The Lessons of Eden: the two religions
The evolutionary hypothesis about the development of religion pretends that a primitive belief in ghosts gave rise to faith in animism and fetishism, magical rites and local deities, nature gods, pantheons, and finally to a Supreme Being. But this hypothesis is flat-out falsified by the evidence. Putting aside the propaganda and bias which still and always shows up in textbooks, a competent survey of the actual customs and cultures of tribal peoples reveals that virtually all societies — most notably the most ‘primitive’ — retain a memory of the Supreme Being, without having moved through any ‘evolutionary’ stages. While there is usually a lower tier of unruly spirits which need to be placated, there is always the high god, the sky god, the god of heaven, the god who lives behind the sun or above the treetops. While the theological terms which nomadic peoples use may seem quaint to us, such descriptions have the effect of referring to the God who lives outside the universe.
We do not find an evolution toward monotheism, but rather a degeneration into polytheism. It is precisely the inversion of ‘evolution’ which anthropology reveals. “In proportion as we withdraw from the most primitive peoples and approach the semi-civilized ones, these three elements — magic, ghost worship and nature worship — take deeper root and finally overrun the ancient veneration of the Supreme Being to such a degree as to render it no longer visible.”[1] Simple cultures have the higher concept of God, compared to more ‘developed’ societies. This purer memory attributes to God “the highest essential and moral character, and [is] well calculated to inspire the peoples that acknowledge and honor Him with the high value of active life and solemn moral virtue. Heaven is His dwelling place; in early times He was usually on earth among men, but went away from them on account of a sin of theirs. Thus He is a person in heaven.”[2]
The post-Flood patriarchs were clearly monotheistic. For example, among the many rich finds recovered from the pre-dynastic tombs of Ur (which date very near the time of Abraham, by my reconstruction of ancient Babylonian history), no cultic objects have been identified. Several centuries later, in the 1700's bc, there were social sanctions in place against idolatry (Job 31:26-28): “If I beheld the sun, when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness; and my heart hath been secretly enticed, and my mouth hath kissed my hand; this also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge.” The debased cultic religions — centered around ghosts and totems and orgies and magic — certainly became the most prominent spiritual force in the ancient cultures, but they were not the sole force. Behind the demons of the pantheons, with their rivalries and blood lust, pockets of true, ethical monotheists manifestly survived.
What can be said of the Old World is true of the New World as well. In the pre-Columbian Americas, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, from Inca to Eskimo, the same attributes are universally ascribed to the high god or sky-god. “We may safely presume that the concept of sky-god belongs to the most ancient period in the history of religious feeling . . . . [He is] always identical in essential definition. . . .neither the migrations of races nor the diffusion of myths and folk-lore affords the slightest justification of the fact.”[3] The conclusions of ‘normal’ anthropology cannot reasonably account for this phenomenon. But the Bible explains the data superbly, if tersely.
If all mankind diffused from a single region, then it is reasonable to expect that some vestige of the universal culture should be found, even in the most remote regions of human habitation. We would expect all cultures to remember that deemed most important. As it turns out, what is remembered, above all else, is the presence and character of God. We find the evidence for this memory in a universal ‘morpheme’ — a smallest meaningful part of a word.
Now, the earliest written word for ‘God’, in Sumer, stood also for the concepts of glory ("brightness" or "day") and reverence ("king" or "hero"). It came to be read variously as El ("the Almighty"), JH ("the Eternal"), Anu or dingir ("the God of Heaven"), and even Ya-ti ("I am"). Most significantly for our purposes, it was also pronounced as Ti ("the Most High").
In this Ti, we find a universal name for God as He appears in the Bible. We find a form of it in the Hindu generic term for "god", deva, said to derive most directly from the Sanskrit div or shiv ("shine"); Aramaic, the language of Babylon, has the cognate ziv, "brightness or splendor." But deva may also derive from the Aramaic thav (tov, "good") — which itself derives from Ti. In any case, deo or deus, theos and zeus derive from one or the other; the ‘v’ is added in, as demonstrated in the Greek neos and the Latin novus, both meaning ‘new’.
The morpheme /ti/ or /di/ “is present as a complete word in isolating languages like Chinese and inflectional languages like English. It is found as a prefix, suffix, or infix in agglutinative languages like Finnish and Navajo and polysynthetic languages like Algonquin.”[4] In Table 1, I have summarized Fraser's information. Even a cursory look must bring home the correspondences, where we find effectively the same words in Mesopotamia and in the Pacific Islands. The emphasized words contain the morpheme, and material in parentheses gives geographical data, e.g. (language) or (tribe — location).
Table 1
"High God" Universal morpheme: /ti/ or /di/
Mesopotamia: Dingir, Digir, dimir; Anuti [Sumerian, "the God of Heaven"]; Shaddai [Hebrew]. Take note of where forms of these words can be found. Ya'ti [Assyrian, "I am"].
Indo-European: Deity (English), Dio (Italian), Dieu (French), Dios (Spanish), Deu (Catalonian), Deus (Latin), Theos (Greek), Dia (Old Irish, Gaelic), Duw (Welsh), Dew (Cornish), Doue (Breton), Dievas (Lithuanian), Dieus (Lettish), Dyu (Sanskrit).
Africa: Dyu (Bassa — central Liberia), Dyem (Angas — Nigeria), Deban (Agoas — Abyssinia), Asiata (Nanda — Gold Coast), Awondo (Munshi — Nigeria), Katonda (Boganda — Bantus of East Africa), Tilo (Thonga — South Africa), Ti xo (Kaffir — Basutoland); Da [serpent god] (Dahomey).
Asia: T'ien (Chow), Shang Ti (Mandarin), Sheung Tai (Cantonese), Sing Di (Hainanese), Son Ti (Hakka — Kwangtung), Shiong Doi (Kien Ning), Zong Ti (Tai Chow); N'du Chiong (Pnong — Indochina), Shiang Tho (Kamhow — Burma), Sang Da (Chungchi — Kweishou Provence); Shinto (Japan) {related concept: Ta kama "the Plain of High Heaven", Daiboth, Dia koku, Hotei [gods]}; Nis Ti (Ainu — Japan); Siang Tiei (Korea) {related concepts: Tigyama, Tachue, [deities]}. Related concepts: Wati "king" (Lisu); tuan "chief" (Malay); du "chief" — (Kachin).
North America: Tirawa Atius "Father Above" (Pawnee), Tai komol "god of Heaven" (Yuki — northern California), Yinantuwingyan (Hupa, Chilula — n. California), Tu Chiapa (Yuma), Tu kma (Juanenos), To chopa "the Beneficent One" (Havasupia — western Arizona), Tgha, T'ta Nitosi (northern Canada), Ta hit (Tlingits — Alaska), Ti ho "the Power of the Shining Heavens" (Nootka — Vancouver), Tachet, Taxet (Haida — Queen Charlotte Islands), Toiten (Kuskowin Eskimos), Gutip (Greenland, Labrador), Wakenda, Orenda (Sioux, Iroquois), Esauge Tuh emissee (Muskohegan). Related terms (Salish family, eg. Chinook): Sahale Tyee "Chief Above" [ethical], Timanawas "sinister forces" [degenerate cult].
Central/South America: Teo (Aztec, Toltec, Teotihuanican), Tupan (Tupi-Guarani — Amazon), Tumpa (Chorotes — Gran Chaco), Tuma (British Giuana), Tupa (Paraguay). Related terms: Titicaca, Tiki (Easter Island).
Pacific/Australia: Toehan (Loda — Sumatra), Tuhan (Pakkua — northern Celebese & Battak — Sumatra), Tuma (Makushi — British New Guinea); Anete (Rade — Annam), Anotu (Lat — Papua), Anuti (Ragetta — New Guinea), Anutule (Kat — Papua), Anoto (Yabin — eastern New Guinea), Anito (Ilcano — northern Luzon). Atnatu [the eternal, self-existing God who expelled rebels to earth] (Kaitish), Kela di, Daramulen (Kurnai). Atua "God of Space": Otua (Tonga) Aitu (Rotoma), Toa (Samoa), Atu Motua (Mangareva) Akua [/t/ = /k/] (Hawaii). Tan "Creator": Tan Mahuta (Maori), Kan (Hawaii). Tangaroa "Eternal": Tagaro (Banks Island), Ta'aroa (Tahiti), Tagaloa-lag "god of the Heavens" (Samoa), Hangaroa "god of Oceans" [/t/ = /h/] (Easter Island).
Ural-Altic, Turkic, Samoyed (northern Asia): Tengri (Kalmuck, Mongolian), Tengeri (Buriat), Tangere (Tartar), Tanara (Yakut & Dolgan). Related term: tigir "holy sacrifice to the sky god" (Turkish).
Dingir "the God of Heaven" (Sumerian).
Not only is the lofty concept of "deity", and its very root, common to virtually all tongues, but so is even our familiar word, "God" (see Table 2). We can trace the root of this exact word in the migrations of its morpheme. In all the languages in which it appears, its meaning is everywhere precisely as we would expect.
Table 2
Indo-European — "God"
Bhaga (Aryan), Bog (Russian, Serbo-Croatian), Bogu (Czech-Slovak), Buh (Bohemian), Baga (Avestan — India), Bag Da, Vagh Deo (Kurkus — west central India), Bhagda, Khudai, Bhagwan (Balahis — w.c. India), Hudah (Balochi — Baluchistan), Hudai (Persian), Kudai (Kirghis — Asian steppes), Khu Da (northern India: Brahui — Baluchistan; Musalmani — Punjab; Urdu — Hindustan), Gu ti (Gutian [Qurti, Kurds]), Gtt (German), Gud (Danish, Swedish), God (English)
In our quest for truth, we may hear any number of conflicting stories. The one we choose to believe is that in which we put our faith. Shallow thinkers may scoff at the idea of actually professing faith, but such ridicule may be dismissed as a symptom of adolescence. This is easily proven, when we consider that the alternative to faith is confusion. Do not be deceived: everything we believe is accepted not by knowledge, but by faith. This too is easily proven, with the simple realization that it is only faith which allows us to accept the evidence of our senses, only faith which allows us to accept the conclusions of our reasoning, and ultimately only faith which allows us to distinguish between waking and dreaming.
The point is that, while there certainly are unknowable things, certainly paradoxes, yet there is also truth and sure knowledge. This truth is independent of our agreement: it is true whether we believe it or not. We recognize it by the elegance with which it organizes the evidence, explains the mysteries, and fills in the blanks. If we should happen to stumble upon such a great truth, or have it revealed to us, well, good for us. But it is there, in any case.
The Bible contains and reveals precisely the truth about the nature of God and the meaning of human existence. While (as we shall see) the structure and function of the universe point to the character of God, nature is only implicit in its revelation. While the actions and emotions of the characters of history point out human nature, yet the meaning of this evidence may be interpreted in any number of ways. The unifying system, the key to the code, the end of the mystery, is revealed in plain words in the Bible.
I will lay out, briefly, the relevant facts contained in the Bible which are pertinent to our immediate topic. And what exactly is the topic? No more than one of all the world's religions can in the long run be true, and I maintain, without need for discussion, that the one true religion is that which is revealed in the Bible. Let's consider what that religion was and is.
Trinity
The earliest line-writing, on pre-cuneiform tablets, represented the idea of God by using the symbol of three stars; this was simplified over time as a single star, which was further stylized into the precise form of a cross, which again was simplified into a single line.[5] It takes no imagination at all to find here the Trinity, the Crucifixion, and the One God.
God manifests Himself in this universe as One God, who makes Himself known in three Persons. These three Persons, who are One, are known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is, to our natural minds, a paradox: how can one God be three persons? Shoddy objections abound, such as "one plus one plus one do not equal one"; to this, we need only reply that "one times one times one does equal one." But the issue transcends mere fallacious reasoning. We certainly cannot comprehend the true subtlety of the Trinity, any more than we can comprehend that light is both a particle and a wave. But we can apprehend it. We do not master this idea, but we can recognize that it is true.
The idea of incomprehensible, unprovable truths is not in the least a religious one. It is the very heart of modern mathematics and physics, as demonstrated by, say, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (which says the axioms of a system cannot be used to prove itself — a higher set of axioms must always be appealed to), or by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (which says that either the velocity or the location of a specific electron at a given moment can be known, but not both — by choosing one, you exclude the possibility of knowing the other). Singularities and quarks and virtual particles, and the square-root of negative one and non-Euclidian geometry and the concept of infinity — all partake of the nature of things that are true, but not comprehendible.
On a more mundane level, we find the very fundaments of the universe affirming the Trinity. In its broadest aspect, nature is a trinity, of space, matter and time.[6] There is no universe without these, and these do not exist without each other. Again, each of these is itself a trinity. Space is height, width and depth; each is fully and completely itself, and totally pervades space, yet space is not any one of these things, but all of them together. Matter is energy, movement, and phenomena — power, action and effect; motive, motion and manifestation. Time is past, present and future; it is not any absolute division of these, but the fluid interaction of all three.
As for human existence, it is experienced in space, exhibited by matter, and understood through time. We are body, mind or soul, and spirit; not mere matter, but some animating force; not mere mind, but tangible and eternal; not spirit alone, but physical and conceptual. Even our minds are a trinity, of intellect, emotion and will.
It is certainly true that the Bible nowhere uses the term "Trinity", but we must dismiss out of hand such a vapid argument, since nowhere does the Bible use the word "toenail" — yet of course there are such things. An argument from silence is a logical fallacy. Competent study, in fact, reveals that the concept of the Trinity is spread throughout scripture in an unmistakable way.
Whatever it is that a man worships, and prays to, and turns to for deliverance, this is his god (Is 44:7,17). The Bible tells us to worship Jesus, and He receives it (Phili 2:10, Heb 1:6; Lk 24:52). Steven prays to Jesus (Acts 7:59), and of course Jesus is the Deliverer. We are told in many places, explicitly, that Jesus, the Word, is God (Jn 1:1,14). Witness the following: “Christ, who is God over all, forever praised” (Rom 9:5); the “righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2P 1:1 — compare with 2P 3:18)[7]; the “glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13); about the Son, God (the Father) says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” (Heb 1:8); doubting Thomas finally answered Jesus by calling him “My Lord and my God” (Jn 20:28). We are told that it is the blood of God that was shed (Acts 20:28), redeeming the lost. Of the Messiah, we are told: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which is translated, 'God with us.'” (Mt 1:23, cf. Is 7:14). Considering the fact that here we have Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, Thomas, Paul and the writer of Hebrews, all teaching the doctrine that Jesus is God — surely this is sufficient testimony.
As for the Holy Spirit, He is called God in a number of places (Acts 5:3-4; 1Cor 6:19,21; Lk 1:68,70 compared with Acts 1:16; 1Cor 3:16 with 2Cor 6:16, Jer 10:10; Ps 78:17‑18 with Is 63:10; Deut 32:12 with Is 63:14; Is 6:8-9 with Acts 28:25‑26; 2Cor 3:17). He is the Creator (Gen 1:2, Ps 33:6, 104:14-16,30, Job 26:13). He is eternal (Heb 9:14), sovereign (Jn 3:8, 1Cor 12:11), omnipresent (Ps 139:7), omniscient (1Cor 2:10), and omnipotent (Micah 2:7). He is holy (Rom 1:4) and good (Neh 9:20, Ps 143:10 compared with Mt 19:17), and can be blasphemed (Mk 3:29‑30).
He is so much identified as a person of the Godhead, that against the rules of Greek grammar, He is called ‘He’, instead of by the neuter pronoun, as proper grammar would demand (Jn 15:26, 16:13-14). The Spirit speaks with a voice (cf. Heb 10:15; Act 10:19, 13:2; Jer 31:31; Eze 2:1‑3, 3:24, 8:11,43‑44). He has a sense of self-identity (Acts 13:2), and He has the three attributes of personality, in mind, emotions and will. Thus, the Father knows the mind of the Spirit (Rom 8:27), and the Spirit searches, and knows the depths of the mind of God (1Cor 2:10-11). The Holy Spirit loves (Rom 15:30), grieves (Eph 4:30), is vexed (Is 63:10), kind (Ps 143:10), and desires (Jn 3:8). He wills (1Cor 12:11), is obeyed (Acts 10), and forbids (Acts 16:6,7). I have counted at least 39 separate types of actions which the Spirit is explicitly said to have done, all of which demand His being a person and / or God.[8]
So, a fair understanding of the teaching of the Bible recognizes that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all identified as God. Yet there is only one God, who somehow partakes in some sort of plurality. We know this from the Bible, as in the very word for God, Elohim, which is a singular root with a plural ending; this ending is not that Hebrew particle which indicates a plural of two, but rather of three or more. Now, while elohim is used of mere men, as of judges or rulers, this use is employed only long after the word was used of God. If this were the only example of an indication of the Trinity, we would certainly dismiss it as an example of the semitic usage of the "plural of majesty" — something like the royal "we", to indicate "I". But taken in context, we cannot escape the plurality of God.
In Deut 6:4, we have the great declaration of Hebrew monotheism, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.” What could be more plain? Yet the word for ‘one’, here, is 'achad. In Hebrew there is a word for an absolute unity, 'iysh, used of an individual — an in-divide-able. Then there is the word of a composite unity, a single thing which in some manner is made up of parts. Thus a married couple, which becomes one flesh, is 'achad flesh; a bunch of grapes is an 'achad of grapes. And "the Lord our God, the Lord is 'achad — a composite unity." When we consider that a much better word was available, if the intent had been to indicate a God of the Moslem type — utterly monolithic — then we are safe in concluding that 'achad, a composite unity, was chosen for a purpose.
So, while we cheerfully affirm that the Bible does not contain the word "Trinity", it certainly contains words which indicate the Trinity. Just as gravity is not in any way visible, yet its effect is everywhere — so with the Trinity: it is implicit, throughout the entire Bible. While this in itself is not proof that the universe actually is ruled by the Triune God, it is proof that the Bible, Old Testament and New, teaches that God is Triune.
The question may well be asked, Why must we search this out? Why isn't the Trinity explicitly stated? To this, we can reply only with reasoned guesses. Perhaps, in the prophets' efforts to combat idolatry and polytheism, the triunity of God was left implicit, to establish the correct concept of monotheism; there is no doubt but that apprehending the concept of the Trinity requires subtle contemplation, which not everyone is inclined to engage in. I favor another explanation: the Bible is not an encyclopedia which you can open to a page and learn all there is to know on a given topic. Rather, the Bible is like life: you learn its lessons by going through it; you pick up your knowledge piece by piece, from experience and from the contemplation of experience. The Bible is not written in outline form, because its truths are too subtle for glib explication; no outline will suffice to reveal the hues and depths which it contains. I realize that this may sound somewhat mystical, but it is a simple recognition of complexity.
For our purposes, since this study is not ostensibly one of Biblical theology but rather of history, I will highlight only one other aspect of the religion of the Bible. How can we be saved? When rightly understood, the Bible is clear on this. There is a Savior, called the Seed of the woman, called Messiah, called the Angel of the Lord, called Son of God, called God and Mighty God and Creator. This Savior, then, is explicitly affirmed to be God, in the cosmic and theological sense.
But He is also said to be a human being, though born miraculously of a virgin. And He would destroy the enemy through His suffering (Gen 3:15, Is 53). This man, known to history as Jesus Christ, was executed in the Roman province of Judea in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, under the governor Pontius Pilate. Because His death was unmerited — because His life was sinless (cf. Jn 18:38, Heb 9:14) — death had no claim on Him, and so, as it were, Jesus paid a price which He did not owe, and so could redeem His sacrifice as He saw fit. Because His worth was infinite — because He was God — Jesus could ransom from death any and all whom He chose. He chooses those people who recognize the price He paid; He chooses those who trust in the salvation He freely offers. Salvation is not free, but it is free to us.
I have told this briefly and in very simple terms. Of course I have not done justice to this Gospel, but my purpose has been met, of introducing the God of the Bible (the Triune God) and His plan for salvation (the Crucifixion).
These facts, regarding the nature of God and His salvation, were not unknown to the ancients. Indeed, initially they were well known. But as the population grew, the proportion of righteous people diminished. It was inevitable that ignorance, corruptions and lies about the true nature of God and his plan should abound. Even so, it can well be said that all pagan systems admit that behind the idols and the gods, there is the One God, creator of all things.
In paganism, the ‘true’ god was called, for example, Adad, "The One". He was Isis, who according to Apuleius (c. 125 bc) was the “first of the celestials, and the uniform manifestation of the gods and goddesses . . . . whose one sole divinity the whole orb of the earth venerated . . . under a manifold form, with different rites, and under a variety of appellations.”[9] Elioun "the Most High", Shamash, Brahma, Marduk, Baal (even Zeus or Saturn) — the chief god of every region was considered in some aspect to be the ‘true’ god.
Thales, the Greek philosopher, was called by Aristotle "the father of natural philosophy". This has caused some people to assume that Thales was an atheist, which is simply wrong, as we can tell from the few quotations surviving from Thales. From these, we hear him say: “Of existing things, God is the oldest — for he is ungenerated.”[10] Hardly the words of an atheist.
In distant China, long before there could have been any "Christian" influence, Lao-tsu annunciated the ancient high concept of God: “Before time, and throughout time, there has been a self-existing being, eternal, infinite, complete, omnipresent . . . . Outside this being, before the beginning, there was nothing.”[11] Lao-tsu went on to invent a philosophy about God, but the initial conceptualization of this God is common throughout the world.
At the very beginning of Chinese civilization, when that race was newly arrived in the east from Babel, the Emperors sacrificed to the single God of Heaven, Shang Ti, with a prayer: “Of old in the beginning, there was the great chaos, without form and dark [Gen 1:2]. The five elements [planets] had not begun to revolve, nor the sun and the moon to shine [Gen 1:16] . . . . Thou madest heaven; Thou madest earth [Gen 1:1]; Thou madest man [Gen 1:27]. . . .Thy sovereign goodness is infinite. As a potter, Thou hast made all living things [Is 64:8]. Thy sovereign goodness is infinite. Great and small are sheltered (in Thy love) [Mt 5:45]. As engraven on the heart of Thy poor servant is the sense of Thy goodness [Rom 1:19] . . . . With great kindness Thou dost bear with us, and not withstanding our demerits, dost grant us life and prosperity.”[12] The images are biblical not because one copied from another, Hebrew or Chinese, but because both refer to the same God.
Two millennia after this prayer was first spoken in China, the heresy of polytheism was taking hold, so that a court official was driven to write: “It is indeed certain, that from the most ancient times, all who have been wise, and deemed masters of the nation on account of their reputation for distinguished wisdom, have known but one Shang Ti, eminent over all, on whom all things depend . . .”[13]
Even Hinduism, the last survivor of the ancient pagan systems, avers: “The supreme Brahm, the most holy, the most high God, the Divine being, before all other gods; without birth, the mighty Lord, God of gods, the universal Lord.”[14] Brahma is the supreme creator-deity of India. The name Brahm may derive from Rahm, Hebrew or Aramaic (Chaldean) for "the merciful or compassionate one", but also meaning "womb". The Moslem Turks used the term Er-Rahman, "the all-merciful"; Ex 34:6 uses a form of rahm. From this, we may see the underlying monotheism of Noah and his fathers, which later became so corrupted.
One of the things which utterly enraged the Bible prophets was the highjacking by pagans of the vocabulary of monotheism, used to glorify local idols. So Isaiah (66:17) is incensed, proclaiming that those who “sanctify themselves to the rites of the Only One, eating swines' flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together.” We will look at these symbols later, but here let's notice that "the Only One" ('achad) is used of God in Deut 6:4 — the famous proclamation of Hebrew monotheism. The name of the chief Assyrian god, Adad, is evidently an emphatic form of this 'achad.
When Paul spoke on Mars Hill to the philosophers of Athens, he commented on the neglected shrine of "the unknown god", who was the true God (Acts 7:23). For all the countless temples and millions of gods of India, there can hardly be found a temple dedicated to the "god of gods", Brahma. Paganism does not do well in honoring God, for all its many gods. The Great Invisible God is “to be worshipped through silence alone”[15] — that is, he is to be ignored.
Not God the Father alone, but the very concept of the Trinity was remembered and twisted. The primal Trinity was depicted idolatrously, as in “the triune emblem of the supreme Assyrian divinity [which] shows clearly what had been the original patriarchal faith. First, there is the head of the old man [Father]; next, there is . . . the circle, for ‘the seed’ [Son]; and lastly, the wings and tail of the bird or dove [symbol of the Spirit].”[16] The Trinity degenerated into triads of gods in many cultures, as we will see. This deterioration has led some into grave confusion, when they imagine that the Trinity is a pagan idea. The fact is that paganism distorted and forgot the true nature of God as He reveals himself in this universe.
In this same way, the imagery of the Coming ‘Seed’ has caused shallow thinkers to imagine that some sort of vegetable cult was the source of the image. An empty circle, in the ideographic writing of Chaldea, stood for ‘nothing’ — exactly as our zero does. In fact, the very word zero is handed down to us through the Arabs, from Babylon, in the root zer, "to encompass" (saros means an era, or a great circle of time.) The circle ideograph also stood for ‘a seed’; when the Aramaic root zer is used as a verb, it becomes zwero, zvero, or spero — which is related to the Greek speiro, from which we derive ‘spore’ or ‘sperm’. Obviously, the importance of the symbol was deeply embedded, and so utterly primal, in the intellectual system of the most ancient civilizations. As to how the theological concept of the Seed was applied, we shall see.
What was the "correct" religion by which God was to be worshipped? Well, first we must understand what is meant by ‘religion’. In the broadest sense, religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. What image or symbol to face; what prayers to say, and how often, facing what direction and in what position; which mountain to climb; what animal to kill, and how; what incense to burn, and when; what hat or robe to wear; what hairdo to have; which foods to eat, which to refrain from, which buns or crackers to use in one's sacraments; what dance, what song, which intoxicant, which ointment, which paint — these are the obvious accoutrements of religion.
On a deeper level, however, these are mere forms. More substantively, ‘religion’ deals with the relationship that an individual has with either his idea of God, or with the actual God Himself. In the end, false religion is the worship of the god of one's own imagination. Worship of the actual God of the universe is what is termed real ‘salvation’. This worship, this religion, is not forms and rituals and set prayers and rote practices. It is a relationship, between Father and adopted children, between Friend and friends.
Those who are confirmed in their hostility to the Bible are fond of saying that all roads lead to God, or that all religions worship the same God, just under different names. To this, I agree: all religions lead to the same place, and all gods truly are the same god. I agree, with one exception: the God of the Bible speaks not of all roads, but of the narrow road; He speaks of the many gods, as His enemies. And this, finally, brings us to the development and diffusion of false religion, from its very beginnings, into historic times.
We will spend considerable time, now, exploring the religion of Satan, which is all religions but one. We will study it because of its monumental effect upon history. We will see that false religions, no matter the details of a particular manifestation, have one thing in common: You are good enough. Do these things, say these words, eat this or refrain from that . . . and God will be so impressed with your wonderfulness that you'll get the goodies of Heaven, whatever they may be. Whether the celestial whores in the Moslem heaven, or the myriad wives and personal deification in Mormon heaven, or the non-existence, the escaping from the wheel of reincarnation, of Buddhist and Hindu heaven — in all these cases, the reward is based on the merit of the person. The deity, here, is an adding machine, who calculates your worth and dispenses your pay. This deity is a vending machine, into which you feed your good works, and then select your treat.
In absolute contrast to this, the religion of the Bible says that you are not good enough, and never can be. “All your righteousness is as filthy rags” (Is 64:6). “There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. None seek after God, no not one. All have gone astray and follow after their own way” (Rom 3:10-12). People hear this and think, "How grim, how negative!" But such a response ignores the rest of the message. You cannot be good enough, but God is good enough. You cannot live the perfect life, but Jesus did, and you can ally yourself with Him.
Of course good works are expected, but these play no part whatsoever in one's salvation — they are the expected outcome of one's salvation. Works cannot save you, but if you are saved, you should do good works, as is explicitly stated in Eph 2:8-10: “For by grace you have been saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves, but by the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works . . .” There is, of course, much to be said on this, but the point here is that only the Bible teaches this message — all other religions require personal merit from their followers before they can be ‘saved’.
Sacrifice
In Eden, Adam had a religion, a relationship, of intimacy and immediate fellowship. I discuss this in some detail, in Chapter 4 of The Pillars of Heaven. Eden was a place of innocence, rather than righteousness. The difference is that innocence is untested, whereas righteousness is proven. The commandment, to not eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, was given to provide an opportunity for Adam to grow out of mere innocence, and become righteous. Needless to say, he missed that opportunity, and instead brought catastrophe down upon himself and the entire universe.
After the Fall, the form of true religion was changed, to accommodate Adam's changed condition. The new version was based on the fact that intimacy was lost. It centered around sacrifice, which was first instituted immediately after the Fall, when the nakedness of Adam and Eve (symbolizing their state of sin) was covered by the skin of a sacrifice (Gen 3:21). This covering was a symbol of forgiveness and salvation, of being "in Christ Jesus", or of being "covered by the blood of the Lamb". The Old Testament word for forgiveness means "to cover".
Blood sacrifice had the intent of calling to mind the fact that death is an interloper, invited into the universe by sin. The sacrificed animal took the place of the sinful human, and was a symbol of the Messiah, who would take the place of humanity. The blood of the animal, on the hands of the priest, was meant to be an unmistakable reminder of the fate of the unsaved. But the very act of sacrificing the animal was meant to call to mind the prophesied Savior, whose death would ultimately remedy the effects of unrighteousness.
Never, at any time, was animal sacrifice itself meant to be anything other than a reminder of the future event at Calvary (see Heb 9:12). But the meaning of this rite was twisted and corrupted, so that it took on the crude meaning given to it even in modern times, where the act itself is imagined to impart some sort of magical benefit. The symbol replaced the reality.
Liar
In the Garden, we find another player in the drama, in the person of Satan. This is one of the few times in Scripture that he is an actual character, rather than, as it were, a director. In his dialogue with Eve, we find the spark of the original false religion which would burn across history, quenched only for a time by the Flood.
There are two tenets in the ‘theology’ of Satan. Given these two, the particular form of idolatry is incidental — as long as the truth is ignored, it does not matter which lie is believed. The two tenets which Satan annunciated to Eve were that [a] God is a liar, and that [b] humans can be gods. Let's take a closer look at this interchange.
Satan says to Eve (Gen 3:1), “Yea, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’?” By asking this question, he may be pretending to a false ignorance, and so flattering Eve; or he may be asserting what he knows is incorrect, inviting correction from Eve; again, he may be saying that Adam has just been lying, and that God never said any such thing. The word ‘God’ is Elohim, used of God in His role as Creator — ‘Lord’, or Jehovah, is the more intimate, personal name of God, used in His covenant relationships; the intended effect of Satan's choice of vocabulary is to make God seem remote. By deliberately being incorrect, in saying God forbade the eating of all fruit, Satan imputes a pettiness and irrationality to God.
Eve corrects Satan, referring to the Tree of Knowledge, but she adds that she was not even to touch it, which God is not recorded to have said. It may be that God did say to not touch it, because she had no business near it. Or it may be that she simply did not listen carefully, and invented another commandment. In any event, the penalty was death.
Hearing this, Satan responds by telling his first recorded lie. “Ye shall not surely die”. In this lie, he is saying that God is a liar. Furthermore, he is laying the foundation of various false religions, with their misconceptions about death and immortality. He tells his second lie immediately afterward: “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” First, he makes God petty and fearful. Next, he says that humans are as gods. What precisely this means is open to debate, but what is clear is that false religions do claim the divinity of mankind, even into our day, with the rise of the New Age religion, which is nothing more than westernized Hinduism — which itself is just the longest-lived system of paganism, little different than the religion of Babylon or ancient Rome. That Satan was lying about the benefit of the fruit is evident from the fact that all its consumption immediately accomplished was an awareness of what it was to be naked — hardly an example of godlike knowledge.
In this dialogue, Satan first doubts what God has said, then denies it, then slanders God, and finally substitutes his own words. We shall see such substitutions everywhere in the religions which were invented by Satan and his pagans. This tactic depends foremost upon the gullibility of humans. Where there is rational skepticism and a spirit of discernment, lies may sprout but they do not flourish. But where blind faith, ignorance and sloth abound, corruption does also. In such a climate, the truth must be replaced with a lie.
It is here that a crucial, or rather fatal, decision was made. Here, “the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise” (Gen 3:6). Eve is the first to demonstrate “the lust of the flesh” in her dangerous craving of the fruit, the first to demonstrate “the lust of the eyes” in her pleasure at its appearance, and the first to savor “the pride of life” in her desire to be perceived as wise (see 1Jn 2:16). This is the three-pronged pitchfork of "the flesh, the world, and the Devil", and Eve was the first to be skewered.
Whores
We have been talking in general terms about false religion, but let's get specific. All of the elements of the events in Eden became mythologized and incorporated into pagan rituals. Indeed, they were reinterpreted, so that sin was seen as virtue. For example, the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was not viewed as a tragedy, but rather it was celebrated by pagans as the gift of knowledge. So Astarte, or Cybele, in Phrygia was called Idaia Mater, the Mother of Knowledge; and her husband, whom we know as Adam, was there worshipped as Atis, "the sinner" — from Aramaic hata, "to sin".
These first of all parents were deified by later generations, and worshipped in the place of God. So, Janus (who decides men's destinies, as Adam decided the destiny of all mankind) is in Latin, Eanus, which in Aramaic is E-anush, "the man". In a duplicated form, Inuus (the Pan of the Romans) is Enos in Hebrew — "the man". ‘Adam’, of course, simply means ‘man’. Again, the goddess Semelé was called Hue, which is the semitic form of Eve.
According to Berosus (c. 3rd cent. bc), the primitive Babylonian goddess is Omorka, from am ("mother") and arka ("earth") — mother of the world. This goddess is linked with the goddess Thalatth, whose name shares its root with the Hebrew tzalaa, "rib" or "side" — used of Eve in the Garden. Her husband would be Baal-thalatth, meaning "lord of the rib" (the Roman god of marriage was Thalasius, "the man of the rib").
But the name "Baal-thalatth" can also be interpreted as "he who turned aside" (the link between "rib" and "side" being self-evident), and from this meaning evidently came the practice of the priests of Baal, who limped in their worship (1K 18:26). Because of this affectation, the sideways moving crab was a symbol of the Mysteries, an emblem of, for example, Diana, and remembered even today in the Tarot cards; as we shall see, the constellation Cancer is a pagan perversion of an older, truer idea. The name Pan, too, means "turned aside". The wife of Pan was Pitho, from peth, "to beguile" — the same root gives us Python, the evil serpent, and latinized gives us such words as ‘infatuate’. I will not comment on all of this, since the correspondences to the Bible are self-evident.
Another example of perversion by paganism is in Eve's wandering gaze. In the pagan system, the temptation and fall of Eve was a good thing, and so the attributes which brought it about are celebrated. Alexander Hislop[17] — whose research provided much of the information in this work — sees a link between the Chinese goddess Shing Moo, and the Aramaic shngh ("to look or gaze") combined with the Egyptian goddess Maut (symbolized by a vulture's-winged eye or a vulture's eye itself, equivalent to an eagle's eye — see Job 28:7). Shing Moo, then, would be shngh Maut, "the gazing mother goddess". The link is validated, Hislop maintains, by a further correspondence between the similar goddess Ma Tsoppo — queen of heaven in a province of China — and the Babylonian goddess Ama Tzupah (which means "the Gazing Mother").
The name of the goddess Rhea shares its root with the Hebrew rhaah, meaning "a gazing woman"; it is a homonym of the Aramaic for "vulture". In "neolithic" towns, we find that the “principal deity was a goddess who is shown in her three aspects, as a young woman, a mother giving birth or as an old woman, in one case accompanied by a bird of prey, probably a vulture.”[18] The temples associated with this religion were “decorated with wall-paintings of vultures pecking at human bodies. . . .a second vulture shrine . . . [shows] two vultures with human legs attacking a headless human body.”[19] Chronology has been so corrupted by the religion of Evolutionism that thousands of years have been invented and placed between contemporary cultures, all of which revered the same "goddess", whether in her aspect of Eve, or (in the context of dead bodies) of Semiramis.
The name Rhea also implies "she who is gazed at" — that is, "the Beauty". Athena bore the title Ophthalmitis, "the Eye"; she wore a helmet with two eye-holes, calling attention to this symbol. The motif of single or paired eyes was “specifically associated with designs on seals and other artifacts of the Jemdet Nasr period”[20] — which started after the Sodom catastrophe, lasting from c. 1967-1900 bc (by the standard reckoning [*], from *3100-2900 bc)[21]. Again, at Tell Brak (just over 20 miles south of Turkey on a branch of the Habor) excavations of a temple terrace (c. 1900 bc / *2900) yielded thousands of black and white alabaster "eye idols" — pairs of eyes of some deity.[22] Later we will again encounter these goddesses — or rather, this goddess. But here, it is Eve who seems to have provided the first model. The upshot is that this moment in Eve's life became an important fixture in the apostate religion of idolatry.
As for the object of Eve's gaze — the fruit itself — there has been much speculation, but little of substance. Whether or not it was an apple we cannot say, since it is simply not identified in Scripture. In the Near East however, the pomegranate — rimmon — was considered the fruit of knowledge, and was a common symbol of the goddess. In climates where the pomegranate could not thrive, the orange was the symbol (hence the ‘golden apples’ of the Hesperides which were guarded, rather than offered, by the serpent). The prohibition which in the Bible came from God, in myth comes from the evil one — which has the effect of casting the God of the Bible in the role of Satan.
Adversary
This brings us to Satan himself. While the Bible is not a handbook for the study of demons and angels, the passing references to these beings give us some significant clues as to their nature. As for Satan, his character is consistent throughout Scripture.
He instigates rebellion (Gen 3). His malevolence is contained in his name (or title): ‘Satan’ means ‘Adversary’, and in this role, he prowls to and fro about the earth, up and down on it (Job 1:7). He is a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour (1P 5:8). Another of his titles is Beelzebub, which means not only "Lord of the Flies", but also "Lord of Restlessness", since flies are named after their behavior, even in English. He brings accusations — the word "devil" is simply Greek for "slanderer"; his native language is lies (Jn 8:44). Most relevant to our study, he seeks worship (Mk 9:4, Is 14:13‑14).
The peculiar form of Satan in the Garden was of a serpent. The Hebrew word used of the serpent in Eden is nachash, which derives from the word meaning both "to whisper" and "to observe diligently" — referring no doubt to the hissing and hypnotic stare of snakes. Since only God knows our thoughts, and given the reality of hostile spiritual entities, we have in the word nachash an insight into how "demons" seem to know our thoughts — by close and careful observation.
Whether or not the Bible is using symbolic language, or whether Satan ‘possessed’ some individual snake, or something else (such as his being a cherubim with the head of a serpent, as some other has the head of an eagle, or of a lion, bull, or man), what is clear is that the literal form of a serpent became the image of the tempter of Eve. The worship of this shape may be the oldest form of idolatry. Serpent worship is explicitly referred to by Paul (Rom 1:23): pagans changed God for the image of "creeping things" — which is a specific term for reptiles.
Paganism, because it was invented piece-meal, recasts many of its characters in conflicting lights. The same historical characters show up within the same mythological systems, as both hero and villain. We find this of Eve, of the Serpent, of Shem, of Nimrod, and so on. Thus we find the serpent, Satan, as hero.
In the myth of the Mystery religion, Aesculapius was aish ("man"), shkul ("to instruct"), and apé ("a serpent") — "the serpent who teaches mankind". To the ‘uninitiated’, the name was broken down into aaz ("strength") and khlep ("to renew") — and so Asclepios was publicly the god of health. We will see that this figure was originally a prophesied type of Christ, but that paganism utterly subsumed the true meaning.
The Phoenician Sanchoniathon wrote that it was Thoth who “first attributed something of the divine nature to the serpent and the serpent tribe . . . . For this animal was esteemed by him to be the most spiritual of all the reptiles, and of a fiery nature, inasmuch as it exhibits an incredible celerity, moving by its spirit, without either hands or feet. . . .Moreover, it is long-lived, and has the quality of renewing its youth . . . . as Thoth has laid down in the sacred books; upon which accounts this animal is introduced in the sacred rites and mysteries.”[23]
We will discus the identity of Thoth later — but from this passage, we see the esteem in which the serpent was held.
When myth-makers and kings wanted to indicate deity, they summoned the serpent as father. Thus, Dionysus was born of a union between his mother and the father of gods in the form of a speckled snake.[24] Alexander the Great claimed as his father Jupiter, in the form of a serpent, and Augustus claimed Apollo, in similar serpentine form. Pharaoh wore the Uraeus, the serpent, as the crown of Lower Egypt.
The religion of ancient Elam (the region around the northeastern coast of the Persian Gulf) was notable for “a worship of snakes . . . a true leitmotif of Elamite civilization.”[25] The religion recognized a divine, empowering force which chastises and rewards, which is represented as a totem (the form of which is presumably the serpent). The name of this force, sent from the gods, is pronounced kidenn. I suggest that this is the Kundalini, the "serpent power" of the occult.
The Elamite image of the snake coiled “round the tree of life [sic: knowledge] . . . and the Elamite fertility symbol of two snakes mating penetrated as far as Egypt. Snakes with human heads provide evidence of the deification of those reptiles, a deification of a type unknown in Mesopotamia.”[26] On Elamite artifacts the image of a flaming serpent with the head of a man is depicted, two male figures standing in the background (one raising a cup), over which a crescent is suspended in the sky.[27] These elements have a symbolic meaning, which we will consider in another chapter; for now let's just notice the prominence of the snake.
Minoan Crete was the birthplace of Zeus, to Rhea. The goddess commonly represented on Crete was identified by Arthur Evans as the mother-goddess, and she is represented with outstretched hands, each holding a serpent. Given that the serpent cult is often associated with the earth deity, and that Crete is no stranger to earthquakes, it is no surprise that its priests should link the two.
We also find the serpent as villain. We have already seen that the name ‘python’, the evil serpent, derives from peth, "to beguile". Python, or Typho, Leviathan, Set, Surt or Loki — any of the monsters of chaos — are celestial serpents, vanquished by the hero gods of mythology. The infant Hercules in his crib strangled a serpent. Again, in the myths of the golden apples and the golden fleece, the serpent is a hostile monster. This is the ‘correct’ image, consistent with the evil Dragon (Rev 12), that old serpent, the Devil.
Satan was worshipped not only in the guise of a snake, but also as the king of the elemental Titans. Of course, myth-makers jumbled their imagery here as well, but let's examine the case of the Titans.
Where does the word ‘titan’ come from? Teitan is merely the Aramaic form of Sheitan; our “titan” and ‘Satan’. The Hebrew ‘S’ becomes the Aramaic ‘T’, as when shekel becomes tekel (Dn 5:25) — both having to do with weights and measures. The king of the titans, Teitan or Sheitan, was symbolized by the Kerastes, the horned serpent.[28] In order to console and appease the titans, and Satan himself, the pagans worshipped them. For example, in Rome, Titan or Satan was a noble being — indeed, the sun itself. Given the prevalent worship of snakes in Rome (as we shall see), this should not surprise us.
In Kurdish Armenia, around Lake Van and the grassy lower slopes of Ararat, the Yezidis — an ancient people whose customs have survived into modern times — worship their snake and fire deity by the name Sheitan; hence, they are termed "Devil-worshippers". Kurds are nominally Moslem, but many seem still to observe secret pagan ceremonies, and retain occult doctrines remembered from very early pagan days.[29] The Kurds claim the mountain of Ararat is the haunt of devils. It is likely that their fear of the mountain is “a hold-over from the very earliest days of serpent, or devil, worship of the ancient Semiramis matriarchal cult . . . [with a cultic-center around] Lake Van only a few miles away.”[30]
As with serpents, mythology also considered the titans as enemies of the pagan gods. In such cases, we find the distorted memory of events associated with Babel, which we will look at later. In this regard, Homer informs us that the gods of Tartarus, or Hell, are all Titans. Hesiod (c. 776 bc) says they get their name from their chief, who committed some grave offence and so was cast down. Teitan is a synonym in Babylon for Typhon, who slew the beloved Tammuz; this identity is certain as we know from Lactantius Firmianus (c. 300 ad), who rebukes the pagans for “worshipping a child torn in pieces by the Teitans.”[31] There is more to say with regard to the cult of the serpent, and of fire, and of Tammuz, but it must wait.
True religion
(limited to its era)
False religion
(not limited to any era)
In Eden
Religion of Innocence:
direct communion with God
Worship of self
("Ye shall be as gods")
After the Fall
Religion of Guilt:
blood sacrifice, anticipation and isolation
Worship of serpents and fire; astrology, polytheism
After the Crucifixion
Religion of Grace:
direct communion with the Holy Spirit and imputed righteousness through Jesus Christ
The Mystery Religion
I
pre-Flood
So. We have considered the nature of religion itself. We have seen the fact of the One God, and His triune nature, and the diffusion of his revelation in every human culture. We have looked at the events in Eden, which necessitated a change in the original form of worship, the original religion; after the Fall, intimacy was replaced by anticipation, and the mnemonic which was intended to keep this anticipation fresh, was blood sacrifice. We have seen how Satan, that deceiver, polluted and twisted the truth, taking for himself the worship due to God. We have seen the form of primitive paganism, which was the direct and undisguised worship of Satan, as serpent or Titan. The table shows the evolution of the two religions, true and false — we anticipate somewhat the story to come, but we will catch up later.
We might ask, Is possible from Scripture to pinpoint the time of the pre-Flood apostasy? Perhaps. In Gen 4:26, we find mention of Enosh, son of Seth: “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son, whom he called Enos. Then it was begun to call by the name of the Lord.” Enosh, whose name means "frail" or "incurable", is listed in the section dealing with Cain and his descendants, and perhaps it is this context which motivated “the majority of the ancient Jewish commentators”[32] to supply a grim ellipsis, making the verse read: Then men began to profane the name of the Lord, or Then men began to call themselves, or idols, by the name of the Lord. The Targum of Onkelos has it that in the days of Enosh “the sons of men desisted from praying in the Name of the Lord,” and the Targum of Jonathan says “That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the Name of the Word of the Lord.”[33] Aside from the context, the most compelling reason for assuming such an ellipses is that Adam, and Abel and Cain, all worshipped the Lord, and so presumably must already have "called on His name."
It is not inelegant to assume that the generation of the apostasy should be hidden in this reference to Enosh, since in Gen 10:25 there would be a perfect counterpart, in the generation of the Confusion at Babel: “And unto Eber were born two sons, the name of one being Peleg, because in his days was the earth divided” into languages and nations (as we shall see). Just as divided Peleg represents scattering, futile Enosh represents idolatry. Further, just as David (recipient of the Davidic Covenant) had a grandson, Rehoboam, who oversaw the disintegration of the kingdom (1K 12:16,17); and just as Moses (recipient of Israel's Covenant) had a grandson, Jonathan, who was the first Israelite priest of idolatry
(Josh 18:30)[34]; and just as Noah (recipient of the post-Flood Covenant — Gen 9:9-11) had a grandson, Cush, who was the archi
tect of post-Flood paganism (as we shall see); in just this way might Adam (recipient of the post-Fall Covenant) have a grandson, Enosh, who presided over the first general apostasy. Whether or not such reasoning is correct is debatable. But if we are to find a reference to the first spread of false religion, it must be here.
Between the Fall and the Flood, 1656 years passed. In terms of civilization, during this time the intellectual and technical achievements of humanity were great. Many people of that age must have lived hundred of years — as indicated by the long lives of the patriarchs. During such long lifetimes, the potential for advancement and the accumulation of wisdom was tremendous.
In Sumerian myth, the pre-Flood world was remembered as the land of Dilmun, which supposedly existed before mankind was created, and was peopled by gods. What is meant by this is that it existed before the mankind of the era of Sumer — pre-Flood. The term ‘gods’ is confusing, and this confusion can be dispelled with a simple example. In Exodus 22, the judges of Israel, who decide criminal cases, are called ‘elohim’. Elohim, as we have seen, is the word which is translated ‘God.’ Furthermore, in the Bible, those to whom the word of God has come have been called gods; the meaning of this is that those who stand in the place of God, as his agents, are called by His name. They are not God, but they are godlike in their power over the fate of men. It is in this sense, of power, that the antediluvians were called ‘gods’. Considering the power and wisdom of the patriarchs, with their millennium-spanning lives, we can easily imagine the awe in which they were held by their descendants.
We are told very little about this age, but what is given for us to know is found in chapter four of the book of Genesis. Cain was a farmer, who became “cursed from the earth” (v. 11). What the mark was is not stated, but it was not a punishment, but rather a protection (v. 15). He was ordered to be a vagabond, wandering over the earth, but he disobeyed and settled in the land of Nod (vv. 12,16). He married a sister or niece, and one of his sons, Enosh, built a city (v. 17).
A descendent of Cain was named Lamech (not the Lamech who was the father of Noah). Lamech is the first to be identified as a polygamist. His first wife, Adah, was the mother of Jabal (v. 20), “the father of such as dwell in tents, and tend cattle” — that is, nomads; his name means "flowing" — as his nomadic descendants ‘flowed’ across the land. Adah was also the mother of Jubal (v. 21), who was “the father of all such as handle the harp and pipes”; his name is the root of "jubilation". Zillah, the second wife of Lamech, bore Tubal-cain, “an instructor of every artificer of brass and iron” (v. 22). It is he who is the reality behind the myth of Vulcan — in fact, Vul-can is a form of Tubal-cain, after the Babylonian Bil-kan. (Other factors also contributed to the composite figure known as Vulcan, as we shall see.) The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah, of whom we know nothing save that her name means ‘pleasant’.
Sumerian mythology “deliberately ignored all myths relevant to the discovery and use of metals”[35], but gave a divine origin to (Cain's) agriculture. Tubal-cain is snubbed. Perhaps we find here the memory of a rivalry between Lamech's two wives, with the Sumerians descended from Adah, mother of the nomadic Jabal and the musical Jubal (Gen 4:20-21). This may mean that at least one of the wives of Noah's sons was a descendent of Adah, and that this latter wife brought up her (Sumer-founding) children chauvinistically, to honor Adah's — and Cain's — agrarian legacy over Zillah's urban or technological one. Since the sons of Lamech are indicated as having an influence after the Flood, we may suppose that their descendants were represented in the Ark, through the wives of the sons of Noah; or, it may be that their influence was only as innovators.
Lamech boasted of being an even greater murderer than his forefather Cain, taking seven-fold revenge on those who offended or hurt him (4:23‑24). The horror of Lamech's character was no uncommon thing — so much so, that (6:5) “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” The earth was corrupt (6:12), “for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.”
And so there was a Flood. The entire world was totally covered with water. It is at this time that the world-continent broke apart, and the high mountains and the layers of sedimentary rock were formed. The mass extinctions of the geologic record occurred now, and the climate was utterly transformed. The Ark performed the task for which it was designed, and the animals diffused from its resting place on the mountains of Ararat, in Armenia. After the Flood, the hot oceans generated tremendous evaporation, which fell as snow on barren continents. The Ice Age lasted for many hundreds of years, longer of course in some regions than in others.
As to how there could be a Flood, how the continents moved, how the Ark could do the job the Bible assigns for it, how the animals got to their modern locations, how the Ice Age came about, and so on — I deal with all these questions and more in The Pillars of Heaven and Dragons in the Earth.
This ends our history of the pre-Flood world. As to any details of the culture, such as architecture, literature, music, etc, we could only guess, which is beyond the scope of this work. But whatever that culture was, it was at least in part transported into the post-Flood world via the Ark.
In the chapters which follow, we will consider some of the developments of the earliest descendants of Noah, through the events at the Tower of Babel. But it is necessary to make something of a detour in the next chapter, and go into some detail on a rather peculiar topic: the signs and true meaning of the zodiac.
Chapter 1: The Lessons of Eden (endnotes)
[1].Wilhelm Schmidt, Primitive Revelation, trans. J.J. Baierl (St.Louis: R. Herder, 1939), p. 123; quoted in G.H. Fraser, "The Gentile Names of God," in A Symposium on Creation, Vol. 5, ed. D.W. Patten, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), p. 14; dashes replace commas, for clarity.
[2].Schmidt, p. 125; in Fraser, p. 14. A new paragraph starts after ‘virtue’.
[3]."Sky Gods, Universality and Antiquity," in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings (NY: Scribner's, 1908-1927), Vol. 11, p. 580; in Fraser, p. 16.
[4].Fraser, p. 23.
[5].See R.E. Brnnow, A Classified List of Simple and Compound Ideographs (Leyden: 1897), p. 26; in Fraser, p. 21.
[6].For a detailed discussion on this topic, see H.M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), ch. 2.
[7].Translations vary, with regard to these verses, and it is necessary to examine the original Greek if one wishes to be secure in understanding them. This is not the place to discuss such matters; I will only urge any reader to be cautious to the utmost, when listening to people who deny the Trinity.
[8].In my The Holy Spirit: Person or ‘Force’?
[9].In Hislop, p. 302.
[10].J. Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy (Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics, 1987), p. 61.
[11].Tao-te-ching, tr. Leon Wieger, p. 13; in B. Cooper, After the Flood (Chichester, West Sussex: New Wine Press, 1995), p. 16.
[12].J. Legge, The Notions of the Chinese Concerning God and Spirits (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Register Office, 1852), pp. 28, 29; in C.H. Kang and E.R. Nelson, The Discovery of Genesis (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1979), pp. 15, 16.
[13].Regis, Yih-king, Vol. 2 (no date), p. 411; in Kang, p. 18; comma omitted after "nation".
[14].Hislop, p. 15, citing Moor's Pantheon, "Gita," P. 85.
[15].Jamblichus, On the Mysteries, sec. 8, ch. 3; all references from Hislop.
[16].Hislop, p. 18.
[17].Hislop, p. 294.
[18].Mellaart, p. 92.
[19].Ibid., fig. p. 90.
[20].E. Porada, "The Relative Chronology of Mesopotamia. Part I. Seals and Trade (*6000-1600)," p. 156; in Ehrich.
[21].See my work on chronology, Most Ancient Days.
[22].E.M. Yamauchi, "Archeology of Palestine and Syria," in ISBE, Vol. 1, p. 272.
[23].Bunsen, Hieroglyphics, Vol. 1, p. 497; in Hislop, p. 227, who says Sanchoniathon lived in the time of Joshua.
[24].Ovid, Met, Bk. 6.
[25].Hinz, The Lost Kingdom of Elam, p. 41.
[26].Hinz, pp. 41-42.
[27].Hinz, p. 42.
[28].Hislop, p. 295.
[29].See Cummings, pp. 50-51.
[30].Cummings, p. 50.
[31].Lactantius, p. 221, in Hislop, p. 276.
[32].Bullinger, in Appendix 21 of The Companion Bible, appendix page 26.
[33].In Bullinger, ibid.
[34].Some translations read "Manasseh" instead of "Moses". This is one of the four places in the Hebrew Scriptures with a "suspended letter", which did not appear in the original word, being added by later scribes; here, a nun hovers above the line, transforming MSH into MNSH. The reason for this emendation is given as either [1] to spare Moses from the indignity of having such a dishonorable grandson, or, as the Talmud has it, [2] "to place the sin upon one who committed so gross a sin" — which I take as a reference to Manasseh and his idolatrous tribe. The Chaldean paraphrase here substitutes for Jonathan the name Shebuel, meaning "returned to God"; if this identity is correct, then it is Jonathan who is meant in 1Chr 23:16 and 26:26.
[35].Grimal, p. 57.