Hope of Israel Ministries (Ecclesia of YEHOVAH):
Misinformation and the Table of Nations
When the famous naturalist and zoologist Georges Cuvier devised his classification of races in 1790, he listed three types: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Soon afterwards many started comparing this classification with Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. The churches and literalists picked up on Cuvier's classification and molded it into a new religious doctrine. They taught that the Negroid race descended from Ham, the Mongoloid race from Japheth, and the Caucasian race from Shem. This doctrine insults and contradicts both the word of YEHOVAH God and science.
by HOIM Staff
Perhaps one of the more difficult problems proponents of a universal flood have to answer -- and one they most often avoid -- is how could the eight survivors of the Flood produce the numerous racial types of man that now exist upon the earth.
A belief of many in the "Christian" churches today is that all the world was populated from the descendants of Noah's three sons. In other words, all tribes and races came from a common ancestral population. They are forced to place this common population, consisting of eight persons, some time after the Flood since they believe in the extinction of all people by a universal Flood.
The Table of Nations
Genesis chapter 10 -- commonly known as the Table of Nations -- is a list of the patriarchal founders of seventy nations which descended from Noah through his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. Twenty-six of the seventy descended from Shem, thirty from Ham and fourteen from Japheth. Genesis 10:32 sums up the chapter succinctly: "These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood." Chapter 11 recounts their division at Babel.
The term "nations" to describe the descendants is a standard English translation of the Hebrew word "goy," following the c. 400 A.D. Latin Vulgate's "nationes"/"nationibus," and does not have the same political connotations that the word entails today. According to Wikipedia:
"The list of 70 names introduces for the first time a number of well-known ethnonyms and toponyms important to biblical geography such as Noah's three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth, from which were derived Semites, Hamites and Japhetites, certain of Noah's grandsons including Elam, Ashur, Aram, Cush, and Canaan, from which the Elamites, Assyrians, Arameans, Cushites and Canaanites, as well as further descendants including Eber (from which [came] "Hebrews"), the hunter-king Nimrod, the Philistines and the sona of Canaan including Heth, Jebus and Amorus, from which [came] Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites."
Wikipedia goes on to say --
"As Christianity took over the Roman world, it adopted the idea that ALL the world's peoples were descended from Noah. But the tradition of Hellenistic Jewish identifications of the ancestry of various peoples, which concentrates very much on the East Mediterranean and the Near East...became stretched and its historicity questioned. Not all Near Eastern people were covered, and northern peoples important to the Late Roman and Medieval world, such as the Celtic, Slavic, Germanic and Nordic peoples were not covered, nor were others of the world's peoples, such as sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans and peoples of Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Far East and Australasia. A variety of arrangements were devised by scholars in order to make the table fit, with for example the Scythians, who do feature in the tradition, being claimed as the ancestors of much of northern Europe."
What the Commentaries Say
Notice what some of the commentaries have to say about Genesis 10:
"This chapter shows concerning the three sons of Noah, that of them was the whole earth overspread. No nation but that of the Jews can be sure from which of these seventy it has come. The lists of names of fathers and sons were preserved of the Jews alone, for the sake of the Messiah. Many learned men, however, have, with some probability, shown which of the nations of the earth descended from each of the sons of Noah. To the posterity of Japheth were allotted the isles of the gentiles; probably, the island of Britain among the rest. All places beyond the sea from Judea are called isles, Jeremiah 25:22. That promise, Isaiah 42:4, The isles shall wait for his law, speaks of the conversion of the gentiles to the faith of Christ" (Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary).
"These are the generations (the tôldôth) of the sons of Noah. -- The importance of this 'table of the nations' can scarcely be over-estimated; and while numerous exceptions were taken only a few years ago to many of its details, the vast increase of human knowledge in recent times has proved not merely its general credibility, but the truth of such startling facts as the possession by the race of Ham not only of the Arabian peninsula, but of the country on the Tigris and Euphrates. Its position is very remarkable. It stands at the end of grand traditional records of the mighty past, but belongs to a period long subsequent, giving us a picture of the division of the world at a time when nations and kingdoms had become settled, and their boundaries fixed; and it couples this with the confusion of tongues, difference of language being the great factor in this breaking up of the human race.
"Now, it is important to remember that it is not a genealogical table. It concerns peoples, and not individuals, and no names are mentioned which were not represented by political organisations. Generally even the names are not those of men, but of tribes or nations. We must also bear in mind that it works backwards, and not forwards. Taking the nations at some particular time, it groups them together, and classifies them according to the line to which they belonged" (Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers).
We find the following in Gaebelein's Annotated Bible --
"Here we have the beginning of the nations. God knows them and keeps track of the nations of the earth. The order of the sons of Noah is here changed. Japheth comes first. Ham’s place is unchanged. Shem comes last. This order is given in view of Noah’s prophecy. Among the descendants of Ham we find Nimrod, a mighty hunter. His name means “Let us rebel.” Here also we find Babel mentioned for the first time. Babylon has for its founder “a mighty one in the earth-a mighty hunter.” Mentioned here for the first time Babylon is seen springing from the race which is under a curse, and having for its founder a mighty one in the earth, a second Cain. We have here the birth of Babylon, while the entire Bible, from now on to the eighteenth chapter of the 'book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ,' gives us its development, its Satanic opposition to all that is from above, and its final great fall and destruction. Babylon! what a sinister word! Both city and system, such as is seen in its finality in Rev. 17 and 18, are Satan’s stronghold.
"It would be interesting to follow all these names and trace them in the Scriptures and in history. But this we cannot do."
In the early pages of his research paper, The Biblical Origin of Nations, author C. M. White makes the following grandiose claim:
"This is where the incredible Table of Nations comes in most useful. Believe it or not, this systematic, well organised chart presents to us, in the fast-moving 1990s, the ethnic identities of all nations! Yes! YOUR ethnic roots clear back to the beginning genesis of the great variety of mankind may be traced if we use Genesis chapter ten as a basis. For it is the purpose of this work to reveal to you who your forefather was, Biblically speaking and how his descendants migrated to their modern locations and what prophecy reveals as to their -- and consequently -- your future, fate and destiny. The study of the modern identities of the nations of Genesis ten is a science. One may also term it Biblical human biology and physical anthropology. But it is much more than that. It actually uses literally hundreds of references to back up the argument that the nations of the modern world may all be traced back to the 70 names referred to in the mysterious Table of Nations chart" (page 8).
James Gray -- Concise Bible Commentary notes that
"This chapter is more than a list of names of individuals. Several are names of families or nations, and make it the most important historical document in the world. You will see that the stream of the race divides according to the three sons of Noah. Whose division is first traced (Genesis 10:2)? What part of the world was settled by his offspring (Genesis 10:5)? This might read: “By these were the coast lands of the nations divided,” and research indicates that the names of these sons and grandsons are identical with the ancient names of the countries bordering on the seas of northern and northwestern Europe.
"Whose offspring are next traced (Genesis 10:6)? A similar examination will show that these settled towards the south and southwest in the lands known to us as Palestine, Arabia, Egypt, Abyssinia, etc. Whose offspring are last named (Genesis 10:21)? What distinction is given to Shem in that verse? 'Eber' is another form of the name Hebrew, and the distinction of Shem is that he was the ancestor of the Hebrews or the Israelites. His descendants settled rather in the south and southeast, Assyria, Persia, etc.
Now all these comments are based on the premise that Noah and his family were the only ones to make it through the Flood -- but is this true?
Was the Flood in Fact Universal?
Many who realize that the Flood was regional, not universal and covering the highest mountains, still seem to feel it was universal in the sense that all men on the face of the earth were drowned. They have the idea that the world's population was limited at that time to the Mesopotamian valley. But, in disagreement with this, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states, "An insuperable objection to this theory is that the later discoveries have brought to light remains of prehistoric man from all over the northern hemisphere, showing that long before the time of the Flood he had become widely scattered."
At first glance the writings of the first-century Jewish scholar Josephus would have us believe the flood destroyed all human beings in the world. But if you delve further into his works you will find statements that indicate otherwise. We find, in a quote from Nicolaus of Damascus, the following: "There is a great mountain in Armenia...upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote."
Later, Josephus goes on to say:
"Now the sons of Noah were three...these first of all descended from the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the flood, and so were very loth to come down from the higher places, to venture to follow their examples. Now the plain in which they first dwelt was called Shinar" (Antiquities of the Jews, 1, 4:1).
This, of course, begs the question -- since there were supposedly only eight people in the ark who survived the Flood, who were these "others" they persuaded to come down from the mountains or hills to establish homes?
There are some more passages in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that most people read right over -- verses that unmistakably show there were MANY survivors of the Flood. Notice!
"But as for Noah, he was afraid, since God had determined to destroy mankind, lest He should drown the earth every year; so he [Noah] offered burnt-offerings, and besought God that Nature might hereafter go on its former orderly course, and that He would not bring on so great a judgment ANY MORE, by which the whole race of creatures MIGHT BE IN DANGER OF DESTRUCTION; but that, HAVING NOW PUNISHED THE WICKED, he would of his goodness SPARE THE REMAINDER, and SUCH AS HE HAD HITHERTO JUDGED FIT TO BE DELIVERED from so severe a calamity; for that otherwise these last must be more miserable than the first, and that they must be condemned to a worse condition than the others, unless they be suffered to ESCAPE ENTIRELY; that is, IF THEY BE RESERVED FOR ANOTHER DELUGE, while they must be afflicted with the terror and sight OF THE FIRST DELUGE, and must also BE DESTROYED BY A SECOND" (book I, chapter III, verse 7).
Josephus goes on to say, "He [Noah] also entreated God to accept of his sacrifice, and to grant that the earth might never again undergo the like effects of His wrath; that men might be permitted to go on cheerfully in cultivating the same -- to build cities, and live happily in them; and that they might not be deprived of any of those good things WHICH THEY ENJOYED BEFORE THE FLOOD..." (ibid.).
Amongst the Chibcas of Central Columbia is a strong tradition of a flood in which people survived by climbing to higher ground:
"According to their myths, they had originally lived as savages, without laws, agriculture or religion. Then one day there appeared among them an old man of a different race. He wore a thick long beard and his name was Bochica. He taught the Chibcas how to build huts and live together in society.
"His wife, who was very beautiful and named Chia, appeared after him, but she was wicked and enjoyed thwarting her husband's altruistic efforts. Since she could not overcome his power directly, she used magical means to cause a great flood in which the majority [not all] of the population died. Bochica was very angry and exiled Chia from the earth to the sky, where she became the moon given the task of lighting the nights. He also caused the waters of the flood to dissipate and BROUGHT DOWN THE FEW SURVIVORS from the mountains where they had taken refuge. Thereafter he gave them laws, taught them to cultivate the land and instituted the worship of the sun with periodic festivals, sacrifices and pilgrimages" (Fingerprints of the Gods, by Graham Hancock. 1995: Crown Paperbacks, p. 191).
While this myth is a garbled account of Nimrod's visit to their region and an old memory of the flood, the fact that their traditions mention flood survivors hiding in the hills or mountains is very interesting.
Evidence in the Book of Genesis
Aside from the traditions of survivors of the Flood in lands around the world however, and the Biblical account of Noah and his family, there is certain evidence within the book of Genesis itself that strongly implies there were other survivors. In chapters 4 and 5 we find mentioned TWO family lines that descended from Adam. The line of which Noah was a part is as follows: Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mehalelel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and his three sons -- Shem, Ham and Japheth. Now the OTHER line is: Adam, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech and his three sons -- JABAL, JUBAL and TUBAL-CAIN. Writes Ralph Woodrow --
"The Bible gives a detailed account concerning the descendants of Noah's three sons after the flood (Genesis 10). But what became of the descendants of the three sons in the OTHER line -- Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain? Those who believe the flood was universal must conclude that all of these were drowned. But this presents a problem, for the writer of Genesis (who lived long AFTER the flood) refers to the descendants of Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain as STILL LIVING AT THE TIME HE WROTE!" (Noah's Flood, Joshua's Long Day, and Lucifer's Fall, pp. 53-54).
Notice Genesis 4:20-22: "And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell [present tense] in tents and have [present tense] livestock. His brother's name was Jubal. He was the father of all who play [present tense] the harp and flute. And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron."
Please note that the writer says these people "dwell" (not dwelled) in tents, and that they "have" (not had) livestock. They "play" (not played) the harp. And "every craftsman in bronze and iron" implies post-flood artisans -- there is no great evidence of bronze and iron use before the flood. Had they all been drowned in the flood, this wording would not be correct. As The Interpreter's Bible plainly states, they were "nomads, musicians, and metal workers EXISTING AT THE TIME OF WRITING [of Genesis]." Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics adds that this wording implies "an UNBROKEN history of civilization" and that the writer of this section of Genesis did not, obviously, regard the flood as "a universal Deluge."
It is more than interesting to postulate that these descendants of Cain -- who had migrated EAST from the Garden of Eden -- had by the time of Noah populated a different region from that of Noah in the Tigris-Euphrates valley. And if the Flood was indeed regional (not universal in that the highest mountains were covered with water) then we have a very good explanation of how these people were still living at the time the book of Genesis was written.
Following the Flood, the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth migrated to various countries and settled there. Records Genesis 10:5: "By these were the isles [coastlands] of the GENTILES divided in their lands; every one after their tongue, after their families, in their nations." Then, in Genesis 10:32, we read: "These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood."
How can we explain the existence of these nations to which Noah's descendants migrated and which were "divided" by them if the Flood had drowned all but the eight people in the ark? "The word that is here translated 'divided' (Strong's Concordance, #6504) is translated 'dispersed' in Esther 3:8: '...there is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom.' If we understand this same meaning in connection with Noah's descendants, they were dispersed among various Gentile nations, implying, it would seem, there were other nations of people who did not descend from those in the ark" (Noah's Flood, Joshua's Long Day, and Lucifer's Fall, p. 55).
Problems With the Conventional Theory
While the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 lists the nations known to the author, depicting them as the descendants of Noah's three sons, a number of problems with this genealogical tree have convinced scholars that this table is not a reliable account of the origins of mankind as we know it today. Some of the difficulties underscored by the scholars are as follows:
The Table of Nations does not
mention certain nations which were known to Israel at the time of writing
(the exile), or North Africa, or nations in the Far East (India and
eastward). This would be odd if the table is supposed to explain where those
nations came from.
In the description of Nimrod
as the son of Cush, we are told that "the primary regions of his kingdom
were Babel, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar." We are not told
that he founded these regions but that they are represented as already
existing. This would certainly indicate a local flood rather than an
universal one. Then we are told that Nimrod went to Assyria, which also
indicates that Assyria was already an established city state -- once again
indicating that the Flood was local since Assyria was still around after the
Nimrod is said to have been a
son of Cush and black in his physiology (Genesis 10:8) who is believed to
have founded Nubia (inhabited by black-skinned peoples) just south of Egypt.
Yet Nimrod established several cities in Mesopotamia that show no sign of
Nubian or black origin (Genesis 10:8-12). Does this mean that the Table is
therefore manifestly wrong -- either about Nimrod's lineage or his role in
establishing the Mesopotamian cities?
Cush -- who is also
considered to have been black in his physiology -- fathered the founders of
at least six Arabian nations (Genesis 10:7), none of which show signs of
Nubian or black origin.
Canaan is in Asia and its
language group, Phoenician-Hebrew, is Semitic. Yet the Table describes
Canaan as a descendant of Ham (verse 6), whose descendants are considered to
be in North Africa -- and whose language groups are (for the most part)
Egyptian and Cushitic.
The Hittites are from Asia
Minor (Turkey) and spoke an Indo-European language, and thus should belong
to the children of Japeth -- yet Heth, their progenitor, is listed as one of
Canaan's sons (verse 15).
The Philistines -- many of
whom lived in western Turkey or on the Levantine coast -- are probably
Aegean in origin and are believed to have spoken a form of Greek, yet they
are mentioned among the offshoots of Egypt (Genesis 10:13-14).
The Elamites are said to have
descended from Shem, yet their language was not Semitic.
We read in Genesis 11 that the descendants of the three sons of Noah seem to spread out from a
point in the Middle East, presumably Babel (i.e. the city of Babylon), since
Genesis 11 suggests that most if not all people were situated there during that
time. The descendants of Japheth supposedly went primarily north, those of Ham went
primarily southwest, and those of Shem mainly stayed put in Mesopotamia or went
southeast. All three sons clearly had numerous descendants, some of them clearly
identifiable even today. The
origin point is clearly the Middle East. However, one thing that the
Y-Chromosome Haplogroup tree, as normally presented, claims to have demonstrated
is that mankind originated in Africa, and experienced a significant amount of
mutation before finally a carrier of the CT (or CDEF) mutation M168, or possibly
as late as Haplogroup F (F-M89), traveled out of Africa. “Y-chromosomal Adam” has recently been placed in
West Africa, but Dr. Fazale Rana has rebutted this, and suggested that an East
African origin best fits the genetic evidence. This does not match the starting
point suggested by Genesis 10, but it is close enough that it is not too
problematic, according to Dr. Rana. This still seems a bit of stretch: Babylon
is a long way from East Africa!
Researchers have established that the Afro-Asiatic languages are probably the oldest language family that it has been possible to reconstruct -- perhaps some 12,000 years old (estimates range from 9,500 to 18,000 years old). In other words, around 10,000 B.C. there was a single language, which linguists call the Proto-Afro-Asiatic language, which gradually changed through the years as its speakers spread out and moved around, until it diversified into all of the highly divergent languages in the family today. So, were the speakers of that original Proto-Afro-Asiatic language descendants of Ham or descendants of Shem?
Frederick Haberman, writing in Tracing Our Ancestors, points out that when correctly translated
"The tenth and Eleventh chapters of Genesis give us 'the register of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japhet: for they had sons born to them after the Deluge.' I quote here from Chapter 10, the 1st verse, of the Fenton translation of the Bible, which is expressed in modern English. The fifth verse reads: 'From these they spread themselves over the seacoasts of the countries of the nations, each with their language amongst the gentile (heathen) tribes.' Verses 31 and 32: 'These are the sons of Shem, by their tribes and by their languages in their countries among the heathen. The above were the families of the sons of Noah, and their descendants, by tribes. From them they spread themselves among the nations on the earth after the Flood.'
"These verses give us clearly to understand that the sons of Noah spread themselves among the existing heathen nations of that time, and by their mental and physical superiority subdued and mastered them" (page 24).
The Physiology of Noah's and His Sons
When realizing that Noah and his family were not the only ones to survive the Flood some of the problems pointed out by the scholars dissipate. Another factor that we need to understand is that Noah and his descendants were Caucasian (white) in physiology -- including Ham, Cush and Nimrod!
In the conventional understanding, Ham is touted as the father of the Negroids -- the darker-skinned peoples who inhabited Africa, India, and, anciently, certain eastern Mediterranean countries like Canaan. However, while many claim that the name "Ham" means "burnt" or "black," the Hebrew meaning of the word does not allow for a dark skin color at all. The name that occurs in the English Bible as Ham is, in reality, two completely different Hebrew names; one which is pronounced "Cham" (חם), and the other "Ham" (הם). They have two completely different meanings. The first one is identical to the adjective חם (ham), meaning "WARM," and also to the noun חם (ham), meaning "FATHER-IN-LAW."
The second one, which is spelled הם and pronounced as "Ham," denotes a once-mentioned town where kings Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer and Tidal defeated the Zuzim during the war of four against five kings (Genesis 14:5). Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names derives this Ham from the verb המה (hama), meaning "CRY ALOUD" and renders the name as "NOISY."
Now Cush, who was the father of Nimrod, has also been touted to be black and hence used to further the conception that the line from Ham was black -- including Nimrod. Hislop, in his book The Two Babylons, attempts to show that Nimrod was black, however reality also shoots this down.
The origin of the name Cush is irretrievably obscure, and none of the translators have more to say about it than that it is related to Ethiopia and to perhaps having a dark countenance. The prophet Jeremiah rhetorically asks, "Can the Cushite change his skin?" (Jeremiah 13:23), which may or may not suggest that the Cushites were known for being black. Still, this says very little about the meaning of the name Cush.
However, the Hebrew word for black is שחר (sahar). The heth and rosh in this word are so dominant that the name Cush can hardly have come from it. Allowing this would link Cush to pretty much any other word that contains a shin. Like the word ישש (yshsh; weak, impotent, aged) for instance, which makes a far more plausible candidate as a repeated letter often falls away and the yod alternates with the vav. In concert with the common Hebrew particle כ (ke; as if, like), the name would mean "As If He Were Weak."
And then there is the root ישה (yshh; meaning uncertain), which yields the noun תושה (tushiya), meaning wisdom, sound knowledge, which would yield the meaning of Cush as "As If He Were Getting Smarter."
Early statue of
Nimrod showing Caucasian
Still -- and for no apparent reason other than a rusty tradition that cost a lot of people their lives and dignity -- Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names reads "A Black Countenance, Full Of Darkness," but also submits the calmly clarifying afterthought, "the etymology is most uncertain"!
Author and scholar David Rohl notes that both the Egyptian god Osiris and the Assyrian god Asshur originated with the historical King Nimrod, whose origins can be traced back to Eridu (the original Babel) where he became worshiped as the god Asar. This being the case -- how was Osiris depicted in the statuary and wall paintings of ancient Egypt? Notice what E. A. Wallis Budge, in his definitive work on Osiris, has to say: "Osiris was white and was the personification of good..." (Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection, p. xxiv).
To the Egyptians Nimrod was known as Osiris and also as Khons, God of the Hunt. He was depicted as a massive black, white or green skinned man -- often wearing leopard skins and a crown with bull horns. However, the color black represented death and the afterlife to the ancient Egyptians. Osiris was given the epithet "the black one" because he was the king of the netherworld and both he and Anubis (the god of embalming) were portrayed with black faces.
The Egyptians also associated black with fertility and resurrection because much of their agriculture was dependant on the rich dark silt deposited on the river banks by the Nile during the inundation. When used to represent resurrection, black and green were interchangeable. As a result, the gods Osiris and Geb were depicted with black or green skin to emphasize their connection with fertility. Egypt was known as Kemet, "the black land" and this was a reference to the Nile -- not a description of ethnicity.
The statuary and wall paintings of Egypt show Osiris (Nimrod) to be decidedly non-black in features.
Thus we can clearly see that earliest secular history shows Nimrod and his forebears were NOT black or Negroid men. These historical accounts show that those Nimrod was descended from were Caucasian or white in physiology.
The concept that all nations and races descended from Noah's sons did not originate with the early Christian writers. When the famous naturalist and zoologist Georges Cuvier devised his classification of races in 1790, he listed three types: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Soon afterwards many started comparing this classification with Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. As racial distinctions became more evident and debated, the churches and literalists picked up on Cuvier's classification and molded it into a new religious doctrine. They taught that the Negroid race descended from Ham, the Mongoloid race from Japheth, and the Caucasian race from Shem. This doctrine insults and contradicts both the word of YEHOVAH God and science.
Debunking the Problems
With these facts in mind we can now make sense of the problems itemized above:
1). Certain nations known to Israel, as well as those of North Africa, India -- and those further eastward -- are not mentioned in the Table of Nations because they did not descend from Noah and his sons as they were of the nations that survived the Flood. Also, the nation of Israel was later on the scene and those nations that Israel dealt with were not yet in existence, and therefore were not known when Genesis was written down.
2). The regions that are mentioned as being part of Nimrod's kingdom were all Caucasian or white and, since we have shown that Nimrod was white in his physiology, this makes perfect sense. The same applies to Assyria.
3). The Table is not manifestly wrong. Nubia has been considered to have been founded by Nimrod because of the erroneous understanding that he was black! Nubia is not even mentioned in Genesis 10.
4). The same thing applies to Cush -- whom we have shown was also not black or Negroid in his physiology. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate that he fathered the founders of at least six Arabian nations that show no signs of Nubian or black origin.
5). When Canaan and his people spread out among the nations that were already in existence and had not been affected by the Flood they, in all likelihood, adopted the language of those they settled near to or among. It was Mizraim (other son of Ham) who settled the area of North Africa and who obviously developed a different language. We also must remember that the languages of the white Caucasian descendants of Noah were confused at the Tower of Babel, not the rest of the nations that came through the Flood unscathed.
6). The same thing applies to the Hittites. When the language that Noah and his sons spoke when they passed through the Flood was confused at the Tower of Babel, the Hittites spoke the language, or one similar to the one spoken by those they settled near.
7). Once again, the same understanding applies to the Philistines.
8). Noah and his sons spoke the same language until it was confused at the Tower of Babel. Therefore, the Elamites would not have spoken the language that Shem spoke before Babel. They undoubtedly adopted or modified one of the languages spoken by those whom they settled close to.
9). Understanding that other nations made it through the Flood renders this assumed problem moot -- the white, Caucasian races descend from Noah and a point in the Middle East, while some of the other races that passed through the Flood are shown by genetics to have originated in Africa.
10). The short answer -- neither! The other nations that were unaffected by the Flood can be dated back to the pre-Adamic creation mentioned in Genesis 1:27. The Adamic creation occurred in Genesis 2:7. See our article, Adam Was Not the First Man!
Noah and his family were obviously of one race and language. The Bible states that Noah was "perfect in his generations" (Genesis 6:9). The word "generations" here is the Hebrew word "TOLEDAH," and means "descent." Noah was perfect in his descent from Adam meaning his lineage had not mixed with any other races. Creationists try to tell us that this racially pure family developed (or evolved) into the present day races, but never specifically explain how, when or why this transformation occurred.
Creationists would have us believe that eight white people that existed after the Flood, somehow changed into different racial types almost instantaneously. Why is it that this type of drastic evolutionary change has never occurred since? If we can believe that such a racial transformation occurred, then there should be no reason not to believe any manner of evolution occurring over tens of millions of years, for the latter is more believable than the former.
If an amphibian could not gradually evolve into a reptile, then a group of white people could not have evolved into Negroes, Indians, Chinese, Polynesians, Pygmies, Aborigines etc. -- especially in just a few hundred years time or less. It cannot be supported by any rational or biblical means that all races were destroyed by a flood and then instantaneously reappeared or were formed thereafter. It is infinitely more logical that all races were separately created by YEHOVAH God on the planet, and they each survived the Flood, as did numerous other life forms, by being outside its realm and geographical influence.
The Discoveries of Egyptology
Georges Cuvier's classification of races was just prior to the advent of Egyptology and the studying and discovering of the ruins of ancient Egypt by such men as Jean Francois Champollion in the 1820s. The ancient Egyptian monuments, tombs, and temples reveal a vast storehouse of ethnographical records in the form of paintings, mummies and sculptures displaying different racial types of man. Certain racial types can be distinguished in paintings and sculptures dating as far back as the 4th millennium B.C., as Professor Coon explains: "…racial differentiation can be traced back to at least 3,000 B.C., as evidenced in Egyptian records, particularly the artistic representations" (Carleton Coon, The Origin of the Races, 1962, p. 3).
In the era just after the Flood (2300 to 2000 B.C.) there appear many clear and well marked racial types in the paintings and sculptures from Egypt as well as Mesopotamia. By 1600 B.C., an even greater diversity of distinct racial types can be found. Each of these types are represented as they appear today showing that they were permanent throughout all history and had never undergone any type of transformation.
The racial evidence supplied to us by the ancient paintings and sculptures from Egypt and elsewhere clearly dispels any foolish notion of all the nations of the earth descending from just Noah and his sons. This evidence of the antiquity and permanence of the races, which is verified by the laws of genetics, proves that all people were not destroyed in a universal Flood. The science of ethnology and anthropology have shown that every single racial type that existed prior to the Flood existed after it.
Hope of Israel Ministries -- Courage for the Sake of Truth is Far Better Than Silence for the Sake of Unity!
|Scan with your