In the last few chapters, we sought to discover where the land of Eden, spoken of in the Bible’s book of Genesis may actually have been, or is today. The reason for this was to try to locate where the Bible was speaking of in terms of Cain leaving Eden, for the land of Nod, and built the first city after his son, whose name was Enoch. Basically, as anyone can see, actually locating the exact
ancient site of Eden, is impossible, as the land/water mass configurations, topography, and geological locations of the earth were changed drastically over the years. This was quite possibly, due to the aftermath of the great flood in the twenty-eight century B.C.E. according to the biblical account, as well as the Sumer, and others.
Since there are as many depictions throughout antiquity describing the flood’s area, as there are theories as to whether it was a localized, or global deluge, we will not try to determine which of the many theories is correct.
What we are seeking is to identify Enoch. Which, (if either) of the Bible’s two separate persons, were the ancient Egyptians refereeing to when they attributed the design and building of the great Pyramid of Giza to, when they attributed it to the Sons of Enoch?
As stated, there are numerous accounts, and depictions of a great flood taking place in those days, and via many archeological finds, most are substantiated as creditable. With a number of those depictions being found throughout the region of southern Babylonia. The fact that most of the known populated earth in those days was in Mesopotamia, the flood itself, can certainly not be written off as common mythological tales. The Eridu Genesis, or, Sumerian Cuneiform Genesis, is not all that differing from the Hebrew version found in the Holy Bible. Hence, it is not all that important for us to actually know where all the rivers
spoken of in Genesis, concerning the locations of Eden, and the land of Nod were. Or, at least, that information isn’t that crucial for us to discern that southern Babylonia, is the most likely area of where civilization began.
The next thing I would like for us to consider, is that Babylon, is the general area of where the tower of Babel was built. That would inevitably make it the place where all of mankind congregated, and were then dispersed all about the world, with different languages, cultures, and beliefs. This of course, is based on the Biblical account, though, most scientific, and archeological evidences do support the region as being the first area of civilization as well.
Not far from this area, is also the area of the Caucasus mountains, and the black sea. This is another accepted area, in at least three major concepts of belief, to have spawned all the first civilizations on earth. The area from Turkey, to the Black sea, has certainly been represented throughout history, as a birthing place of many now known European, and western nations. (More on this in a later chapter)
These artifacts, and remnants help to show that the Land of Nod, and the land of UR, may have very well been first occupied by the same group of people, known as the Ubaidians.
This of course, assumes that the land of Nod, was a literal land, and not just the metaphorical “Land of wandering, and trembling” as Hebrew symbolism expresses. One who chooses to live away from Gods love and protection, will never settle down, or feel a life of ease within them.
Much of the metaphorical comparisons are found in many areas of study, including commentators such as Matthew Henry, and others, as seen here: “Bible Encyclopedia”
Whether these people were of the Semitic race, or were invaded by the Semitic races who came down from atop of mount Ararat, will be left
to the readers own interpretation, as I will later post a few of the many links, which hold as many different opinions of those two possibilities. However, I will point out that some say that Jews, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ubaidians are all, or were Semitic peoples, though Semitic, (as will be touched on later) in many cases is only an inference of groupings of ancient peoples, determined solely on linguistic similarities.
But, first, I would like to quote from, and post a link, (also of many) which pinpoints the most acceptable place of the first city, named Enoch, In which I agree with, based on my own studies. Here I will be quoting separate excerpts from, Dr. Arthur C. Custance. I highly recommend this link, to anyone who would like to go deeper into the study of Biblical names and explanations, in a most heart searched, poetic, and spiritually influential way: ( The Genealogies of the Bible: a Neglected Subject)
Now, in the line of Cain there are some interesting clues to the history of antiquity. To begin with, in Genesis 4:17, we are told that Cain produced a son named Enoch and that he then built a city and called the name of the city after the name of his son. The naming of cities and other such landmarks in honor of individuals is very ancient, obviously. Consequently a single name might stand for a city, a river, a mountain, or a country: and in cuneiform literature it was customary to associate with any name some identifying mark or determinative in order to let the reader know whether it was the individual himself or the city or some other feature of the landscape that was intended. In the case where the name stands for a man, the name was preceded by the sign for man. In the case of a city, the name was followed by little mark which has the phonetic value -ki (and appeared thus: To my knowledge, all place names in cuneiform are followed by this determinative sign. But there is one exception, and this is the city known as “Unuk” (equated with Enoch), which later appears as “Uruk,” (Ref. 3) “Warka,” and finally, “Perg-“, or “Purg-.” For those unfamiliar with such changes, the conversion of “wark” into “purg-” follows well-established rules in the development of language and in the transfer of words between languages of a different family.
Why is this singular exception made? I think the answer is to be found in Genesis 4:17. According to the Bible, this was the first city ever to be built, and it did not therefore form one of a class requiring an identifying determinative. It is rather analogous to calling London (England) “the City.” When people in England say they are going up to the City, they do not need to identify it; and I suspect that in Palestine the word “city” is often substituted for the word “Jerusalem” with no less certainty as to its identity. As other cities began to be built in the time of Cain, it seems likely that they, too, were named in honor of individuals then alive. But it would soon become apparent that the means of identification needed refining, and the determinatives would begin to be developed and applied appropriately. Yet this one city never required a determinative, being the very first one.
It is a curious thing that the word Unuk persisted for so long in history, reappearing finally in the Greek word Pergos which, significantly enough in the light of Genesis 11:4, means “tower.” The word tower is the basis of the English word town. And as has been demonstrated with cogency, (Ref. 4) the basic form purg- has come down into modern Indo-European languages in the form of burgh or the more extended form, borough. Thus, almost every day of our lives we are likely to come across a word meaning “city” which can be traced right back to within one generation of Adam to the City which Cain built and named in honor of his son.LINKS BELOW: