Adam Was NOT The First Man - Part 1
Adam Was Not The First Man: Part 1
“I’m happy to announce that we at Lion of Patmos have now entered into a long-lasting partnership with TruthVids.net. We are hoping to work together to make this website the best that it can be. The decision to partner up came to me after I was forced to remake my old YouTube channel after a technical incident. We at Lion of Patmos are looking forward to a new era of improved content for our channel. Expect to see more of my videos and articles on the site over the many days to come!” – Lion of Patmos
This is a script I wrote for my “Adam Was Not The First Man” video, which was the first documentary I made for my original Lion of Patmos channel. You can still watch the documentary on my new channel.
The first creation account details a sequenced series of events defined as ‘days’ of creation, where different states and forms of matter and existence are manifested by Yahweh God. Many criticisms have been propagated by the false belief that this is somehow a scientific manual of creation, or that the word ‘day’ present in these verses is a direct translation of a word which represents literal days. Neither of these things are true, and one barely needs to observe secular history in order to deduct their reasoning or reach this conclusion.
The focus of this text is to describe creation in a way common of literature at the time, it’s not trying to provide an overview of the history of the universe with precise accuracy. Moses was more than likely not given that information, and he was only describing the early history of the Israelites which was kept in memory through oral testimony and perhaps written work. That was the focus. This is a poetic introduction, and it is focusing on describing creation in a poetic way before moving onto Adam.
Neither is the narrative described chronologically, but instead in a way that favors the poetic approach first and foremost. One of the first signs of evidence that indicates to us that this is not a strict chronological manual of the creation process, is present within Genesis 1:11-13. Here we read:
“11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.” (KJV)
This passage notes the third poetic age of creation and describes the creation of plant-life, which we understand to thrive on a process known as photosynthesis. The majority of flora thrives off of sunlight in order to grow, multiply, and be healthy. Without the rejuvenating life which plants absorb from the sun, they are predisposed to wither away and we observe this practically in everyday life. It is not a mystery and it wasn’t a mystery to anyone who came before us. We can understand the presence of the sun (or any other adequate solar body) to be a strong prerequisite for plant life. However, the creation of flora is described in the third ‘day’ or age, before the creation of the sun, moon, and other cosmic entities which are described in the following fourth day.
The narrative isn’t trying to be chronological, and that is not its purpose. And we can comprehend that the creation account is not literal in its description or chronology; and it never proclaimed itself to be. And again, scripture substantiates this perspective when we see it describing or alluding to events and ‘peoples’ that long predated Adam, and such events could not have transpired over the course of mere literal ‘days’.
In fact, these ‘days’ of creation as they are commonly rendered, are also unable to be interpreted literally. That’s right. These ‘days’ as they are ravenously represented in most of the common translations, are translated from the Hebrew word ‘yom’. This word is more properly translated as age, and derives its definition from context due to the smaller volume of the Hebrew vocabulary.
The Hebrew word yom, translated in the KJV as ‘day’, can denote any literal period of time given context. Any period. Antiquital Hebrew had a limited vocabulary compared to a modern day language such as English, and it was for this reason that words were designed to give their meaning based on context. Here are some examples of definitions for the word yom, as obtained from various lexicons and dictionaries.
- Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
- General term for time ( Genesis 4:3, Isaiah 30:8)
- Point of time
- Sunrise to sunset
- Sunset to next sunset
- A year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)
- Time period of unspecified length (could even be infinite)
- A season (Genesis 40:4)
- Ago (1 Samuel 9:20)
- A long, but finite span of time – age – epoch
We can see there are quite a few definitions, and the placement of the word yom could have been more properly rendered to match the context if written ‘age’ or ‘epoch’. But it still serves its own purpose in the way that we see it now. Another purpose that this creation account serves, is that it is also a poetic allegory which describes creation in a condensed way that provides room for a celestial model of the Sabbath.
The Sabbath was something which the ancient Israelites were obligated to follow, and us modern day descendants shouldn’t shy away from upholding it either. It is a strong and healthy practice that gives order and balance to earthly life. This is why the allegory is divided into seven parts, seven days, with the seventh part or day being provided as a model for rest. And everything, including poetic allegory, has a purpose behind its symbolism or metaphor. (The Sabbath was new to the Israelites at the time that Moses wrote Genesis.)
The creation account as it is demonstrated in the first chapter of Genesis is elaborated in a poetic manner, rather than a strict and literal one. It is giving us a brief overview of the creation before elucidating to us the purpose of Adam, which is the primary focus of the account. It is divided into easily understood segments that express truth while avoiding overly technical statements. It represents the long and storied events of a long period of time, perhaps billions of years, and condenses it. It is no different than the poetic allegory that expressed the numeration of Abraham’s descendants, and it exists for the purpose of being concise.
The fact that these are ages or epochs are substantiated by Paul in Hebrews 4, as he observes Yahweh is still ongoing in His age or ‘day’ of rest. Which by this time has far exceeded a 24 hour period. It is also substantiated in Genesis 2, where the entire 7 day creation process which occurred before is described as having happened in its own day or age when reflected upon.
We can observe through geological evidence that the Earth is indeed an ancient planet, and its existence predates the creation of Adam by more than a few days or even relatively short epochs. If Adam was created 7,500 years ago, (and we can believe this to be true when we know that he was not the first hominid but the first of a new race and bloodline), then the anthropological history and associated Neolithic settlements demonstrate to us that there were hominids which long predated him.
Adding substance to these findings are the events described to us in Revelation and Enoch which show us that there were cosmic events which indeed unfolded on Earth long ago. Fallen angels were cast down to Earth, and it is possible that these entities were in part cro-Magnon or other pre-Sapien hominids, but that is conjecture. Enoch describes to us the origin of pre-Adamics as the hybridization of these Fallen Angel entities with various other hominids and creation. These findings correlate with our modern understanding of genetics, while the origin of all races from a single progenitor contradicts that same kind of common sense. Such a wide array of speciation could not occur from a single source 7500 years ago.
All of these things: the prolonged period of creation and the preexistent ages, help us in our process of understanding that Adam was not the first man. Furthermore, a proper reading of the creation account does not discredit for us the discoveries of geological histories and anthropological findings.
Scripture when understood properly reveals a pragmatic nature that does not contradict itself, nor the world around it. It aligns with the observable world. With this explanation of the creation account clear, we will now move ahead to Genesis 1:20-25 in order to explore a direly important aspect of creation missed by most circles:
Kind after Kind
Genesis 1:20-25 (KJV)
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales (a contrasting example of aquatic beasts), and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
There is something important here. We see now the first law that Yahweh expects of His natural order: kind after kind. This is an imperative law overlooked by most scholars, even though it is readily evident in even the most basic observations of nature. For reasons that forsake sense, corrupt theologians are of the estimation that Yahweh’s pinnacle creation, His supreme work made in His own image, is somehow exempt from the laws which the rest of His creation are obligated towards. The fact of the matter is, Yahweh does not compromise or go back on His laws and they are a universal preeminence to all natural life. We too are obligated to follow this same law, and we will understand it more once we explore the allegorical trees of Eden related in Genesis 2.
In these verses, Yahweh designs and expects natural organisms to remain within the genetic bounds of their respective species. Kind after Kind. Yahweh sees this as good, indicating to us that it is the natural way of things, and we know that it is the way of natural order from even the most simple of observations.
How many times do you witness the canary nest with a bird of another feather? And it is not at all that species are not capable of conceiving offspring with one another, as many mammals for example are indeed capable of intermixing; some examples would include bears and many carnivorous felines. However, have you ever witnessed bear species cross mix, except through the intervention of men who find it amusing to experiment with such hybridization? Indeed Yahweh created the horse and the donkey, but the mule is a result of the workings of men.
Let’s delve into some grammar here and give further increased clarity to the meaning of kind in these verses, let’s explore various definitions. We will begin by citing definitions from the New College Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary Of The English Language. It can be seen here that the word derives itself from the Indo-European root word gene.
“kind2(kind) n. 1. Variety; sort; type: the kind of people who are cheerful in the morning. 2. A class or category of similar or related individuals: What kind of dog is that? 3. Rare. Mode of action; manner; way; He was successful in his kind. 4. Archaic. Nature within an order. -See Synonyms at type. –a kind of. A rough approximation of the category expressed: a kind of shelter. –differ in kind. To differ in nature, not simply in degree. –in kind. 1. With produce or commodities rather than with money: pay in kind. 2. In the same manner or with something equivalent; accordingly: returned the slight in kind. –kind of. Informal. Somewhat: I’m kind of hungry. [Middle English kynd(e), kind(e). Old English cynd, gecynd(e), birth, nature, race. See gene- in Appendix.*] …”
The use of the Indo-European root gene is important:
Appendix: “gene-. Also gen-. To give birth, beget; with derivatives referring to aspects and results of procreation and to familial and tribal groups. 1. Suffixed zero-grade form *gn-yo- in Germanic *kunjam, family, race, in: a. Old English cyn(n), race, family, kin: KIN; b. *kuningaz, king (< ‘son of the royal kin’), in Old English cyning, king: king. 2. Suffixed zero-grade form *gn-ti- in: a. Germanic *kundjaz, family, race, in Old English cynd, gecynd(e), origin, birth, race, family, kind: kind1, (KINDRED); b. Germanic *kundiz, natural, native, in Old English gecynde (ge-, collective prefix; see kom), natural, native, fitting: kind2; c. Germanic variant *kinth- in Old High German kind, child: kindergarten, Kriss Kringle; d. Latin gens (stem gent-), race, clan: gens, (gentile), gentle, (genteel); gendarme. 3. Suffixed full-grade form *gen-es- in: a. Latin genus (stem gener-), race, kind: gender, general, generate, (generation), generic, generous, genre, genus; congener, (congenial), degenerate, (engender), miscegenation; b. Greek genos and genea, race, family: genealogy, genocide, genotype, heterogeneous; c. Greek suffix -genes, ‘-born’: -gen, -geny. 4. Suffixed full-grade form *gen-yo- in: a. Latin genius, procreative divinity, inborn tutelary spirit, innate quality: genius, genial1; b. Latin ingenium (in-, in-), inborn character: ingenious, engine. 5. Suffixed full-grade form *gen-a- in Latin indigena (indu-, variant of in-, in-), born in (a place), indigenous: indigen, (indigenous). 6. Suffixed full-grade form *gen-wo- in Latin ingenuus (in-, in-), born in (a place), native, natural, freeborn: ingenuous. 7. Suffixed fullgrade form *gen-men- dissimilated in Latin germen, shoot, bud, embryo, germ: germ, german2, (germane), (germinal), (germinate). 8. Suffixed full-grade form *gene-ti- in Greek genesis, birth, beginning: genesis, -genesis. 9. Reduplicated form *gi-gn- in: a. Latin gignere (past participle genitus), to beget: genital, genitive, genitor, gent1, gingerly; congenital, primogeniture, progenitor, (progeny); b. Greek gignesthai, to be born: epigene. 10. Suffixed zero-grade form *-gn-o in Latin benignus (bene, well; see deu-2), good-natured, kindly, and malignus (male, ill; see mel-5), evil-natured, malevolent: benign, malign. 11. Extended form *gna- in Latin praegnas (prae-, before, pre-), pregnant: pregnant1. 12. Suffixed zero-grade form *gne-sko- becoming *gna-sko- in Latin gnasci, nasci (past participle gnatus, natus), to be born: naive, nascent, natal, nation, native, nature, nee, noël; agnate, (adnate), cognate, connate, enate, innate, neonate, puny, (puisne), renaissance. 13. Suffixed o-grade form *gon-o- in Greek gonos (combining form -gonos), child, procreation, seed: gonad, (-gonium), gono-; archegonium, epigone. 14. Full-grade form *gen- in: a. Persian zadan, to be born: mirza; b. Persian zata-, born, in azad-, free: azedarach. 15. Zero-grade form *gn- in Sanskrit ja- in krmi-ja-, ‘produced by worms’ (see kwrmi-). (Pok. 1. gen- 373.)”
It isn’t acute to notice gene’s participation in the modern English lexicon through its incorporation into several important words such as genetics, generation, genealogy, and gender. Deeper study reveals its ties to words such as Latin’s genus, which conveyed meanings such as race, kind, and gender. Misinterpretations of the Greek word genos in the New Testament reveals important elucidations that would deserve a presentation of their own. We will briefly explore them here.
From the Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words by W. E. Vine on the translated word “kind”:
“KIND (Noun): 1. genos (1085), akin to ginomai, ‘to become,’ denotes (a) ‘a family,’ Acts 4:6, ‘kindred;’ 7:13, rv, ‘race’ (kjv, “kindred”); 13:26, ‘stock’; (b) ‘an offspring,’ Acts 17:28; Rev. 22:16; (c) ‘a nation, a race,’ Mark 7:26, rv, ‘race’ (kjv, ‘nation’); Acts 4:36, rv ‘(a man of Cyprus) by race,’ kjv, ‘of the country (of Cyprus);’ genos does not mean ‘a country;’ the word here signifies ‘parentage’ … 7:19, rv, ‘race’ (kjv, ‘kindred’); 18:2, 24, rv, ‘by race’ (kjv, ‘born’); 2 Cor. 11:26, ‘countrymen’; Gal. 1:14, rv, ‘countrymen’ (kjv, ‘nation’); Phil. 3:5, ‘stock’; 1 Pet. 2:9, rv, ‘race’ (kjv, ‘generation’); (d) ‘a kind, sort, class,’ Matt. 13:47, ‘kind’; in some mss. in 17:21, kjv, ‘kind;’ Mark 9:29, ‘kind’; 1 Cor. 12:10, 28, ‘kinds’ (kjv, ‘diversities’); 14:10 (ditto). See beget, B.
Looking into our concordances, from Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon for the word “kind” found under Strong’s #1085:
Greek #1085: γένος [genos/ghen·os/] n n. From 1096; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 1:684; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Abridged 117; Goodrick Kohlenberger 1169; 21 occurrences; AV translates as ‘kind’ five times, ‘kindred’ three times, ‘offspring’ three times, ‘nation’ twice, ‘stock’ twice, ‘born’ twice, ‘diversity’ once, and translated miscellaneously three times. 1 race. 1a offspring. 1b family. 1c stock, race, nation. 1c1 i.e. nationality or descent from a particular people. 1d the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort.”
From The New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries on Strong’s Greek #1085: “γένος genos; from 1096; family, offspring:— birth (2), countrymen (2), descendant (1), descent (1), family (2), kind (3), kinds (3), nation (1), native (1), race (3).”
It would only be natural to explore #1074, as it bears similar meaning, from the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon:
“1074 γενεά [genea/ghen·eh·ah/] n f. From (a presumed derivative of) 1085; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 1:662; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Abridged 114; Goodrick Kohlenberger 1155; 42 occurrences; AV translates as ‘generation’ 37 times, ‘time’ twice, ‘age’ twice, and ‘nation’ once. 1 fathered, birth, nativity. 2 that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family. 2a the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy. 2b metaph. a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character. 2b1 esp. in a bad sense, a perverse race. 3 the whole multitude of men living at the same time. 4 an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation), a space of 30—33 years.”
Greek’s #1074 and #1085 are not the only words bearing meaning, but also the close relatives of 1075, 1076, 1080, 1081, 1083 & 1084. The most commonly translated word for “race” is #1085 and is found 21 times in the New Testament. 16 of those 25 appearances have racial significance. This will come into play later on in the presentation when we explore those aspects.
Going back, we will in conclusion compliment these definitions by exploring the Hebrew definition for its equivalent; namely miyn: the most commonly translated word for ‘kind’; as Genesis is indeed a Hebrew text.
From the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, on the Hebrew for the word “kind”, or Strong’s #4327:
“#4327: מין [miyn/meen/] n m. From an unused root meaning to portion out; Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 1191a; Goodrick Kohlenberger 4786; 31 occurrences; AV translates as ‘kind’ 31 times. 1 kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals). Additional Information: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created ‘kind’ if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs.
So, we know that both the Hebrew and Greek texts refer to matters of genetics.
Yahweh identifies his creation as righteous works, that they are good, but we know that not all things are good, there are bad figs, bad fish, and as Christ said…plants that were not planted by His Father. This becomes more clear in Genesis 2.
The law of Kind after Kind was important for the Israelites to understand, especially in the context they were now entering the land of Canaan. The law holds an equal level of gravity for us today, but we have forgotten it. The lack of understanding regarding the first law was the source of many woes throughout history, and it is the source of our same woes today. Despite many warnings, the Israelites often did not fully realize the severity of the consequences that would befall them because of their intermingling with the other races, and because of their lack of foresight those dark parties remained thorns in their sides. Racial laws remained distinguishably important for the people of Israel.
Trees of Eden
Matthew 12:33-34: “33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O (#1081 race) of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”
Beginning now at 2:4 is the second scroll, which recaps the creation in a more pragmatic sense before focusing on the formation of the patriarchal Adam. It then goes on to focus on the earliest significant event of this individual’s history, and we can read this as the first historical chronicle of the Adamic race.
In this account we will find the single explicit commandment given to Adam by Yahweh in the garden, concerning not “eating” from the well known Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This commandment which was given to Adam is no different from the “kind after kind” law which we’ve just explored previously. In fact, they are very much the same, and we will be discovering this as we explore the allegories of the tree and fruit.
Indeed the singular law which Yahweh expected of all His lesser creations throughout the creation process, is the same law which Yahweh expects out of His pinnacle creation.
Here in verse 7, Yahweh breathes into Adam the “breath of life”, which we understand from other scriptures to be the essence that grants Adam the connection to His creator and the possibility for immortality through that spiritual continuance which divides Him from all other biological life. Various scriptures teach us that this spirit is passed down genetically, but voided upon hybridization with DNA lacking that structure. We will explore this point in more detail once we reach part eight, but it is important to understand other aspects first. For now we can simply see it as an important distinction that separates Adam from all other creation.
Wisdom of Solomon 2:23
“For God created man [Adam] to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.”
Now, before we move on to explore the trees of Eden here, there is something that should be expressed. The trees of Eden in this account are often interpreted literally, and that is due to a lack of contextual understanding of the period. Church doctrine has cast a sophist fabric over the eyes of common interpreters. Before moving on, there should be some words said on scriptural interpretation:
In order to understand scripture, one must be diligent. It is important to study slowly, cautiously, and with an uncompromising allegiance to truth. One cannot simply skim through passages and then create an interpretation without any context. Simply because it feels convenient to them, and then just move on. This is not how study works, that is subjective bias and objective truth is never found in this manner.
If one has an interpretation, one must ensure that they are right, and corroborate all of the facts together. This involves comparing and testing interpretations against all other scripture, and ensuring consistency and alignment. If contradictions are found at any point, even with contemporary histories, and those contradictions are stemmed from verifiably succinct sources, then one should rightfully abandon their interpretation and reanalyze the text once more using a different approach.
If someone sticks to their interpretation and share it objectively despite knowing that it is a subjective opinion of theirs, then they willfully scatter the sheep whenever they try to share their falsehoods. And this is what always occurs when people incorporate old and useless wineskins, namely looking at things through the eyes of universalist church doctrine which exists only to further its own means.
One of the most disastrous consequences is the mess that has resulted from this popular departure from truth. Observe the denominational sphere and lay witness to the plethora of nonsensical and competing interpretations among the various so-called churches. These churches inherited much of their doctrine from early church founders, who themselves incorporated universalist and neo-platonist beliefs into their interpretations of scripture. These motivated intrusions contradicted Apostolic Christianity, which was something too controversial for a politically minded organization to uphold. Apostolic Christianity quickly died and was replaced by doctrine never expressed or believed by the apostles. And much church tradition relies on this heritage, and bends its interpretations around it, rather than analyzing the pragmatic and isolated scripture as it is.
This is why these organizations cannot appear to agree with each other on anything at all, and even constantly compromise on their own ideals as soon as society comes knocking down their church doors. Clearly disobeying the natural order of God and all righteousness in order to appease degenerates, criminals, beasts, and other forms of abominable individuals. They care more about pleasing the enemies of God than to be right, and then wonder why their lives have become so sufferable and filled with despair. Debunking their heresies will be a common theme as this series continues.
Because of the inability to analyze scripture pragmatically, many of these heresies unfortunately bear an absurd and oftentimes childish exterior that seems to deny observable reality. Allegories are taken literally, historical truth and context is abandoned or sidelined in exchange for political levities, and pragmatic accounts are spiritualized in order to justify some kind of traditionally held doctrine.
It is a hideous mess that bewilders all common reasoning and it is a prime culprit for the agnosticism that surrounds the text. There is no doubt that these lies were as much a result of sabotage as much as they were as convenient forgetfulness in pursuit of placation. When replacing pragmatic language with doctrine, tradition takes the forefront over honest interpretation; as any pragmatic revelations that contradict church teachings are immediately discarded. If we believe our ancestors to have upheld these nonsensical interpretations, then we dishonor them and spit on their graves, we dishonor their intelligence, common sense, and their practical wisdom.
But we will be discovering something, and we will understand that the account here in Eden is in no way fantastic, but is a pericope most relevant to our modern circumstances.
An examination of their language and the context of which it is all held together proves to us that our ancestors would have disagreed with what we are told today. And would have by all means frowned on us. For they did not believe that Eve literally ate a fruit from a tree, but were only using idioms common to Mesopotamia at the time.
But that is in fact the point: they knew what they were talking about. It is us who have forgotten. We are reading something from long ago, and we are failing to put ourselves into the shoes of the authors and audiences of the period. If we examine the historical context of what was written, and relay that with the scriptures through and through, how ancient writers understood the texts, then we see that they did not abandon allegories in the very same way which we have now when we read them literally.
If you don’t live in the same time period as a people, and share their vocabulary and expressions, if you don’t know the historical context of scripture and relating nations, then allegories can come across as esoteric and mysterious. Honest investigations, however, yield simple and unverifiable truths.
Genesis 2:8-9: And the Yahweh planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made Yahweh God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (KJV)
Our first hint that the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil are not literal trees, is the fact that they are distinguished from the preceding flora planted by Yahweh. These trees, or symbols, are not explicitly accounted for as being the same part of that creation of trees described earlier in the verses, those which Yahweh plants and notes as “pleasant in his sight”, (a common trademark for His creations), the aforementioned trees are “in the midst of the garden” and are simply present.
Christ reminded us that not everything on this planet was created by Yahweh our God, and we must keep this in the forefront of our minds, stoically remembering that not everything we may observe in life had its origin with our heavenly Creator.
Matthew 15:13: But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. (KJV)
This coincides with the parable of the Wheat and the Tares, where Yahshua remembers that certain seeds were sown by an adversary. This, we will explore in more detail later in the presentation once those parables become most relevant.
A strong clue to the identification of these trees and the meaning of the idiom is found in Ezekiel 31:
“3 Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. 4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field. 5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth. 6 All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. 7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters. 8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.”
Here in Ezekiel, we see nations being described as trees, and no one would read this account as informing us that the Assyrian civilization was a literal tree. Ezekiel puts emphasis on the fact that Assyria is the greatest of all the nations: a cedar with fair branches. And this was accurate, as at the time which Ezekiel wrote this, the Assyrians were the most powerful nation in the world.
Why would the Assyrians be described as being in the garden of God? The Assyrians were descendents of Asshur, the son of Shem as described in Genesis 10, adequately placing them as an Adamic nation and descendents of Adam. This therefore places the Assyrians within the Adamic family, having their ultimate root with the Heavenly Creator.
We should remember that Noah’s flood was local to Anatolia, and was not in any way global. Therefore the global population was not affected by the event, and not all living things were exterminated in the flood, in fact not even close. Therefore, not all races can trace themselves back to Noah’s sons. Proportionally, very few can as only the true Israelites and their Adamic kin bear this unique genetic history. While the events revolving around Noah’s flood are not the main focus of our presentation here, they will be explored in the next installment of our Misconceptions series.
So here we see a nation and a bloodline referred to as a tree, and there are other examples of this in scripture:
Jacob describes the tribe of Joseph:
Genesis 49:22: “Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall.”
The allegory repeats itself here, where the tribe of Joseph is referred to as a tree. This allegory is incredibly consistent throughout scripture, and Christ describes Himself as the root and the branch of David, continuing the allegiance of Israel to this fruitful and accurate allegory which remained extant in Judean culture over a long period of time.
Further regarding Christ, when Yahshua was in Bethsaida, Mark recorded the blind man whom Christ had healed there as saying the following:
Mark 8:22 And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him. 23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought. 24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking. 25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.”
The words of this man are apt. Everyone who we see around us today, is a genetic culmination of their ancestors and the product of countless generations which came before them. Ingrained within each of us are the genetic and biological traits of thousands of individuals, stemmed within the branches of our hearts and the roots of our souls. Indeed, we are all trees walking, but we do not all descend from the same people, and we are not all of the same tree.
It is an allegory which we still use to this day, as we still presently refer to our genetic families as ‘family trees’. The Hebrews used this metaphor in the same way, and nothing is new under the sun.
Trees and bloodlines are one of the most consistent and logical allegories throughout scripture, repeating itself multiple times in many different ways. Reading Genesis in this manner brings clarity to the events described here, and perfectly corroborates itself with the rest of scripture. Once we understand that these two trees in Eden represent two defined bloodlines of people, everything that comes after begins to make sense.
There are many other cases where races and nations are portrayed as trees in Scripture, for instance in Matt. 3:10; 7:17-19; 12:33; and Luke 3:9 and 6:43-44.
When John the Baptist confronted the Pharisees, he equated them also as a tree: “The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” John the Baptist here speaks of the Edomite race, equating them as a tree, and the ax at their root refers to the fact that their destruction, while not yet fulfilled, has already been predestined by Yahweh God. For this we can refer to prophets such as Obadiah and Ezekiel.
We know through historians such as Josephus and Strabo that many of the Pharisees were indeed Edomites in race, so John’s words here were appropriate.
Antiquities 13.9.1 and 20.10 (20:224-251, Strabo 16.2.34) , Eusebius Book 1, chapter 6.
“So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” – Matthew 7:17-19 (ESV)
Christ here teaches us that our genetic inheritance can indeed dictate our mental and behavioral capacities, and the Pharisees, and other Edomites, as well as Canaanites, Moabites, and other nations, certainly did not have good fruits. A practical view of history reveals chronologies of entire nations and peoples who solely yielded either bad or good fruits. The understanding of the Abrahamic covenant and its constituents, gives one the key to understanding why that is.
So, these two trees in Eden are indeed races, but what are their identities, who are they?
When Christ came, he said one of His purposes was to elucidate “secrets kept hidden from the foundation of the world”. The foundation of the world itself is not even fully recorded in Genesis, as Genesis is not a full account of ancient history. If it were, then Christ would not have had to reveal or uncover anything. There are many things within scripture, and especially in Genesis, that cannot be clarified except through elucidations given to us by Christ.
The other tree in the garden is the Tree of Life, and identifying it is rather simple. The Tree of Life does not appear solely within the chronicles of Genesis but also appears once again in Revelation. There the tree bears twelve fruits, representing each of the twelve tribes of Israel, and if one does not bear the name of one of those tribes, then they are unable to pass through the gates of the Kingdom of Yahweh.
The City of God described in Revelation is a metaphor for the Adamic race, and each of us serve as individual bricks and stones that are going to form the new nation which is to triumph in the age to come. Christ tells us in Revelation that when He returns, He is going to make all things new again and destroy that which His father did not create, and save us from extinction at the hands of our enemies. And for this reason no person or nation should seek to save themselves through their own hand or through political measures. Rather, we should wait on God, wait for His word to be fulfilled, and He shall save us.
We see the Tree of Life present here at this time in Revelation, but The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is no longer present. This is because the plants which Yahweh did not plant have by this time been uprooted in the Day of Reckoning foretold by Christ, Obadiah, John, and many others.
Therefore, the tree is once again a genetic marker, representative of Israel and the Adamic race itself. If the Tree of Life is a race, and if Christ is a part of that tree, if the race bears twelve fruits, then the Tree must only then be Israel, the Adamic race, and Yahshua Christ their King, their root and branch, who described Himself as much.
Furthermore, we can view the tree itself as Christ, as it is through Christ and the reconciliation he gave to Israel that we once again earn our access to that immortality, that very life.
Christ told us in His own words the following:
“I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”.
And then explained to us that He is the reconcilement, the life, and the tree that brings us all together.
John 6: “47 Truly, truly I say to you, he believing in Me has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life!”
John 15: “1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman…. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can you, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.”
If Adam then is the first created member of the Tree of Life, the first member and progenitor of this bloodline, then the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil must only represent races that had preceded him, as this tree was already present upon his creation. In this sense, Adam was surely not the first ‘man’, but there were already men present on Earth upon the creation of Adam. And serpents do not talk, but men certainly do, and men are referred to as serpents, scorpions, cankerworms and otherwise, many times throughout scripture and even by Christ Himself, (such as Luke chapter 10) and Genesis is not the only circumstance.
Understanding who these parties were and their origin is also important for the purposes of our presentation, and we will now move on to exploring the constituents of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We know who the Tree of Life is, but who were they? For they had by this time already established a strong enough presence on Earth to be representative of a whole bloodline of ‘people’.
The Angels That Lost Their First Estate
“I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.”
Understanding the identity of the Tree of Life and its constituents; its root and its branches, and what is then through that what is revealed to us concerning its counterpart; we become aware that there were hominids already present on Earth upon the creation of Adam. This itself corroborates itself with clear archaeological and anthropological history, and it also aligns perfectly with modern thought: even though that principle doesn’t consistently represent reality.
There are things conveyed to us in scripture that few are cognizantly aware of, dwell on, and if questioned regarding their inclusion often yield confused answers on account of them. One of the best examples of this are the fallen angels. Not many truly have an answer concerning their inclusion in the scriptural narrative, primarily because the spiritualization of scripture, the changing of the meaning of words, and the complete retraction of original focus; has essentially hidden from view the clear racial context concerning the fallen angels.
Besides obvious interpolations, nothing present in scripture is there by accident and the nature of these accounts is important to understand. The nature of the fallen angels is important to understand when investigating the Genesis narrative.
The Fallen Angels are one of these seemingly ‘enigmatic’ subjects that are the source of countless outlandish theories. Because there is a lack of attention regarding the angels, common men often seek to fill in the gaps with their own sensationalism, simply because they have nothing better to work with. Much of the angels and their activities represent hybridization, and sexual mingling; therefore in our modern distasteful society, the very mention of them is taboo as the very subject of race has been stripped out of scripture from corrupt authorities.
Adam and his descendants are the primary subject and the sole recipient of the scriptural texts. The Bible chronicles their history, the purpose of their existence, the obligations of their existence, and also their ultimate destiny in both the physical and spiritual sense. Other peoples are mentioned only in the way in which they relate to the Adamic people. The details of their own histories and origins are not mentioned as they are not relevant to us.
For this reason, we see the creation of the Adamic race in Genesis. We see the Tree of Life’s identity. But in comparison, little information is given concerning the racial identity of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; because it was not entirely relevant to us or to Adam. All that was relevant to Adam, was for him to understand not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And that was enough.
Deciphering the details of their origin is therefore slightly more difficult, but a thorough analysis of scripture yields explicit and conclusive results.
As we explained while investigating the Trees of Eden; Christ told us He came to reveal things kept hidden from the foundation of the world: His words, both in parable and in Revelation, alongside the words of New Testament writers, identify for us who the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was.
We should also investigate the apocrypha which the New Testament writers quoted and attested to, and investigate those texts using the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments available to us. The use of Dead Sea Scroll fragments is imperative for investigating Enoch in particular, as the Ethiopic tradition of that text is surely to at least some extent – corrupted. This leaves our resources of Enoch literature limited, but fortunately due to providence they are sufficient enough for our investigation here.
Because the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil predates the creation Adam, we must begin by examining any text that details accounts around this time period. Therefore Genesis 6 is an adequate place to start.
In the King James Version of Genesis 6, we read the following:
“1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD [Yahweh] said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 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.
Let’s examine the grammar:
The words translated as “men” and “man” in Genesis 6:1-4 are from the Hebrew word adam (Strong’s #120). This reveals to us that these subjects must descend from the patriarchal Adam, and must therefore be members of the Tree of Life.
However, the word translated as “men of renown” in 6:4 is enosh (Strong’s #582). This is a peculiar word, and though it is sometimes used for Adamic men, it is often used in a derogatory way towards those being mentioned or to serve as a contrast to Adam, when non-Adamic races are being referred to.
Various examples can be found in scripture, here are a handful:
- Daniel 2:43 (the Aramiac equivalent enash (Strong’s #606) is used here.)
- Psalms 8:4; 9:19-20; 10:18; 90:3, 144:3
Lexicons and concordances should always be at your side as handy reference tools, and they can be used during your studies to note the differences found within the Hebrew of these passages when referencing men.
Unfortunately, many parties are fond of ignoring grammar and cloaking scripture to serve their own ends. There is a contradiction found here in Genesis 6 which we will have to resolve, and to do so will require us to delve into various ancient manuscripts.
We understand from scripture that Adam was a son of God, and this is equated to us at Luke 2:23. In fact, this term is often applied to the entire Adamic race (and especially Israel) which are collectively known as “children of Yahweh”, and who we now understand to be the branches of the Tree of Life, with Christ as their root. Some examples of where the Adamic race are referred to as children of Yahweh are:
- Deut. 14:1
- Isa. 43:6; 45:11
- Hos. 1:10
- 1 John 3:1-2
Indeed, Yahweh created the Adamic race, and because they are an image of His own eternity, they are surely His children without exception. And an individual’s behavior has no part to play in that identity, but only in the rewards to come in the life that follows. We saw that when Yahweh created His creation, He planted His plants, and ordered them through His natural law on the basis of kind after kind, and that His creation was good and pleasant in His sight. We know that when one reproduces within their species or race, this is moral, good, and Yahweh specifically told the children of Adam to “be fruitful, and multiply” (Gen 1:28).
We know that Yahweh cannot transgress His own law, and an example of the eternal importance of this is the fact that in order to keep the law, Yahweh God chose to incarnate Himself as Yahshua Christ in order to reconcile His marriage relationship with Israel. But that is a matter for another video.
The fact of the matter is that Yahweh cannot and will not transgress His own law, nor would he ever view any such transgression as being “good.” However, here in Genesis 6 we see the union of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of Adam” to have been an evil and despicable union that spawned countless woes. If they were of the same origin, they would have been the same kind, and there would have been no transgression and thus no evil to have resulted from it. So what happened?
Yahweh does not change. There has to be something more here.
According to The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich, twenty-four ancient manuscripts of Genesis have been found. However, and this is fascinating in and of itself, none of these preserved fragments contain any portions of passages found at Genesis 3:15, 4:1, or 6:1-12.
However, this will not stop us from solving the problem: among the Dead Sea Scrolls was found something of important interest to us and that is the Genesis Apocryphon. The Dead Sea Scroll Bibles says the following on page 3:
“Retelling portions of Genesis was a popular business in the Qumran community. The Genesis Apocryphon, preserved to a length of twenty-three somewhat fragmentary columns, is an Aramaic work that rehearses the lives of Enoch, Lamech, Noah and his sons, and Abraham. The creation, the flood, and events in the life of Abraham were extremely popular with the writers of the Second Temple period. Theological issues found their beginnings in Genesis as well. Discussions concerning the pollution of humans and divine beings by sin were centered on the mysterious union of ‘the sons of God and the daughters of men’ in Genesis 6:1-4, and messianic musings were founded on the blessings to the tribe of Judah in Genesis 49:10.”
Texts become corrupted over time, both by parties wishing to sabotage a narrative and also accidentally due to a gradual forsaking of widespread and well known historical context. The Septuagint is of the Second Temple Period, and the Septuagint was itself a source quoted by Christ and the New Testament writers. The Masoretic Text was unfortunately Jewish, from the medieval period, and is therefore less reliable but still important for study to various degrees. Texts have been corrupted for a long time, and for that we can see Jeremiah 8:8.
It is indeed likely that many of the details found in this Genesis Apocryphon were contrived, but this does not take away from its importance. Any apocryphal work, and especially the ones we will be exploring while identifying the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, serves as our present day looking glass, our way of using the third person account to gain insight as to how the most ancient perspectives and manuscripts were perceived. We are outsiders looking inward.
They reveal to us how individuals independent of both the Second Temple priesthood and jewish rabbis understood history. When all of this is put together with other ancient sources, it is a critical ally in the pursuit of truth.
We need to crack the problem of Genesis 6 and understand who these “sons of God” were, and we will be using the Genesis Apocryphon for this. But to gain some initial context, let’s delve first into Enoch. Then by merging the two narratives together, we will see how our ancestors understood the accounts of Genesis 6:
1 Enoch 106:1-6, a fragment of the apocryphal Book of Noah: “1. And after some days my son Methuselah took a wife for his son Lamech, and she became pregnant by him and bore a son. 2. And his body was white as snow and red as the blooming of a rose, and the hair of his head and his long locks were as white as wool [In Charles’ translation, he notes that ‘long locks’ is a likely corruption], and his eyes beautiful. And when he opened his eyes, he lighted up the whole house like the sun, and the whole house was very bright … 4. And his father Lamech was afraid of him and fled, and came to his father Methuselah. 5. And he said unto him: ‘I have begotten a strange son, diverse from and unlike man, and resembling the sons of the God of heaven; and his nature is different and he is not like us, and his eyes are as the rays of the sun, and his countenance is glorious. 6. And it seems to me that he is not sprung from me but from the angels, and I fear that in his days a wonder may be wrought on the earth’.”
There are some corroborations from other fragments:
from Qumran labeled 1Q19 and 1Q19bis (1QNoah), called 1QBook of Noah, Frag. 3, from TDSS: “1 […] … […] 2 […] … were aston[ished …] 3 [ …(not like the children of men) the fir]st-born is born, but the glorious ones […] 4 […] his father, and when Lamech saw […] 5 […]the chambers of the house like the beams of the sun […] 6 […] to frighten the […] 7 […] … […]”
We can see from Enoch and the corroborating fragment here that the “sons of God” are understood to be angels, and if this is true then the intermingling of seed would have been enough to be counted as a transgression of kind after kind. The writer here understands that there were genetic interminglings at the time of Noah by the hands of angels, “the sons of God” in Genesis 6, and there is an anxious worry that Noah might unfortunately be the product of such an unholy union. Lamech’s anxiety as described by these apocryphal writers gives us clarity as to how the ancients perceived the antediluvian world to have looked like. It was a world rampant with the mixing of seeds, a violation, again, of the only explicit law given by Yahweh at that time. And it was certainly enough to justify the destruction of the society Noah had found himself living in.
Let’s include some more perspective into this rampant miscegenation:
From 1 Enoch 6:1-2: “1. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. 2. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children’.”
Reading now from the Genesis Apocryphon.
From the Qumran scroll labeled 1QapGen ar, or 1QGenesis Apocryphon, Col. II from TDSS, the following words attributed to Lamech:
“1 Behold, then, I thought in my heart that the conception was (the work) of the Watchers, and the pregnancy of the Holy Ones, and it belonged to the Nephil[in] 2 and my heart within me was upset on account of this boy. Blank 3 Then I, Lamech, was frightened and turned to Bitenosh, my wife, [and said:] 4 [Behold,] I adjure you by the Most High, by the Great Lord, by the King of all A[ges, …] 5 […] the sons of heaven, that you tell me in truth everything, whether […] 6 […] Tell me without lies whether this … […] 7 by the King of all Ages that you are speaking to me frankly and without lies […] 8 Then Bitenosh, my wife, spoke to me very harshly, and … […] 9 and said: Oh my brother and lord! Remember my sexual pleasure … […] 10 in the heat of intercourse, and the gasping of my breath in my breast. I shall tell you everything accurately […] 11 […] … very much my heart within me and I was still upset. Blank 12 When Bitenosh, my wife, realized that my countenance had altered … […] 13 then she suppressed her anger, speaking to me and saying to me: O my lord and brother! [Remember] 14 my sexual pleasure. I swear to you by the Great Holy One, by the King of the hea[ven]s … […] 15 that this seed comes from you, that this pregnancy comes from you, that the planting of [this] fruit comes from you, […] 16 and not from any foreigner nor from any of the watchers or sons of heav[en. Why is the expression] 17 of your face so changed and distorted, and your spirit so depressed? [… Behold I] 18 speak truthfully to you. Blank […] 19 Then I, Lamech, /ran/ to my father, Methuselah, and to[ld] him everything, [… Enoch,] 20 his father and would know everything for certain from him, since he is the beloved and the favourite [of God, and with the holy ones] 21 his inheritance is found and they show him everything. Blank When Methusela[h] heard [these things] 22 [he ran] to Enoch, his father, in order to know everything reliably … […] 23 his will. And he left for the higher level, to Parvaim, and there he met Enoch, [his father …] 24 He said to Enoch, his father: O my father and lord, to whom I have co[me …] 25 […] I say to you: Do not be annoyed with me because I came here to […] you […] 26 fear (?) before you … […] 27 … […]”
From Col. V of the same scroll from TDSS: “1 and he wrote … […] 2 Blank And to you Methuselah [my] s[on …] of this boy. 3 Behold, when I, Enoch … [… and] n[ot] from the sons of 4 heaven but from Lamech your son […] 5 and he does not resemble […] 6 … [… ] 7 and Lamech your son is afraid of his appearance … […] 8 in veritable truth that … Blank 9 Now I tell you my son, and I let you know … […] 10 Go, tell Lamech, your son … […] 11 his […] on the earth, and every deed … […] 12 his face has lifted to me and his eyes shine like [the] s[un …] 13 (of) this boy is a flame and he … […] 14-15 … […] 16 then they were confounded … […] 17 eternal they give … […] 18 using enormous violence, they will do until […] 19 … and all the paths of … […] 20 And now, I make known to you the mystery of … […] 21 your son make known this mystery … […] 22 … […] 23 Praise the Lord of all … […] 24 When Methuselah heard […] 25 and with Lamech, his son he spoke in secret […] 26 When I, Lamech … […] 27 … which he brought out of me … […] 28 Blank 29 […] book of the words of Noah […] 30 […] … […]”.
The Enoch literature agrees strongly with the context of the period recorded in Genesis 6 and recounted in the Genesis Apocryphon. The fragments of Enoch found among the Dead Sea Scrolls are quite consistent with Charles’ translation of the Book of Enoch.
A fragment that corresponds:
Q202 (or 4QEnb ar), 4QEnochb ar, Col. II “1 [al]l the [d]ays [of their life …] 2 It happened that wh[en in those days the sons of men increased,] 3 pretty and [attractive daughters were born to them. The Watchers, sons of the sky, saw them and lusted for them] 4 and sa[id to each other: « Let’s go and choose out women from among the daughters of men and sire for ourselves] 5 [sons ». However …”
This text corresponds with 1 Enoch 5:9-6:4 and 6:7-8:1, and is corroborated from other scrolls such as 4Q201 and 4Q204. The word Watchers here is used in reference to certain angels, as it can be seen used as such in Daniel 4:13, 17, and 23. This again informs us that this party in Genesis 6, were indeed angels.
There is more evidence and this time from Brenton’s edition of The Septuagint with Apocrypha. Within, a footnote can be found at the phrase “sons of God” at Genesis 6:3 (which is 6:4 in the A.V.), and it says the following:
“Alex. angels of God.”
We can now see that the Alexandrine text of the Greek Old Testament agrees, in this case, with the apocryphal literature. Brenton based his Septuagint edition primarily upon the Vaticanus text, and for that reason it was delegated to a footnote.
Chapter V.—How the Angels Transgressed.
But if this idea take possession of some one, that if we acknowledge God as our helper, we should not, as we say, be oppressed and persecuted by the wicked; this, too, I will solve. God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law – for these things also He evidently made for man – committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. Whence also the poets and mythologists, not knowing that it was the angels and those demons who had been begotten by them that did these things to men, and women, and cities, and nations, which they related, [the poets] ascribed them to god himself, and to those who were accounted to be his very offspring, and to the offspring of those who were called his brother), Neptune and Pluto, and to the children again of these their offspring. For whatever name each of the angels had given to himself and his children, by that name they called them.
The renewal of the Earth anticipated in Christ will be a reversion to Earth in its natural state, containing all the creations of Yahweh in their original form. And everything else, and everything the Adamic race has gone through up to that point, serves as an example for us to observe what happens when we stand against God and go our own way, and the devastating consequences that result from that sin: so that we too, do not go the same way as the fallen angels that preceded us, and learn the eternal lessons of obedience and disobedience; and find gratitude in the blessings of conformance to Christ.