The story

Dwelling in the Land of Nod – Was it a Real City?


The Land of Nod is not just a place we go to catch a few winks but was mentioned in Genesis as the place where Cain, the firstborn son of Adam and Eve, was cast away after murdering his brother Abel. Although the Land of Nod is mentioned only once, it has intrigued Biblical scholars for centuries – was it a real place, and if so, where was it?

The Story of Cain and Abel

The story of Cain and Abel is found in Genesis 4:1-15. In brief, Cain and Abel were the sons of Adam and Eve , the first man and woman created by God. The older brother Cain became a farmer while the younger Abel became a shepherd. The two made a sacrifice of their produce to God, who favored Abel’s and not Cain’s. Filled with jealously Cain killed his brother and as a consequence, he was cursed by God to be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth. Genesis 4:16 states, “And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the Land of Nod, on the east of Eden.”

Cain and Abel. (Jane023 / Public Domain )

Where is the Land of Nod?

‘Nod’ is a Hebrew word that may be translated to mean ‘to wander’ and the only piece of information provided by Genesis about this place is its relative location to the Garden of Eden, i.e. to its east. Some Biblical scholars believe that Nod is an actual place and have tried to establish its location. This endeavor, needless to say, is dependent on the location of the Garden of Eden which is itself a highly disputed topic. It is described in the Book of Genesis as the source of four tributaries and many believe it was where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers run into the sea.

There are many speculations about where the land of Nod may be, including Arabia, India, and even as far away as China. Unsurprisingly, there is no consensus as to the exact location of the Land of Nod.

Cain fleeing before Jehovah's Curse. ( BetacommandBot / Public Domain )

On the other side of the debate is the argument that the Land of Nod is not an actual place, but a symbolic or figurative one. Some are of the opinion that the Land of Nod refers to any area where Cain’s wandering took him. Others suggest that this Biblical Land of Nod represents a place of exile, grief, and mourning. Yet others have argued that this place symbolized the growing distance between God and humanity. As Adam and Eve were living in the Garden of Eden, they were closer to God than their son Cain, who was forced to wander further east of this paradise.

  • Genetic ‘Adam and Eve’: All Humans are Descendants of One Man and Woman Who Lived Over 100,000 Years Ago
  • Sons of Cain, Builders of Empires. Paradise Lost Gives Rise to the Birth of City-States. – Part II
  • Garden of Eden Depicted in Ancient Greek Religious Art

The Garden of Eden. ( FRAYK / Public Domain )

Cain’s Wife and Child

The next verse of the chapter (Genesis 4:17) introduces the character of Cain’s wife, “And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he built a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch”, whose identity has attracted the attention of Biblical scholars. Adherents of the Abrahamic faiths believe that all human beings are descended from Adam and Eve. In Genesis, however, Adam and Eve are said to have had three children – Cain, Abel, and Seth.

Depiction of Cain establishing the city of Enoch. (Ldorfman / Public Domain )

This is a problem for those who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the story of creation in Genesis. The conventional way of solving this problem is that Adam and Eve had many other children, though their names are not mentioned, and that Cain married one of his sisters. It has been argued that marriages between siblings was allowed and was only forbidden during the time of Moses. Nevertheless, the problem with this is that their children are at a risk of being born with abnormalities, as a result of inbreeding. To address this issue, it has been argued that Adam and Eve, being created ‘perfect’, had genes that were ‘perfect’, and that their closest descendants inherited these ‘perfect’ genes. Moreover, ‘mistakes’ entered the human genetic makeup over time, which meant that inbred children risk being born with abnormalities.

Who Was Cain’s Wife?

Others have suggested that Cain met his wife in the Land of Nod, which would imply that she was not a daughter of Adam and Eve. Proponents of a literal interpretation of Genesis are quick to point out that Genesis 4:17 merely states that “Cain knew his wife”, i.e. had sexual intercourse with his wife, in the Land of Nod and not that he met her there. The same argument, however, may be used against this claim, as it is neither stated that Cain was married before his exile. In any case, it has been suggested that the question may be looked at from a different angle, i.e. from the way group identities are created. Those ‘outside’ the group are often regarded to be less important and perhaps even less human than those ‘inside’. This would explain the position of the author of Genesis, in which focus is placed on Adam, Eve, and their descendants, whereas those who do not belong to this family, even if they existed, did not matter and may be glossed over.


“Ask a Priest: Where Did Those People in Genesis 4 Come From?”

A: The Church doesn’t always offer a nice, neat answer to interpreting every passage of Scripture. But a few observations could be proffered here.

Your reference focuses on Genesis 4:15-16. “The LORD said to him, If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged seven times. So the LORD put a mark on Cain, so that no one would kill him at sight. Cain then left the LORD’s presence and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.” From there, Cain goes on to start a family, the implication being that there were people in this “land of Nod.”

To understand these passages, it is good to recall that the writers and redactors (editors or compilers) of Genesis were not trying to produce the kind of historical account that we in the 21st century might expect. Rather, the writers and redactors were trying to teach important lessons with a particular audience in mind. In this case, the audience was probably the Jews who suffered exile in the fifth or sixth century B.C. and who were mostly living outside of Palestine (see Introduction to Genesis, New American Bible).

That Genesis is not strictly historical in the modern sense is evident by the anachronisms that appear. For instance, the animal sacrifice offered by Abel (Genesis 4:4) reflects a practice from a later era. Or take Genesis 2:24, which says, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.” It mentions this right after Adam sees Eve for the first time. But why mention “father and mother,” since presumably, Adam had no human parents to leave?

This is a case where a writer is taking an old story and interjecting a value onto the text. This was not seen as something dishonest rather, it was one way the ancients showed reverence for the religious stories that had been handed down from one generation to another. This is how writers could link present values with the past, and thus help keep the religious stories alive and relevant.

It is in this context that we could read the story of Cain and Abel and its aftermath. Cain goes off to Nod, which is itself a symbolic name, derived from the verb nud, “to wander.” The purpose of the genealogy that follows “is to explain the origin of culture and crafts among human beings” (see footnote of New American Bible on Genesis 4:17-24).

(For more reading on the Church’s understanding of the origins of the human race, see the International Theological Commission’s 2004 document Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God.)

So to sum up: Genesis aimed to convey deep truths and religious traditions. It wasn’t meant to be read as a history textbook, though it was, and is, the inspired word of God. I hope this helps.


What Does Scripture Say?

First, let’s read the actual words of Genesis 4:16–17 , which The Golden Children’s Bible attempted to paraphrase:

Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch.

The Bible does not say that Cain went to Nod and later found a wife there. Rather, the implication in Scripture is that he already had a wife when he went to Nod. The event that took place in Nod was that he “knew” his wife—had sexual relations with her—and she conceived and gave birth to a son.

If Cain didn’t marry someone living in the land of Nod, we still have the question, “Where did Cain get his wife?” or, “Whom did Cain marry?” Again, we need to look to Scripture for the answer.

In Genesis 2:7 we read of the creation of Adam, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being.”

Genesis 2:21–22 recounts the creation of Eve, “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.”

And in Genesis 1:28 we read God’s command to Adam and Eve, “ Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply fill the earth and subdue it.’ ”

God created only two people, Adam and Eve, and told them to have lots of children—“Fill the earth!” Scripture mentions only three of Adam and Eve’s children by name (Cain, Abel, and Seth). However, Genesis 5:4 makes it clear that they had multiple sons and daughters:

After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years and he had sons and daughters.

In addition, Genesis 3:20 states,

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Scripture is clear that every human being is descended from Adam and Eve . Although it is common to classify people into “races” based on skin tone, eye shape, and so on, there is actually only one race.

So, since we are “one blood” descended from Adam and Eve , the only person Cain could have married would have been a sister or a niece.

It’s true that the human race is now composed of multiple people groups. How did this happen? The later history in Genesis helps us understand why people now look so different from each other, even though they all came from only two people.

Adam and Eve ’s offspring multiplied and filled the earth for approximately 1,500 years before Noah’s Flood. At that point, an important event happened in human genetics: the population was reduced to Noah’s family of eight aboard the Ark. After the Flood, the human race multiplied again, but in disobedience to God they did not fill the earth. So God judged their disobedience by confusing their language at the Tower of Babel, and from there they migrated, filling the earth, as God intended. As people became isolated in different groups around the world, certain physical characteristics became dominant, such as dark skin in Africa and almond-shaped eyes in Asia.

Regardless of the diversity in physical characteristics we see today, the Bible (and the science of genetics) confirms we are all one race. As Acts 17:26 states, “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings.”


The Last Adam

God provided the solution—a way to deliver man from his wretched state. Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15 that God provided another Adam. The Son of God became a man—a perfect Man—yet still our relation. He is called “the last Adam” ( 1 Corinthians 15:45 ) because he took the place of the first Adam. He became the new head and, because He was sinless, was able to pay the penalty for sin :

Christ suffered death (the penalty for sin) on the Cross, shedding His blood ( “and without shedding of blood there is no remission,” Hebrews 9:22 ) so that those who put their trust in His work on the Cross can come in repentance of their sin of rebellion (in Adam) and be reconciled to God .

Thus, only descendants of the first man Adam can be saved.


Dragon by Dragon – December 1979 (32)

Depending where you are when you read this, good morning, good afternoon, good evening or good night. It’s Sunday, which means it’s time to crack open the vault and review another issue of The Dragon. Technically not the last of the 1970’s (that would be December 1980), but for most folks, the end of the decade.

Let’s take a look at the Top 10 Cool Things in The Dragon #32

Side note – cover by Phil Foglio, which means his contributions to the magazine’s comics section shouldn’t be too far away. Always a highlight for me back in the day.

Yes, because of Dixie. I’m a red-blooded American male, and I make no apologies for it.

When question about super high level characters (as in, “no freaking way they got there fairly), ED gives the following sage advice …

“Cheating, yes, but who? If you refuse to play with these sorry individuals, they are only cheating
themselves of the feeling of accomplishment that comes from having honestly earned a level advancement. To each his own . . .”

Good advice then, and good now. Learn to enjoy losing spectacularly at games, and you will find them twice as enjoyable as you used to.

Charles Sagui has an article on “Poisons from AA to XX” that I enjoyed. I always like articles written from a position of authority concerning make-believe stuff, and this one has several firm rules for poisons that you might not have known:

1) Poison is restricted to Neutral and Evil characters when used against human or humanoid types … against dungeon monsters, anyone can use poison.

2) Alchemists alone distill and manufacture poisons – magic-users, thieves and assassins who are caught making poisons are told immediately to “cease and desist” – imagine, slapping a cease and desist order from the Alchemist’s Guild on a PC! Apparently, if the order is ignore, the PC “will receive a visitor who will see to it that he stops permanently.” – Sounds like a fun encounter to run.

3) Alchemists learn to make poison at one strength per level of experience up to the 5th, beginning with level 0, strength “AA”. At 6th, the alchemist can make strength “S” sleep poison. After 6th, he learns to make one strength per two levels, through strength “J” at 16th level. Type “X” can be made by 20th level alchemists, type “XX” by 25th level alchemists. Alchemists through 4th level make only ingested poisons. From 5th to 8th level, they make ingested plus water-soluble poisons. From 9th to 16th they learn to make contact and gaseous poisons.

4) Assassins are the main customers, and they dictate to the alchemists who can buy poison. Locksmiths are granted permission by the assassins to put poison needles and gases in locks and chests so the rich can keep their possessions safe. – This suggests that the thieves and assassins are not on the best of terms.

5) Any character is permitted to buy strength “S” sleep poison. Thieves, by paying the assassins 500 gp per level, are permitted to buy strengths “AA”, “A” and “B” poison. They may buy up to 60 vials of “AA” per year, up to 30 vials of “A” and up to 15 vials of “B”. Magic-users can pay 1,000 gp per level to get the right to coat darts and daggers with “AA” and “A” poison. The same buying restrictions for thieves apply.

6) A small vial of poison is enough to coat 6 arrowheads, 8 darts, 12 needles or 1 dagger or spear point. Two vials will coat a short sword. Three will coat a long or broadsword, four a bastard sword and five a two-handed sword. Each coating lasts for 2 successful hits, and up to 5 coats can be applied to a blade at a time. One vial is equal to one dose when swallowed.

7) Evil humanoids should never use more than “AA” poison. If they are employed by a powerful evil NPC, they may use up to “D”.

8) Poisons found in dungeons are:

0-50% – ingested
51-80% – water-soluble
81-90% – contact
91-100% – poison gas

9) Damage from poison is taken at a rate of the minimum hit point damage for the poison per melee round (which would have been a minute, back in the old days) until max damage rolled is met. So, a poison that deals 1-10 damage would do 1 point of damage per round. If you rolled 𔄞” damage, it would deal 1 point of damage per round for 6 rounds. A poison that did 5-100 damage would deal 5 points of damage per round.

10) When you save vs. sleep poison, you act as though slowed for 3 rounds.

11) When using poison-coated weapons, each time you draw the weapon or return it to its scabbard, you have to save by rolling your Dex or less (on 1d20, I assume), minus 1 for water-soluble and -3 for contact, or you suffer max poison damage. You also have to make a Dex save every other round for water soluble and every round for contact poison that the weapon is used in combat to avoid poisoning yourself. This applies until the weapon is washed, even if the weapon does not have enough poison left to poison opponents in combat.

12) Silver weapons will not hold poison, not will magic weapons. Normal weapons that are poison-coated gives them a dark discoloration, so everyone will know the weapon is poisoned.

Lots of rules, but actually pretty useful ones. The article then goes on to detail the different poison strengths – I won’t reproduce those here.

THREE | WEAPONS OF ASIA

This is a companion article to the armor article from last issue, also by Michael Kluever. Here’s a bit on the Chu-ko-nu, or repeating crossbow.

“An interesting variation was the repeating crossbow (Chu-ko-nu). It propelled two bolts simultaneously from its wooden magazine, which held a total of 24 featherless quarrels, each approximately 8.25 inches long. The bolts were contained in a box sliding on top of the stock and moved into firing position by a lever pivoted to both. The throwing of the lever forward and back drew the bowstring, placed the bolt in position and fired the weapon. Chinese annals relate that 100 crossbowmen could project 2,000 quarrels in fifteen seconds. The repeater crossbow was used as late as the Chinese Japanese War of 1894-95.”

Apparently I need to include it in Grit & Vigor.

FOUR | SINISTER SEAWEED

You got some interesting articles back in the day. This one, by George Laking, is about aquatic megaflora, and its danger to adventurers. The info in the article was designed by the Mid-Columbia Wargaming Society of Richland, Washington. With a little searching, I found a picture of Mr. Laking and some society members from a 1978 newspaper. The internet!

So, you’re first thought it – screw seaweed, bring me dragons!

Apparently, megaflora stands capture oxygen in vast bubble domes within their branches. Within this bubble dome, there is a bunch of dry limbs and twigs from this megaflora. The interior of the dome resembles a quiet, dry forest surrounded by thick trunks. Bubble dome heights range from 4 to 40 feet, depending on the size of the stand.

Where’s the danger. Well, the stands can capture ships for 1-12 hours, making them vulnerable to aquatic monster attacks.

The bigger danger is bubble dome “blows”! The domes are temporary structures. In some cases, the gas cannot escape and pressure builds up until it explodes, throwing dry branches and limbs 2d10 x 10 feet into the air in a huge fountain of water and foam! Ships will fall into the void left, and then be slammed by the walls of water rushing back in, possibly destroying the ship. A blown stand looks like a peaceful lagoon with walls of megaflora around it, quickly growing in to fill the clearing. This will be the lair of aquatic monsters, guarding the treasure left by ships destroyed in past blows.

A third danger is that pure oxygen is poisonous to people. Divide the height of the dome by 10 and take this as a percentage chance per hour that a character absorbs too much oxygen into her bloodstream. A character who reaches this threshold, upon leaving the dome, must make a save vs. poison or immediately die.

Also – pure oxygen is extremely flammable. Let’s say you light a torch inside the dome …

“(1) The initial explosion of gas would create a 6-20 die fireball of incandescent oxygen, depending on the size and depth of the bubble dome (depth of dome divided by ten equals hit dice). The size of the fireball would be half as large as the initial dome after the explosion of the gas. Saving throws would be applicable.

(2) Following the initial explosion, the fireball would immediately rise to the surface with a subsequent catastrophic inrush of ocean water onto the previously dry dome interior. Each character would have to undergo a check for system shock as the walls of water met with implosive fury. A character saving vs. system shock would only take 3-10 (d6) of damage. Failing to save means immediate death!

(3) Finally—should the character survive—an immediate check vs. oxygen poisoning would be necessary to determine if he/she had exceeded the critical threshold at that point. If so, that character would have to make an additional save vs. poison per oxygen poisoning (above).”

Frankly, a weird bubble dome dungeon would be awesome, and a great challenge. A ship gets stuck and attacked by aquatic ogres. Adventurers follow them down to retrieve something important, find a massive bubble dome with a dead, maze-like forest within it. They have to work fast to avoid being killed by too much oxygen, and there is a chance that it explodes and the ship is drawn down into sea and crushed.

FIVE | THE BEST LAID PLANS

“In a previous column I mentioned that I would set up an adventure where the players would end up in the city streets of the 20th century. Well, I knocked together some rules, put the scenario together, stocked the place with “treasures” of a technological sort, and sprinkled some monsters (thugs, gangs, police, etc.) around.

Much to my chagrin, Ernie the Barbarian was leading the expedition. When his party emerged from the subway—and despite the general blackout in the city due to the power failure caused by their entry into this alternate world—he stopped, looked, listened and then headed back for the “safety” of the “real world!” Some people really know how to spoil a DM’s fun …”

From Jean Wells in “Sage Advice”:

“The subject is dwarven women and whether or not they have beards. Last spring when we were working on the final editing of the Dungeon Masters Guide, I tried to get Gary Gygax to change the section on dwarves so that dwarven women would not have beards. Needless to say, I was not very successful.

What I didn’t realize was that for some strange reason (completely unknown to me), I had started something. I did not understand the full impact of what I had done until I went to GenCon this year. Many people stopped me in the hall to either agree with me wholeheartedly, or disagree with me and then tell me that I was crazy. Everyone knows that dwarven women have beards, they said. It did not stop there. Oh, no! We have even been getting mail on this issue. It is not too bad, but I don’t like being accused of making an issue out of the subject.

One thing that everyone who has taken sides in this issue fails to remember is that Gary Gygax wrote the Dungeon Masters Guide and it is his book. He can say whatever he wants to. You can agree with him or side with me, but either way, the person who has final say in his or her campaign is the DM. So, for all the people who have written in to agree with me or to agree with Gary, and for those who haven’t yet but were planning to, please save your breath. Gnome women don’t have beards (this is true and I am glad). Dwarven women may indeed have beards, Gary, but not in my world.”

Yeah, there have always been gamers who A) didn’t get that it was make-believe, and there was therefore no right or wrong, and B) didn’t get that their own opinion isn’t law.

“Question: We are having an argument over an issue that has us divided. My friends say that with a ring of telekinesis they can make an arrow spin at the speed of light and then release it, having it do between 100 and 600 points of damage to their target. I say this is impossible! What do you think?”

God – I remember these fools.

“Question: I am having a romance with a god, but he won’t have anything to do with me until I divorce my present husband. How do I go about divorcing my husband?”

Actually, I would wear one of these with a ridiculous amount of pride. I’m super tempted to lift the graphic and make one online for myself.

Looks like the Barbarian Shop was in a private residence:

Len Lakofka presents in this issue his insectoids, which are just the humanoid races with insect characteristics grafted on. For example: Scorpiorcs. For Blood & Treasure, they would look like:

Scorpiorc, Medium Monstrous Humanoid: HD 2 AC 16 ATK 2 pincers (1d6) and weapon MV 40 SV F15 R12 W13 XP 300 (CL 4) Special-Surprised on d8 (due to eye stalks), move silently (70%), back stab x2.

Scorpiorcs never use flaming swords or carry any sort of flame. They also never use armor, but may carry a shield. They speak Scorkish and broken Orcish. They can advance as fighters from a beginning “level” of 2 to a top rank of 4.

I also have to mention the “skags”, which are a blend of scorpion, kobold, ant and goblin. This is actually a sort of “monster class” – dig it:

Great title. Found HERE at Boardgame Geek. Stephen Fabian did the art, so it has be worth a few bucks based on that alone.

EIGHT | TRAVELER POLITICS

I’ve never played Traveler, so I can’t comment on the utility of this article about diplomats in the Traveler Universe. I can, however, draw attention to this table, which may prove useful to people:

I’m sure somebody can adapt this to their game, when trying to figure out an NPC’s s power base in some fantasy or sci-fi city.

William Fawcett has a long article on “The Druid in Fact and Fantasy”. A tough subject, because so little is known, or at this point, can be known. I’m not going to dwell on the historical bits in the article, but I did like this:

“DECLARATION OF PEACE
A new Druidic ability

Although the Druid, due to his involvement with life, is unable to turn undead, his role of the peacemaker gives him a similar ability with most humanoids. Before or during any armed combat if he has not struck any blow, a Druid has the ability to make a Declaration of Peace. This declaration has a 10% plus 5% per level (15% 1st level, 20% 2nd, etc.) chance of causing all armed combat to cease for two rounds per level of the Druid. This does not affect magical combat in any way, nor will it stop a humanoid who is in combat with any non-humanoid opponent. Once the combat is stopped, any non-combat activities may take place such as cures, running away (and chasing), blesses, magic of any form, or even trying to talk out the dispute.

After peace has been successfully Declared, combat will resume when the effect wears off (roll initiatives), or at any time earlier if anyone who is under the restraint of the Declaration is physically harmed in any way. This could be caused by an outside party or even by magic, which is not restrained by the Declaration. A fireball going off tends to destroy even a temporary mood of reconciliation. Once a Druid strikes a blow or causes direct harm in any way to a member of a party of humanoids, he permanently loses his ability to include any member of that party in a Declaration of Peace. The Declaration of Peace affects all those within the sound of the Druid’s voice, a 50’ radius which may be modified by circumstances.”

He also has quite a few magic cauldrons and some thoughts on herbs. Good read overall.

ELEVEN | THE FELL PASS

An adventure in this issue – “The Fell Pass” by Karl Merris!

That hatching seems reminiscent! A also hereby challenge Dyson Logos to include more giant, disembodied hands on his very excellent maps.

The adventure takes place in geothermally heated caverns, and includes cave bears, ogres, a spidersilk snare, gray ooze, manticores, griffons, shadows, trolls, pit vipers, Vlog the Ogre …

… and Xorddanx the Beholder:

I love the heck out of that art, which is by Merris himself!

I did some searching, and I’m pretty sure I’ve found him online. He appears to be a Brony now, and might have no interest left in D&D, but if I can commission a piece of fantasy art from him, I’ll let you know …


Charley Harper collection launches at The Land of Nod

Though he didn't realize it at the time, Todd Oldham fell in love with Charley Harper's work when he was only five or six years old.

It was the artist's illustrations in "The Giant Golden Book of Biology" that first captured the future designer's imagination and inspired his lifelong love of nature.

Oldham hopes that a new collection from children's housewares brand The Land of Nod will have the same effect on a new generation of kids. Set to launch at 2 a.m. March 29 on the children's home decor company's website, it includes bedding, pillows, shower curtains, rugs, wall decals and growth charts that feature Harper's designs, between 30 and 40 items total.

"I’ve always thought that it's a very old-fashioned notion that kids don’t deserve the most sophisticated and beautiful things possible," Oldham said via phone from his Manhattan office, where he could see no fewer than four Harper paintings just looking in one direction. (He has countless Harper silkscreens, original paintings and drawings displayed in both his home and office.) "I know the effects of giving children vibrant, beautiful, inspirational things."

After all, the images that graced the pages of his treasured childhood science book stayed with him. Many years later, poking around a thrift store in Pennsylvania, a Ford Times magazine caught his eye. Something about the bird on the cover felt familiar.

"I looked in the back and saw the name Charley Harper," Oldham said. "I didn’t know who that was as a 6-year-old, you’re not concerned about the illustrator or even that there was an illustrator involved."

But he soon made the connection to his childhood book. When he found out that Harper was still living, Oldham flew to Cincinnati to meet him.

"He was so gracious and kind to me," Oldham said of the late artist, whom he described as humble, "a gentle person and a gentleman."

Oldham spent several days every few months for the next five years – the rest of Harper's life – working to digitally archive the artist's entire studio.

"He would look at us like he was watching mice scurry about," Oldham said of Harper, whom the former describes as always looking like he had "a really clever secret."

"It was one of the best thrills," he said of the experience, which he said he counts as one of the blessings of his life. "Everything you opened was more beautiful than the next. And Charley was right there, so I could ask him anything."

Land of Nod Charley Harper ladybug rug ($299) (Photo: Provided)

Harper died in 2007. Since then, Oldham's company has represented the Harper estate, serving as a go-between with licensing partners, which also include tableware shop Fishs Eddy.

Perhaps Oldham's efforts are the reason why Harper's work seems to have found a wider audience in recent years.

"I think part of his popularly has to do with Todd really getting his work out into the public view and preserving that work," said Michelle Kohanzo, The Land of Nod's managing director. "Todd is a big champion of his work, and I think that’s a big reason that people are more aware."

Oldham, however, downplays his role.

"The work is resonating because it’s so beautiful," he said. "I’ve seen it become appreciated by all kinds of new people. I honestly don’t know anything else that has the same appeal as Charley. It just crosses all boundaries, all taste levels."

Art to grow up with

For his part, Oldham wants to "ferociously protect" Harper and his work, seeing to it that it's used in a way that he thinks Harper would have approved.

Oldham thinks the collaboration with The Land of Nod fits that bill. "The quality matches the integrity of Charley’s work," he said. "These are heirloom things that are going to be passed down."

And he loves the idea that a young mind can grow up sleeping under a vibrant Harper quilt or playing on a rug shaped like one of the artist's famous ladybugs.

Kohanzo first met Oldham at his studio and was struck by the prominence of Harper's work there.

"After meeting Todd, I just feel down this rabbit hole," consuming everything Charley Harper that she could find, Kohanzo said.

A collection at The Land of Nod seemed like a good partnership, she said, noting that the company works with approximately 200 artists at any given time, but it's unusual for it to feature someone as well-known as Harper.

"I think Charley’s work really speaks to children," she said. "I think his work’s really complex, but there’s a simplicity to it that children are really drawn to. It’s so graphic and vibrant. It’s based in nature that's just beautiful for children."

Bedding is the centerpiece of the collection. Most noteworthy, perhaps, is a limited-edition quilt, hand embroidered and appliqued, based on Harper's Glacier Bay National Park poster. Only a limited number are being made.

Land of Nod Charley Harper Glacier Bay limited edition quilt ($399 twin $459 full) (Photo: Provided)

Other items in the collection, though, will be more attainable. Kohanzo hopes that the collection continues on into the future, and to add new items each year. Current prices range from $24 to $799.

Kohanzo, who counts the launch as her favorite in her 17 years at The Land of Nod, thinks some pieces, such as the rugs and accent pillows, are sophisticated enough to use in main living areas, not just kids' rooms.

"I think any fan of Charley Harper is going to be a fan of the collection," she said.

Hidden Charley

Those fans will want to look for hidden touches that celebrate Charley Harper the man and not just the art. A patch on the back of the quilt bears a likeness to a paint splatter that graced the wool gabardine pants that Harper wore to work in.

From a long pillow, seven raccoons' eyes glow yellow from in and around a pile of firewood. That image was chosen for the animals that lived on Harper's property.

Oldham knows that image's backstory from his visits to Harper's Springfield Township home, which was surrounded by woods.

"He had generations of raccoon families he would feed," Oldham said. "During dinner one night, there was a knock, and there were about 30 raccoons standing there, waiting for Charley.

"Only Charley would have that relationship with generations of raccoons," he mused, his affection for his friend apparent in his voice. "He was kind of not of this world. He had a very graceful, otherworldly presence. He was the kind of person you would have expected to see a bluebird fly up and sit on his shoulder."

5-foot round Land of Nod Charley Harper zebra rug ($499) (Photo: Provided)

And Harper loved his adopted city, Oldham said. (The West Virginia native came here to study his craft at the Art Academy of Cincinnati. That's where he met his future wife, fellow artist Edie – a "beautiful, magical" relationship, by Oldham's account – and the couple continued to live and work here throughout their lives.)

"He was so proud to be from Cincinnati," Oldham said. "There was never any talk about moving elsewhere. He loved it.

"I hope that Cincinnati is as proud of Charley as I am," he added. "I’m happy to be a part of making sure that (his) legacy continues"

After all, Oldham believes that Harper's work, with its bright colors and a style that's somehow both luscious and spare, has a real impact on its beholder.

"Whenever you’re in the proximity of Charley's work, the world is made better," he said.

Harper on tour

To launch the new collection, The Land of Nod will send a bus decked out with Charley Harper graphics and equipped with kids' activities – coloring, a photo booth and a play space – to five cities across America, stopping at zoos, nature centers, parks and art fairs. The tour kicks off here and runs through June, making stops in Louisville Nashville Asheville, North Carolina and New York City.

What: Charley Harper bus tour

When: 9 a.m.-5 p.m.April 9 10 a.m.-5 p.m. April 10

Where: The Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden, 3400 Vine St. (April 9) Krohn Conservatory, 1501 Eden Park Drive (April 10)

For more information about Charley Harper, visit http://charleyharperartstudio.com.

Land of Nod Charley Harper zoo babies shower curtain ($79) (Photo: Provided)


Brother AACOOLDRE : Thebes, Egypt: Cain's Land of Nod

The city of Thebes foundation was laid before the dawn of history (papyrus writing). King Menes before he united Egypt under one kingdom was called the Theban. Before Egypt was called Egypt they were called Thebes. These Black Thebans came from Ethiopia and brought their God (Amen) with them.

No (Thebes) Prehistory worshiped Ethiopian God Amen
Memphis 3100 bc Worshiped Ptah, the god of masonry Egypt=Ptah
Rome village 1000bc Named after the Egyptian Remus
Rome town 250 bc
Athens village 1200Bc Named after the Egyptian Neith
Athens city 360 Bc Some of the first Kings of Egyptian origin
Antioch 400bc
Jerusalem 1400bc
Babylon 2100bc The black heads were first settlers


Many great Temples are in prehistoric ruins even five thousands years ago. Thebes belief in life after death was the great inspiration for building on such a grand scale, erecting structures that stand forever. Thebes was the world’s oldest city and Diodorus affirms that the Thebans were the oldest men on earth. The first five dynasties were ruled by Thebes African lineages. The Greeks called Thebes and Ethiopian black or sun burnt people. Herodotus told us Zeus was Amen and the Greeks called Zeus “Ethiopian” (Black). Amen was unseen and had attributes of truth and faithfulness.

When the Biblical character Cain (a smith mason) left Eden to build the first city in the land of Nod where did he go (Genesis 4:16-18). The Biblical name for Thebes was No (Jeremiah 46:25), a close approximation to Nod. So even the Bible recognizes Thebes as the real first city in Egypt and their surrounding areas.

In Hebrew the second root word for faith was Aman, another close approximation to the Egyptian Amen. My concern for Amen was compounded in the whole chapter 11 of Paul’s Hebrew’s. Paul linked faith with not seeing. In Egypt Amen was unseen. Paul goes on:

A. Faith= Universe created by command of words. In Egypt this was Amen working through the Memphis theology of Ptah and Thoth.

B. Abel was looked over Cain. Cain built black Thebes but the Jews lived in Memphis.

C. Enoch (Thoth) pleased God by his faith

D. Noah (Nun) built the Ark based on Egyptian deities.

E. Abraham was looking forward to a city with foundations whose architect was God

f. by faith Jacob blessed each of Joseph son as he leaned on top of his staff. The name of Thebes itself is the name of the imperial scepter of Ethiopia, a golden staff.

We see in Revelations 3:14 of Amen being the ruler of God’s creation. In Egypt Amen creates the universe, mankind and cities by truth and faith.

AACOOLDRE

Well-Known Member

This paper attempts to introduce the idea that the biblical Creation stories, from the dawn of Creation through Noah’s Flood, derive from Egyptian cosmogony, more specifically, the Theban doctrine of Creation. Thebes came late to the political scene in Egypt and its view of Creation attempted to incorporate the ideas of Memphis, Heliopolis and Hermopolis into a new cosmology that subordinated the chief deities of those cults to Amen, chief deity of Thebes.

The Theban doctrine holds that in the beginning there was the great primeval flood known as Nu or the Nun. The god Amen then appeared in a series of forms, first as an Ogdoad, then as Tatenen (a Memphite name for Ptah identified with the primeval hill), then as Atum, who created the first gods, then as Re. After this he created humanity, organized the Ennead, appointed the four male members of the Hermopolitan Ogdoad as his divine fathers and priests, and appointed Shu as their leader. Another Theban tradition holds that Osiris built the first city at Thebes.

To equate all these ideas with the biblical Creation stories would be a massive undertaking, far beyond the scope of this short paper. Therefore I will deal only with a small piece of this very large subject. In this paper I will just compare some elements of the Heliopolitan cycle with the biblical account of Adam and Eve and the second day of Creation.

My point of departure is Genesis 2:4-5, which serves as a preamble to the story of Adam and Eve. Coming immediately after the account of the seven days of Creation, the text reads as follows.

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

The phrase “generations of” appears eleven times in the Book of Genesis, but in the other ten instances it refers to stories about members of a family, such as in “the generations of Noah” or “the generations of Jacob.” This indicates that the noun or nouns following after the words “generations of” refer to a parent or parents. Genesis 2:4, therefore, implies that “the heavens and the earth” are anthropomorphic beings with children, and that what follows is about the family of these two entities.

This formulation clearly implies a pagan throwback to the idea of Heaven and Earth as deities, but biblical scholars, determined to preserve the monotheistic view of biblical history, are reluctant to accept such an interpretation. Instead, they wrench the phrase out of context and assert that it simply means “things that are to follow” or “the history of.”

A second major difficulty with Gen. 2:4-5 is the time frame in question. The passage indicates that the stories we are about to read take place “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,” and before the appearance of plant life. When is that day?

Biblical scholars tell us that the preamble refers to stories that take place after the seven days of Creation. But reading the passage literally and in context, it quite explicitly states that the stories we are about to read occurred on the day that God made the earth and the heavens and before the appearance of plant life. That time frame is clearly defined in the account of the seven days of Creation.

On the second day of Creation, a firmament arises out of the primeval waters and separates the waters above from the waters below. The biblical text says that the firmament came to be called “heaven.” On the third day of Creation, the waters below gathered in one place to create the dry land, which was then called “earth,” after which, plant life appeared. So the preamble to the story of Adam and Eve places the upcoming stories in the period between the division of the waters and the appearance of plant life, in the middle of the third day of creation.

Biblical scholars, however, note an interesting problem with this division between the second and third day. The second day is the only day in the sequence that isn’t blessed by God. Instead, the third day receives two blessings, one after dry land or Earth appears, and one after the arrival of plant life. As many of these scholars have recognized, the gathering of the waters to create dry land continues the second day’s process of rearranging and dividing the primeval waters. For this reason, they argue that the second day’s blessing is held off to the middle of the third day because that is when the task of rearranging the primeval waters is finished. I would propose instead that the biblical redactor simply made an editing error, and the first half of Day Three actually belongs with Day Two and the associated blessing belongs at the end of Day Two. This would be consistent with the text of Genesis 2:4, which says that heaven and earth were created on the same day.

To summarize briefly, so far: On the second day of Creation, god placed a firmament in the primeval waters, separating the waters above from the waters below. The firmament was called Heaven. Then he gathered the waters below into a single place and created dry land. The dry land was called Earth. The preamble to the story of Adam and Eve places the starting point for the biblical stories on the second day of Creation, before the appearance of plant life on Day Three.

The arrangement of events on Day Two seems to closely parallel the Heliopolitan Creation myth. A great hill arose out of the primeval flood. This hill would obviously constitute a form of firmament. In some traditions that hill was Atum, the Heliopolitan Creator deity. In other traditions, Atum appeared at the top of the hill.

Atum, through act of masturbatory sex, brought forth two deities, Shu and Tefnut, representing “air” and “moisture”. These two deities gave birth to the male deity Geb, who represented the earth, and the female deity Nut, who represented the heavens.

Several Egyptian pictures portray Shu as lifting Nut into the air and separating her from Geb. Sequentially, then, Atum appears as a firmament in the middle of the Nun and creates Shu who ultimately separates heaven and earth and symbolizes the space in between. Shu, therefore, becomes the firmament between Heaven and Earth.

Consider now how Genesis says the waters were divided. First, the waters above were divided from the waters below. Next, the waters below were gathered into a single place. “The waters above” is an Egyptian concept signifying the sky. We see it most clearly in images of the solar bark sailing through the heavens. Although Genesis says the firmament was called Heaven, I believe this was a late gloss by the biblical redactors. The firmament stands below the waters above. It is the waters above that would correspond to heaven. The firmament would be the space in between heaven and earth, corresponding first to the primeval mountain and then to Shu.

This brings us to the question of where in all the middle east would any people have such a concept as all the waters gathering in a single place, leaving fertile land behind in its retreat. The most logical location is the Nile River in Egypt. The gathering of the waters in one place is the primary Egyptian agricultural phenomenon. It derives from the annual overflowing of the Nile, which fertilizes the land and then withdraws, leaving the dry land in its place. For Egyptians, the Nile was the one and only great water way. Even the Mediterranean Sea attaches to the Nile.

Elsewhere, throughout Canaan and Mesopotamia, there were numerous large unconnected bodies of waters that were well known to the inhabitants of those lands. They include the Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf, Reed Sea, Dead Sea, The Jordan River, the Tigris and The Euphrates. It is unlikely that the people of those lands would think of all these waters as gathering in a single place.

Returning to Genesis 2:4-5, we are told that when dry land was formed, no plant life existed because no man existed to till the ground. The next Genesis verses in sequence tell us: a mist rose up to water the dry land, God created “the Adam” out of the dust, (note that the bible says “the Adam”, not “Adam”), then he planted a Garden and put “the Adam” in it. Observe here 1) Adam appears before the plant life on Day Three and 2) that woman has not yet appeared. This is contrary to the sequence in the seven days of Creation, which places man and woman on the sixth day. Eve, or “the woman”, which is how she is described until after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, appears later in the sequence, after plants and after other animal life.

This arrangement strongly suggests that the man and woman created on Day Six were other than Adam and Eve, who appear earlier. The confusion arises from the fact that Adam and Eve originally represented Heliopolitan deities, the most important of whom was named Atum, a name virtually identical in pronunciation to the Semitic word “Adam”, which was used to describe the human male. The later biblical redactors, unable to conceive of Adam and Eve as deities, thought of them instead as the first humans, and equated them with the man and woman created on Day Six, who actually are the first humans in the Genesis Creation story.

Chronologically and contextually, we see that Genesis introduces Adam and Eve as the anthropomorphic beings referred to in Genesis 2:4 as heaven and earth, and since Adam is created out of the dust of the earth, we can equate him with the Egyptian deity Geb or Earth and we can equate Eve with the Egyptian deity Nut or heaven.

Eve enters the story, however, only after she is physically ripped from the body of Adam. This separation of Adam (the earth) from Eve (the Heaven) closely parallels the Egyptian account in which Shu physically pulls Heaven from the Earth. It also incorporates the Heliopolitan idea that a male and female deity were created from a single male deity.

There are some other interesting parallels between Geb and Nut and Adam and Eve. According to Plutarch’s account of the Osiris myth, Re, the chief deity, ordered Geb and Nut not to couple. They disobeyed his injunction and were punished. Re ordered Shu to separate the two bodies and declared that Nut would not be able to give birth on any day of the year. Thoth, sympathetic to Nut’s plight, won some light from the Moon and created five new days. Since these days were not yet part of the year, Nut could give birth on these five days. She had five children, one on each day, born in the following order: Osiris, Horus, Set, Isis and Nephthys, the three males first and then two females. The Egyptians memorialized this sequence in their calendar, which names the last five days of the year after these five deities in the order of their births. Because of the role of Geb and Nut in birthing these deities, they were often known as the father and mother of the gods.

Observe the sequence of events: The chief deity gives a direct command to Heaven and Earth. They violate the order and as a penalty the chief deity makes child birth a difficult act for the female. Subsequently she gives birth to three sons. As we know from other Egyptian myths, one of those three sons, Set, kills one of the other sons, Osiris.

Genesis has a similar plot. God gives Adam and Eve (or Earth and Heaven) a direct order. They disobey that order and one of the punishments inflicted includes difficulties with child birth. Subsequently, Eve gives birth to three named sons, Cain, Abel, and Seth, one of whom kills one of the other brothers. Also, Eve is identified in the bible as the “mother of all living”, an identification similar to Nut’s designation as mother of the gods. So, as with Nut, Eve disobeys God, is punished with difficulty in childbirth, has three male sons, one of whom kills one of the others, and she is thought of as the first mother.

Interestingly, the Hebrew name Seth and the Egyptian name Set are philologically identical and both children are born third in sequence. However, as some will note, in the biblical sequence it is not Seth who kills his brother. Instead, Cain does the killing. Cain, as the oldest brother, should correspond to Osiris and his killing of another brother is inconsistent with the Egyptian story. Why that occurs is too complex an issue to be resolved in this paper and we will let it pass. However, a little further below, we will see that Cain and Osiris share some other characteristics.

Although Adam and Eve start out as Geb and Nut they also share some aspects of Osiris and Isis. In this regard, we should observe that the Egyptians recognized a deity known as Geb-Osiris who was thought to have created the cosmic egg in Hermopolitan creation myths. Therefore, a merging of Geb and Osiris into a single character involved with Creation does not undermine the theme of this paper. However, I should observe that I believe the biblical character of Adam initially corresponds to the Egyptian god Atum and that Genesis incorporates within Adam all the members of the Ennead. This is consistent with the Egyptian view of Atum, who was also thought of as including within himself all the members of the Ennead.

The connection between Adam and Eve and Osiris and Isis is most apparent in the story of the serpent and the forbidden fruit. Osiris, as ruler of the afterlife, had to make two decisions with regards to the people who appeared before him. First he had to decide if the person lived a moral life then he had to determine whether to grant that individual eternal life.

In Genesis, we learn that the Garden of Eden had two special trees. The fruit of one gave knowledge of good and evil the fruit of the other gave eternal life. Thus, the ability of Adam to have control over the fruit of these tree would give him the same status as Osiris, but the biblical theology can not allow an Osiris to exist, so access to those fruits was forbidden by the one true deity. The nature of this conflict is even noted in the bible when God says to one of his angels, “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”

I suppose almost everyone who reads the story of Adam and Eve has at one time or another questioned why it was such a terrible thing for these two people to learn about the difference between good and evil. I suggest that to ask this question is to misunderstand what the story was really about. The story was not about good and evil. It was about the need to diminish the role of Osiris as a cult figure.

As a consequence of Adam and Eve eating the fruit, God administered some punishments. We have already mentioned the problem of childbirth. In addition, Adam lost his kingdom and was banished from the Garden. He journeyed to a new land where he became a farmer who had to suffer hard labor in order to produce food. As to the serpent who tricked Adam into losing his kingdom, God declared that there should be enmity between the woman and the serpent and between her seed and his seed. Furthermore, the seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent and the serpent shall bruise the heel of the woman’s seed.

Again, these themes seem to be drawn from the Osiris cycle. In the Osiris myth, especially as related by Plutarch, Osiris and Isis ruled in a golden age. Osiris traveled far and wide teaching the people what he knew and Isis ruled in his absence. But the god Set, whom the Egyptians frequently identified with the serpent Apep, enemy of Re, conspired to take the throne for himself. Through trickery, he trapped Osiris in a chest, killed him, and hid the box away. Subsequently, Set hacked the body into pieces and buried them around the land of Egypt. Isis, fearing for the safety of Horus, her child, hid him away from Set. Still, Set managed to sneak up on Horus, and in the form of a serpent bit at his heel. But for the intervention of the gods, Horus would have died. When Horus grew up he avenged his father’s murder and defeated Set in battle.

In Genesis, the Osiris role is shared between Adam and Cain. For comparisons, we begin with the observation that the key scene in the Garden of Eden involves a serpent in a tree trying to kill Adam by tricking him into eating the forbidden fruit. The trick worked. Where Adam was essentially a fertile agricultural deity in the Garden of Eden, he has now been figuratively killed in that he now lives as a mortal and he must sweat out agricultural growth. He no longer rules as king in a golden age.

Indeed, the bible implicitly recognizes that the serpent killed Adam. The text explicitly says that if Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil he would surely die. Since the serpent tricked Adam into committing this life extinguishing act, he has, like Set, killed the king. That Adam didn’t actually die in accord with the warning is no doubt due to the confusion of identities in later times between Adam and Eve and the first man and woman created on Day Six.

As to the serpent who tricked Adam, just as Set tricked Osiris, he and Eve became enemies, just as Set and Isis became enemies. Also, just as Set bit the heel of Horus, Genesis said that the serpent would bruise the heel of Eve’s children. And just as Horus avenged Set by beating him in battle, Genesis says that the seed of Eve will bruise the head of the serpent.

With regard to this last matter, let me call your attention to a well-known Egyptian scene generally identified as “The Great Cat of Heliopolis”. It shows a cat with a stick bruising the head of a serpent who is sitting in a tree. Egyptologists usually identify the Cat as Re and the serpent as Apep his enemy. Iconographically, while the Great Cat scene no doubt derives from the conflict between Re and Apep, the image portrayed seems remarkably consistent with the biblical story of Adam and Eve. I suspect that if we replaced the Cat with a more human image of one of the sun Gods, Re, Atum, or Horus, and left out the identifying words, many persons unfamiliar with the origin of the picture might consider it an illustration for the story of Adam and Eve.

As noted above Cain as the oldest of Eve’s three children should correspond to Osiris, and many such correspondences exist. To begin with, like Osiris, Cain is an agricultural figure associated with fruit farming. Osiris wandered far and wide spreading his knowledge and teachings. Cain also wandered far and wide spreading his knowledge and teachings. In fact, Cain’s name is Semitic for “smith”, a craft figure, and Cain’s descendants, according to Genesis, are the founders of all the creative arts and sciences.

In Theban tradition, Osiris built Thebes, which was the first city. According to Genesis, Cain also built the first city. He built it in a land called Nod. Curiously, the bible refers to the city of Thebes by the name “No”, a rather close philological fit with “Nod”.

Finally, although we noted the anomaly of having Cain, the Osiris character, kill his brother instead of having the brother corresponding to Set do the killing, we do note that in both the Egyptian and biblical stories, we appear to have the story of the first murder and in each instance the killer buries the body and hides it from view, in the hope that no one will discover it.

In conclusion, I note that the bible places Israel’s formative years as a cultural entity in Egypt, and its leading figures, Joseph and Moses, were educated in Egypt’s traditions. What they new about the origins of the world they learned in Egypt, and what they wrote about those origins should surely have had an Egyptian influence.

Yet, while scholars are willing to admit all sorts of Semitic pagan influences on early Hebrew historical beliefs, they treat the idea of Egyptian influence as far too profane for intense examination. I hope in this paper I have been able to at least raise some interest in more closely examining the idea that Egyptian ideas greatly influenced the writing of early biblical history.


What/where was the land of Nod in the Bible?

The land of Nod was where Cain settled after he was punished by God for the murder of his brother Abel (Genesis 4:8). The Bible reads, “Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden” (Genesis 4:16). No one knows where the land of Nod was located, only that it was east of Eden. The Bible does not mention the land of Nod again.

Cain’s settling “east of Eden” implies that he was further removed from the garden than Adam and Eve were. His fate was to live the life of an outsider. The fact that Cain left God’s presence suggests that he lived the rest of his life alienated from God.

The word Nod, in Hebrew, means “wanderer, exile, or fugitive.” This corresponds to God’s word to Cain that he would “be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth” (Genesis 4:12). Some Bible scholars have suggested that Nod is not an actual place rather, the Bible simply means that, wherever Cain went, it could be called the “Land of the Wanderer.”

Though God had driven Cain from his home, it was Cain’s choice to live outside the presence of God. Essentially, Cain’s punishment in becoming a wanderer and a fugitive was to lose all sense of belonging and identification with a community. Living in the “land of Nod,” Cain lived without roots in isolation. For his sin, Cain was made a castaway and later became a godless, hollow person “in the land of Nod.” Upon separating himself from God, Cain built a society totally detached from God. The Bible tells us that the children of Cain followed in his path and established a godless civilization (Genesis 4:16-24).


26 U.S. Code § 216 - Deduction of taxes, interest, and business depreciation by cooperative housing corporation tenant-stockholder

For purposes of paragraph (5), the term “original seller” means the person from whom the corporation has acquired the apartments or houses (or leaseholds therein).

So much of the stock of a section 167(a) shall, to the extent such proprietary lease or right of tenancy is used by such (2) Deduction limited to adjusted basis in stock

The amount of any deduction for depreciation allowable under section 167(a) to a (B) Carryforward of disallowed amount

The amount of any deduction which is not allowed by reason of subparagraph (A) shall, subject to the provisions of subparagraph (A), be treated as a deduction allowable under section 167(a) in the succeeding taxable year.

No deduction shall be allowed to a stockholder in a (e) Distributions by cooperative housing corporations

Except as provided in regulations no gain or loss shall be recognized on the distribution by a section 121).

2007—Subsec. (b)(1)(D). Pub. L. 110–142 amended subpar. (D) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (D) read as follows: “80 percent or more of the gross income of which for the taxable year in which the taxes and interest described in subsection (a) are paid or incurred is derived fromPub. L. 105–34 substituted “such dwelling unit is used as his principal residence (within the meaning of section 121)” for “such exchange qualifies for nonrecognition of gain under section 1034(f)”.

1990—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 101–508 substituted “corporations” for “associations” in heading and “corporation” for “association” after “housing” in text.

1988—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 100–647 added subsec. (e).

1986—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 99–514, § 644(a)(1), substituted “a person” and “such person” for “an individual” and “such individual”, respectively.

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 99–514, § 644(d), added heading and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “The term Pub. L. 99–514, § 644(a)(2), substituted “Prior approval of occupancy” for “Stock acquired through foreclosure by lending institution” in heading and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “If a bank or other lending institution acquires by foreclosure (or by instrument in lieu of foreclosure) the stock of aPub. L. 99–514, § 644(a)(2), amended par. (6) generally, substituting provisions defining Pub. L. 99–514, § 644(b), amended subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (c) read as follows: “So much of the stock of aPub. L. 99–514, § 644(c), added subsec. (d).

1980—Subsec. (b)(6)(A). Pub. L. 96–222, § 105(a)(6)(A), added subpar. (A). Former subpar. (A), which required thePub. L. 96–222, § 105(a)(6)(A), (B), added subpar. (B), redesignated former subpars. (B) and (C) as (C) and (D), and, in subpar. (D) as so redesignated, inserted provisions requiring that the estate of thePub. L. 95–600, added par. (6).

1976—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1906(b)(13)(A), struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 94–455, §§ 1906(b)(13)(A), 2101(b), struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary” and inserted at end “The preceding sentence shall not be construed to limit or deny a deduction for depreciation under 167(a) by aPub. L. 91–172 added par. (4).

1962—Pub. L. 87–834 substituted “Deduction of taxes, interest, and business depreciation by Effective Date of 2007 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–34 applicable to sales and exchanges after May 6, 1997 , with certain exceptions, see section 312(d)[(e)] of Pub. L. 105–34, set out as a note under section 121 of this title.

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–508 effective as if included in the provision of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100–647, to which such amendment relates, see section 11702(j) of Pub. L. 101–508, set out as a note under section 59 of this title.

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–222 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if it had been included in the provisions of the Revenue Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95–600, to which such amendment relates, see section 201 of Pub. L. 96–222, set out as a note under section 32 of this title.

List of site sources >>>


Watch the video: This Is Land of Nod (January 2022).