The whole supposition of these two genealogies from Adam, analyzed Qabalistically, is an entirely new explanation ‘way out of the box’ from the accepted ‘authorized’ versions.


       After perusing dozens of Bible commentaries from as many authors over both of Adam’s supposed lineages, and especially over the ‘ages’ of the Antediluvian Patriarchs of Seth’s line, I could find no clear and concise explanation for either lineage even being relevant in the conventional sense. The standard explanations render no feasible conclusions. Many commentators contradict each other.


       Cain’s descendancy is a short list of seven ‘people’ with scant personal detail, all of whom perished in the alleged Flood. End of story. From the merely basic literal translations, which is the foundation of conventional commentary, the premise is utterly fantastical. And who, actually, would have even remembered these names? Why even enumerate them at all? Unless something else lie hidden beneath those names which might imply another premise entirely; a premise totally out of the reach of global religious interests and pontifications.


       Seth’s descendancy is relevant in the ‘conventional sense’ only in that it is stated to be proof positive, to the world’s clergical intelligentsia, of the actual physical age of our planet Earth. Archbishop James Ussher in 1658 actually attempted the alleged age of our world by calculating backwards all the supposed ‘ages’ of the Antediluvian Patriarchs to Adam due to Genesis, Chapter Five. Regardless the extraordinary proof against this utterly ludicrous position from all the physical sciences since then, another Doctor (no less) Floyd Nolan Jones in 1993, concurred with Archbishop Ussher’s brilliant conclusion that the Earth is 6,000+/- years old!


       These voices and all their coterie to follow persist yet with this polarization. These and others like them claim to be the spiritual backbone of our religious institutions purveying the Word of God. Is it really a wonder why the current and future generations choose to ignore such religious platitudes?


       I find myself practically in virgin territory with this composition. I could find no extant Qabalistic treatises on the Bible of any length other than snippets of Biblical phrases here and there. So in the course of my researches I had to read many of those conventional explanations from ‘authorized’ ecclesiastics and ‘scholars’. None were Qabalists. In fact, having read one of his books, I contacted one such author of quite a few Biblical commentaries. His commentary in the book I read was from the King James Bible version. I asked him whether he had ever considered the Qabalah as a source reference for any of his commentaries.


       His answer: “I have little personal interest in Qabalah or Gematria, so I don’t deal with those in my studies. I don’t see how they would be relevant to the work I do as they themselves are late inventions based on the existing sources that continue to be a problem.”


       The answer and attitude is typical of most, if not all, conventional Biblical commentators; especially those commentators who have a track record of ‘at-a-boys’ from others recognized in the same genre. I find them entrenched, unmoved, in their own brand of ‘scholarship,’ even though that brand serves up the same old and tired explanations of what they thought God had thought, said or did as if that God maintained cognition like a human. The author I contacted apparently knew nothing of Qabalah yet comments that Qabalah is a late invention. He is/was obviously unaware of the history of Qabalah or of the Sepher Yetzirah and their oral traditions from antiquity before being committed to script. The very idea of Qabalah as a possible reference source was dismissed with a hand wave.


       I have come to discover Qabalistic investigations and discoveries offering explanations far more satisfying than all the ‘standard’ commentaries of the Bible rendered heretofore. And yet this supposition could have been researched further. To do so, however, would have doubled, even tripled the pages. Besides finding myself alone in this endeavor, another handicap was the amount of gematria required. By that is meant the range in the index of numbers involved. I had been casually gathering relevant Hebrew, Greek and Latin words numbered from 1 to 1800 for over 35 years, yet there are great gaps in the index still. Especially at the higher end. Expressions from the Greek Qabalah, from the Septuagint, usually fill the higher end numbers. To be of the greatest service I believe a number index would need at least 10 or 12 entries under each and every number up to 1800.


       As for translations, only the Interlinear Hebrew-English Bibles were used, like the Masoretic version or The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament. Some interlinear Hebrew-English Bibles from the internet were also researched. Commentaries from various English Bibles were consulted, but I found too many of their comments insipid and contradictory while hawking some religious platitude.


       I continue the quest for more help and insight from anyone with any Qabalistic investigative skills and experience greater than my capabilities. There is yet so much more to be learned from these ancient texts. However, the standard argumentative and contradictory religious platforms are waning obsolete. We have grown and expanded consciousness, which calls for explanations beyond what has heretofore been served as dogmatic truth. A new look for deeper understanding is desperately needed.

Back to Index