The Bible: Commentary and Controversy

Giants in the earth? And how did Noah get all those animals into the ark?

Yeah, I know. Greater minds than mine have puzzled over these niggling problems. Like Adam and Eve had two sons: Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel, then went to dwell in the land of Nod, which lay East of Eden. There he “knoweth his wife.” What? Where did she come from?

The “scholars” suggest that his wife was one of Adam’s children. Cain’s sister. After all, Adam had 33 sons and 23 daughters. And I guess you could argue, since Adam lived to be more than 900 years old, that places like Nod could be populated by Adam and Eve’s children, or that Cain married his wife even before he left for the land of Nod. But that makes my head hurt.

It’s just dystopian twaddle to me. Adam living to be more than 900 years old. Populating town after town with progeny. Allowing Cain, who killed one of his sons, to marry one of his daughters. Please.

I’m sorry, but who cares? I can’t see that it has anything to do with the message of the bible; that’s probably why it’s not explained. It’s just a seque to more pertinent stories, establishing the cast of characters.

A more interesting question is in Genesis 6:2, which says “sons of God see the daughters of men that they are fair, and they take to themselves women of all whom they have chosen.“ Whoa. Wait a minute. What? There is a difference between the “sons of God” and “men?”

But seriously. Youngs, my favorite, explicitly says “sons of God.” And: “The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them—they are the heroes, who, from of old, are the men of name.” The meaning seems to be that the “fallen ones” are the “sons of god,” and are obvioiusly different from just “men.” They see the daughters of those “men” and mate with them, which produces “the men of name.”

The men of name. What many interpretations call the “Nephilim.” These “fallen ones” and their progeny are filled with such wickedness that God repents having created mankind and decides to wipe them from the face of the earth. All, of course, except Noah and his family, because Noah “found grace in the eyes of Jehovah.” Perfectly understandable. They were so big and strong and “filled with wickedness” that no one could stand up to them. So it’s up to God to do it.

He instructs Noah to build an ark and fill it with two of every sort of living thing, and in a long conversation with him gives Noah a fairly detailed description of how he should build it. A description and task that is patently impossible (you can find a great, highly detailed description of that impossibility here: https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark).

What the naysayers don’t take into consideration, of course, is Noah’s long conversation with the God that made the heavens and the earth, mankind, and everything else. All he would have to do is snap his divine digits and the ark would appear. What they also don’t take into consideration is the possibility that this is simply an allegory, as I believe most stories in the bible are. The moral is one that runs throughout the book: make God mad, he will hurt you.

And that’s the primary difference between the old (non-Jesus) testament and the new one. But we’re getting way ahead of ourselves.