Angels, the Flood, & Saturn (Part I)




















                                       …in his (Noah’s) days a wonder may be wrought on the earth.
                                                                                       (Ginzberg, 1909, p. 145)[1]

                                                              This day there is none that saveth…
                                                                                       - The Qur’an Surah 11:43[2]

Yes, during the life of a Biblical character that many of us have heard of –
Noah – a great wonder did occur.
None were to be saved from the disaster looming, except those who were with him. There was change in the
air, very assuredly. Even though we’ve discussed a good deal about the flood story in
The ‘Adamic’ Flood,
and Beyond, there are still a number of interesting details that seem to revolve around this story, and inter-
twine within it! Even though the flood is usually thought of as the “highlight” of the Noah story, the least
amount of time and effort will be put into discussing it, here. As we’ll soon see, there could be a whole lot
more to the flood than most of us may have ever dreamed.

The Aftermath of Cain

                                                 …the earth was flooded because of him (Cain).
                                                                           - The Book of Wisdom 10:3-4[3]

The influence of the Serpent and Cain was beginning to settle in, everywhere. Our understanding of the
Mystery side of Mystery Babylon will, hopefully, pick up a great deal of speed now. Beyond the mental and
emotional elements of this
Mystery side (as already discussed in Cain, Seed of the Serpent), there was, of
course,
knowledge – the knowledge given to our world by these antediluvian angels. This would be the
knowledge that God may, or may not, have desired for human beings to utilize. As we’ll see, this
knowledge
was, not only in wide use before the flood, but would make it’s resurgence after.
Let’s continue on, with
more ramifications that the Serpent, Cain, and other terrestrial Nephilim brought to
our post-Fall existence. In this section, we will delve into a number of deep, even somewhat
controversial,
topics; but, really, it’s time…

After the Fall - But, Before the Flood

                                           (The Serpent)... is truly unrepentant, all through his days.
                                                                            (Schwartz, 2004, p. 456)[4]

Assuredly cursing God, and His ways, every step of his worthless existence, the Serpent, in their post-
Fall existence, would, indeed, blaze some trails of his own; and he probably wasn’t alone.

And, what about
Adam and Eve? From the Bible (Gen. 5:3), we might be able to assume that Adam waited
130 years, beyond the death of Abel, before he would be able to go and impregnate Eve. Quite possibly,
they lived apart for this extended period of time. From their long-awaited son Seth came the
Sethites: the
most famous of those who attempted to keep the ways of God, as well as their father Adam.

Periods Apart

After Abel’s death, things were going on inside Adam's mind. In a way, he felt responsible for what happened,
at least partly.[5] It weighed on him tremendously. Eve, as well, was probably troubled as well, maybe even
more than Adam. She cried a lot of the time. Because of these ramifications, Adam may have come to the
conclusion that his love-life with Eve needs to end. He couldn’t afford to have a son who might end up the
same way Abel did.[6]
Beyond the possible 130 year separation, non-Biblical tradition gives us other possible periods of separation
for the two. Throughout his 930 years of life, Adam could have been away from Eve numerous times – even
up to 200 years a shot.[7] Throughout this time, we need to ask ourselves: what
did they do while they were
apart? What did Eve do for sustenance and survival all of these years? Was she alone? It must have been a
frightening time for anyone to find their own way in this world.

The Serpent's Consort?

Unearthed in the not-so-distant past were a number of ancient cuneiform tablets, around the ancient city of
Nippur - seven to be exact. These were known as the
Kharsag Tablets. They told of a story that just might
provide us a link to what happened at this time! We recall, Adam was the first gardener of the world. In fact,
he was the leader, or head-overseer, over all of the other overseers of the Garden. He placed the Serpent
and other Nephilim slightly below him, in these positions. Eve, most probably, had a large part in the
overseeing of the Garden, as well.[8]

To assist with the irrigation of the soil, God located the Garden in a land where with a river – actually, four
rivers – would be able to flow through it.[9] The understanding of
irrigation seemed to be one example of
knowledge God, indeed, would have intended for Adam, the Serpent, and other Nephilim to use. Before
Adam was appointed “manager,” the grounds around the Garden were untilled and un-irrigated. Heat
parched the soil. Rarely, if ever, would rain fall. God assigned Adam the work of reclaiming the land, and
making it work for the people - which he did.[10]

As we proceed into a general summary of these Babylonian tablets, we’ll discover how it all may provide
some sustenance for a time period we know little about: what happened to Adam, Eve, and the Serpent
in the period
after the Fall!
The story revolves around the god
Enlil, the goddess Ninlil, or the “Serpent Lady” (his consort), the god
Anu, and the Anannage (i.e. the Anunnaki). If (as we’ve summated in Babylonian Gods of Genesis) the
Serpent could have actually have been the god Enlil, Eve the goddess Ninlil, and Adam the god Anu, then we
may be able to discover some interesting bits of information about the three. This may also have represented
the time Adam decided he needed to be
apart from Eve.
If we utilize these above assumptions, the story of Adam and Eve -
after the Fall - may have went something
like
this:

After God commanded Adam and Eve to leave the garden, the lands all around Eden continued to be very
volatile: some times, there would be too much water; at others, not enough. Enlil (the Serpent) was among
the first who continued with this irrigation process; working the lands as he did in the Garden. He even
founded homes for some of the residents who lived near him.[11] As we recall, one of the epithets of the
Serpent was
Akki: “the irrigator.”[12]

Enlil (the Serpent) was known to be the “Lord of Cultivation.” Ninlil (Enlil’s consort) was considered “Lady
of Cultivation.” This
Lady seemed to have a “knowledge of agriculture;” even providing an “implement tool”
for gardeners to utilize.[13] We recall, Eve probably had similar duties throughout her short stay in the
Garden, as well. Once given the opportunity, she may have carried this knowledge with her, during times
of her forced-separation from Adam.

Irrigation - and Seduction

The Serpent, obviously, was displaced from the Garden of Eden at the same time Adam and Eve were. What
happened to him? Where did he go? According to these tablets, Enlil (the Serpent) could have left to live
with the people that, most probably, began to respect him the most; and would follow his “ways.”
                                                     Copyright 2015, Brett T., All Rights Reserved.
   
   No content of this article or of mysterybabylon.com may be reproduced, duplicated, given away,
    
            transmitted or resold in any form without prior written permission from the author.

We’ve already seen a number of examples of how words such as “creature,” “beast,” and “cattle” could
also be used describe people (see
Adam & the pre-Adamites). We see it in, still, another example:

                           And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast
                                                         will I require it, and at the hand of man…
                                                                                           - Gen. 9:5 (KJV)

- What beast has hands,
other than a human being?

Again, people in our not-so-distant past used to say things to other people things such as: “You are a very
intriguing
creature, sir.” It was commonplace even up to the last century, and it wasn't meant to be insulting!
Couldn’t it have been
much more commonplace a thousand years ago?

Now-a-days, many could construe these words as an “insult.” Back then, it, sometimes, might have been;
other times, as in the above example, it meant nothing of the kind – it was just another way to describe
someone!

The Clean & Unclean

We’ve also discovered that "flesh" doesn’t always stand for a person’s skin or bodily composition; it can also
be related to whether they possess the blood of
a different kind (i.e. these fallen, terrestrial angels), or
whether they have adopted the “ways” of these fallen, terrestrial angels, as well![83]

During this time, God instructed Noah to bring a certain number of "clean" and "unclean" individuals aboard
the ark (again, referring, most probably, to
people, and not animals). Some interpretations make it clear that
there were “pairs” of clean and unclean individuals; both male and female. Some say “seven” individuals –
either male or female.[84] What would be meant by “clean” and “unclean” individuals, and why bring some
of
each aboard the ark?

As one could guess, a lot of people, in our past and our present, may have assumed these “clean” and
“unclean” individuals were animals. There
are animals which are considered clean and unclean in a
“religious” sense. But, if we look at things in terms
of the above, these verses may take on a whole new
meaning.

   These spirits are both morally and spiritually unclean, and the same applies to their progeny on Earth.
                                                                   ("Enoch & the Nephilim: Liber VII," n. d., p. 38)[85]

Yes, there definitely could be a
genetic side to this all; equally, and, most importantly, however, these
states of “uncleanness” could, perhaps, also apply to the mental, emotional, and moral thoughts brewing
within an individual.
Again, we must take into account that many of us, past and present, have assumed these
clean and
unclean were only a religious take on certain kinds of animals. It was probably pretty easy to keep confusing
the two, over the years:

                           …he (Noah) called the gentle animals clean, the vicious ones unclean…
                                                                   - St. Ephrem the Syrian Section VI 9[86]

We also know that the Bible states that Noah was “perfect” in his generations, and not only in his bloodline.
He tried to live his life “pure of vice.”[87]

If this all was the case, why would God want some
unclean people to come aboard the ark, anyhow?
Wasn’t the world supposed to be “purified” through this tremendous flood? Why would God want to keep
people alive who really didn’t believe, or follow His ways? We’ll see that God wanted a representative
amount of
each group of people back then - even “clean” and “unclean” of each. But; why?

According to Genesis, there was to be a ratio of 7 "clean" to every 2 "unclean" individuals aboard the ark.
But, again:
why? One reason was to show that God was not prejudiced, concerning the bloodlines of an
individual. He did not want
any particular group to suffer because of something they could not change,
like their genetics. Also, having a certain number of “unclean” individuals aboard the ark, God wanted to
give some people, who may not have wanted to follow Him in the first place, a chance to eventually see the
error of their ways, and repent! That’s truly a merciful God.
It was probably God’s hope that having 7 “clean” individuals surrounding the 2 “unclean” would help to
“balance out” those with questionable motives; to “keep them in check,” if you will.[88] As one ancient
author implied: “they might be tamed and civilized by having an intimate association (with those who are
"clean").[89]
We see examples of this in nature.[90] In the human stomach, for example (a healthy human stomach),
there is "good" and “bad” bacteria. In almost the same 7 to 2 ratio as above, “good” bacteria also resides in
the digestive system, outnumbering the "bad." This “balances” the bad bacteria out, keeping them from
getting out of control!

This also seems to show that God didn’t necessarily want
anyone from any particular group to drown, even
if they didn't follow Him! He even didn’t want anyone who might have thought
certain ways to drown; He
was just sick of their prideful dogma and lewd behaviors.
That is true compassion.

This could also lead us to one solid conclusion: no matter of one’s bloodlines, and no matter what ideology
one comes
out of, anyone could make the decision to change their ways if they really wanted to! All people
might have the
Ruwach spirit, somewhere inside (see above); they just have to opt to use it:

               …those… which have changed the nature of wild beasts into that of domestic creatures.
                                   - The Works of Philo Judaeus Questions and Answers on Genesis, 2(27)[91]

80 Total?

As we recall, above, there may not have only been eight members of Noah’s family aboard the ark – now
we see there could have been more; a lot more - even “clean” and “unclean” people.

   Noah built a town consisting of eighty houses – a house apiece for all who had been saved with him.
                                                                                  (Baring-Gould, 1881, p. 105)[92]

If, after the flood, this
was the case, how could one come up with so many people - even up 80? First, we
must take into account the necessity of having 7 clean and 2 unclean-thinking people aboard the ark - out
of every
group of individuals there were in the day (beyond the 8 direct descendants of Adam).

And Thou (God) hast set everything under his feet; for his sake they were created, and for his sake they
were destroyed, with the exception of Eight Souls, and seven of every kind of clean beasts and creeping
things, and two of every kind of unclean beast and creeping thing.
                                               - Book of the Glory of Kings (Kerba Nagast) 8. Concerning the Flood[93]

Next, we’ll take a look at the Adamites and pre-Adamites groups mentioned previously; even other groups
which may have existed during that day. Again, the following groups are mentioned with their original
Hebrew names, as well as how they were interpreted into English versions (such as the Hebrew Behemah,
interpreted as the English “Beasts,” for example). Here they are, again:

-
The Adam (or Adamites)
- The Behemah (or “Beasts”)
- The Chay (or “Beasts”) of the Field
- The Remes (or “Creeping Thing”) that Creepeth
- The Owph (or “Fowl”) of the Air

We also can add mixed groups of offspring formed by the sexual unions of terrestrial angel and mortal
women (from
The 'Adamic' Flood and Beyond):

-
The Cainites (descendants of Cain)
- The Giants/Anakim (descendants of the Nephilim and mortal women)
- The Mighty Men/Refaim (descendants of the Watchers and mortal women)

…this gives us 8 groups, in all.

We might be able to assume it was necessary for some pre-flood Cainites to survive the flood, as well - to
fulfill the Prophecy of Gen. 3:15! The Bible and other sources tell us there were mixed groups of people on
the earth before,
and after, the flood: the genetic offspring of terrestrial angels and human women (known
by names such as
Anakim and Refaim).

Again, even though the genetic make-up of individuals in these groups weren’t exactly what God wanted
for the world, He did, graciously, want the
same number of them aboard the ark as the Adamites and pre-
Adamites! Tradition tells us that a few of these individuals had a conscience, as well; and might have
desired to live good, clean lives
. So God wanted save the same number of them, too!

In total, we have the 8 direct “souls” of Adam’s bloodline. We have members of each of the 8 other groups.
If we multiply the number of other groups on board (8) by the number of clean individuals that were to go
on board (7), we get 56 (8 x 7). Next, if we multiply the number of other groups on board (8) by the number
of unclean individuals that were to go on board (7), we would get 16 (8 x 2).

Add up the three: 8 + 56 + 16; and, strangely enough, we come up with
80!

Maybe there
was something to this number! Maybe there were descendants of fallen, terrestrial angels and
humans on board the ark, as well; maybe there were direct descendants of Cain on board. This “80”
total was, often, mentioned in quite a number of ancient traditions, especially Islamic. Could all of these
groups have, indeed, have been
human; and could a representative portion of each groups have been
aboard the ark?

Towards the Obvious?

Again, we have the 5 groups of Adamites and pre-Adamites (here, now, with their corresponding Strong’s
numbers):[94]

-
The Adam (or Adamite)                                    (Strong’s #H120)
-
The Behemah (Beasts)                                    (Strong’s #H929)
-
The Chay (Beasts) of the Field                        (Strong’s #H2416)
-
The Remes (Creeping Thing) that Creepeth   (Strong’s #H7431)
-
The Owph (Fowl) of the Air                              (Strong’s #H5775)

Hebrew words, as in English words, could easily have more than one meaning. In some references, they
might, assuredly, mean animals; but,
every one? If they weren’t always animals, can we, finally, make an
attempt to pin-point who or what these groups actually represent?

One thing the Bible never really seems to go into detail on is how the
races of our world had developed,
both before, and after, the flood. If we all came from one man and woman before the flood, and, also, one
man’s immediate family after the flood, how could such racial differences develop in such short periods of
time?
Ancient traditions, and the Bible, seems to point to Noah as being the same as Adam‘s family (i.e. being
“perfect” in his generations - which implies a pure blood-line). Better yet: how did all the racial differences
come about, if Adam and Noah
both represented one family, and, if, supposedly, only one family was aboard
the ark?
This has always been a grey area to most, in regards to understanding and explaining Biblical stories.
Many of the explanations that ancient “movers and shakers” gave weren't always the most savory; in fact,
most were down-right insulting.

All of this may not be “politically correct,” but there
has to be some kind of answer here, in order for the
Bible to be believed!

It’s totally understandable for religious leaders of one faith to take a look at religious or moral practices of
another faith to be inferior. It’s human nature. People of the past (and present) seem to continually go back
and forth against another person’s faith or ideals; calling the other person “uncivilized,” “barbaric,” or even
“animal-like.” Again, this is all human nature.

In all honesty, looking at most of these ancient texts, there doesn't seem to be any definitive link to
race
and these groups of Adamites and pre-Adamites. Possibly, there may not have been much of a need to
really state it, back then! Maybe it was common-knowledge that these groups were based on race; who
knows? Maybe, the general assumption of these ancient times was so strong that explaining it wasn’t really
necessary. Ancient writers might not have felt the
need to explain what the “cattle,” “beasts” or “fowl”
were – everybody knew. It's much like a person not needing to tell the general populous how to separate
the wheat from the chaff back then, or what powers an automobile, today; almost everyone knew it.

Unless there is a better way to define groups of people, one of the easiest way is simply by looking at an
individual: by their skin color, their different facial characteristics, etc. Let’s try to put aside all of the quick-
to-conclude, or “politically incorrect” assumptions, with the following, here - at least until everything is fully
explained. Although the number of
actual races in our world might vary (according to the “experts”), here
are a few of the more-popular ones:

-
Causcoid (Caucasion, white)
- Capoid & Congoloid (Negroid, African, black, etc.)
- Mongoloid (Asian, oriental, etc.)
- Australoid (native Australian, etc.)

Let’s look back at a few of the Adamite and pre-Adamite groups (using their original Hebrew words and
English-translated words):

-
The Adam (or Adamite)
- The Chay (or Beasts) of the Field
- The Remes (or Creeping Thing) that Creepeth
- The Behemah (or Beasts)

Could some of these Adamite and pre-Adamites groups correspond to the races, above; in one combination
or another? It sure could shed light on a lot of perplexing questions that many of us have had on the topic,
over the years. Sure, the politically correct clichés about referring to any member of a race as a “beast” or
"creeping thing" may sound offensive - but, we must remember all of the reasons
why the original Hebrew
words (such as
Chay) may have been translated this way! The English translators, for the most part,
assumed these groups of individuals were animals; so it wasn’t meant to be offensive. They also, most-
probably, believed that 8 close family members of one race only boarded the ark, and all of the races,
somehow, developed out of them.

Well, what if these groups were more than animals, as postulated? Utilizing all of the scriptural anomalies,
as well as extra-Biblical (and even pagan) “hints” we have been provided, we, possibility, might have an
idea of the reason why these groups were continually referred to in this way - some may have been given
certain names paralleling what their roles in the Garden of Eden might have been!

Beasts of the Field - Named for their Occupation?

Quite possibly, a few of these names could have related to the roles that individuals from these groups had
back in the Garden of Eden! Could the
Chay (i.e. Beasts) of the Field, for example, be so named because
of their occupation, or association they had to “the field?” Maybe this group specialized in tilling the ground,
or other farming activities.
Interestingly enough, some of the
other Hebrew meanings for Chay (Strongs #H2416) are “relatives” or
“community.”[95] Could this group
be just that: a “community” of people; closely knit families, or
“relatives?" It could easily be.

Again, what about the
Behemah? This was another Hebrew word often translated into English as "beast"
or "cattle." Maybe this community (or group) of people were a little different than the
Chay; maybe they
didn't necessarily work the fields, but something different. Could members of this group have had the
responsibility for domesticating the animals around the Garden – sheep, goats, and other livestock?[96]
Possibly, they may have become associated with
cattle or beasts because they had an intimate association
to the animals they cared for (and nothing more). It’s like us calling a cowboy a “cow-boy,” today. They
were often looked to as “boys” (or young men) who worked with “cows.”
The same may apply here, with the
Behemah.

Interestingly enough, in most any dictionary today, another definition of the English word
cattle is,
surprisingly, “
human beings especially en masse.”[97]

Could these Behemah be just another group of individuals -
human individuals – who had a specialized
skill in the Garden, as well? Maybe that's why Genesis put so much time into discussing the groups of
individuals who went aboard the ark for this reason – it may have been assumed that the animals might,
naturally, just go aboard with those humans who cared for them, if these animals were to go aboard.
Besides,
human individuals are the important elements of the Bible, not animals. The Bible is a book about
human beings, for human beings. Those individuals who had a
Neshamah or Ruwach were the important
ones, here!

The "Indifferent" Adamites?

And, how about the group that Adam was a member of: the Adamites? Even though Adam was one of
the Adamites, that didn’t seem to mean that every
Adamite was special, or “marked for greatness!” If we
believe that Jesus came from the 77th generation of Adam - a direct seed - as the Bible states (twice), and
that a good number of Israelites could also be part of the family-tree of Adam, Noah, and his sons, we could
also assume they should, for the most part, have most of the same physical characteristics.
Most of the ancient pictographs placed Jesus as a Caucasian; and, by looking at most Israelites today, so
many could, also, easily be thought of as Caucasian. Can we, then, assume that Adam and Noah had
these same racial features, as well? As “politically incorrect” as this may begin to sound, we must under-
stand some things: Jesus, Adam, and Noah had to be of
some racial “classification.” That’s just a fact of
life; they couldn’t be just “neutral.”
Does this imply superiority, however? Does “white-privilege” apply for everyone in this race, just because
these individuals may have belonged to it? Hardly.

We need to recall that Adam was created
last - not first – in the hierarchy of creation. God fashioned angels;
then the rest of the pre-Adamite people; then the Adamites; and, lastly, Adam. If mankind was indeed
created “a little lower than the angels,” then logic would assume that God would create His beings in
some sort ascending, or descending, order! Adam and the Adamites
should, logically, follow His formation
of the angels, not the pre-Adamites.

Also, the pre-Adamites and Adamites were both formed from the ground; Adam was created from something
even “lower:”
dust. It wasn't diamonds or rubies. Again, this doesn’t seem to follow the protocol on what,
hypothetically, should be “superiority,” here. It doesn't until, that is, we understand what the
true ways of
God seem to be. We already know that He wants the individual to
shine out of what they have; what they
are, even if it's dust! We shine with our attitudes, and with how we use our minds. Humility seems to be the
way of God, not
superiority.

On top of it, the
Adamites, were rarely mentioned in ancient written works (besides Adam, of course)!
Adam also dictated terrestrial angels to help him manage the Garden – not other
Adamites. If Adamites
were an
all-mighty group of individuals, then all of them should be special.

And lastly, we must also understand that Adam – an Adamite – was the one who actually disobeyed God,
and fell, so quickly; throwing the world into its new, detrimental existence. Not to suggest that a member of
any other group wouldn’t fall under these same circumstances; but it does suggest that, in the whole
scheme of things, Adam really did no
better.

…again, superiority? Hardly.

Does it Really Matter?

Of course, there always could be speculation on which racial group could have been which group in
Genesis, here. The truth is: no one knows for sure. There are some ideas, but, in the end, does it really
matter? No group has had a role in the Garden since Adam's fall; it’s all dissolved; it's all irrelevant. What
really matters is that these above groups in Genesis
could have been groups of living, breathing people;
all of whom found some favor with God, and all of whom had some representation aboard Noah’s ark.

These groups (or races) truly could have been created, each with their own unique characteristics, even
with some possible purpose, or function, at the time of the Garden; and
not the result of something such as
a “curse” levied out to some misguided patriarch; one which would they would have pass on to their
children, and their children's children.
Cain was a perfect example of this. If we recall, some have theorized
that Cain’s
skin turned black as the result of his misdeeds. We’ll soon see that, along with Cain, the
patriarch
Ham, and even his son Canaan, were thought to have had their skin turned black for some crime
they committed.
Again, in both of these situations, as well, it seems more understandable that their
blackness could have
been related to their “darkness” of heart, “darkened” thoughts, or a “blackness” of their soul; and not some
outer, tell-tale racial features.

Why would some of these misguided zealots, or scribes of ancient tradition, attest to curses in one’s
skin-color as payment for their evil deeds? Why were many, in the past, so adamant that we came from
one man? Again, maybe those in “spiritual authority” back then could claim that we all came from Adam,
then they could claim “eminent domain” of all the people under Adam – in this case, that would be the
whole of human existence!
If we all came from Adam, then the dogmas
they preside over should, theoretically, be the laws the entire
human race should follow! Sure, the Bible has a vast multitude of great things to help someone become
a better human being; that’s not the issue. The issue is, possibly, covering things up for the sake of one’s
own power and control! The issue is the clergy making one's differences in their race the result of some
"sin" of a former patriarch,
just to be able to say they still maintained "spiritual authority," because Adam
was
still their father.
If these other groups of people weren’t necessarily under the spiritual domain of the “Book of the
Generations of Adam" (Gen. 5:1), then how many of them could easily “opt out” of the teaching and
spiritual umbrella of most of these religious “movers and shakers?”

It’s funny how some religious denominations claim so much divine authority over our lives - from the cradle
to the grave. We need them at our early times of infant baptism, all the way up to the last rights. Even more
hilarious is that fact that one cannot even seem to die
correctly, unless the clergy puts their "stamp of
approval" on it!

Once we see who, exactly, has their “fingers” in the pot, here, we begin to peel-away what might, actually,
be some real truth. Hopefully, by “re-looking” at traditions and previously-held assumptions surrounding
the flood (as we did, above) we might be able to “open up the channels of communication,” and dispel
a lot of the misunderstandings -
intentional and unintentional - that may have risen up, in its stead.

We need to take on a number of preconceived notions our society may have been throwing at us, all of
these years; for one, that
flesh stands for “all of the different kinds of animals.” Could these verses refer to
all of the animals of the world, brought aboard the ark; or, could they
really be concentrating on what’s truly
important for mankind:
people, and the different types of human flesh that might have been aboard the ark?
That leads us to:

And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creep-
ing thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man…
                                               - Gen. 7:21 (KJV)

Over the years, translators of the Bible, for whatever reason (agenda, preserving tradition, etc.) may have
assumed the above groups of individuals were animals, and translated them as
such.
Again, if it was to be portrayed that just
8 human beings, and a sample of all the animals, went aboard the
ark, why not
just say so? Why are these same ancient references almost continually written in this same
elaborate fashion; with
groups of individuals listed in these exact, same ways? There are even a number of
ancient
pagan works which lists these groups in, practically, the same way! Why take the time and trouble
to mention these same groups – over and over?
Maybe each above group
was unique, and different. Maybe they weren't only animals! Maybe each group
had a different look, a different purpose, or a different role in our world – that’s why they were labeled
as such. All of this labeling may have even stemmed way back to roles they could have had in the Garden
of Eden!

                                       Now the beasts and the animals were in the lower story…
                   - The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature Concerning the Good Tidings of Seth 41[82]

Again, what’s the difference between the two… really? It would be much easier, overall, for the Bible to
state that “two of every non-human animal went aboard” if that's what it really meant!

We must allow for the understanding of the peoples of the day, and their "common talk." Sometimes, works
of old might also equate, or label, certain individuals with a specific moral code as unsavory, or uncivilized.
One person could say that another person, or a group of individuals, might act as an "animal” would, or act
like a “beast.” This, as well, could have helped to mask the original meanings of these groups in Genesis.
Put it all together, and we start concluding that these verses might not be referring to animals, but
human beings.
We are all animals, in a way: we’re mammals; we breathe air; we live in communities; we fight; we do many
of the same things as other living, breathing members of the animal kingdom do – with just some extremely
extraordinary physical, mental, and
spiritual characteristics about us!

We all have needs for security and meaning in life. If we use a mind-set like Adam’s - one of reason, ration-
ality, and foresight - we could understand the
exact reason(s) behind our desires to have children; and use
common sense to decide if, and when, the process would be a blessing to us at the time, or no. Under-
standing God’s
true blessings for the human race could go a long way towards bringing us, and everyone
around us,
up; rather than slowly dragging us, and everyone around us, down. This is truly showing what
honor is all about!

Time For the Flood

Beyond overpopulation; beyond the warped desires for these ancients to bring forth “the promised one;”
there was an extremely unbalanced ratio of people who would adopt the “ways” of Cain and the Serpent;
which was soon taking its toll. Their world at hand was about to hit the proverbial “brick wall.” God, being
the compassionate God He always has been, tried to be patient with these individuals, and hoped they
would "leave off" their former ways of life.[74]
As a father would, He threatened them:

         …for when your iniquity is full, the Lord will bring in a flood upon the earth which shall
 
                              cover every abomination and wash the earth from all iniquity.
                                                   - The Book of the Generations of Adam Chap. 8.6[75]

Regardless, people would stubbornly hold onto other "ways" - the twisted dogma the Serpent and Cain
helped incorporate into their lives. Many of them proudly said to God:

                           …Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways.
                                                                              - The Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 108a[76]

God could not refrain any longer from taking vengeance.[77] The up-and-coming flood could be easily
be referred to as the “flood
of lust.”[78]

To Bring Aboard

Another interesting topic: just who were saved aboard the ark, and how does it all relate to the world we see
around us, today? Were there only eight members of one family who were saved? And, if there were, how
could they eventually populate our world into all of the different people we see around us? This has, for
many years, been a controversial topic; even in regards to the authenticity of this Flood, itself! How could
only eight people of
one family do this all? The most logical response to questions such as that is: they
didn't.

Let’s look at a different, but viable, approach to some hard questions one might face on this topic, as well on
the flood, itself.

Adam's "Spirit of Life"

               "(God speaking)… behold I am bringing the flood, water upon the earth, to destroy
                                                   all flesh in which there is the spirit of life…"
                                                                            - Rashi Bereishit (Genesis) 6:17[79]

Just what is this “
spirit of life” (or, as some have put it, the “breath of life”)? Words such as these float
about the pages of the Bible; and, for the most part, are routinely “passed over” in attempts to understand
meaning in the verse. Why is it there in the first place?
Usually, flesh is
alive; Noah didn’t need to bring dead animals and people aboard the ark! Most living things
have a "spirit" of life - it moves; it breathes; it is animated! If the Bible is a perfect document, then, assuredly,
there has to be
some divine reason every word was placed in it. Some we may figure out; some we may
never seem to find a logical answer for, according to our flawed, human rationale. In the case above, we
may find one, however.
What kind of animal or human has this "spirit of life?" If humans, uniquely, have a soul, a soul or spirit
unlike any other non-human animal, then, maybe, that’s what this “spirit of life” is referring to. Ultimately, if
we start to incorporate this into the conversation, we might discover that the Bible, for the most part, was
referring to
people in most of its verses.

We’ve already gathered the assumption (from
The 'Adamic' Flood, and Beyond) that there might not have
been only eight immediate family members of Noah aboard the ark; but more – possibly many more. We’ve
also gathered that these “eight souls” were not only members of one (i.e. Noah’s) family, but eight “special”
Adamic souls – those who represented as having the pure blood of Adam, himself. There may have been
other Adamic souls around, even aboard the ark – but not of Adam’s special,
direct lineage. If we recall the
Genesis 3:15 Prophecy: a direct descendant of Adam and Eve had to, eventually, bring forth the
Messiah,
or savior, who would, spiritually, defeat the direct descendants of the Serpent and Eve (beginning with
Cain)! This has to take place, or play out, or God’s dictation would be null. God cannot be God when
His prophecies don't come about. That's what perfection is. That's about it; that was the reason for at least
some totally pure seeds of Adam and Eve to be aboard the ark! Nothing against any other member of the
human race; God's prophecy
had to be fulfilled, and that's what made these eight souls "special" - it can't
be stated much simpler than that.

Could this “spirit of life” refer to people in general, or have some kind of
connection to these particular
individuals, or maybe some of
both? Let’s see.

We recall (in
The Real Adam and Eve (Part I)), that the way a person thought, or the way they used their
mind
, could be related to what kind of soul (or spirit) they had. This “spirit,” mentioned above, could,
very well, be associated to the individual’s
way of thinking, or mindset, they had.
Most of us have heard of one’s
spirits as either being “raised” or “lowered;” or a person doing something
"in the spirit of…" It seems this
spirit could also stand for whatever attitude or mindset which might
accompany one’s decision-making process - what type of “spirit" they were in. This might be a little complex,
but, this is probably one of the simplest ways to describe it.

Interestingly enough, there are
at least two different kinds of "spirits" mentioned in Genesis. Let’s look at
them, with their meanings, and some Biblical examples:


The Neshamah (Strongs #H5397) - “the Spirit of God imparting life and wisdom;” “the spirit of man;”
”once used for the mind” (Genesius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon)

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (i.e. the
Neshamah) of life; and man (i.e. Adam) became a living soul.
                                - Gen. 2:7 (KJV)

- This spirit could, more or less, represent a “general” spirit given to mankind (even to Adam), by God.

            All in whose nostrils was the breath (the Neshamah) of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
                                                                                                          - Gen. 7:22 (KJV)

- In other words, all of those
uniquely human living beings - those who had this spirit of thought, died.


The Ruwach (Strongs #H7307) - “… as to the mode of thinking and acting, in which sense there is
attributed to any one a steadfast mind… It is sometimes used of a spirit or disposition common to many…
and such a disposition (such a spirit) is said to be divinely given to men, and to be poured upon them from
heaven…”; “… the
rational mind, or spirit…”; “endowment of mind”; “the intellect”; “the Spirit of God… by
which men are led to live both
wisely (Job 32:8) and honestly” (Genesius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon)

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath
(i.e. the Ruwach) of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die.
                                                                                                          - Gen. 6:17 (KJV)

- This spirit could refer to every soul with the direct bloodline of Adam
, or everyone who consistently thought
the way God wanted Adam and his kind to think. In the following verse, everyone who had this direct
bloodline of Adam (or
spirit of thought) died, save the eight that were aboard the ark.

                          And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein
                                                      is the breath (i.e. the Ruwach) of life.
                                                                                                    - Gen. 7:15 (KJV)        

Looking at the wording of this verse, we see the original Hebrew could have meant to say that people
walked aboard the ark,
two at a time; but the verse also seems to be stating that there were two groups or
"classifications," here. There were
two (of everyone else) and two of those flesh who had/used the
Ruwach. The following verse even seems to elaborate:

                   All in whose nostrils was the breath (the Neshamah and the Ruwach) of life,
                                                      of all that was in the dry land, died.
                                                                                                     - Gen. 7:22 (KJV)

This is a very intriguing verse.
Both spirits are mentioned in the original Hebrew; yet the King James
Translators utilized them into one word:
breath! Why combine the two? They are clearly two separate types
of
spirits, yet they were combined, here, as the same.
Again, there
must be a reason the original Hebrew had both of them into this verse. Wouldn’t it just be
easier to state that “all people died who were not aboard the ark?”

Gen. 7:22 (above) also show us that Adam may have also had the
Neshamah, just like any other human
being; but certain individuals – especially those of the direct bloodline of Adam – were
accounted for in the
way that they utilized this
Ruwach, as well - how they thought! We know Adam was known as “the thinker,”
because he thought differently than most of the people around him. He used a great deal of
logic,
rationality, and reason (or, at least tried to)! Not to say that other individuals who do not have Adam’s blood
did not think in this
spirit, or possess the Ruwach. It's just might be the type of mindset an individual uses
is also important, at least to God!

God may have created Adam to utilize a certain
style of thinking - a certain spirit - to be a leader of the
Garden; to be His viceroy on earth; to be
His example of how man should think and act upon the earth!
Using the
Ruwach, one should be the “regulator” of his or her own senses; to have control over his or her
own
emotions; and use it to be the “seat especially of moral character.”[80] Therefore, Adam, and any of
those who wanted to follow the ways of God, should have utilized this
Ruwach as much as possible – be
in the
spirit of God!

This would be Adam’s identification, or “label” of old. These eight souls who went aboard the ark probably
represented eight human beings who were of Adam's direct blood-line
and who thought in the mindset, or
spirit, that God wanted them to! That’s what also made them unique. This will also be important, later on.

Animals, Creatures, and Beasts - the Redux

We’ve seen that one's spirit, or how one thinks, may have a lot to do with their being “akin,” or “close to,”
the ways of God! Along these same lines, Noah may have, then, made a proclamation:

                               “…some of all flesh will come to be saved with me in the ark.
                                                                           - St. Ephrem the Syrian Section VI 9[81]

As we’ve seen, this
flesh involves, not only a relationship to a certain blood-line, but, also, the way one
thinks, or lives their life. This is most important.

Of course, on the other hand, we are not perfect beings. We’ve all felt needs such as these. It’s human
nature; and it’s totally understandable. We are not to point the finger of blame to anyone for having these
thoughts; just entice one to think with
reason before they take a physical and emotional "plunge" such as
this. We just have to look at the reasons
why we desire children, and make the best decision, accounting
to whether it would be affordable for ourselves, to our society, and, to our planet as a whole.
In the past, the results of these people not “taking a step back,” or not taking a "cold, hard look" into their
situation before leaping, were really devastating. Many had to take these "low" moral "roads" to survive:

    …And many who had engaged for Paradise
    Had gone the way of earth
                       (Phifer, 1890, p. 211)[72]

To Be "Fruitful & Multiply," or "Blessed"?

Wait. Doesn’t a variety of Christian beliefs discourage birth-control? Isn’t it said, somewhere in the Bible, that
God wanted us to “be fruitful & multiply” and “fill all the earth?” Isn’t each child a blessing, or gift from God?

Beyond the opinions of many religious leaders, beyond the interpretations of many “movers and shakers” in
our Christian denominations, the best source to look at for answers is, of course, the Bible itself; the original
Hebrew and Greek texts! Some compelling verses in Genesis might have spawn interpretations which also
could have launched people to breed excessively as well, with thoughts stemming from them such as: “we
should not have sex for the sake of pleasure, but only for procreation” or “we should never try to interrupt
the procreation process; but allow God to give us as many children as He dictates.”
A few verses which seem to shed light on where these thoughts might have originated are:

Gen. 8:17 (KJV)
Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may
breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful,
and
multiply upon the earth.

Gen. 9:1 (KJV)
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Gen. 9:7 (KJV)
And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

Sounds like an “open and shut case" for validation of these above thoughts – that is, until we look at the
original Hebrew of the Bible. The English versions are what they are. The above
King James Version, as in
other versions, represents an
interpretation of the Bible’s original Hebrew. Specific words may have been
inserted by those interpreting these Scriptures to collaborate preconceived notions or expectations that
these people might have been carrying! Our modern versions lean,
even more, towards this way of
translating – with even
more “political correctness” being added:

Gen. 8:17 (the New International Version)
…so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it.

Again, it looks “open and shut,” until we look at the corresponding Strong's numbers for each translated
word, here. With these, we can discover how
many more meanings there are for the original Hebrew in
these verses. These verses could mean something a lot different than the assumptions, above.


Let’s look at our first example:

Gen. 8:17 (KJV)
…that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

Does the original Hebrew imply that individuals should “breed abundantly,” here? Also, the verse seems to
state this once, and then repeats almost the same statement right after it; only in different words. Why the
repetition? Why does it say to "breed abundantly" and the
n, soon after, to “be fruitful, and multiply?” It’s
almost the same! Maybe the reason is because this
wasn’t the meanings of the original Hebrew words,
here!

Let’s look at the Hebrew words used here (with their corresponding
Strong’s numbers):

The phrase “that they may breed abundantly” comes from the Hebrew
sharats (H8317). Among others, this
word could mean to “move,” “swarm,” or “teem” – but
nothing about “breeding abundantly.”

The phrase “and be fruitful” comes from the Hebrew
parah (H6509). Among others, this word could also
mean “to show fruitfulness.”

The phrase “and multiply” comes from the Hebrew
rabah (H7235). Among others, this word could also mean
to “be or grow great,” to “do much in respect of,” or “increase greatly.”

Put all of these
other meanings together, and an entirely different meaning for this verse seems to emerge:

Gen. 8:17 (in retranslation)
…that they may “swarm” or “teem” about the earth; to “show their fruitfulness” and be “great” at it!

This represents a very different meaning, overall, than God commanding a group of individuals to blindly
produce offspring! It is encouraging each individual to do their part for their society, as well as work on,
individually, making themselves the
best they could be!

Instead of commanding people to breed abundantly, and seemingly
non-stop, God may have blessed the
people coming off of the ark: petitioned them to be the
best they could be; to get along good together, and
show the world what a wonderful world they could produce!

…this truly sounds more of what a
blessing should.


Next,

Gen. 9:1 (KJV)
…Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Again, we have the same “Be fruitful, and multiply” phase as in Gen. 8:17. Again, we'll use the original
Hebrew translation of to “show their fruitfulness,” and be “great” at it.
The second half of the verse states: “and replenish the earth.” The phrase “and replenish” comes from the
Hebrew word
male’ (H4390). Among others, this word could also mean to “accomplish,” to “fulfill,” or “mass
themselves against.” What could this all mean? Well, if we look at the
next verse (Gen. 9:2) we have:

Gen. 9:2 (KJV)
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the
air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they
delivered.

The above "replenish,” quite probably, could relate to the context of Gen. 9:2; not for people to replenish
the earth,
per se’, but for them to “accomplish” or “fulfill” their destiny on earth; or, even to “mass them-
selves against” whatever might come in their way. This could very easily mean that God
blessed people to
rule the world – ingraining a fear into most of the living animals who might try to oppose them!

Again, this was, probably, another
blessing by God!

Gen. 9:1 (in retranslation)
…to “show their fruitfulness” and be “great” at it; as well as "fulfill" your destiny on the earth.


In the third verse, there is much of the same,

Gen. 9:7 (KJV)
And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

Looking at this verse, again, and we see it seems fairly repetitive. We have the same phrase “Be fruitful,
and multiply,” as well as the phrases “bring forth abundantly” and “multiply therein.” Put them all together,
using our alternate Hebrew meanings, and we have:

Gen. 9:7 (in retranslation)
And you, “show your fruitfulness” and be “great” at it; and “swarm” (or “teem”) about the earth, and be
great” at that, also!

These really sound more like the blessings God would want to give to people; rather than to just “breed,”
“breed,” and still “breed!”

Why would the early religious leaders, as well as the later translators of the Bible into other languages
(even religious leaders today)
, be so adamant about making sure the population increases so much, like
these translations would have it? Why promote so much procreation, without the rational thoughts on any
negative outcomes that might result because of it – what having so many offspring might do to an individual,
and to a society? Why isn't the avenue of birth-control even thrown into play, here? We’ve had effective
birth-control devices for over 100 years, now. There’s no excuse.

Sadly enough, the answer – even though it may not sound good to actually
say it – probably lies in control.
If someone is forwarding religious dogma to us, it only seems logical that he or she would want to extol that
God, ultimately, wants us to be
blessed, and not the other way around.
Many religious “movers and shakers” in our world might take it to heart that they, indeed, hold the "keys" to
our current spiritual
order; the more they can keep people under their umbrella of domination - the more
they can stay
relevant - the better it would be for them. It's quite simple, really.

If we look at the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, for example, we understand their knowledge of scripture should
clearly have spoken to them. They should have understood that Jesus was fulfilling prophecies left and right,
and welcomed him with open arms; but, in fact, the opposite happened. They viewed Jesus as a threat
to their umbrella of control; and we know what happened to him. Jesus seemed contrary to the Old
Testament
protocol they had presided over all! Simply, it was about control and power – it always seemed
to be. Sadly enough, the same goes for many, today.

Many of these individuals may think (although, for the most part, they won’t want to admit it) that common
folks really don't have the foresight or capacity to understand these deeper, spiritual elements of our world.
Common people cannot usually figure out “what is” or “what is not” the right way to do things right
; that is,
without
their help. Ordinary folk cannot really make an accurate decision on when sex is or is not lustful or
excessive, for example; so, now, it’s necessary to have members of the clergy to step in, and
regulate it.

We know that there are
other meanings of fornication beyond the usual “sex before marriage;” and we also
know that God wasn’t really against the sex act,
itself – just excessive, indecent uses of sex - the wrong
use! If it would be up to an individual to decide these things, the clergy wouldn't be as
necessary as they
are in this situation! It's a little humorous to think that, according to
them, absolutely no sex is to be had by
anybody, unless it was under
their blessing (through marriage)! Talk about control...

It works the same with
having children. According to many of these religious leaders, lay-people may not
have the understanding of God’s way for their lives - to be able to decide for
themselves when, or when
not, to have children. It’s just easier for the clergy to lay down a “carpet-dictatorial:”
no birth-control is to be
had; let the "chips fall where they may;" let
God decide when the birth of a child should happen to an indi-
vidual! Besides, it’s obvious that there are advantages for these religious leaders to have the general
populous to keep on
growing: the more offspring, the more people under the “umbrella” of the church.
See how this works?

On top of it, the general populous would be spending so much of their time trying to find ways to feed and
raise all of these children that they probably would not a lot of time
left to think for themselves; which forces
them to
further need the religious clergy all the more! A lot of their spiritual decision-making is now left “to
the experts.” Sadly enough, the birthing of children can also be about giving religious leaders
validity and
control - keeping their positions in the community relevant, and keeping power.

Does the Bible really say we should not participate in something as
natural as sex; only under strict
circumstances set up by some church? The patriarchs of the Old Testament had concubines, and God
didn't seem to condemn them for that! Does the Bible really say we shouldn’t enjoy it, or use it
only for the
sake of procreation? Does the Bible really stifle people from controlling the rate they have children, or
should one have as many children as they physically, possibly can – even if it results in emotional or
financial burdens, or situational hardships?

Not surprisingly, some ancient writers of the
Talmud interpreted the above “to be fruitful and multiply”
phrase as a
commandment; not a blessing![73] It doesn’t make much sense that God would desire us to
be miserable, to end up being poor, or continually be “behind the eight ball,” in order to “prove” our devotion
to Him. God commanded to Adam to think with a rational, thinking mind. Wouldn’t
reason and logic help us
decide what we are about to do
might, or might not, become right for us, at the time? Sure, kids can be
great… in the right situation.
The above verses of the Bible should represent a
blessing. God wants us to be able to teem together, as a
successful group of individuals, in harmony; to allow each of us to be the
best we could be; and show the
world around us our productivity!
That’s what a blessing truly is!

Why is this above discussion so important? Because
human beings are important; and every time we
produce a child we are producing another living, breathing individual who needs to be fed, sheltered, and
clothed; and our earth has only
so-many resources. We need to understand the mindsets of a number of
“movers and shakers” out there, and see how they have devastated the world of our past; and are doing it
again, today! These people took some good ideals and
twisted them, to benefit their own vested interests.
As good as having children might sound, all of their twisted rationales
did help to incorporate lives of theft,
violence, and poverty; and helped migrate their society into something so deplorable that God had no other
choice than to destroy them all with a flood.

Because of all the chaos that probably resulted from all of this overpopulation, the pagan “gods” decided that
the people below were beginning to be a little “noisy,” as well.[59]

                        …the god Enlil (the Serpent) feels disturbed in his sleep due to the noise
                                     and commotion caused by the growing population of mankind.
                                                     ("Adam, the Flood & The Tower of Babel", n. d., p. 8)[60]

Of course, pagan mythology would not credit the
God of the Bible with control over any affairs in our world.
Enlil (the Serpent) was, according to their beliefs, a major god over the universe. He, and a few others,
attempted their own version of “population control;” sending “a plague, then a drought, a famine, and then
saline soil, all in an attempt to reduce the numbers of mankind.”[61] Because of this, the soil became “salty”
and “unfruitful.”[62] Diseases and malnutrition would plague the people. Ultimately, their efforts didn't pay
off, however.[63] The people kept breeding, even more than ever. It seemed, “the god’s only way to control
population” was through a flood.[64]

In a direct correlation to the above, there could have been
another mind-set of these ancient people; a mind-
set which might have contributed a great deal to how one looked at
sex, child-bearing, and overpopulation
as a whole.

Fulfilment of the Genesis 3:15 Prophecy

    And man shall deem himself o'ercrowded, and
    Destroy his fellows. Yet when, as 'twas said.
    "The earth is filled, then I will bring in peace."
    "0h, what a thing is evil!" Noah cried.
                     (Phifer, 1890, p. 287)[65]

What could all of this mean?

Many ancients of the day (pagan or no) probably had
some knowledge of the Genesis 3:15 Prophecy. As we
know, a good number of people would even begin to worship a couple characters in the Garden of Eden![66]
Assuredly, the prophecy was common-place, in one form or another – whether it be the true account, or
some twisted, pagan-influenced version of the truth.
Most people, however, were probably aware that a
savior would be born into their world, and this savior
would be the one responsible for bringing all of the righteous out of their miserable existence. Many lives
were probably heading towards some state of worthlessness, hopelessness, or other negativity - an end
result of following the Serpent’s “ways.”
The desire of many was to get
back to some state of “perfection,” or a “perfect world," like Adam and Eve
once had.[67] These “ways” of Cain and the Serpent were, in actuality, driving most towards the
opposite
extreme: to the lowliness of “perdition;” and most everyone knew it (but wouldn't want to admit it)! Self-
esteems were on the line; almost no one would want to admit that
their own desires or choices got them,
more often than not, in the states they were in.
So, to try to find a way “out” of their current situations, and not take any of the “heat” for making wrong
decisions, they soon began to look for a quick and easy route to their “salvation." Individuals began to hope
that
they could be the “lucky” one who'd conceive the “promised one.” Maybe it would be their child who
would be the one who'd start a “new age” of peace and harmony. So, as a result of that mind-set,
having
children would be a great commodity; it would be like playing the lottery. Noah even may have had a sense
to what was going one, and was saddened when he saw what would happen to the world, as a result.

    With this idea to spur them, marriage was
    The easier contracted, and the wife,
    Losing desire for other honor, was
    Degraded to that sphere alone…
                (Phifer, 1890, p. 160)[68]

Other reasons for being together, such as marriage and commitment, were falling by the wayside.
Unrestrained breeding for the sake of “the promised one” was, yet,
another reason why people were
creating so many offspring, and
wanted so many – they believed this would help them find true honor and
meaning to their lives. This “mark of stature” would, not only be accomplished by the lucky one who brought
forth "the savior," but, seemingly,
all who tried! People felt like they were contributing positively by filling the
world with children, as well as feeling positive reinforcement from those around them; slowly, of course,
overloading their society with offspring they really couldn't afford to be producing, anymore. There
truly was
unbridled over-population; and not only through the result of elicit, immoral sex!
Many would produce as
many descendants as life would allow them; to “further their odds.” The more
children, the more they “did their part.” Not a lot of rational thought was put towards the ramifications of so
many people in the land, with so
few resources!

    The race grew great in number, men began
    To say, "Now is the prophecy fulfilled,
    The world is full; and one of woman born
    Shall shortly for us now regain our bliss."
    And men sought the Messiah.
    For almost every woman hoped that she
    might bear the Leader who was promised them,
    And thus gain honor from her countrymen.
           (Phifer, 1890, p. 202-203)[69]

They felt a sense of “purpose;” they were doing what everyone around them was doing; but the “promised
one” never showed up! Times were beginning to become more and more desperate. The population was,
indeed, exploding; but no “savior” to save them. Corruption was beginning to take place among the people
because of it. They were starting to get violent; attempting to steal each other’s resources. Isn't this starting
to sound a lot like today?

All they would eventually produce was a land filled to near-capacity. Things were not getting better, but,
quite the opposite. One rationale that some, today, might give in favor of overpopulation could be something
such as: “yes, there are millions upon millions of people being continually born; but, maybe the human race
will eventually conceive the individual who would be able to solve hunger, or find a cure for cancer.” Again,
as much as this sounds like a good thing, it’s similar to what was going on back then. Both scenarios are like
betting on the lottery: spending millions and millions of dollars to do it. But, spending a lot of money is one
thing; producing
children – all of whom need to be fed, sheltered, and clothed (for the rest of their lives) –
with hopes of conceiving one who might solve world hunger is another! Cancer is
still not cured; the world is
still not totally fed; yet, we have millions upon millions of additional people in our world. Many, themselves,
might end up being hungry, as a result! "Hopeful" thoughts, such as this, are unbelievably irrational, yet we
continue to add millions upon millions of people to our earth, as it was done in ancient times. Why?

On top of it, the need for one to produce a lot of offspring is not the same today as it was in ancient times.
Many of us don’t need children to work in the fields, to water the flocks, or help to keep the family afloat,
financially. Most of us no longer live like nomads, or have fields to be cared for, or domesticated animals that
need tending.[70]

Today, many of us want a
purpose, or reason-to-be; so, we create a child with hopes they would be able to
fill some void in our lives. Also, if “everyone’s doing it” around us, we’ll feel honor from others when we do
"our part." We're also being a dutiful parent; and people around us will, hopefully, give us
honor and respect
because of it. Aren’t a lot of these reasons similar as in the ancients? Do not so many of us rely on our
offspring to “
complete” us - give us some manner of “salvation,” or “rescue,” for our soul or spirit?
As one could surmise:

                                    Only terrestrial beings need to find immortality in their children.
                                                                     ("Enoch & the Nephilim: Liber VII", n. d., p. 53)[71]

Moving forward: as one could guess, most problems of these ancient times arose from sexual unions that
God clearly said should have
never been.[48] How many of the physical, mental, and emotional “vices” that
plague people today could have, very well, originated back
then, as a result of these genetic infusions![49]
Regardless of these genetics, the
knowledge these angels passed on to those they fornicated with was an
issue in itself! This information may have sounded helpful to them,
at first; but there was more to it. Indeed,
there were reasons that God didn’t want certain knowledge to be imparted to human beings, as we soon
shall see:

The holy scriptures… say… that there is a race of demons who avail themselves of women… nearly every
treatise, both public and esoteric, made mention of this… Having stumbled… they remained outside heaven,
because they taught mankind everything wicked and nothing benefiting the soul.
                                                                             - The Chronography of George Synkellos[50]

Eventually, coming into these ”ways,” and utilizing their knowledge at hand, many people were beginning to,
indeed, head “into perdition.”[51] These dark, "fleshy" sides of life would begin to corrupt them; as well as
everyone, and
everything, else; the end-result was some manner of worthlessness, decay, or negative
side-effects to one's self-esteem or worth.
Some of the things the Serpent, Cain, and the other Nephilim brought to these people (such as housing or
irrigation) might have sounded helpful; but, for how long? God, it seemed, wanted His people (at least during
these early times) to live the simple life: in tents, in peace, and in harmony with the world around them. How
could these
other cultural advancements be so bad for the people of the day? We mustn’t forget: the addition
of a
corrupted mind with authority over this knowledge could easily change its dynamics! And, in these
times, the possibility of their knowledge being in
the wrong hands, and being devastating to practically
everyone it touches, was, obviously, very great! If we look at
nuclear science, for example, we see that it
may have started out a great source of knowledge; used in many ways for the assistance for man; but look
at where it ended up! Look at what resulted from
compounding and expanding on this knowledge: nuclear
weapons
. These, in the wrong hands, definitely could devastate our world to a horrible degree!

(God speaking to these fallen angels)… ye work those works which are forbidden because they bring only
death and destruction, and ye boast in the greatness of your power, but your power is dust and ye would
leave the whole earth desolate if the Lord God were not to intervene…
                                                                          - The Book of the Generations of Adam Chap. 8.6[52]

We must remember, the misuse of this knowledge was partly to blame for God having to destroy their
ancient world in the first place!

Other Problems of their Day

We’ve already discussed negative end-results that were already brewing in this new world of Cain, the
Serpent, and the Nephilim:
corruption, robbery, violence, etc. As if these weren’t bad enough, one of the
end-results that infuriated God most of all was the
lechery (or lewdness) of the people, and the depravity
these actions brought to our world:

…(there) was so much sin on the earth in the sin of lechery, which was misused against nature, wherefore
God was displeased and determined in his prescience to destroy man that he had made…
                                                   - The Golden Legend or Lives of the Saints: Volume I 64[53]

                                                 He would overlook everything but lewdness…
                                                                  - Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu 34[54]

The words
lechery, lewdness, and, even, lasciviousness could be used almost interchangeably. All three,
more or less, are “unrestrained or excessive indulgence of sexual desire.”[55] We’ve talked about
sexual
lust as a form of lust in The Real Adam and Eve. Again, this type of sex was manifested as the “sin of
wrong use.” As usual, when people begin to use something
of this earth in an attempt to fulfill, or perfect,
their desires for self-esteem they will always fall short. The same thing with sex applies here: the
act isn't
the problem (as we know), but the
way it was used. Excessive and unbridled sex was, and still is, another
attempt of one to try to raise their own self-esteem - to achieve some personal height of “perfection” in their
life. It feels good; it makes one feel better. As with any “hunger,” however, people cannot be
totally satisfied
by something
of this earth; that feeling of complete, spiritual satisfaction has to come from God. Any other
attempt will fall short because earthly things can never completely feed, or fulfill,
spiritual needs.

These sexual indulgences would, however, pass on a great number of possibly-
negative ramifications to our
ancient world. Much of it resulted in an often-unavoidable result:
offspring.
In a very interesting twist to our normal approach, there are a good number of
pagan myths and stories of
this early time - Babylonian, Akkadian and Sumerian – that paralleled the flood of Noah. These also had
their
own interpretations of what caused the flood (and, as one could guess, it wasn’t because of the sinful
deeds of the people)! The major reason these pagan accounts gave for the onset of the flood were
overpopulation, and a “noisiness” of the people!

Enlil's Interpretations

Column 3:
7 Ishtar (a.k.a. Eve) cried like a woman in travail.
13 "I alone bore my people.
14 [And now] like the spawn of fish they fill the sea.”[56]

Ancient pagan mythology, being what it was, does have interesting interpretations in the story of
Mystery
Babylon
. Unlike Biblical traditions, which place immorality and angelic-human offspring as the primary
causes of the flood, pagan accounts point to overpopulation, as stated; which, of course, probably resulted
from all of the illicit, decadent sex that was going on![57] Interestingly, if we think about it, much of this
does
seem to mirror a lot of problems we have with our world, today!

IV
38 people not diminished
39 more numerous than ever.[58]

From Nephilim & Cainites, we understand there was “a counterfeit incarnation in human flesh” imparted into
mankind. The mixtures of bloodlines between terrestrial angel and human could simply be understood in
terms of
flesh: “strange” or “different” flesh, as mentioned in the Bible.[47] There were genetic problems
which could, indeed, have resulted from these angelic-human infusions – physical and
mental.
Many of us may still be a little uneasy with the ability of fallen, terrestrial angels to copulate with mortal
women. We’ve already discussed a number of Biblical examples which support the concept of angels being
able to take on human form. If they can eat, drink, and otherwise live like human beings, why couldn't they
do
everything like a human being? Even in the New Testament, there seems to be written evidence for this
probability. If we look at II Cor. 5:1-3, for example, we see this statement:

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house
not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with
our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
                                                                                               - II Cor. 5:1-3 (KJV)

Again, we are confronted with what seems a
purposeful misinterpretation, or “politically correct” assumption
of the day. Instead of thinking of the possibility of angels being able to take on the form of man; instead of
looking –
honestly looking - into what the words might logically be saying, these early translators had to put
out their "P.C." assumption (of the time) into what these verses are saying; even if it sounds
ridiculous!
It seems the translators portrayed the subject of these verses as a “house,” but, looking deeper into what the
verse might actually be saying, it seems to mean
so much more. Besides, when are we "clothed with" a
house? Looking, again, at the other
Strong’s meanings for the original Greek, here, and the whole context
seems to come to light, and make more sense.
Let’s look at these same verses again, with some words replaced by
other meanings for the original Greek,
here (according to
Strong’s):

For we know that if our earthly dwelling of the human body (in which the soul dwells as in a tent, and which
is taken down at death
) were dissolved, we have a edification of God, a dwelling not made with hands,
eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to put on our
dwelling place (of the body as
a dwelling place for the spirit
) which is from heaven: If so to clothe oneself we shall not be found naked (of
the soul, whose garment is the body, stripped of the body, without a body).
                                                                                             - II Cor. 5:1-3 (in retranslation)

In other words, we followers of God will inherit a magnificent, heavenly
body once we are dead; unlike the
earthly body which we dwell in now. This is not talking about a physical house, or dwelling! Why make the
context of the verse sound so complex, by trying to make it attune to the thinking, or traditions, of their day?
Why dwell so much on this? Simple; because there is
one Greek word, above, which is only mentioned one
other time in the New Testament: oiketerion (Strong’s G3613). The English word “house” was used, above,
as the translation for this Greek word; but now we see it could also mean, ”of the body as a dwelling place
for the spirit.” Interestingly enough, the
only other place this word is used is in Jude 1:6:

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation (i.e. oiketerion), he hath
reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
                                                                                                             - Jude 1:6 (KJV)

This brings us more “up to speed” in what we were talking about, here. What did these angels do so wrong
in this verse? It’s obvious: they just didn’t come down from their "houses" in heaven and do absolutely
nothing in this world; they did something very wrong! If we do the same to this verse as we did earlier –
insert
other Strong meanings into the context - then we'll see that the word oiketerion means practically the
same as it did in the above II Cor. 5:2. It also adds
so much to the meaning of this verse!

And the angels which kept not their first place, principality, rule, magistracy (of angels and demons), but left
their own
dwelling place (of the body as a dwelling place for the spirit), he hath reserved in everlasting chains
under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
                           - Jude 1:6 (in retranslation)

The verse, as before, wasn’t talking about physical abodes, or “houses!” Again, the angels who left their
“first place,” or original “dwelling,” did so to be able to cohabit with earthly women; to “cross the line,” and
even produce mixed-blooded offspring as a result. That, surely, should have merited some type of punish-
ment by God. The above interpretation of this verse is almost undeniable, factoring in the context of verse
immediately after it:

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to
fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal
fire.
                                                                                                       - Jude 1:7 (KJV)

Again, looking at these two verses in the context they should be looked at, and we see the meaning is
obvious: these angels did not keep their heavenly bodies, but left their own estate to take on another form.
Because of this fornication, they were punished severely for it!
How can one really deny all of the above, or try to “dumb down” the words of the Bible, in this case? Why try
to make it fit into some “politically correct” agenda? It’s amazing how so many try to eliminate the possibility
of fallen angels leaving their angelic form bodies taking on earthly, human form, and being able to sin in
ways such as this. It’s incredible how much of this "dumbing-down" is
still going on, today.

The people living in their immediate area would, again, benefit from the agricultural knowledge these “gods”
gave them. Ninlil (Eve) continued on, having a major role, here. She:

-
increased the cultivation, by lofty irrigation from divided watercourses.[41]
-
increased the harvest.[42]
-
was filled with “brilliant intelligence” and a “wise goodness.”[43]

Their new fortification, this time, was built on a high rock, which would, not as easily, be washed away…[44]

…at least not until the coming of Noah’s flood!

This way of life, probably, was the reason why so many of Eve’s epithets (or “goddess” titles) were asso-
ciated, in one way or another, with
fertility; or why she, so-often, was thought of as the "goddess of fertility;"
the people thought she “brought so much good to the land.” We can surmise, from this, that Enlil would also
be considered the "god of fertility."
Could this also be the reason that Ninlil (Eve), in pagan religion, was often worshiped alongside of Enlil (the
Serpent); and why they were considered the greatest Patriarch and Matriarch of these early ancestor-based
beliefs (and mythologies)? All of it was probably made possible because Eve might have actually lived
with
the Serpent for extended periods of time (while she was away from Adam).

What we get out of these tablets are some very interesting twists in the story of Adam and Eve: maybe, after
the Fall, it wasn’t always so rosy between the two. Maybe they would separate, quite often, from each other.
Ancient tradition tells us that they were miserable after having to depart from their garden abode; often
depressed, crying, and probably tormented with guilt. They, assuredly, blamed each other for their situation,
as well. Could Eve have gone back
to the Serpent for her lodging and sustenance after Adam decided he
wanted no part of her? After all,
the Serpent may very well have been the father of her firstborn children:
Cain and Abel!

From these cuneiform tablets, we, also, can see how the Serpent, the Nephilim, Cain, and possibly
Eve
herself, could have had great appeal to these people of ancient times, through this knowledge; and it could
have been a lot more than most of us had ever thought.

In all fairness, did Eve
purposely want to adopt the “ways” of her son and the Serpent? Did she whole-
heartedly make a turn for “the other side?” Most probably, she wasn’t a full-blown believer in what they
preached, nor an adopter of their “ways.” She probably knew better than to completely trust a terrestrial
angel who already deceived her in the past, but she needed a way to survive. She wanted to do something
good for the people around her; and she loved Cain, her son. She may have become a victim of circum-
stance: abandoned by her husband and left to fend for herself. Eve may have found solace living with Cain
and the Serpent, and decided to continue on with them during this time – “just going through the motions.”
Besides, Adam wasn’t exactly the epitome of God’s viceroy on earth after the Fall, either. There was a lot of
fornication going on: humans going “after strange flesh,” or desiring "flesh of a different kind.” A lot of people
were cohabiting with those with angelic blood, as well as following their “ways.” Adam would fall, a number
of times, “to the flesh,” while he was apart from Eve.[45] He fornicated with many women with angelic
bloodlines. He may have even, on occasion, returned to
Lilith, his first wife, and copulated with her! We all
lose our way from time to time; Adam and Eve were of no exception.

At the conclusion of these seven tablets, their second settlement, and their new, Great “House” (or temple),
would eventually be destroyed by lightning, and a huge thunderstorm.[46] We don’t know if this was Noah’s
Flood, but it’s quite possible.

The ways of God that Adam and other people tried to live by were slowly becoming on the decline. These
agricultural “advancements,” as well the “ways” of Cain and the Serpent, were on an upswing. What be-
came popular with “the other side” would eventually be the new, “politically correct” norm; now turning into
what would be the “main-stream.”

The Rise of the Fallen Ones

Anu (Adam) would have nothing to do with what was starting to take place here; and he went out to live the
remainder of his days in a place of isolation - apart from what the world was slowly becoming.[14]
Probably feeling some solace, Lady Ninlil (Eve), after being told to leave Adam's presence, began to settle in
the same area as Enlil (the Serpent) did; even ending up living in the private quarters of Enlil himself![15]
It seems that, throughout their cohabitation, she cared for him as her lord.[16]

Not only were they keeping each other company, they, both, began utilizing the knowledge they had in the
Garden, and continued with their post-Fall farming techniques. The area where they were located was now
known as
Kharsag - a name which, most probably, equated to the land of Eden. Kharsag may have been
one of the first "settlements" outside the Garden, nestled alongside a huge mountain chain.

Anu (Adam), as stated, did not have any desire to be part of this community, so he “returned to the
‘Heavens’.”[17] Could this mean that he returned to another
way of life, or another mountainous area
(mountains, in ancient times, could easily have been associated with a "oneness" or "closeness" to the sky
or heavens)?

Enlil (the Serpent), then, commanded a reservoir to be constructed.[18] With the help of the Nephilim, they
would construct - and control – the irrigation process of most of this land around them.[19] There was more:

       …the lordlings (i.e. the Nephilim) undertook the work and suffered the toil as if they were men…
                               their chief was Enlil; directly responsible for them was Ninurta…
                                                                           (O' Brien, 1988, p. 149)[20]

Who was
Ninurta? Ninurta was thought to be the son of Enlil (the Serpent) and Ninlil (Eve).[21] Who could
have been this famous son of theirs, other than
Cain? If this was the case, then Cain might have also had a
hand in this early expanse of power:

…Cain was a man of great ability and great intelligence… He taught them to build dikes, to make embank-
ments along the sides of the river channel… dikes which would hold the rivers within their channels even
during the flood season… This enabled them to build their cities with the assurance that they would not be
washed away during the next flood season.
               ("What Happened to Cain", n. d., p. 16-17)[22]

Much of this area, in fact, was now considered to be a giant reservoir; enclosed by walls of a ravine.[23]
Enlil would soon go on to teach the people how to dig canals and artificial channels, to help with this
irrigation.[24] He also “established pastures…”[25] Finally, he began construction of a great house (or
“temple”) - that of which was devoted to, no one other than,
himself.

Through all of this farming and building, people of the area probably thought that Enlil (the Serpent) had
“brought prosperity to the Land.”[26]  Also, because of this knowledge, “food was greatly increased for the
people.”[27] Now, the people who lived under Enlil, apparently, could store their own food. As we know, Cain
(a.k.a.
Sargon) showed dominance over the world of commerce by controlling the salt trade (see Babylonian
Gods of Genesis), which would have appealed to these people all the more. Now, they could preserve a lot
of the food they had stored! Ninlil (Eve) would become the “Lady of the Grain Enclosure,” for being instru-
mental in the construction of at least one good-sized, fenced-in grain enclosure.[28]
Through all of these “advancements,” Enlil (the Serpent), Ninlil (Eve), and Ninurta (Cain) were probably held
in very high esteem; credited for bringing “life” to the settlement of people around them.

                                                …the Watercourse… (was) the life of the Land.
                                                                                      (O' Brien, 1988, p. 149)[29]

Because of all this, Ninlil (Eve) began to eat well.[30] She lived well. Later, she spoke on the construction
of a new, “bright” house.[31] Living with the Serpent, at least for Eve, probably
did “brighten” her days,
and her self-esteem (at least temporarily). She was able to maintain somewhat of a comfortable life. Anu
(Adam) got wind of what was going on, here, and was strongly opposed to it.[32]

A huge flood would eventually wipe out most of the strong houses Enlil (the Serpent) would establish.[33]
Apparently, this storm was a “once in a thousand year” storm; the result was total destruction of the entire
Kharsag settlement.[34] This probably wasn’t the great flood of Noah, but a local flood - a flood which drove
a great number of people living there into many different directions. Their great, “bright” house – the house
that the Serpent and Eve both may have lived in - was covered over.[35]

After this destruction at Kharsag, the Anannage leaders (i.e. the Nephilim) decided to move abroad, each
founding their own City-States.[36] The original Kharsag was never rebuilt.[37]

Enlil (the Serpent), and those who stayed behind, would try to rebuild something in the spirit of their former
settlement; not far from where they were once located. They began constructing new and “lofty” places to
live.[38] Ninlil (Eve) also continued to stay in the dwelling of Enlil.[39] Eventually, a “Great House of Enlil,” as
it was to be called, was built on a high rock; with Ninlil (Eve), again, rejoicing “at its brightness.”[40]