by Tim Chaffey
Henry Morris viewed Lamech’s words as a prophecy, although there are significant problems for this view. First, the text does not indicate that his words were prophetic, nor is Lamech ever cited as a prophet. Second, if it was a prophecy, how was it fulfilled? How did Noah provide comfort (or rest) from the work and toil of people’s hands? All the remaining people in Noah’s and Lamech’s generations died in the Flood, except for those on the Ark. Obviously, the Curse was not lifted.
Two plausible fulfillments could be considered, but they do not seem to match the text. First, a massive amount of wickedness was washed away from the earth during Noah’s lifetime, but so were all of Lamech’s family members except for Noah and seven others. So how was the Flood a comfort to “us” from Lamech’s point of view? Perhaps he was speaking of his family in general — Noah would bring relief/comfort/rest from the vast wickedness on the earth. With the restart after the Flood, certain effects of the Curse were lessened, yet the Curse on the ground remained, as did death and man’s wickedness.
The other view is that Lamech’s words pointed forward to the Messiah, Noah’s distant descendant. Certainly, Jesus is the One who will do away with the Curse and bring comfort, but Lamech’s words seem to imply something that would happen in Noah’s lifetime — that Noah would bring about this comfort.
A third view is that Lamech just followed a typical naming convention seen frequently in Genesis and occasionally in other books of Scripture. These could have been prophetic in nature, although they are not necessarily so. For example, in Genesis 3:20, we see that “Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” Adam’s naming of Eve did not require any special knowledge of the future from God, so it was not truly prophetic in that sense. He simply needed to know that they were the only two people on earth and that they were to populate the planet.
A child would often be named based on their appearance or actions at birth. For example, when Rebekah gave birth to Jacob and Esau, we read the following:
So when her days were fulfilled for her to give birth, indeed there were twins in her womb. And the first came out red. He was like a hairy garment all over; so they called his name Esau. Afterward his brother came out, and his hand took hold of Esau’s heel; so his name was called Jacob (Genesis 25:24–26).
Wordplays are involved in the naming of the boys. The word Jacob is related to the “heel,” and Esau uses some of the same sounds for “hairy” (se’ar), and note that Esau’s descendants would live at Mt. Seir.
At other times, children were named based on the emotions of one or both of the parents. With the birth of Isaac, whose name means “laughter,” both parents had laughed upon hearing the announcement (Abraham in Genesis 17:17 and Sarah in Genesis 18:12).The naming of Jacob’s sons provides a dozen examples of this (Genesis 29:31–30:24, 35:18).
Of course, God is fully capable of speaking the future through the lips of the godly and ungodly. So there are no theological problems with Lamech uttering a prophecy at Noah’s birth, but the text does not specify that his words were meant to be a prophecy. Also, applying his words to the Flood would seem to stretch their meaning, perhaps further than can be allowed. Lamech and his immediate family (save Noah and his family) were not comforted from the ground God had cursed. The ground was (and is) still cursed following the Flood, so just how were his words fulfilled in Noah’s life?
If Lamech’s words must be understood as a prophecy, then it would seem that the words of each of the other parents in Genesis who used this naming convention should be understood as prophecy. However, if that is the case, then it seems that numerous false prophecies were uttered. The best solution seems to be viewing Lamech’s words as a statement of what he hoped would take place rather than as an actual prophecy. Seeing Lamech’s words as a typical naming convention would be in line with the practice that appears throughout Genesis in which parents often expressed what they hoped would occur as a result of the child’s birth. In the text, there is an indication in his words that life was difficult and he sought relief from his toil. There is a bit of irony in his statement. The land would receive a reprieve from the violence of man for a time; however, the ground itself was destroyed with the Flood, and the Curse remained upon it.
When did carnivores become carnivorous and scavengers become scavengers? Also, how did attack/defense structures come about?
Genesis 1:29–30 explains that human beings were given green herbs for food. The same is true with “every beast of the earth,” “every bird of the air,” and “everything that creeps on the earth in which there is life.” It is not until after the Flood that God gives man permission to eat meat (Genesis 9:3). But what about the animals? Did they begin to eat meat after the Flood or were they permitted to do so long before God destroyed the world?
The Bible is silent about when certain animals turned to carnivory or became scavengers. In rock layers deposited during the Flood, we occasionally find fossils with bite marks, and some fossils have been discovered with the remains of another animal in its belly region. So carnivory and scavenging seems to have occurred prior to the Flood, but when did it start?
One possible answer is that these activities began soon after Adam and Eve sinned. When He cursed the serpent, the Lord said, “Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go” (Genesis 3:14). The serpent may have undergone certain changes at this point, which may hint at other animals changing at this time as well. Adam’s sin wrecked this world, so it makes sense that the animals were corrupted at this time too.
Another possibility is that the animals gradually became predators over the centuries from creation to the Flood. Just as mankind’s wickedness seemed to gradually increase until it reached a climax at the time of the Flood, certain animals may have gradually started to eat meat and scavenge. This is how we portray them in our story because we thought it would be another way for Noah to vividly see the wickedness of sin. If he had grown up with carnivorous animals, then he may have thought of it as normal, but this activity is an intrusion in God’s creation. Witnessing animals killing and eating other animals, and then seeing people eat animals shows Noah that the world is broken due to sin.
This raises a related issue. If these animals were initially designed to eat plants, then when and how did they acquire their various attack and defense structures? The Bible does not directly address this question, but at least three plausible answers have been proposed. First, since the serpent seems to have been altered in some way at the time of the Curse, it is possible that other animals were changed at that time. Second, the animals may have been created with these structures but originally used them for different purposes. Third, God may have created these animals with the genetic information for the attack and defense structures, but these were not displayed immediately, remaining latent until sometime after Adam’s sin.
When did people start to eat meat?
As mentioned in the previous answer, man was originally instructed to eat vegetation (Genesis 1:29), and it was not until after the Flood that God gave mankind permission to eat animals (Genesis 9:3). However, the people before the Flood had grown exceedingly wicked. Consider the following verses to see how the Bible describes the people of that time:
. . . the wickedness of man was great in the earth (Genesis 6:5)
. . . every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Genesis 6:5)
The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence (Genesis 6:11)
. . . it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth (Genesis 6:12)
. . . the earth is filled with violence (Genesis 6:13)
It is not hard to imagine that many of these wicked people would have violated God’s dietary instruction and were killing animals for food. In the story, we made sure that the righteous people, like Noah and some of his family members, did not eat meat. This deta
il also explains why Noah is disgusted by the fish served to the king. Up until this point in our story, he had not witnessed anyone violating this instruction.
Was Enosh’s generation godly?
Genesis 4:26 states that when Seth’s son Enosh was born, “men began to call on the name of the Lord.” This verse seems rather straightforward in teaching that mankind began worshiping God around the time of the birth of Adam’s grandson, Enosh. Based on Genesis 5:3–6, we learn that Enosh was born 235 years after Adam was created.
In our novel, we portrayed Enosh’s generation as one that was largely faithful to the Lord. Given their 900-year lifespans, these people would have been the elders in many places in Noah’s early years. This is most clearly seen in the city of Iri Geshem where a 700-year-old man named Akel leads the town council. Certain places lacking this godly influence became more evil as younger generations held sway.
Some Christians have claimed that Genesis 4:26 should be understood in the opposite way. That is, at the time of Enosh’s birth, men began to turn away from the Lord. This is based largely on an ancient Jewish work known as the Genesis Rabbah, which instead of having the verb “call on” uses the verb “pollute.” So these people believe this verse teaches that men began to pollute the worship of the true God, probably through the worship of idols. In the Genesis Rabba, the “generation of Enosh” is a wicked one. However, the Hebrew text is accurately translated in all major English versions: the people of Enosh’s generation began to call on the name of the Lord.
Was there one continent before the Flood?
Many creationists believe that earth initially had one large supercontinent. This conclusion is the result of an inference made from Genesis 1:9, in which God states, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” If all the water was gathered into one place, then it seems as if the land would have been gathered in one place as well.
At the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter, this massive C-shaped continent is named Rodinia. Modern continents are made up of pieces of the original earth. These pieces, called cratons, can be put together like a jigsaw puzzle to give us a clue as to what the world may have looked like before the Flood. For more details about the original continent and how it was transformed into the seven continents we have on earth today, please see “Noah’s Lost World” by Dr. Andrew Snelling, available at https://answersingenesis.org/geology/plate-tectonics/noahs-lost-world/.
Why are the animals described in the novel different than what we observe today?
You may have noticed that we avoided using modern names for the creatures and plants Noah encounters in our story. Let’s look at the animals as examples to see our rationale behind this decision. First, and perhaps the most obvious reason, is that Noah would have certainly called them something different than what we do today. Even after accounting for language differences, people in different cultures often call animals by names that do not necessarily mean the same in another culture. For example, one people group may name an animal after the way it looks; another may name the same animal after the sound it makes, a third culture may name it after its behavior, and a fourth group may call it by its scientific classification.
Second, the animals would not have looked the same as they do today. The creatures Noah knew were the ancestors of our modern animals before those original kinds developed into the various species we recognize. For example, we are familiar with wolves, coyotes, jackals, dingoes, and regular dogs, but these varieties of the dog kind probably did not exist in Noah’s day since they are descendants of the two dogs God sent to board the Ark.
The third reason we avoided using modern names for animals is that we wanted the pre-Flood world to have an otherworldly feel to it. Many of the animals were named based on appearance or their behavior. So the bounder on Noah’s farm is part of the rabbit kind, and the supergliders spotted by Noah and Emzara are a type of pterodactyl, as shown on the cover.
How could Tubal-Cain and his siblings be about the same age as Noah if they were in the eighth generation and Noah in the tenth?
Three of the major characters in our story are members of Cain’s line mentioned in Genesis 4. Lamech is in the seventh generation (Adam, Cain, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech), and his children, Tubal-Cain and Naamah, are in the eighth generation. Yet Noah is in the tenth generation through Adam’s son Seth, and we portray Noah as being roughly the same age as Tubal-Cain and Naamah. How can this be if they are two generations apart?
The answer is really quite straightforward, but since we have had people ask about this, it is worth addressing here. The simple answer is that the men in Tubal-Cain’s lineage were older on average when each one had his son of record. Let’s explore that just a little bit.
We know the age of each patriarch from Adam to Noah when his son of record was born (an average of 117 years), but Genesis 4 does not include the ages of Cain, Enoch, Irad, et al., when their son of record was born. Assuming Cain was born one year after Adam and Eve were created (have you ever considered that Cain may have been just one year younger than his parents?), then the average age upon having their son of record of the men from Cain’s son, Enoch, to his descendant, Lamech, would need to be around 175 years. Since Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah were all older than 175 when each had their son of record, this average age is well within biblical precedent. In fact, if one man in Cain’s line was approximately 500 years old (like Noah was) when his recorded son was born, then the rest of the men could have averaged about the same age at the birth of their son as the men in Seth’s line.
Did Lamech lead a pre-Flood empire?
While studying Genesis for the Ark Encounter, an interesting thought occurred to me (Tim). At the end of Cain’s line in chapter 4, we read about a man named Lamech. This man is the first polygamist mentioned in Scripture, and he also boasted about killing someone. Four of his children are named: Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-Cain, and Naamah. The three male children are all cited as being leaders in particular industries: livestock, musical instruments, and metalworking. In the back-of-the-book section of the second book in this series (Noah: Man of Resolve), we will explain why we made Naamah a gifted singer.
Why would one family feature leaders in at least three industries? Perhaps they were exceptionally smart and creative. However, many people prior to the Flood were surely very intelligent. Perhaps the reason is that Lamech ruled over a particular area, and he placed his children in charge of these trades.
In our story, we made Lamech a ruler in the land of Havilah. He is an ambitious man who manipulates people to do his bidding. When Noah first encounters him, Lamech is friendly to him because he sees an opportunity to improve his own situation through trade. We will see much more of Lamech and his family in the second book.
Why does Havil have so much gold?
In our story, the city of Havil features a large amount of gold. It can be seen in decorations on buildings, in the expensive gift gallery, and throughout the palace. The basis for this is found in Genesis 2:11–12. There we are told about the first river that flowed out of Eden. Named the Pishon, this river skirted the land of Havilah. The Bible states that there is gold in this land, and that the gold of this land is good.
Since Tubal-Cain was known as an instructor of metalworkers, we made Havilah’s capital city, Havil, a place where all sorts of metals, including gold, were readily available.
Was it okay to marry close relations?
In our novel, Noah marries the daughter of his grandfather’s cousin (his first cousin once removed). In our day, this would be considered incest in many places, so why was it acceptable for so many biblical characters to marry close relations?
Skeptics have long attacked the biblical account of creation because we are told that God made Adam and Eve. Then Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel. After killing Abel, Cain moved away and had children of his own. So who was Cain’s wife?
The most natural answer to this famous qu
estion is that Cain married his sister. Although it is possible that he married a niece, the objection remains because he married someone very closely related to him. And to make the objection even stronger, the skeptic reminds us that the Bible forbids marriage to a close relation in the book of Leviticus, so how can we claim that many of these people married their kin?
First, we need to understand that the law against close intermarriage in Leviticus 18 was not instituted until two-and-a-half millennia after God created the world. The main reason incest is outlawed in many places is because it can be harmful to the offspring of such a union. Since brother and sister share many of the same genetic mistakes passed down through their parents, these mistakes would be passed down and likely amplified in their children. But early on, marriage to close relations would not have caused these sorts of problems for the offspring because humanity did not have as many genetic problems. As the centuries passed, more and more mutations occurred in our genes, and this genetic load eventually reached the point where it became dangerous for the offspring of closely related parents. This is why the law against such relationships was necessary in Leviticus 18.
Second, the Bible tells us that Eve was to be the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20), and it also states that after Seth was born, Adam and Eve had sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). Originally, brother married sister. It sounds gross to us today, but there were no other options, and it would not have the same stigma attached to it as it does today.
Third, some Christians object to this answer because it seems like incest. Some have claimed that God created a different people group so that Adam’s children had someone to marry. But such an act would mean that Eve was not the mother of all the living. Also, this objection ignores the fact that Abraham married his half-sister, Sarah. Their son, Isaac, married his first cousin, Rebekah. And their son, Jacob, married two of his cousins, Leah and Rachel. So there are plenty of examples in Genesis of close intermarriage.