and Genesis 5 is not a case of literary doublets.

By the time that Jude wrote his epistle (c. 68 AD) Cain was solidly established as the archetype of an earthly ruler. Jude warns those who might abandon Christ because of their suffering and false teachers that God punishes those who rebel against Him. He uses three men as examples: Cain the ruler, Balaam the prophet, and Korah the priest. These were the three most sacred offices among Abraham’s people and they were often filled by people corrupted by the world. Cain killed his brother whose offering was acceptable to God. This speaks of the Jewish rulers who killed Jesus Christ. Balaam prophesied for profit as did the sorcerer Bar-Jesus who was condemned by the Apostle Paul. Korah, Moses’ half-brother (the first-born of Amram by Ishar) opposed Moses’ authority in the wilderness and died. Korah was a priest, as evidence by his name which means shaved one. It is a name associated with Egyptian priests.

So Cain as ruler is an important archetype in the Bible. He represents a rightfully appointed ruler who is corrupted by desire for worldly power, fame and wealth. He murdered his brother who was preferred by God, just as Saul tried to kill David who was chosen by God to take Saul's place. We have no evidence that Cain repented of this murder (as did David of killing Uriah), but God did not execute him as he deserved. Instead God showed him mercy by allowing him to become established as a ruler, by protecting him from those who might kill him, and by allowing him to be one of the ancestors of Christ our God.


NOTE

The name Kandake (Candace in English) is a Kushite name. It is found originally in Meroe/Nubian culture. The Greeks thought that Kandake was a proper name but it is a royal title and the female version of Kain/Kano appearing first in Genesis 4. This is likely the origin of the title Khan and King.


Related reading: Objections to a Fundamentalist Reading of Genesis, Who Was Kain's Father?



 

This Gets My Blood Pressure Up!

I've been reading a book that was donated by the Creation Museum to a local Christian School. The book is Coming to Grips with Genesis:  Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. The editors are Terry Mortenson, a missionary for 26 years with Campus Crusade and Thane H. Ury.  This appears to be Ury's only book although he lectures on young-earth creation.

The book insists that young-earth creationism is the only biblical viewpoint. It criticises many respected biblical scholars who do not hold this view.  It calculates the age of the world using the life spans of the rulers who lived before the flood, following Bishop Usher's dating which has been shown to be flawed.

I haven't finished reading the 14-chapter book. I had to stop when I reached chapter 11 because I could feel my blood pressure rising at the criticism of a former editor of The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (JASA) who I knew to be an outstanding Christian teacher and a good scientist.  As Editor, he published my (not-very-good) poem on the big bang by divine decree in JASA in December 1983.  Here is the poem:

Singularity

Empty patch in space?
Rather a patch of non-space
theoretically possible
experientially inconceivable
density so great
heat so hot
compression magnified
matter collapsed upon itself
inadherent particles dashing, bouncing, smashing
frenzied dancing
swallowed by an unseen mouth
suddenly spat out
golf ball size
eight seconds after The Decree.
Infinitely hot
but getting bigger
spreading, stretching, expanding
cooling and forming new compounds
new partnerships:
the Beginning.

The book also criticises another person I respect: Dr. Mark Noll, a former Wheaton College Professor, who wrote the following:

Despite a widespread impression to the contrary, “creationism” was not a traditional belief of nineteenth-century conservative Protestants or even of early-twentieth-century fundamentalists. During the century before the 1930s, most conservative Protestants believed that the “days” of Genesis, chapter one, stood for long ages of geological development or that a lengthy gap existed between the initial creation of the world (Gen. 1:1) and a series of more recent creative acts (Gen. 1:2ff.) during which the fossils were deposited. Some conservative Protestants early in the century—like James Orr of Scotland and B. B. Warfield of Princeton Theological Seminary, both of whom wrote for The Fundamentals (1910–15)—even allowed for large-scale evolution from one or only a few original life forms as a way of explaining God's way of creating plants, animals, and even the human body. (Their position came close to official Roman Catholic teachings on the subject.) Popular opponents of evolution in the 1920s like William Jennings Bryan had no difficulty accepting an ancient earth. Bryan, with an acuity that his patronizers rarely perceive, saw clearly that the great problem with evolution was not the practice of science but the metaphysical naturalism and consequent social Darwinism that scientific evolution was often called upon to justify.

Modern creationism arose, by contrast, from the efforts of earnest Seventh-day Adventists who wanted to show that the sacred writings of Adventist-founder Ellen G. White (who made much of a recently created earth and the Noachian deluge) could provide a framework for studying the history of the earth. Especially important for this purpose was the Adventist theorist, George McCready Price (1870–1963), who published a string of creationist works, most notably The New Geology (1923). That book argued that a “simple” or “literal” reading of early Genesis showed that God had created the world six to eight thousand years ago and had used the Flood to construct the planet's geological past. Price, an armchair geologist with little formal training and almost no field experience, demonstrated how a person with such a belief could reconstruct natural history in order to question traditional understandings of the geological column and apparent indications that the earth was ancient. Price's ideas were never taken seriously by practicing geologists, and they had little impact outside of Adventist circles. One exception was the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, where a few energized critics of the modern world found Price's biblical literalism convincing, despite the fact that on almost every other religious question the Missouri Synod was about as far removed from Seventh-day Adventism as it was possible to be. Although Price and various associates founded several creationist organizations (like the Deluge Geological Society), these groups were short-lived. Similarly, early creationist literature seemed to have little visible effect beyond a narrow circle. A few fundamentalists, like the Presbyterian minister Henry Rimmer (1890–1952), proposed somewhat similar views concerning the Flood, but Rimmer's influence had much diminished by the time of his death.

When a rising corps of university-trained conservative evangelical scientists founded the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) in 1941, creationist “flood geologists” thought this society would provide a receptive forum for their conclusions. It did not. Although leaders of the ASA maintained strict views of biblical authority and defended the sovereignty of God over the natural world, almost all of them held to the older day/age or gap theories, or came to feel that divine revelation in Genesis and natural revelation from empirical investigation did not need to be harmonized in the ways that had been repeatedly tried, revised, and tried again since the early nineteenth century. (Read it all here.)

Here is what Mortenson and Ury say about Noll:  Sadly, Noll largely bases his indictment of young-earth creationists on the historical interpretations of a secualr historian of science, Ronald Numbers, whom (amazingly) Noll describes as a "truly professional" historian who has "few bones to pick with basic Christian teachings." (p. 233)

What I find truly sad is that Mortenson and Ury believe that they are more qualified to speak on the history of science and Christianity than Ronald L. Numbers and Mark Noll. 

The final straw was the great confusion I found in the 12 Affirmations and Denials at the end of the book. I'll address Affirmation VI and Affirmation XII as these teach contrary to what Genesis actually says.

VI. We affirm that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are chronological, enabling us to arrive at an approximate date of creation of the whole universe (p. 454).

Clearly these people haven't a clue about how historically reliable this material is becasue they don't even include Genesis 4 which must be read with Genesis 5 as the lines of Cain and Seth intermarried. The intermarriage is shown by the cousin bride's naming prerogative as in the case of Lamech's daughter Namaah (Gen. 4: 22) who married her cousin Methusaleh and named their first-born son Lamech (Gen 5: 25) after her father.

They don't realize that Genesis reveals that Cain and Seth married the daughters of an African chief name Nok (Enoch). That's why both their first-born sons were named Enoch.  Given the young-earth creationist scheme, this would mean that Enoch, who was a ruler over a region in west central Africa about 10,000 years ago, was a comtemporary of Adam. So either Adam was not the only man created at the beginning or there is a gap of time between the creation stories and the first historical individuals named in Genesis 4 and 5.  I propose that the gap of time was filled by the author's knitting together the oldest mythological motifs of Abraham's ancestors involving a Tree of Life and a Serpent with the oldest known ruler lists. This in no way overthrows the Bible's authority. Rather it shows that biblical authority rests on a tradition of great antiquity, and the biblical worldview is already evident in the oldest known religious beliefs and practices.

XII.  We affirm that all people living and dead are descended from Adam and Eve...and that the various people groups (with their various languages, cultures, and distinctive physical characteristics, including skin color) arose as a result of God's supernatural judgment at the Tower of Babel..."

There are 17 language families in the world. Each breaks down into hundreds of languages, dialects and sub-dialects. All the people groups mentioned in Genesis 10 belong to only one language family: the Afro-Asiatic.  The Bible is their story because the promise of the Son was made to their ancestors in Eden (Gen. 3:15)  Further, most of these people are of African origin and dark skin color so it is ignorant to say that skin color variation is the result of God's judgment.

As Dr. Joshua Zorn, a former young-earth creationist has said: "The worst aspect of YECS teaching is that it creates a nearly insurmountable barrier between the educated world and the church."

Lord, spare me!  The blood pressure rises.

Q and A on Creation versus Evolution

Alice C. Linsley

I was recently reading what Religious Tolerance.org has published on the debate between creationists and evolutionists. I was struck by how the site raises significant questions but fails to answer them. So I have constructed a Q and A using material from that page to present answers that might clarify the issues.


RT: Will the battle between evolution and creationism be settled in the foreseeable future?

Not likely. The battle ground is the book of Genesis and the conflict has to do with warring interpretations of that book. The general populace must be better acquainted with what Genesis actually says before there can be a resolution of this falsely framed conflict. A proper understanding of Genesis can resolve the creation versus evolution debate, but the media and the schools are not going to make the effort to learn what Genesis tells us and to transmit that information to the public. Journalists love debate (even ones based on false premises) and the schools, both public and religious, have too much invested in their systems of interpretation to set them aside in favor of the truth.



RT: There seems to be a trend among some Christian schools and colleges to abandon creationism in favor of theistic evolution -- the concept that God used evolution of the species over billions of years to create the species that we see today. What do you think of this trend?

It is not helpful. Genesis asserts that the order of creation is fixed and unchanging. This assertion must be understood before it can be either accepted or rejected. By fixed order the Bible means that God has established the order of creation with flexible but fixed boundaries. This means that there is change within species but not evolution from one species to a totally different species. This is why humans produce only humans and if there is something wrong with the genetic code, the fetus usually aborts. Likewise, plants produce plants, animals produce animals and bacteria, while it can mutate, is still bacteria.

Examples cited of evolution from one species to another are not backed up with physical evidence. For example, the public school biology books assume that humans evolved from lower primates and show this in drawings beginning with a hairy, stooped-shouldered and long-armed creature whose form over a series of drawings becomes more like modern humans. These drawings have no basis in physical evidence however. They are a theoretical model. In fact, the oldest human fossils show every evidence of being fully human. There is a range of physical structure among these remains, just as there is a range of physical appearance among humans today. In other words, after 85 years of frantic searching for the “missing link” none has ever been found. Nor will such a specimen be found if Genesis is correct in the assertion that God’s order of creation has fixed boundaries.



RT: Does acceptance of theistic or naturalistic evolution require people to interpret Genesis symbolically or to reclassify the creation stories as myths?

No. Analysis of the Genesis material makes it clear that the author understood the difference between historical and mythological. This is evident in analysis of the kinship pattern of Genesis 4 and 5 which shows intermarriage between the descendents of Cain and his brother Seth. Both men were rulers and they married the daughters of an African ruler named Enoch (Nok). So the author knew that Cain and Seth pertain to history while the Adam and Eve story pertains to mythology. Even in the story of the Fall there is evidence of an historical event which must have taken place in southern Africa before 70,000 years ago.



RT: The creation stories are closely tied to the fall of man. If Genesis were interpreted as symbolic or myth, wouldn’t the entire role of Jesus have to be reinterpreted? Without original sin, there is no obvious need for a savior.

The idea that something is wrong with this world is universal and hardly based on acceptance of the Genesis account of the Fall. In Hinduism, the fallen world is to be escaped. In Buddhism, the suffering of this world is to be overcome. The Jews, who have suffered throughout history, don’t need to be told that this is a fallen world or that evil exists. Each religion offers a different hope for salvation or escape from this world, but the oldest offer is traceable back to the oldest religious beliefs which apparently involved close communion between the Creator and His creatures and a promise of restoration of that communion through the royal Son who would be born from the priestly lines going back to Eden where the promise was made and has been remembered all these millennia.

Related reading:  Getting the Facts on Human Origins

Hawking and the Beginning of Time

Stephen Hawking has taken some ridicule from fellow scientists over remarks on his talk show that humans should not seek contact with aliens.  Some scientists agree with him, believing that humans are not sufficiently evolved to defend ourselves against superior beings. Others considered his statements to be beyond the scope of astrophysics and more suited to the provoactive nature of British television. What follows is an interesting and largely unknown view of the brilliant scientist.

As Steven Hawking... boasted many years thereafter, we proved that time was created. We proved that time has a beginning. But through his contacts with certain Christians like his wife Jane, who's an Anglican, as a friend of mine from Cal Tech, Don Page, who had daily Bible studies with Steven and Jane Hawking while he was doing research pointed out, if you prove that time has a beginning, that it was created, it eliminates all theological possibilities but Jesus Christ.

Of all world religions, only Judeo-Christian theology says Time has a beginning.

Why? Because if you were to open up the Holy books of the religions of the world, only one of them would describe God as a being that creates the universe independent of time, space, matter and energy.

The other Holy books describe God as creating within time. The Bible states that God creates independent of time. That's the difference.

Some verses that you might be familiar with: The first verse which states, “In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth…” The Hebrew words for heavens and Earth literally refer to the entire physical cosmos of matter, energy space and time. The universe.

Hebrews 11:3 makes it more specific stating, “The universe that we detect was made from that which we cannot detect.” We can make detections within matter, energy, length, width, height and time, but not beyond.

Eight places in the Bible tell us that God created time. I'll give you two examples: 2 Timothy 1:9 which states, “The Grace of God that we now experience was put into effect before the beginning of time” and Titus 1:2 which states, “The hope that we have in Jesus Christ was given to us before the beginning of time.”

Read it all here.

The Tree of Life

Alice C. Linsley

The Tree of Life is a very old idea, as is evident from the wide diffusion of the motif across Africa, Asia, Australia and South America. The principle of diffusion holds that the oldest culture traits, beliefs or practices are those that are most widely diffused across the earth. So we may assume that the Tree of Life motif is indeed very ancient.

The Tree of Life archetype is as old as the serpent archetype and the two are often portrayed together, as in the image (right) of (Re's cat) killing Apophis, the giant water serpent. The point of origin of both archetypes appears to be the Nile.

The Kikuyu, a Nilotic tribe, place their first parents on a ridge north of Muranga, a town south of Nyeri in Kenya. One can visit the site. A sky-blue gate marks the entrance to Mukurwe Wa Nyagathanga—the Tree of Gathanga. Inside the gate are two mud huts, one for Gikuyu and one for Mumbi. The site looks toward the cloud-shrouded Mount Kenya (called "Mount Kirinyaga" in precolonial times). To the Kikuyu, Mount Kenya is the seat of God, who they call Ngai. Ngai created Gikuyu and told him: “Build your homestead where the fig trees grow." This is why many believe that the Tree of Life was a fig tree. Genesis does not say what kind of fruit was produced by the Tree of Life, but the fig tree plays a significant role in revealing Jesus as the Son of God in the Gospels (Mark 11, Matthew 21 and Luke 13).

Mount Kenya stands at 15,000 feet and is 42 miles west-southwest of Mount Kilimanjaro. It is an extinct volcanic crater and the land at the base is rich volcanic soil. As one ascends the mountain, there are forests with fig trees.

Among the Church Fathers, the Tree of Life is a symbol of Jesus Christ and the serpent is the symbol of His adversary. We meet both in Genesis and in Revelation, at the beginning and at the end of the biblical story.

Both the Tree of Life and the serpent are associated with the first man and the first women. At the Horite shrine of Heliopolis, the first couple Isis and Osiris were said to have emerged from the tree of life.

Right: Water flows from the Tree of Life.

In the Gikuyu creation story we are told that at the beginning It was, our elders tell us, all dead except for the thunder, a violence that seemed to strangle life. It was this dark night whose depth you could not measure, not you nor I can conceive of its solid blackness, which would not let the sun pierce through it. But in the darkness, at the foot of Mount Kerinyaga, a tree rose. At first it was a small tree and it grew up, finding a way even through the darkness. It wanted to reach the light and the sun. This tree had Life. It went up, sending forth the rich warmth of a blossoming tree - you know, a holy tree in the dark night of thunder and moaning. This was Mukuyu, God's tree.

Now you know that at the beginning of things there was only one man (Gikuyu) and one woman (Mumbi). It was under this Mukuyu that He first put them. And immediately the sun rose and the dark night melted away. The sun shone with a warmth that gave life and activity to all things.


The Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowlege of Good and Evil

The Tree of Life is mentioned in Genesis 3:22 as distinct from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Both trees are mentioned in The Book of Enoch, a text sacred to Coptic Christians. In chapter 31 we read:
The tree of knowledge also was there, of which if any one eats, he becomes endowed with great wisdom. It was like a species of the tamarind tree, bearing fruit which resembled grapes extremely fine; and its fragrance extended to a considerable distance. I exclaimed, How beautiful is this tree, and how delightful is its appearance! Then holy Raphael, an angel who was with me, answered and said, This is the tree of knowledge, of which your ancient father and your aged mother ate, who were before you; and who, obtaining knowledge, their eyes being opened, and knowing themselves to be naked, were expelled from the garden.

The tree of the knowlegde of good and evil is another very ancient idea.  The tree is often associated with the serpent.  It may be that the coiled branches of certain trees that cause visions when consumed according to certain perscriptions looked like serpents. Jeremy Narby claims in his book The Cosmic Serpent that such trees produce substances that permit humans to communicate with serpents. I've reviewed his book here.

Right: Tree of Life with serpent on stone relief from India. Note that water flows from the tree, as in the image from Egypt above.


Healing for the Nations

The Book of Enoch also reports that at the great judgment God will give fruit from the Tree of Life to all whose names are in the Book of Life. This idea is also found in Revelation 2:7: “to him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.”

In Matthew 13 Jesus describes the Kingdom of God as a tree that grows from a mustard seed. The branches shelter the birds who nest there.  Likewise, the restoration of Paradise involves a Tree of Life which gives healing to those who are sheltered there. In Revelation 22:2 we read: “In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bear twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.”

If there is a tree in real time that serves as the basis for the Tree of Life it might be the Moringa oleifera tree because it is the most nutritious source of plant-derived food found on the planet. Moringa is the Tamil-Dravidian name. The Hausa name for the tree is Zogale, meaning the helper. It is sometimes called the cabbage plant and is a stable in Afro-Arabian pharmacology.

For centuries, the natives of India, parts of Africa, Asia and South America have benefited from the Moringa’s leaves, pods and flowers which are rich in nutrients important to humans and animals. The seeds are used to purify surface water and can produce a 90.00% to 99.99% bacterial reduction in previously untreated water. Of course the true Tree of Life is Jesus Christ, who is also the Living Water (John 4), and the Seed of the Woman promised in Genesis 3:15. This Seed alone is able to purify hearts and minds.


Related reading:  The Chiastic Center of Ecclesiasticus; Trees in Genesis; The Christ in Nilotic Mythology; The Genesis Creation Stories; Theories About the Tree of Life

Nigerian Boundary of the Jebu-Sheba Confederation

Alice C. Linsley



This 72-foot rampart at Eredo marked the western boundary of an ancient Jebusite kingdom. 

The Jebusites ruled in Jerusalem in the time of David.

The archaeologist Patrick Darling described the Eredo site as a breathtaking find with many of its remains relatively intact, though overgrown by the rainforest.

"We are not linking what we found to a city, but to a vast kingdom boundary rampart," he told the BBC.

Eredo is a system of walls and ditches located to the south-west of the Yoruba town of Ijebu-Ode in Ogun state southwest Nigeria (6°47′13″N 3°52′30″E / 6.78700°N 3.87488°E / 6.78700; 3.87488). It is reputed to be the largest single pre-colonial monument in Africa.  Local people link the Eredo monuments to Bilikisu Sungbo, another name for Sheba, according to Dr Patrick Darling, the archaeologist credited with drawing world attention to Eredo.

Dr. Darling reports that, "The vertical sided ditches go around the area for 100 miles and it is more than 1,000 years old. That makes it the earliest proof of an kingdom founded in the African rain forest."

From here.

Two things fascinate me about this spectacular find: the connection to the Jebusites and the connection to the biblical clans of Sheba and Joktan.

The Jebusites had two main divisions: the Nago-Jebu and the Ketu-Jebu. Both divisions take the serpent as their totem. Ketu and Naga are two ancient words for serpent.  In ancient Egyptian literature the cosmic serpent is called RahuKetu.

Of the Ketu-Jebu there is a good deal of information in Genesis. This division resided in Palestine and Arabia. Abraham payed tribute to the Ketu-Jebu priest Melchizedek, who was the ruler of the Jebusite city of Salem (Jerusalem).  Abraham's second wife was of this division of Jebu, as evidenced by her name Ketu-rah. She resided at Beer-Sheba, which took its name from Sheba who controlled the well there. (Beer means well.)  Ketu-rah's firstborn son was Joktan, the progentior of the Joktanite clans of Arabia.  So the clans of Jebu, Sheba and Joktan are related, but what was their western boundary? It appears from historical records that it was in Nigeria at the confluence of the Niger and Benue rivers which in the time of Abraham's ancestors were very great rivers.

We might be surprised to find Jebusites in Nigeria, but this isn't surprising when we consider that Cain and Enoch are associated with Nok on the Jos Plateau of Nigeria, and Noah is associated with Bor-No, in northern Nigeria near Lake Chad. The discovery of Eredo's association with the Jebu of Nigeria suggests that this 72-foot high rampart was the western boundary of the Jebu-Sheba-Joktan confederation.

In 1892, the New York Times reported on the Jebu tribe, which controlled the water systems of the Port of Lagos. The Jebu are classified as Yoruba, but the term 'Yoruba' applied to related tribal groups only after the 18th century. The Jebu, also called Ijebu, are called Jebusites in the Bible. There are two groups: Nago-Jebu and Nago-Ketu, depending on where they reside. While there are two Jebu groups, there are three brothers: Yoruba, Egba and Ketu and these constitute a tribal unity.

In Genesis we find this two kingdoms-three brothers pattern throughout the book. One of the three brothers is often veiled in the text or peripheral to the events described. For example, Noah had three sons and the lines of Ham and Shem intermarried, but we know very little about the line of Japheth. Likewise, Abraham had three first-born sons: Joktan, Ishmael and Isaac, and we have to dig into the text for information on Joktan, from whom come the Joktanite clans of southern Arabia.

Consistent with the pattern of rulers among Abraham's people, a Jebu ruler-apparent ascended to the throne after he married a second wife. This explains Abraham's urgency to fetch a cousin bride for Isaac before his death. Following the marriage pattern of the rulers of his people, Isaac already would have had a half-sister wife in Beersheba.

According to the New York Times report, the king of the Jebu levied taxes on all products carried through his territory. This is consistent with the biblical information concerning Abraham’s ruler-priest ancestors who controlled water systems in throughout the ancient Afro-Asiatic Dominion.

The link to the royal name Sheba also fascinates me. This name appears more than once in the ancestry of Abraham, David and Jesus. (See diagram below.)

Sheba the Elder ∆ = O
                              ׀
                             O =  ∆ Joktan (Abraham's son by Keturah)
                                 ׀
                                ∆  Sheba the Younger (Gen. 10:28, 25:3)

Sheba the Elder was the brother of Eber and both rulers were descendents of Noah. Sheba was descended from Noah through Ham and Eber was descended from Noah through Shem. The lines of Ham and Shem intermarried.

Joktan  married a daughter of Sheba, and though the rulers settled in geographically separate regions, their kinship pattern remained unchanged. The lines of Eber and Sheba continued to intermarry, which means that cousin wives were chosen from ruling kin who lived in other territories. We find this with Isaac who resided in Beersheba but married his patrilineal cousin Rebecca who lived in Mesopotamia.

Descending from Sheba the Younger in chronological order according to Genesis 10 and 25 are:
Reu
Serug
Na’Hor
Terah
Abraham
Joktan, Abraham’s son by Ketu-rah, his cousin bride.

Ketu-rah named her first-born son after her father Joktan, according to the cousin bride’s naming prerogative. This means that there were at least two Shebas and at least two Joktans between the generations of Noah and Isaac. (There are also at least two men named Esau. There are at least two Korahs as well. One was Moses' half-brother and the other was Amram's father-in-law.)

The pattern of intermarriage between Sheba's people and Joktan's people parallels the pattern of intermarriage between the lines of Cain and Seth and the lines of Ham and Shem. So the time of division associated with Peleg (Joktan's brother) began about 5 generations before Abraham, but can only be understood as geographical separation, not social separation.

Though the clans of Joktan, Sheba and Jebu became became geographically separated from some of their fellow clans in the time of Peleg, their rulers continued to intermarry according to a long-standing pattern. This pattern is characterized by two wives. The first wife was a half-sister (as was Sarah to Abraham) and the second wife, married much later, was a patrilineal cousin or niece (as was Ketu-rah to Abraham). The firstborn son of the sister wife ascended to the trone of his father.  The firstborn son of the cousin/niece wife ascended to the throne of his maternal grandfather, after whom he was named.  So Isaac ruled over Abraham's territory by Joktan ruled over the territory of Joktan the Elder, Ketu-rah's father. The two lines continued to intermarry according to a pattern that is traceable, using the Biblical genealogies, to Jesus Christ. It is also a kinship pattern that has been identified with the Kushites.

This suggests a very high importance to the preservation of the bloodline of these rulers. It is likely that they believed themselves to be heirs of God's promise that the Son of God would come through their lines.
This suggests that the ruling lines believed the promise made in Eden (Gen. 3:15) concerning the Woman's Seed who would crush the serpent's head, deliver from death and receive the Father's Kingdom. This line is traced through Jesse and David, but because of the exclusive intermarriage (endogamy) of the clans, it is also traced through Sheba and Joktan. This explains why Sheba opposed David's claim to the throne in Israel and considered himself the rightful heir. Sheba lost his life when the Wise Woman of Abel Beth Maccah had him beheaded in order to save the town from being destroyed by Joab (II Sam. 20).

Related reading:  The Jebusites Unveiled; Afro-Asiatic Metal Workers; The Afro-Asiatic Dominion; The Pyramids of Bosnia; Extant Biblical Peoples and Clans; The Jerusalem that David Knew

Two Powers in Heaven

Alice C. Linsley


Rabbinical scholar Alan Segal is the author of Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism. In this work, he argues that the idea of two powers in heaven idea was not rejected by Jews by until the second century A.D. This is the time that Jewish thought hardened against what the apostles claimed concerning Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Segal finds antecedents for the two powers idea in the Hebrew Bible, but seems unaware of the difference between Persian dualism (which he correctly rejects as an antecedent) and the Afro-Asiatic binary worldview. Within this older binary view there is always the consideration of the Third also.  So we have the angelic Three appear to Abraham at the time of his visitation in Mamre.

Christians are interested in this idea of two powers because it points to the Father and the Son being one, as the New Testament writers indicate. The underlying anthropological principle is this:  ancient peoples believed that as in the heavens so on earth. Where do we find two powers referenced in Genesis?  The Sun and the Moon are spoken of in Genesis 1 as two powers:  the Sun is the greater power which rules the day and the Moon is the lesser power which rules the night. When the two appeared in the sky just before dawn or dusk it meant to the ancients that God was watching. The "two lights" in ancient Egyptian theology were interpreted as the eyes of Re.  These were also the eyes of Horus, whose left eye, the Moon, was weaker because it had been damaged in mortal combat with his brother Set. So Jesus Christ, who is one with the Father, was mortally wounded by his brethren, but rose before dawn.

Genesis reveals that Afro-Asiatic rulers maintained their 2 wives in separate households and flocks on a north-south axis.  Yet both households together constituted one kingdom. This practice emerged out of the Sudanese-Upper Nile veneration of the Sun as the emblem of the Creator. The Sun was associated with Osiris, the Father, and Horus, the Son.  The Father and the Son were conceived to be one and of the same kingdom.  Afro-Asiatic chiefs set their wives on a north-south axis so as not to affront God whose chariot the Sun journeyed daily from east to west. Only Lamech set himself up as an equal to God if we are to consider the names of his wives, Adah (dawn) and T-zillah (dusk).

At Karnak, the shrine from which Terah took is cousin wife (Abraham's mother), Osiris' victory over his enemies was celebrated the day of the full moon. On this day Horus, who was called "the Son of God", was awarded his heritage.

It is likely that Abraham, the Father of our Faith, held this cosmology as he and his people were devotees of Horus. This appears to be the origin of the two powers in Heaven idea.

UFOs in Genesis?

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. (Gen. 6:1-4)

Michael Heiser reads Biblical Hebrew and studies the history of UFO sightings. He thinks that people should keep an open mind about evidence for UFOs and contact with extraterrestrials or “watchers” in the Bible. Genesis 6:1-4 is one of the verses often cited in support of contact with extraterrestrial beings. Another is Numbers 13:33: “there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim”.

Are the Nephilim beings from space or are they angels? Some believe that the Nephilim were fallen angels or demons who had intercourse with human females in Noah’s time and produced a race of giants. However, angels were not created to sexually reproduce. Jesus states that the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage.

The interpretation of fallen angels rests on the assumption that the word nephilim is the masculine plural participle of Hebrew naphal, meaning to fall, but this is not conclusive. In the book of Daniel, the Aramaic term used to denote angels is "watchers" (`îrîn). Such a being is also called "watcher and holy one" (`îr weqadîsh). The term "watcher" implies that angels act as God's sentinels, as did the angels appointed to guard the entrance to Eden. The existence of these angelic watchers could explain some of the mysterious appearances classified as contact with extraterrestrials since angels are assigned to watch over heaven and earth. Heiser, who has read thousands of pages of testimony about UFO sightings, notes that the majority of sightings involve lights.  Angels are associated with light in the Bible so perhaps there is some basis for believing that people have had unusual encounters with angels.  As to the claim of some that they were abducted, we have the story of Lot being taken from Sodom as a possible example of abduction by angels.

However, these `îrîn (watchers) appear in literature that post-dates the earliest material in Genesis. They are also mentioned in Vedic (Sanskrit) texts which tell of gods begetting children with humans. They appear in the Epic of Gilgamesh, in the Lamech scrolls, and in The Book of Enoch which states that 200 "Watchers" descended to earth in the time of Jared and instructed men in the arts and sciences.

These non-biblical sources lend support to the view that technological advances made by ancient man came as the result of contact with more advanced beings. This is more or less the position of Michael Tellinger who is promoting his new book Temples of the African Gods. Instead of recognizing that ancient Africans were observers of the heavens and regarded the cardinal points as the basis for understanding the order of creation he insists that the ancient ruins found at Mpumalanga, South Africa prove contact with extraterrestrial beings. Here is what Tellinger writes about that stone ruin:

This ruin has become the subject of much research and measurement by Johan Heine. It features prominently in our new book Temples of the African Gods. There are multiple alignments with the cardinal geographical points. The perfect hexagon is formed by extending the length of the flattened edge across the top right side into the circle. This has a very important significance since it suggests that the architects had a good understanding of particle physics and sacred geometry, since the hexagon is just a flattened perspective of a Star Tetrahedron. It is directly linked to advanced ancient knowledge. The Star Tetrahedron is a very important structure in the study of sacred geometry. Leading physicists believe that this is the fundamental structure of all matter in the universe.

These monoliths are found in the same region and date to the time of the mines from which miners were extracting red ochre, a symbol of blood.  Sophisticated mining operations in the Lebombo Mountains reveal that thousands of workers were extracting red ochre which was ground into powder and used in the burial of nobles in places as distant as Wales and Turkey. There is consensus among anthropologists (who agree on little, it seems) that this red powder symbolized blood, and its use in burial represented hope for the renewal of life. These mining operations suggest long-standing human industry rather than intervention from space beings.

Heiser’s idea of contact with UFOs is based on reading thousands of pages of reports by sighters, including United States military pilots. Tellinger insists that the discoveries of advanced civilizations in southern Africa dating between 80,000 to 100,000 years ago must be explained by contact with more advanced beings. The two men are building their arguments for UFOs based on different data. Genesis has something to say about angels and technological advances, but it doesn’t support the popular conception of UFOs from outer space.

Related reading: Who Were the Nephilim?; The Mighty Men of Old

The Creation Museum

The Creation Museum, near Cincinnati, is a large facility with petting zoo, gardens, and an exhibit hall and planetarium.  It is a favorite destination of home schooling groups and students from Christian schools. To see everything you should plan to spend the day. Visit the official website for current news on events. The staff are friendly and helpful and I especially enjoyed the petting zoo.

Sheep shearing at the petting zoo

The Museum is committed to young-earth creationism. As a Biblical anthropologist I found the scheme forced. The exhibits are well constructed but often portray a picture contrary to what the Bible actually says about Abraham's ancestors going back to Eden. The scheme seems unaware of what the Bible tells us about the Afro-asiatic Dominion, the flood of Noah's time and Abraham's kingdom-building ancestors, and claims to represent the only biblical view of creation and the flood. People who believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, based on Ussher's (flawed) dating, will enjoy it more than those who accept that the earth is about 4 billion years old.

Dinosaurs and humans are shown co-existing. The dating assumes that God created things to appear old. I found no explanation for why God would do this and find none in the Bible either. The scheme assumes the accuracy of Bishop Usher's dating for the earth based on the age spans assigned to the patriarchs from Adam to Abraham. It assumes that the people listed in Genesis 4 and 5 are the first humans on the surface of the earth, a claim that Scripture does not support.

The Museum is an example of what happens in attempts to force concordance between Genesis and earth science. This is called concordism. John H. Walton, Old Testament professor at Wheaton College, points out the danger of such an approach.  He has written: "If we accept Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology, then we need to interpret it as ancient cosmology rather than translate it into modern cosmology. If we try to turn it into modern cosmology, we are making the text say something that it never said. It is not just a case of adding meaning (as more information has become available) it is a case of changing meaning. Since we view the text as authoritative, it is a dangerous thing to change the meaning of the text into something it never intended to say." (From here).

The Creation Museum is located 7 miles west of the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (about a 30-minute drive from downtown Cincinnati).  For tickets call 1-888-582-4253, ext. 376.  Ticket Information (not including tax):

• Adult (13-59 yrs) $21.95
• Senior (60 yrs up) $16.95
• Children (5-12 yrs) $11.95
• Children (under 5 yrs) Free
• Planetarium (with admission) $7.00

2-Day Passes are available


Related Reading:  YEC Dogma is NOT Biblical; False Assumption #1 of Young Earth Creationists; False Assumption #2 of Young Earth Creationists; Between Biblical Literalism and Biblical Illiteracy; Kentucky to Get Noah's Ark Theme Park

Women Empowered Through Reading the Bible

Alice C. Linsley

I developed and teach a course on "Women in the Bible" at Midway University. The course has been popular with the students at this mostly women's college. Unlike the usual university course on women in the Bible, there is no attempt to force the test into a Feminist mold. There is no discussion of a gender continuum because the Bible knows humans as only male and female, and affirms that both are in the image of God.

Unlike courses that filter biblical information through a feminist ideology, the students investigate the Bible by drawing on the tools of cultural anthropology. There is no "feminist" tone with its stress on empowerment, yet the women are empowered when they discover that the social structure of the biblical Hebrew is not patriarchal, and women had significant roles in their social circles. Some were prophets (Deborah) and some had such great wisdom that they were consulted by kings (Huldah).

Upon the completion of the course last week, I asked the women to complete a survey and course evaluation. I found these very interesting and helpful. I'm sharing some of these with readers of JUST GENESIS.

This course made the Bible interesting and fun.  Its given me a new confidence I didn't know I had. My daughter and I both read the Bible now every night! -- Alicia

This class was so fun and it really made me think about the women we studied.  It also helped me in my relationship with God and has encouraged me to be like the Virtuous Women of Proverbs 31 and to encourage others to do the same. --Ashley

Because of this class I now have to be the woman God has always wanted me to be, His daughter! --Anissa

I was raised in a thick Southern Baptist home and had no idea until this class how powerful the women of the Bible were. We began attending Bible classes at church about 5 weeks ago and I have been able to speak up in the classes. This class has opened my eyes and been life-changing for me.-- Tamara

These women actually helped to bring salvation's plan into reality. Certainly that is their biggest contribution... bringing salvation to the world. We see this finalized through Mary when Jesus was born.-- Sandra

The study of the Bible has encouraged me not to walk in fear of what God has called me to do. Because of this class I feel more confident studying the Bible. I really can't wait to have more time to do so. I have shared so much of what I've learned with my sister. She always awaits my call on Thursday nights after class!-- Carol

This class has made me aware of the importance of looking deeper into the Bible. It has made me curious enough to want to start from Genesis and read the whole Bible, and to be aware of patterns, binary distinctions, and hidden sons.--Sue

I knew from the very first night that this was going to be an interesting class!  I was so excited about all of the material we learned each week that I would go back and tell my mom about things the next morning. I've tried to read the Bible before and it didn't make sense to me. Now my interest is sparked and I plan to start attending church again so that I can make sure my three sons are exposed to the Church, God and Jesus.  Attending this class has inspired me to raise strong Christian men.--Sonja

Related reading: The Bible as Woman's Story; Why Zipporah Circumcised Her Son; The Daughters of Horite Priests; Wells and Brides; A Woman at a Well; The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 1); The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 2); The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 3); The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 4); The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 5)

Spanish Revista on Cain and Abel

The Spanish revista Yareah has reprinted my essay on Cain and Abel.  Yareah is dedicated to discussion of myth, art and literature. You may read the essay here.

Glimpses of Eden

"When the flush of a new-born sun fell first on Eden's green and gold, Our father Adam sat under theTree and scratched with a stick in the mould; And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart, Till the Devil whispered behind theleaves,'It'spretty, but is it Art?" --Rudyard Kipling (The Conundrum of the Workshops)

"One foot in Eden still, I stand And look across the other land. The world's great day isgrowing late, Yet strange these fields that we have planted So long with crops of love and hate." --Edwin Muir (One Foot in Eden)

"To sit with a dog on a hillside on a glorious afternoon is to be back in Eden, where doing nothing was not boring - it was peace." --Milan Kundera
 
"There is a contest old as Eden, which still goes on - the conflict between right and wrong, between error and truth. In this conflict every human being has a part." --Matthew Simpson

Of man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful seat. --John Milton (Paradise Lost)