There is a misconception that humans are omnivores – even biologists erroneously use the term – and that we are supposed to eat a balanced diet of meat and plants. In contrast, the American Dieticians Association states:
“Most of mankind, for most of human history, has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets.”
Even though most people eat meat, humans don’t have the capacity to do so. Check and then compare your own teeth, jaw and digestive system – last one might be a bit difficult literally, but many good diagrams will suffice – with other species. We are anatomically designed to be herbivores and to live on a mainly meat free diet.
Thus, we are literally ‘meat-eating herbivores’ and that makes humans unique in nature.
Although humankind can eat meat, our bodies have not adapted to it raw. Our stomach acid isn’t strong enough to destroy the pathogens in meat. We still have to cook it or cure it for it to be edible and consumed safely. Even then, humans are eating flesh that has already begun to decompose and decay as soon as an animal is slaughtered. The reality is of eating bacterial contaminated ‘rotting meat’ and hiding this fact by cooking it and or, adding spices.
Even in the animal kingdom, a predator such as the lion will only eat the nutrient rich organs soon after a kill, like the heart and liver. It will not touch the flesh and leaves this for the scavengers such as hyaenas and vultures. Yet extraordinarily, humans also eat dead, flesh.
The adage is true: You are what you Eat
There are two main issues with eating too much meat and dairy products.
As it contains so much protein and fat, it leads to obesity. Animal products provide more energy [carbohydrates and fats] than people were designed to handle and so any excess is stored as fat in our bodies.
Statistics bear out that chronic ailments and cancers stem from a diet that is heavily meat and dairy based. Of course, animal products of-an-by themselves are not solely to blame, as also included are the antibiotics and growth hormones given to factory farmed animals.
For those still reluctant to believe humans are herbivores and not omnivores, a book by A D Andrews written in 1970 and published by the American Hygiene Society, entitled; Fit Food for Men, enumerates the following:
Meat-eaters have claws; herbivores have no claws – humans have no claws.
Meat-eaters have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue; herbivores perspire through skin pores – humans perspire through skin pores.
Meat-eaters have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no fat molar teeth for grinding; herbivores have no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding – humans have no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding.
Meat-eaters have an intestinal tract that is only three times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly; herbivores have an intestinal tract 10 to 12 times their body length – humans also have an intestinal tract 10 to 12 times their body length.
Meat-eaters have strong hydrochloric acid in their stomach to digest highly fibrous meat; herbivores have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater – humans have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than a meat-eater.
Meat-eaters have few salivary glands in their mouth; herbivores possess well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits – humans possess well-developed salivary glands.
Meat-eaters have acidic saliva with no ptyalin [an enzyme]; herbivores have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains – humans also have alkaline saliva with ptyalin.
An example outside of the digestive system, is that mammalian carnivores do not have seminal vesicles, as they produce seminal plasma directly in the prostate gland. ‘The seminal vesicles are a pair of two convoluted tubular glands that lie behind the urinary bladder of… male mammals.’ They secrete fluid that contributes up to 60% of semen that passes from a human male during ejaculation. Needless to say, they are only found in herbivores… including humans.
For those who may be interested in looking good, feeling good, living happier and probably longer – as well as helping the environment, for the knock on effects of this choice are positive for our atmosphere, soil, animal welfare and humanities physical and mental health – a very readable and motivational book with easy scientific data to ‘digest’ is Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, published by Hamish Hamilton of Penguin Books, 2009.
And remember, people who say one needs animal protein to build muscle are not correct. The biggest land based mammals on the planet are all herbivores which only obtain their protein from plants, such as gorillas and elephants.
The oceans are excluded as yes, even though whales – who are carnivores – are bigger, as the water can hold their massive weight; there are hardly any examples of herbivore species of fish or mammals in the sea.
Finally, the vitamin B12 question can be categorised under the ‘Big Lie’ technique. The term was first coined by Adolf Hitler in 1925, in his book Mein Kampf. Tell a big lie over and over until it becomes a fact that no one questions. The B12 claim is scaremongering at its worst, or best depending on one’s view. A blind created and maintained by pharmaceutical conglomerates; so that you take their supplements – which do more harm than good. And, the Meat and Dairy Boards, who also have an enormous invested financial interest in the developed world populace’s consumption of meat, milk, cheese, butter and eggs.
Contrary to popular opinion, vitamin B12 is found outside of farm animals intestinal tracts, which have been given to them in the first place. For those still concerned about B12 levels or sources, certain mushrooms, beans, tea leaves, vegetables and seaweeds contain trace elements of B12; including the Shiitake Mushroom, Broccoli, Asparagus and Tempe from fermented Soybeans.
The best source of plant sourced vitamin B12 is dried purple laver. ‘Consumption of approximately 4g of dried purple laver (Vitamin B12 content: 77.6 μg /100 g dry weight) supplies the RDA [advised requirement] of 2.4 μg [of B12 per] day.’ From: Vitamin B12 containing Food Sources for Vegetarians, published by the National Library of Medicine, multiple authors, 2014.
Traditionally, Laver seaweed has been harvested in Scotland, Wales and Ireland to make laverbread, and it is also cultivated as Nori in Japan – where it is added to Sushi – as well as in Hawaii and the Philippines as a sea vegetable.
According to the Bible, humankind who descended from Adam before the flood, were agriculturists, horticulturists and farmers – Genesis 2:9, 16; 4:2-4; 6:21; 7:2. The animals raised were clean animals, intended only for sacrificial purposes – Genesis 8:20.
After the flood, a change was ordained in that meat was sanctified, though it had to be clean animals and to be eaten in conjunction with the sacrificial system – Genesis 9:2-4; Leviticus 11:1-47; Deuteronomy 13:3-20.
A case in point is when Abraham was visited by the Lord and two angels. He gave them a meal that included meat and dairy. Though it was in the context of a special occasion – Genesis 18:6-8.
In the Book of Daniel, we read of an account that supports that eating meat was for special occasions or during the Holy Day festivals seven times a year. It was not intended for rich meat difficult to digest, to be eaten every day.
‘But Daniel made up his mind not to eat the food [H6598 – pathbag: meat, portion of meat] and wine given to them by the king. He asked the superintendent for permission to eat other things instead. Now as it happened, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament. But he was alarmed by Daniel’s suggestion.
“I’m afraid you will become pale and thin compared with the other youths your age,” he said, “and then the king will behead me for neglecting my responsibilities.”
Daniel talked it over with the steward who was appointed by the superintendent to look after Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and suggested a ten-day diet of only vegetables and water; then, at the end of this trial period the steward could see how they looked in comparison with the other fellows who ate the king’s rich food [‘delicacy, meat’] and decide whether or not to let them continue their diet.
The steward finally agreed to the test. Well, at the end of the ten days, Daniel and his three friends looked healthier andbetter nourished than the youths who had been eating the food supplied by the king! So after that thesteward fed them only vegetables and water,without the rich foods and wines!’ – Daniel 1:8-16 Living Bible.
It would seem that eating fish which is far easier to digest, with more nutrients and protein than meat was acceptable in Christ’s day; as he called Peter, Andrew, James and John who were all Fishermen – Matthew 4:18, 21. Christ also performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes – Mark 6:48-44.
That said, both the Apostle Peter and James the half-brother of Christ are on record in being adherents of a plant based diet – refer article: The Pauline Paradox.
Based on an edited excerpt in answer to questions on Quora: What are the benefits of a plant-based diet? and Is eating meat good for you?
“Throughout the whole earth I am giving you as food every seed-bearing plant and every tree with seed-bearing fruit.”
Genesis 1:29 Complete Jewish Bible
“Better to eat vegetables with people you love than to eat the finest meat where there is hate.”
An important health factor to add to eating less meat is that of the type of meat one chooses to imbibe.
The Creator gave ancient Israel dietary guidelines. This would appear to be for very good reason. Some animals just weren’t meant for human consumption. Certain sea creatures which are scavengers, filled with noxious bacteria and which let’s face it, look just like big bugs; such as prawns, shrimp, crayfish and lobster, as if these two points were not enough of a deterrent in eating them, then often cause people to develop painful stomach aches after their consumption.
Likewise, the pig is an animal that uncannily possesses the flesh anatomy rather akin to a human. This is why the heart of a pig is the best candidate for transplanting to humans. While under a microscope, pig cells can be observed to be teeming with unpleasant and harmful microbes. In eating them, one is not just imbibing toxic bacteria, but it is the next thing to human cannibalism.
The eating of human flesh regularly is known to make the eater over time, crazy. As if they weren’t already to even try. People may wonder why some people are not always rational. One aspect not considered, is a diet which consumes a lot of pork, ham and bacon. This may well be a little understood factor, which science may well corroborate in the future.
Apparently, according to those who abhorrently know, pork is the closest meat in flavour and taste to human flesh and while cooked pork smells like human flesh; conversely, incinerated human flesh has a similar aroma to pork.
It was more than a coincidence that George Orwell chose the pig as the leading animal in his landmark novella Animal Farm, for they are one of the most highly intelligent species on the Earth – one wonders why? For information on the shocking origin of the domesticated pig, refer Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega.
Leviticus 11:1-8
New Century Version
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Tell the Israelites this: These are the land animals you may eat: You may eat any animal that hassplit hoofs completely divided and that chews the cud.’ “Some animals only chew the cud or only have split hoofs, and you must not eat them…”
“Now the pig has a split hoof that is completely divided, but it does not chew the cud;it is unclean for you[because it is not a true herbivore, but rather an omnivore]. You must not eat the meat from these animals or even touch their dead bodies; they are unclean for you.”
An original excerpt transferred from Chapter XXXI Reuben, Simeon, Levi & Gad – the Celtic Tribes
Addendum II
The hidden evolutionary relationship between pigs and primates revealed by genome-wide study of transposable elements, John Hewitt, 2015:
‘In the past, geneticists focused primarily on the evolution of genes in order to trace the relationships between species. More recently, genetic elements called SINEs (short interspersed elements) have emerged as a much better way to trace mammalian phylogeny…
In humans, the most familiar and abundant SINE is the Alu transposable element. Originally derived from a small cytoplasmic signal recognition conglomerate known as the 7SL RNA, Alu inserts have since propagated themselves to generate an extended family over a million strong representing 11% of our entire genome.
Secondary structure of ALU RNAs
A recent paper published in the bioRxiv now suggests that another species – the pig – has a unique family of SINEs whose evolution has closely paralleled ours. In the pig genetics business, the preferred classification term for the family is ‘suidae’. Suidae PRE elements have been known since their original discovery back in 1987.
The upshot of… [the] work… is that the ‘genomic performance of PRE-1 in terms of 7SL RNA-derived SINEs seemed convincing enough to classify the suidae into a family mainly inhabited by primates’.
It has not escaped our attention that many readers… may have availed themselves of our previous coverage of the human hybrid origins theory… With that in mind, I talked the creator of the hybrid origins theory, Eugene McCarthy, to get his take on this new research.
He had this to say:
“People have been congratulating me on this SINE study as if it somehow proved the hybrid theory of human origins. True, it does show that pigs are more closely related to primates than has generally been thought, which in turn suggests that a hybrid cross between pig and chimpanzee is more feasible than many have supposed. But to establish whether we’re actually descendants of an ancient cross between pig and chimpanzee, will require a detailed search of the human genome, not just a study of SINEs.”
Addendum III
Human-Pig Hybrid Created in the Lab, National Geographic, Erin Blakemore, 2023 – Emphasis mine
‘In a remarkable – if likely controversial – feat, scientists announced that they have created the first successful human-animal hybrids. The project proves that human cells can be introduced into a non-human organism, survive, and even grow inside a host animal, in this case, pigs.
This biomedical advance has long been a dream and a quandary for scientists hoping to address a critical shortage of donor organs. What if, rather than relying on a generous donor, you could grow a custom organ inside an animal instead?
That’s now one step closer to reality, an international team of researchers led by the Salk Institute reports in the journal Cell. The team created what’s known scientifically as a chimera: an organism that contains cells from two different species.
In the past, human-animal chimeras have been beyond reach. Such experiments are currently ineligible for public funding in the United States (so far, the Salk team has relied on private donors for the chimera project). Public opinion, too, has hampered the creation of organisms that are part human, part animal.
There are two ways to make a chimera. The first is to introduce the organs of one animal into another – a risky proposition, because the host’s immune system may cause the organ to be rejected. The other method is to begin at the embryonic level, introducing one animal’s cells into the embryo of another and letting them grow together into a hybrid.
It sounds weird, but it’s an ingenious way to eventually solve a number of vexing biological problems with lab-grown organs. When scientists discovered stem cells, the master cells that can produce any kind of body tissue, they seemed to contain infinite scientific promise. But convincing those cells to grow into the right kinds of tissues and organs is difficult… [yet] pigs have a notable similarity to humans. Though they take less time to gestate, their organs look a lot like ours.
Not that these similarities made the task any easier. The team discovered that, in order to introduce human cells into the pigs without killing them, they had to get the timing just right. When those just-right human cells were injected into the pig embryos, the embryos survived. Then they were put into adult pigs, which carried the embryos for between three and four weeks before they were removed and analysed.’
This pig embryo was injected with human cells early in its development and grew to be four weeks old.
‘In all, the team created 186 later-stage chimeric embryos that survived, says Wu, and “we estimate (each had) about one in 100,000 human cells.” That’s a low percentage – and it could present a problem for the method in the long run, says Ke-Cheng, a stem cell expert at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University.
The human tissue appears to slow the growth of the embryo, notes Cheng, and organs grown from such embryos as they develop now would likely be rejected by humans, since they would contain so much pig tissue. The next big step, says Cheng, is to figure out whether it’s possible to increase the number of human cells the embryos can tolerate. The current method is a start, but it still isn’t clear if that hurdle can be overcome.
Belmonte agrees, noting that it could take years to use the process to create functioning human organs. The technique could be put to use much sooner as a way to study human embryo development and understand disease. And those real-time insights could be just as valuable as the ability to grow an organ. Even at this early stage, Cheng calls the work a breakthrough: “There are other steps to take,” he concedes. “But it’s intriguing. Very intriguing.”
Noah’s second and middle son is Ham – Genesis 5:32. We will discover that his descendants have spanned across the globe, principally throughout the hottest regions of the earth relative to the equator. Ham’s children have dispersed widely and comprise the darker skinned peoples of the world, ranging from black to olive skin and all the shades of brown in between. They are located in Central and South America, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, the Indian Sub-Continent, South East Asia and Oceania.
The Races of the Old Testament, A H Sayce, 1891, page 50 – emphasis mine:
‘It is true that although Semites, Aryans, and Alaro-dians represent different races of mankind, they nevertheless all alike belong to the white stock, and may thus be said to be but varieties of one and the same original race… even granting it to be probable that the various white races are all descended from a common ancestry… it is possible that they may have developed out of more than one dark race’ – refer Chapter XVI Shem Occidentalis.
While Sayce is correct in his summation that the specific races stated above have stemmed from a common source, he is incorrect in believing they are ‘white’ or in this case, would have descended from Shem. For the peoples of the Middle East and India descend from Ham instead, yet admixture at more than one time is evident in both their paternal and maternal lineages.
Abarim Publications, emphasis mine:
‘The name that occurs in the English Bible as Ham is really two completely different Hebrew names; one which is pronounced Cham, and the other Ham. They have two completely different meanings, but since English readers are so used to the name Ham… call them Ham I and Ham II:
The name Ham I – Meaning:
Hot, or Protective Wall from the verb (ham), to be hot, or the verb (hmh), to protect or surround.
This name [C]Ham is identical to the adjective (ham), meaning warm, and also to the noun (ham), meaning father in law… The verb (hamam) means to be hot and is sometimes used to describe mental agitation. The noun (hamman) denotes [a] kind of mysterious small pillar (perhaps a device). The verb (yaham) also means hot, but mostly in a mental sense: to be excited or angered. The noun (hema) mostly refers to a severe mental “burning”: anger or rage.
For the meaning of this name [C]Ham, Alfred Jones (Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names) confidently derives it from the verb (hamam), meaning to be hot, and renders it Heat, Black. Then he… connects blackness with sin. What escapes the… scholar is that:
This version of the name Ham is also identical to (ham), father-in-law, from the unused root (hmh) of which the cognates mean to protect or surround.
In the Bible not blackness but whiteness is associated with sin. Miriam turned white [2 Kings 5:27] because of her aggression against Moses’ second [3rd] wife, who was a Cushite and thus quite likely very black. And the bride of the Song of Solomon, often regarded as a type of the Church, was black as well (Song of Solomon 1:5).
NOBSE Study Bible Name List simply reads Hot for Ham, but in view of the above, a closer rendering would bePassion orIntensity.
The name Ham II – Meaning: Noisy from the verb (hama), to be noisy.
Ham II, which is spelled 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 (hama), meaning cry aloud… The… verb (hama) means to be noisy… derived masculine noun (hamon) denotes a noisy multitude.’
The Zuzim (or Zuzites) from Zuz, in Ham, are one of six clans of the Nephilim descended giants mentioned in the Old Testament who lived on the Earth after the Flood – Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega.
They are also called Zamzummim (or Zamzummites) – Deuteronomy 2:21. We will study Genesis chapter fourteen in more detail in a later section – Chapter XIX Chedorlaomer & the War of Nine Kings.
Nephilim are associated with at least two of the four sons of Ham. The definition of the word Ham infers that his descendants would be intense, passionate and at times hot headed – each accurate and applicable.
Psalm 105:23, 26-27
New English Translation
‘Israel moved to [entered] Egypt; Jacob lived for a time [lived as a resident foreigner] in the land of Ham [Africa]… He sent his servant Moses, and Aaron, whom he had chosen. They executed his miraculous signs among them, and his amazing deeds in the land of Ham.’
Egypt is translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic: Mizraim, for Mizra is a son of Ham. He was located in Northern Africa with two of his three brothers – Chapter XIV Mizra: North Africa & Arabia.
Psalm 78:50-52 and 106:21-22
English Standard Version
‘… he did not spare them from death, but gave their lives over to the plague. He struck down every firstborn in Egypt, the firstfruits of their strength in the tents of Ham. Then he led out his people [the sons of Jacob] like sheep and guided them in the wilderness like a flock… They forgot God, their Saviour, who had done great things in Egypt, wondrous works in the land of Ham, and awesome deeds’ by the Red Sea – refer Appendix VII: Moses, the Exodus & the Red Sea Crossing – Fabrication or fact?
The Book of Jubilees provides additional geographic information on the land inheritance of the sons of Ham. It is referenced against the location of the Garden of Eden. We will return to this passage when we investigate Eden – refer article: The Eden Enigma.
The lands of Ham were to the south and west of Shem, as opposed to the north for Japheth – refer Chapter II Japheth Orientalium.
Ham originally was located principally, in the continent of Africa.
Book of Jubilees 8:10-11, 22-24
10 ‘And it came to pass… that they divided the earth into three parts, for Shem and Ham and Japheth, according to the inheritance of each… 11 And [Noah] called his sons, and they drew nigh to him, they and their children, and he divided the earth into the lots, which his three sons were to take in possession, and they reached forth their hands, and took the writing out of the bosom of Noah, their father.
22 And for Ham came forth the second portion, beyond the Gihon [the River Nile] towards the south to the right [facing East] of the Garden, and it extends towards the south [Ethiopia and Kenya] and it extends to all the mountainsoffire [African Rift Valley], and it extends towards the west to the sea of ‘Atel [Red Sea] and it extends towards the west till it reaches the sea ofMa’uk – that (sea) [Atlantic Ocean] into which everything which is not destroyed descends.’
Notice the line of active volcanoes in modern day Ethiopia and Kenya; the ancient lands of Ham’s son Cush. It is called the Rift Valley as the Nubian and Somalian plates are causing the continent of Africa to split into two land masses.
Jubilees: 23 ‘And it goes forth towards the north to the limits of Gadir [Gibraltar, Spain], and it goes forth to the coast of the waters of the sea to the waters of the greatsea [Mediterranean] till it draws near to the river Gihon, and goes along the river Gihon till it reaches the right of the Garden of Eden.’
24 ‘And this is the land which came forth for Ham as the portion which he was to occupy forever for himself and his sons unto their generations forever [rather, a very long time].’
We now arrive at an enigmatic passage of scripture in Genesis chapter nine. A comprehensive or definitive answer to the account was thought elusive, yet we will discover there is embedded in the verses in question a logical answer.
It is as mysterious as Noah’s role as Ancestor Zero – Chapter I Noah Antecessor Nulla. The early chapters of Genesis are a very abbreviated, amalgamated coded version of events. The Bible stereotypically understates rather than overstates, and Genesis nine exhibits deliberate editing and censorship. Moses, who is credited with compiling the early books of the Bible would likely not have glossed over events as they now stand and thus, subsequent scribes and translators are likely culpable.
The subject matter is unsavoury, unsettling and altruistically, it is lightly trusted that the editing was intended for our sensibilities rather than a deliberate desire to cover over the truth.
Recall, we learned earlier that Noah planted a vineyard and made wine after the Flood, very possibly in the region of Kashmir – refer Chapter I Noah Antecessor Nulla.
Further details are added in the Book of Jubilees.
Book of Jubilees 7:1-7
1 … ‘Noah planted vines on the mountain on which the ark had rested, named Lubar, one of the Ararat Mountains [in the Himalayas], and they produced fruit [it typically takes newly planted vines up to three years to grow grapes] in the fourth year [circa 10,833 BCE] and he guarded their fruit, and gathered it in this year in the seventh month [Tishri: September/October].
2 And he made wine… and put it into a vessel, and kept it until the fifth year, until the first day, on the new month [new Moon] of the first month [Abib/Nisan: March/April]. 3 And he celebrated with joy the day of this feast…’
Due to the use of the word feast, it likely refers to the following Full Moon of the 14/15 day, equating to the Passover* and Feast of Unleavened Bread.
‘… he made a burnt sacrifice unto Yahweh, one young ox and one ram, and seven sheep, each a year old, and a kid of the goats, that he might make atonement thereby for himself and his sons…’
Similar to a later Patriarch named Job (Job 1:5) – refer article: Job.
4 ‘… he prepared thekid* first [young goat], and placed some of its blood* on the flesh that was on the altar which he had made, and all the fat he laid on the altar where he made the burnt sacrifice, and the ox and the ram and the sheep, and he laid all their flesh upon the altar. 5 And he placed all their offerings mingled with [olive] oil upon it, and afterwards he sprinkled [red] wine on the fire which he had previously made on the altar, and he placed incense on the altar and caused a sweet savoir to ascend acceptable before Yahweh his Sovereign Ruler.’
The system of worshipping and obeying the Eternal One, through animal sacrifices was not inaugurated by Moses and Aaron during the time of the Israelites, but rather, re-activated. Abel and Noah in the antediluvian age and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob after the flood, all offered sacrifices to the Creator; for either the purpose of thanksgiving or atonement (and forgiveness) – Article: The Sabbath Secrecy.
6 ‘And he rejoiced and drank of this wine, he and his children with joy. 7 And it was evening, and he went into his tent, and being drunken he lay down and slept, and was uncovered in his tent as he slept.’
A number of scenarios are possible, with it resembling an ancient crime scene and a re-opening of an investigation into a very cold case. Initially, the protagonists appear to include Noah; his son Ham; and or, his son Canaan. Though this will alter as we progress. While reading, it is not ostensibly clear who the perpetrator is nor entirely would you believe, the identity of the victim.
Genesis 9:18-26
New Century Version
18 ‘The sons of Noah who came out of the boat with him were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.)’
The Voice: “… (Ham, by the way, was the father of Canaan)” – emphasis theirs.
Amplified: “… Ham was the father of Canaan [born later].” Brackets theirs.
We are first alerted to misadventure by the concluding disjunctive clause, the parenthetical, Ham was the father of Canaan.
The interlinear states:
‘And sons Noah that went forth ark were Shem Ham Japheth Ham[H2526 – Cham] father[H1 – ‘ab: literally or figuratively] Canaan [H3667 – Kenaan]’
We are told who the sons of Noah are; why delineate Canaan as Ham’s son, in a context about Noah’s sons. Could Canaan actually be Noah’s son… born after the Flood?
Genesis: 19 ‘These three men were Noah’s sons, and all the people on earth came from these three sons.
20 Noah became a farmer [H376 – ‘iyesh: husbandman] and planted a vineyard.’
NET: ‘The epithet a man of the soil indicates that Noah was a farmer. “Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard”; Hebrew “and Noah, a man of the ground, began and he planted a vineyard.”
Genesis: 21 ‘When he drank wine made from his grapes, he became drunk and lay naked in his tent.’
NET: ‘The Hebrew verb (galah) in the Hitpael verbal stem (vayyitgal) means “to uncover oneself” or “to be uncovered.” Noah became overheated because of the wine and uncovered himself in the tent.’
Genesis: 22 ‘Ham, the father of Canaan, looked at his naked father and told his brothers outside.’
The interlinear states:
‘And Ham father Canaan saw* [H7200 – Ra’ah] nakedness** [H6172 – ‘ervah] his father told his two brethren outside’
We are told that Ham is the father of Canaan. Why not just state Ham. The writer or editor desperately wants the reader to believe Canaan is Ham’s son.
Is this because he is, though not legally. Or is it because Canaan isn’t Ham’s son at all. By including Canaan; the implication is that Ham is looking upon something that may have a. involved Canaan himself; or b. led to Canaan’s existence.
‘Looked at his naked’ father implies that there had been a sexual act; but, by whom and whom too?
NET: ‘some would translate “had sexual relations with,” arguing that Ham committed a homosexual act with his drunken father for which he was cursed. However, the expression”see nakedness” usually refers to observation of another’s nakedness, not a sexual act (see Genesis 42:9, 12 where “nakedness” is used metaphorically to convey the idea of “weakness” or “vulnerability”; Deuteronomy 23:14 where “nakedness” refers to excrement; Isaiah 47:3; Ezekiel 16:37; Lamentations 1:8.
The following verse (v.23) clearly indicates that visual observation, not a homosexual act, is in view here. In Leviticus 20:17 the expression “see nakedness” does appear to be a euphemism for sexual intercourse, but the context there, unlike that of Genesis 9:22, clearly indicates that in that passage sexual contact is in view. The expression “see nakedness” does not in itself suggest a sexual connotation. Some relate Genesis 9:22 to Leviticus 18:6-11, 15-19, where the expression “uncover [another’s] nakedness” (the Piel form of galah) refers euphemistically to sexual intercourse.
However, Genesis 9:22 does not say Ham “uncovered” the nakedness of his father. According to the text, Noah uncovered himself; Ham merely saw his father naked. The point of the text is that Ham had no respect for his father. Rather than covering his father up, he told his brothers. Noah then gave an oracle that Ham’s [Canaan’s] descendants, who would be characterized by the same moral abandonment [for merely looking at a sleeping naked person and then cursing his son instead?], would be cursed.
It is hard for modern people to appreciate why seeing another’s nakedness was such an abomination, because nakedness is so prevalent today. In the ancient world, especially in a patriarchal society, seeing another’s nakedness was a major [offence]. (See the account in Herodotus, Histories 1.8-13, where a general saw the nakedness of his master’s wife, and one of the two had to be put to death.) Besides, Ham was not a little boy wandering into his father’s bedroom…’
The thrust of the verse is that Ham is somehow complicit. If he is momentarily discounted from an actual act against Noah directly, he is not absolved from witnessing a possible aftermath of an episode either involving or against his father and not responding accordingly. Rather, he flippantly abrogates responsibility and chooses to alert his brothers instead. This response makes sense once we discover Ham conspired in the execution of what occurred in Noah’s tent.
In verse 22, the Hebrew word for saw* is translated by the KJV as see 879 times and look 104 times, but also as enjoy, four times. It can mean to ‘look intently at, behold, to gaze at.’ The circumstances hint that Ham did more than spot his naked father and then quickly leave to go and tell his brothers. There are two possibilities, in that Ham lingered, while observing the situation before him for longer than was appropriate and in the process gained some level of enjoyment or arousal from it; or incriminatingly, somehow re-arranged or manipulated the [crime] scene he discovered. Did he try to extricate himself, or was it Canaan he sought to protect?
As plausible as it may be that Ham or perhaps Canaan just looked, this verse has to be connected with verse 24, where it says: ‘when [Noah] woke up and learned what his youngest son^^ had done to him.’ Support for this line of reasoning is in the meaning for the Hebrew word nakedness** in verse 22. The KJV translates it as nakedness fifty times, though also as shame, one time, unclean, one time and uncleanness once.
The nakedness in question is implying that the nudity on display was a shameful exposure of indecency or improper behaviour; as in ‘exposed, undefended, disgrace, blemish.’ The latin term pudenda would apply, in that in the very least, the genitalia of Noah were visible.
Interestingly, pudendum while signifying human external genital organs, is especially applied to those of a female.^
We will discover that this is the first of a number of massive clues.
23 Then Shem and Japheth got a coat [H8071 – simlah] and, carrying it on both their shoulders, they walked backwards into the tent and covered their father. They turned their faces away so that they did not see their father’s nakedness.
NET: ‘The word translated “garment” has the Hebrew definite article on it. The article may simply indicate that the garment is definite and vivid in the mind of the narrator, but it could refer instead to Noah’s garment. Did Ham bring it out when he told his brothers?’
Why would Ham go to the trouble of telling his brothers and not cover his father himself if it was simple exposure? Why would Shem and Japheth cover their father simply because he was naked, unless they were actually reacting to something more serious. The Hebrew word for coat is translated in the KJV as raiment, eleven times; clothes, six times; garment, six times; and apparel twice. It signifies a wrapper or mantle – sleeveless cloak or cape – as a covering garment.
It does contain the ‘permutation for the feminine (through the idea of a cover assuming the shape of the object beneath); [for instance] a dress^, especially a mantle.’ It may have simply been a unisex dressing gown suitable for someone who is sleeping lying down, or there may be significance in this feminine association.
We will learn that there is in fact here in the text a second significant clue.
Genesis: 24 ‘Noah was sleeping because of the wine [H3196 – Yayin]. When he woke up and learned [H3045 – Yada‘] what his youngest [H6996 – Qatan] son^^[H1121 – ben] had done [H6213 – asah] to him…’
NET: ‘Hebrew “his wine,” used here by metonymy for the drunken stupor it produced. The Hebrew verb (‘asah, “to do”) carries too general a sense to draw the conclusion that Ham had to have done more than look on his father’s nakedness and tell his brothers.’
Though it does imply more than just looking was undertook by someone other than Ham.
The Interlinear states:
‘And Noah awoke from his wine knew what his younger son had done’
The Hebrew word for knew, yada’ is translated by the KJV as know, 645 times; knowledge, nineteen times; perceive, eighteen times; and understand, seven times.
It can mean to ‘know a person carnally’ and ‘to be revealed.’
Surprisingly, Ham is not specifically mentioned. We now find two clues in the Hebrew words for younger and son. The KJV translates younger from Qatan as small, thirty-three times; little, nineteen times; youngest, fifteen times; younger, fourteen times; least, ten times; and lesser, twice. It signifies one who is ‘insignificant or unimportant.’
This indirect reference to Ham as the youngest is revealing in light of the recorded positions in the family hierarchy. Shem and Japheth vary in the order they are positioned in the Old Testament book of Genesis; between first and last, eldest or youngest, though Ham is always placed in the middle of his brothers – refer Chapter I Noah Antecessor Nulla.
Piecing scripture together, we learn Japheth is actually the eldest and thus the reader assumes Shem is the youngest due to Ham’s position always being in the middle. Yet Noah is adamant that Ham is the youngest – which places Shem in the middle.
The possibility exists that Canaan could be being referenced as he is ostensibly Ham’s youngest son of four – Genesis 10:6. Alternatively, was Canaan Noah’s youngest son of four?
The Hebrew word for son ben, is translated by the KJV as son, 2,978 times; children, 1,568 times; old, 135 times; first, 51 times; man, twenty times; and young, eighteen times. A variety of meanings, though the one of considerable interest sandwiched between son and child – a member of a family group – is… grandson.
The use of this word, could suddenly shift focus to someone other than Ham, who is not even stated in verse 24. Canaan on the other hand is mentioned in verse 22, when Ham looked on his father. Canaan in comparison with Ham, would be less significant in importance and ‘smaller’ than Ham literally in age and figuratively in stature.
The Hebrew word for ‘had done’ is translated in the KJV as do, 1,333 times; make, 653 times; wrought, 52 times; commit, 49 times; perform, eighteen times; and dress^, thirteen times. It signifies, ‘to fashion, to be used,to press, squeeze.’ Strong’s adds:‘bruise’ and ‘dress(ed).’ These definitions* may be of tell tale sexual significance when we investigate different theories next and in light of the hinted at feminine garment used to cover Noah’s nakedness.
Noah knew something had happened. Just being looked at doesn’t warrant cursing an innocent grandson. It only makes any kind of sense, if either Ham or Canaan were guilty of more than just prurient observation. How would Noah have known he was stared at, especially while inebriated? If an act of some kind had been committed against him, or affecting him, there must have been evidence for Noah to know.
Genesis: 25 he said, “May there be a curse [H779 – ‘arar] on Canaan! May he be the lowest slave [H5650 – ‘ebed] to his brothers.”
The Hebrew word for curse is translated as simply a curse, sixty-two times and once, as bitterly. It is a severe curse, which from the primitive root means to ‘bitterly curse, execrate.’ Execrate means ‘to detest utterly, abhor, abominate, imprecate evil upon, damn’ and ‘denounce.’
This is no simple curse but one with enormous repercussions. If it is a punishment to fit the crime, then the crime must be one of great consequence for Noah to invoke a malediction of this degree.
The Hebrew word for slave is translated by the KJV as servant, 744 times; manservant, twenty-three times; bondman, twenty-one times; and bondage, ten times. It means to be a slave and the interlinear says a ‘servants of servants’; not a servant to other servants, but the lowest of all servants. This is an enormous clue in identifying Canaan’s descendants – Chapter XXII Canaan & Africa.
The people of Canaan are accused of sins in the scriptures; their ancestor Canaan is apparently guilty of nothing. Why does Noah curse Canaan and not Ham?
NET: ‘Cursed be Canaan. The curse is pronounced on Canaan, not Ham. Noah sees a problem in Ham’s character, and on the basis of that he delivers a prophecy about the future descendants who will live in slavery to such things and then be controlled by others. In a similar way Jacob pronounced oracles about his sons based on their revealed character… Wenham points out that”Ham’s indiscretion towards his father may easily be seen as a type of the later behavior of the Egyptians and Canaanites.
Noah’s curse on Canaan thus represents God’s sentence on the sins of the Canaanites, which their forefather Ham had exemplified.” He points out that the Canaanites are seen as sexually aberrant and Leviticus 18:3 describes Egypt [Mizra] and Canaan, both descendants of Ham, as having abominable practices. Hebrew “a servant of servants” (’eved ’avadim), an example of the superlative genitive.
It means Canaan will become the most abject of slaves.’
The New English Translation footnote supports the mildest interpretation of Genesis nine and adopts the view that Ham saw his father in a compromising position of nakedness. Noah thus disrespected, then felt compelled to curse Ham’s youngest son’s descendants to perpetual slavery and impoverishment. An honest appraisal of this line of enquiry would have to admit there are gaping plot holes. Strikingly, nor does the punishment have equivalency for the crime.
Looking closely at the story, the scenario includes Ham (or Canaan) as a perpetrator of varying degree, with Noah as the – or, as strange as it may sound, a further unknown second person (both a perpetrator and) also a – victim.
***Reader beware, the following segment may be unsettling***
Dr Rabbi Tzemah Yoreh in his article Noah’s Four Sons, puts forward a case of a combination of two texts from two editors in the scriptural account – emphasis mine:
‘A Supplementary-Hypothesis Solution
Viewed through the conceptual tool-kit of the supplementary paradigm of biblical criticism, one form of source criticism, it is likely that in an earlier version of the story (the J source), Noah had four sons, not three: Shem, Ham, Japheth, and Canaan. The later Priestly source had a different tradition, however, that Noah had only three sons (5:31, 6:10, 7:13, 9:19, 10:1, all P texts). P was by nature a conservative supplementer/editor – he finds a way to assert his view that does minimal violence to the biblical text.
(According to the supplementary paradigm of biblical criticism, erasure or deletion was rarely if ever employed.) Accordingly, I would argue that P was not comfortable erasing Canaan entirely from the text in [favour] of his own view – and adds the clause “and Ham was the father of” to verse 18 to make it seem as though Canaan were Noah’s grandson rather than his son. P adds these same words again in verse 22, thereby making Ham the assailant instead of Canaan. Finally, he adds 9:19 to re-emphasize his view that Noah had only three sons. By doing so he brings J’s text in line with his own tradition of three sons, but at the expense of the coherence of the story.
Here is the original text: [Note: // represents where the seams are.]
The J Text 9:18 The sons of Noah who went out from the ship were Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and// Canaan // 9:20 Noah started out as a farmer, and planted a vineyard. 9:21 He drank of the wine and got drunk. He lay naked within his tent. 9:22 // Canaan saw the nakedness of his father, and told two of his brothers outside. 9:23 Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, walked backwards, and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were averted, and they didn’t see their father’s nakedness. 9:24 Noah awoke from his wine (-induced stupor), and knew what his youngest son had done to him. 9:25 He said, “Canaan is cursed. He will be a servant of servants (serving) his brothers.” 9:26 He said, “Blessed be YHWH, the God of Shem. Let Canaan be his servant. 9:27 May God make Japheth mighty. Let him dwell in the tents of Shem. Let Canaan be his servant.”
… a coded version of the original J text with the P supplements [italicised]: J + P (Canon)
9:18 The sons of Noah who went out from the ship were Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and Ham was the father of Canaan. 9:19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these, the whole earth was populated. 9:20 Noah started out as a farmer, and planted a vineyard. 9:21 He drank of the wine and got drunk. He lay naked within his tent. 9:22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside…
An Unexpected Corroboration?
Some intriguing corroboration to this enumeration is found in the midrash (late first millennium C.E.) – Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer… which also saw Canaan as one of Noah’s sons and solves the text-critical problem similarly. It goes without saying that Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer had no knowledge of J’s base text, though his harmonistic reading may be suggestive of a similar thought pattern:
Noah found a vine… the vine still had grapes upon it…he planted a vineyard from this vine…and on that very day fruit grew…he drank wine from it (the vine) and he revealed himself in his tent. Canaan came in, saw his father’s nakedness, tied a string to his penis and castrated* him, then he went out to tell his brothers… Ham came in, saw his father’s nakedness and neglecting the commandment to honor one’s father, reported it to his two brothers as though he were in the market and laughing at his father.His brothers rebuked him, they took a cover, and walking backwards covered their father’s nakedness… Noah arose from his stupor, discovered what his youngest son had done to him, and cursed him, as it says, “Cursed is Canaan”.
The author of Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer not only solves the problem of Canaan, but that of Ham as well. In J, it is unclear where Ham appears in the story; he plays no part and goes unmentioned. In Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, Canaan is the son who castrates his father, thereby receiving a curse, and Ham laughs at his father instead of helping him, thus he does not get the blessing his brothers, Shem and Japhet receive, nor the curses Canaan receives. It is unclear how the author of this midrash understood the biblical text that says that Canaan was Noah’s grandson and not his son.
Similarly, and perhaps even stranger, the Quran notes that Noah had four sons (Sura 11, Hud v. 42-43). This unnamed fourth son refuses to come aboard the Ark, and instead climbs a mountain and is drowned. Some later Islamic commentators give his name as either Yam or Kan’an, the latter the Arabic version of Canaan. It is difficult to determine the relationship between Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer and the Quran, though they may have shared the same source. In any case, it is striking that an ancient tradition that was erased by P hundreds of years before the first millennium C.E. found its way back into texts over a thousand years later in such disparate sources as Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer and the Quran.’
The irony is not lost of a Rabbi quoting the Quran. Conjecture and assumptions of the author aside, the explanation of an older text stating Canaan as a son of Noah possibly answers the parenthetical conundrum of Genesis 9.18. It may add meaning to why Canaan as a son of Noah was cursed directly by his father and yet still allows for the involvement of Ham and his tantamount condoning of either Canaan’s purported actions or even his own.
In a similar incident (with an opposite result) in Genesis 21:8-10, Sarah the wife of Abraham, sees Ishmael mocking Isaac. She takes a dim view and Ishmael’s banishment with his mother Hagar stems in part, from this incident. Though Ishmael is punished by being banished, he still receives a future blessing and inheritance – Chapter XXVIII The True Identity & Origin of Germany & Austria – Ishmael & Hagar.
Nota Bene
For the ease of the established biblical paradigm it was formerly accepted by this writer that Noah had three sons, with Canaan being Ham’s youngest son. Subsequent research has led to the conclusion that Canaan is actually Noah’s fourth son, cementing the earlier manuscripts of Genesis as accurate. In support of this recognition is the fact that an investigation of autosomal DNA, including Y-DNA and mtDNA Haplogroups for Canaan’s descendants indicates the probability they are a fourth racial line in their own right – in addition to the three originating from Japheth, Shem and Ham.
It is incongruous that while Herman Hoeh upheld the established understanding that Noah had only three sons; he should in turn recognise the obvious in that there are four principal skin tones and therefore four types of people (and not three) constituting humankind.
Herman Hoeh:
‘You will never find in the Bible such expressions, as the “white race” [Shem], or the “black race” [Canaan], or the “yellow race” [Japheth], or the “brown race” [Ham], yet these four primary races ARE MENTIONED in the Bible! Why hasn’t this knowledge been known?’ – The Origin of the Nations, 1957.
Castration as an explanation would certainly answer the reason for the severity of the curse inflicted; as opposed to death. This was not a great option, when considering Canaan was to be the ancestor of at least six sons and distinct lineages of descent. Though, we are left scratching our heads as to what would be the motive? Stop Noah siring more sons, who would receive blessings and allotments of land, thus decreasing Canaan’s share? We will return to this notion.
In Genesis 9:24, with Noah saying he knew what his youngest (grand)son had done to him, leaves no doubt that something tangible had been done to Noah. Like Ham, Canaan was the youngest, whether his father was Ham (or Noah). This convincingly yet confusingly, shines the spotlight on both Ham and Canaan as dual persons of interest.
Dr Rabbi David Frankel in his article, Noah, Ham and the Curse of Canaan: Who Did What to Whom in the Tent? A new solution to why Canaan (not Ham) was cursed, presents alternative solutions – italics his:
‘What Did Noah’s Youngest Son Do?
As already anticipated by the Rabbis, and suggested by some modern scholars, an earlier version of our story probably related a much more severe crime – the homosexual rape of his father when he was inebriated. This indeed is the kind of [offence] that would most naturally provoke the severe reaction depicted in the text. This assumption also accounts for the formulation of verse 24,
Noah awoke from his drunken stupor andknew what his youngest son had donetohim. If his son had only looked at him, how would Noah have “known” when he awoke that this had occurred? Further, the final words “had done to him” imply a much more concrete and physical act than mere gazing. The statement that Noah knew what was done to him after waking from his drunken stupor contrasts with Lot who was similarly abused sexually by his daughters while drunk, and concerning whom we read (Genesis 19:35), and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
Leviticus 20:17 shows that “seeing nakedness” is a euphemism for sex: Leviticus 20:17 If a man has sexual intercourse with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or his mother, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has exposed his sister’s nakedness; he will bear his punishment for iniquity.
Most likely, the phrase describing Noah’s nakedness, “and he became revealed inside his tent” was meant to evoke the theme of incest, as “revealing of nakedness”serves as the euphemism for incest in the prohibitions of Leviticus: Leviticus 18:6 None of you shall come near anyone of his own flesh to uncover nakedness… Thus, the sin, in the original narrative, is not homosexual sex itself, but forced incest of a son with his father in a situation in which the father has no ability to defend himself; this would explain the harshness of the father’s curse.’
While it is agreed with the author that incest (and rape) is an accurate integral aspect of what transpired in Noah’s tent – and hence a third major clue – an act of homosexual (sodomy or castration) by either Ham or Canaan will be shown to be wholly inaccurate.
David Frankel:
‘How then do we explain the part of the story in which Noah’s other sons enter the tent and cover their father without looking at him: Genesis 9:23 Shem and Japheth took the garment and placed it on their shoulders. Then they walked in backwards and covered up their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so they did not see their father’s nakedness.
This clearly implies that [the] sin was gazing and nothing more. Nevertheless, I believe that the evidence in [favour] of the sexual interpretation is too strong to simply dismiss. I suggest that the text was revised by an editor who took the euphemism “seeing nakedness” literally, as if the sin was really visual alone.
Whether out of deference to Noah or in the name of modesty more generally, this editor sought to temper the severe [offence] of forced incest with an incapacitated father. This reinterpretation was accomplished by adding a report about the two brothers’ contrasting act of covering their father without looking.
The same editor also added the report of the perpetrator mockingly (?) relating to his brothers that he saw their father’s nakedness (verse 22b: “He told his two brothers who were outside”) so as to facilitate the subsequent presentation of the brothers’ contrasting act; the same editor then added the blessings of Shem and Japhet, the two “good” brothers/sons, at the end of the story.
In short, according to this reconstruction, the blessings of Shem and Japhet (beginning with “he also said”) and the subordination of Canaan to both of them are secondary (verses 26-27) additions. Thus, the original story told simply of the sin of the youngest son against his father, and the cursing of Canaan to be subservient to his unnamed brothers. Admittedly, this story is disappointingly brief in comparison with the one we are used to. On the other hand, it seems only fitting that a story as unseemly as this one would lack narrative embellishment and be as concise and to the point as possible.’
A similar scenario occurred when Jacob’s eldest son Reuben, commits adultery – incest of sorts – with his fathers wife’s handmaiden Bilhah. Reuben disqualifies himself and his descendants from the birthright blessings – which are then given to Joseph’s sons (Ephraim, Manasseh) and Judah – Chapter XXXI Reuben, Simeon, Levi & Gad – the Celtic Tribes.
Frankel:
‘The original story about forced rape of a father would explain why Noah would curse his youngest son so harshly, but Canaan is not Noah’s youngest son; Japhet is! In fact, Canaan isn’t Noah’s son at all! For this reason, many scholars suggest that in an earlier form of the story, Canaan must have been Noah’s youngest son, not Japhet. Without the redaction supplement of “Ham the father of,” v. 22 would have originally read “Canaan saw his father’s nakedness.” It indeed makes perfect sense to accept this reconstruction of v. 22, and to assume that if the story concludes with the cursing of Canaan, Canaan must have been the original youngest-son-culprit of the story.
On the other hand, the idea that Canaan was Noah’s youngest son is difficult. Verses 18-19, which introduce the non-Priestly account here, state that Noah’s three sons are Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and that they are the progenitors of the world. Moreover, the nation lists in chapter 10 (Priestly and non-Priestly alike) treat Ham as the father of Canaan and the progenitor of nations; Canaan and his offspring are only a subgroup under Ham.
The most important thing to note about the edited story is the strange preservation of the curse as directed at Canaan (three times!), in spite of the identification of the sinner of the story as Ham and the brothers as Shem and Japhet. Wouldn’t it have been more consistent to change the curse of Canaan into the curse of Ham?’
In this case scenario, Noah may have disowned his son Canaan. As Ishmael was banished, Canaan would have been relegated in status by Noah, not just by the curse. Ham was not blameless, even so, Canaan’s posterity could have been included with Ham in the scriptures – to save face – rather than shown as a separate fourth line of people from Noah as originally intended.
The only way this could be legitimately recorded with Canaan being identified as a son of Ham, is that Ham was not the father of Canaan at all but rather, the stepfather of Canaan. There is no other reason why the subsequent Bible texts included an adjusted table of nations to accommodate the change in Canaan’s status.
Considering the data thus far, it is problematic in ascribing to Ham the role of perpetrator – rather than that of an accomplice – and somewhat problematic in affirming Canaan as Noah’s son, rather than his being Ham’s youngest son and by extension, Noah’s youngest grandson.
Yet, serious consideration should be given to this second hypothesis, as Canaan’s descendant’s lines listed in Genesis Ten are numerous and more genetically divergent than for Japheth, for Shem or for Ham’s other sons. Eleven potential ancestry groups are listed for Canaan. Canaan stands out, for his sons descendants exhibit a wider spectrum of skin tones; more racial characteristics; and the most variations in their genome than all the other peoples in the world put together – refer Chapter XII Canaan & Africa.
Dr Rabbi Tzemah Yoreh has presented the case for Genesis 9:19 ‘These three were the sons of Noah, and from these, the whole earth was populated’, as being part of the supplemented text P edit. This writer would offer that the whole sentence may not be additional but just the quick change from four to three sons, though the seam would indicate the whole sentence.
Dr Rabbi David Frankel concludes his article with a theory that the Genesis nine account is in fact about Ham and Canaan. Ham the actual victim. Having considered this theory, the conclusion is that considerable editing is required in proving it. Whereas, it can be readily accepted that additions or deletions to biblical text; the wholesale change of names; and shifting verses into other chapters seems a stretch too far.
The same author is eager to down grade Canaan’s curse to a limited curse – subservient only to Ham or Mizraim of Egypt – rather than encompassing Shem and Japheth; thus throwing doubt on the biblical account as it stands, saying it is an editorial agenda in text P to strengthen the future family status of Jacob’s sons.
Further evidence in supporting Canaan as a son of Noah and not Ham is found in verses twenty-five to twenty-seven of Genesis chapter nine. As it says Canaan was to be a servant of ‘his brothers’ and not his uncles. Likewise, the brothers are revealed as Shem and Japheth and not as Mizra, Cush and Phut the sons of Ham. We will confirm in later chapters that Canaan’s descendants have tragically been slaves to Mizra and Shem, thus verifying it would seem, that Canaan is a brother of both Ham and Shem and not a son of Ham. That said, we will investigate the possibility that Canaan was born to Ham out of wedlock.
For it is curious that no matter how strenuously editing tries to transfer blame to Ham, it is Canaan who re-emerges as the accused. One commentator suggests that Canaan was Ham’s son though not by Ham’s wife Na’eltama’uk, but by Noah’s wife Emzara. Alternatively, there may have been an undisclosed act of incest between Ham and a relation of Noah, but not Noah’s wife; as a peculiar anomaly links Canaan to the family of Arphaxad, one of the five sons of Shem.
While this writer since the first writing of this chapter has established this explanation as being in error, it remains included in this discussion for interests sake and in contrast to the actual sequence of events delineated in the conclusion.
The Creator has much to say on the matter of incest and it was considered a grievous transgression, punishable by death under the Mosaic Law during Israelite times. We saw in the line of Seth that it was the fifth generation which began marrying their cousins – refer Chapter I Noah Antecessor Nulla. Prior to this, the second through to the fourth generation had little choice but to marry their sisters.
If such an act was committed with a relation of Noah and or Noah, it would seem that Ham, Canaan or a mysterious second party were fortunate to retain their lives; yet death would have been an impossible stumbling block to Ham or Canaan’s lines continuing following the flood. Ultimately, the curse placed on Canaan’s descendants is unarguably, the most serious action Noah could have taken. Death would have been kinder, but would have eliminated a whole racial line of people before it had even begun.
The most well known incident of incest in the Bible involved the daughters of Lot, which is discussed in a subsequent chapter when we study their sons – Chapter XXVI The French & Swiss: Moab, Ammon &Haran.
The Book of Leviticus chapter 18, verses 6-18 is dedicated to every possible situation of incest – of which a few are quoted and statements potentially associated with the incident in Genesis chapter nine in italics. As might of happened with Ham in verse twenty-one and Canaan in verse thirteen – see below.
English Standard Version
6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. 7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness… 9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home.
10 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter [granddaughter] or of your daughter’s daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 11 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, brought up in your father’s family, since she is your sister [step sister]… 14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt.
15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness… 17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity. 18 And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.”
The Patriarch Jacob married two sisters, though not by choice, but rather a shrewd play by his father-in-law Laban – Chapter XXX Judah & Benjamin – the Regal Tribes.
Leviticus chapter 20:11-21 continues with punishment for incest.
English Standard Version
11 ‘If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them.
13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you… 17 “If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people…
21If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is impurity. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.”
In Genesis 5:6-14 ESV ‘… Seth… he fathered Enosh… Enosh… fathered Kenan…’
Kenan derives from H7018 Qeynan, also spelt as Cainan. It is similar to Canaan, though not etymologically derived from, for Canaan is H3667 kna’an, also spelt Kenaan. The name Kenan, is in Noah’s family line. The name Cain is derived from H7014 Qayin. All three are similar: Cain in Cain’s line; Cainan or Kenan in Seth’s; and Canaan or Kenaan ostensibly in Ham’s family. One could say, this is a family name.
We read in the Book of Jubilees 8:1-6
‘… in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasu’eja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam [Arphaxad’s older brother], and she bare him a son… and [Arphaxad] called his name Kainam. And the son grew, and his father taught him writing, and he went to seek for himself a place where he might seize for himself a city.
And he found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock, and he read what was thereon, and he transcribed it and sinned owing to it; for it contained the teaching of the Watchers in accordance with which they used toobserve the omens of the sun and moon and stars in all the signs of heaven [astrology and black magic]. And he wrote it down and said nothing regarding it; for he was afraid to speak to Noah about it lest he should be angry with him on account of it.
And… he took to himself a wife, and her name was Melka, the daughter of Madai’ – refer Chapter IV Central Asia – Madai & the Medes – ‘the son of Japheth, and… he begat a son, and called his name Shelah; for he said: ‘Truly I have been sent’… and Shelah grew up and took to himself a wife, and her name was Mu’ak, the daughter of Kesed his father’s brother…’
Another Chesed was a son of Nahor, Abraham’s brother – refer Chapter XXV Italy: Nahor & the Chaldeans.
In Genesis 10:24-25 ESV we read: ‘Arpachshad fathered Shelah; and Shelah fathered Eber. To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother’s name was Joktan.’
In the Masoretic text of the Bible Kainam is left out of the genealogy as we see here, yet in the Septuagint – LXX – Cainan is included, as in the Book of Jubilees. In the New Testament Gospel of Luke, we read the genealogy of Christ through his adoptive father, Joseph.
Luke 3:35-38
New English Translation
35 ‘the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan [G2536 – Kainan from H7018], the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan [G2536 – Kainan], 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.’
Footnote:
‘It is possible that the nameΚαϊνάμ (Kainam)should be omitted, since twokey mss, P75vid and D, lack it. But the omission may be a motivated reading: This name is not found in the editions of theHebrew OT, though it is in the LXX, at Genesis 11.12 and 10:24. But the witnesses with this reading (or a variation of it) are substantial: א B L ƒ1 33 (Καϊνάμ), A Θ Ψ 0102 ƒ13 M (Καϊνάν, Kainan).
The translation above has adopted the more common spelling “Cainan,” although it is based on the readingΚαϊνάμ.The Greek text has Kainamhere. Some modern English translations follow the Greek spelling more closely (NASB, NRSV Cainan) while others (NIV) use the OT form of the name (Kenan in Genesis 5:9, 12).’
Thus the names Cainan, Kainan, Kainam and Kenan are all related; with the Septuagint reading supporting Luke 3:36. The fact that Kenan has been inserted in enough manuscripts to draw attention and not be discounted, is a significant red flag. Though it is not the exact name of Kenaan, it is difficult to explain who else it could be?
The insertion of Kenan’s name leads to one viable conclusion if Canaan was the biological son of Ham. That he was the adoptive son of Arphaxad, who became his legal father. The Hebrew word fathered includes more than just a biological, blood-line parent. It can mean a father-in-law, a grandfather and even a distant relative; or in this case, a male, non-blood-line parent who raises the child.
Why would Arphaxad adopt Canaan or make him his ward? As Canaan is shown as being between Arphaxad and his blood-line son Shelah, Canaan must have been born before Shelah. Arphaxad would be Ham’s nephew and Canaan’s cousin. As he was considerably older, Arphaxad may have taken Noah’s youngest grandson Canaan under his wing. The relationship is noteworthy because in the Septuagint version of Genesis 10:22 it says: ‘Sons of Sem, Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram, and Cainan…’ In this scenario, Canaan was ethnically Hamitic lineage, but he is also listed in the lineage of Shem.
The Book of Jubilees reveals that Rasueja, Arphaxad’s wife, gave birth to Cainan. The ambiguous origin of Canaan as Ham’s son and his subsequent upbringing in Arphaxad’s household would be understandable, if Ham conducted a sexual liaison with Rasueja. This would have been incest and all the ramifications that went with it; for she was Noah’s great, great granddaughter.
Canaan was Ham’s fourth son and as such, one of the sixteen (twenty-one) blood-lines which re-populated the earth. Did Arphaxad retain Canaan in his family to spite Ham or perhaps, to maintain a close grip and control over Canaan, who with his descendants were ordained to be slaves. Or, was it an act of compassion towards his wife Rasueja and her bastard child.
From everything we have discussed, the key questions are:
a. Are Ham and Canaan father and son or brothers?
b. Was Noah violated and if so, was it by Ham, Canaan or someone else?
c. Was there a previous event that culminated with the incident in Noah’s tent?
It can be argued that there has been concerted effort in the scriptures to lessen Canaan’s role and heighten Ham’s. To take the spotlight off Canaan and portray him as a victim of Ham’s transgression(s). Ham did something unspeakable and Canaan’s children have paid an exacting price. At face value and with behind the scenes editing, the Bible appears to favour this scenario.
Previously, this writer has accepted this interpretation from those teachers who expounded the tenant that Ham is the prime subject of Genesis chapter nine and consequently the guilty party. A closer inspection of the Genesis nine passage as we have discovered, has convinced this writer that this interpretation is incorrect.
The parenthetical addition of Canaan as the son of Ham is an important fourth clue.
So is Noah waking up to know whathis youngest (son) had done to him. And, it is Canaan who is cursed by Noah – not Ham.
The inclusion of a ‘Canaan’ in Arphaxad’s household and family line, with the naming of Canaan’s mother as Rasueja; yet his still remaining in Ham’s genealogical family tree in the table of nations as a Hamite not as one from Shem, underpins the likelihood that Ham is his father by incest. (But… is Ham Canaan’s real father or his stepfather?)
In this scenario, Ham transgressed twice.
Once with the incestuous act allegedly with Arphaxad’s wife Rasueja and again when he disrespectfully handled his father’s predicament and sided with his son. Ham observed Noah and the aftermath of an encounter, sexual or not. The phrase, looked upon his nakedness is categorically more than just seeing a naked body, though in Ham’s case, does not mean he is culpable of more himself – as the Hebrew infers. For the Bible in connection with Ham, does not use the euphemism for a sexual act: uncovered the nakedness of Noah.
Whereas later, Noah was very much aware of what had been done and by whom – resulting in the profound proclamation against Canaan.
Book of Jubilees 7:13
‘And Ham knew that his father had cursed his younger son, and he was displeased that he had cursed his son and he parted from his father, he and his sons with him, Cush and Mizraim and Put and Canaan.’
One wonders if part of the predicament Canaan found himself in, was compounded by his decision to practice the occult secrets of the Watchers; communicating with dark spirits. An interesting verse is found in the Old Testament.
Habakkuk 2:15-16
New English Translation
“Woe to you who force your neighbour to drink wine – you who make others intoxicated by forcing them to drink from the bowl of your furious anger so you can look at their naked bodies. But you will become drunk with shame, not majesty. Now it is your turn to drink and expose your uncircumcised foreskin! The cup of wine in the Lord’s right hand is coming to you, and disgrace will replace your majestic glory!”
The severity of the sin committed, resulted with Canaan becoming only the second person recorded in the Bible to receive an imprecation of this magnitude, following the infamous Cain.
Genesis 4:10-11
English Standard Version
And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed…”
In verse one of Genesis nine, the Creator blesses Noah and his sons, which includes Ham. Later in chapter nine after the incident, Ham is left out of a specific blessing and does not receive one with Japheth and Shem. Whether castration or incest by rape, both acts are extremely weighty accusations. Castration is difficult to accept without further evidence and motive. From the context and his response, a sexual act or trick of some kind was undeniably inflicted on Noah. The feminine aspect raised earlier of what had been ‘done’, could be a reference hinting at the result of some sort of emasculation either through castration or incest involving transvestism – refer Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega.
Sadly, this is the only explanation that would warrant such a devastating curse as the one put upon Canaan. If Canaan was conceived in incest, it is a peculiar parallelism indeed for him to then have possibly committed a similar transgression.
The family tree of Ham; which may or may not include Canaan.
The principal mtDNA maternal Haplogroups associated with Ham’s descendants – and originating with his wife Na’eltama’uk – include:
Na’eltama’uk
Haplogroup L0 – oldest and original Haplogroup on the human mtDNA phylogenetic tree. L0 supposedly arose ‘one hundred and fifty thousand years ago in eastern Africa’ where the alleged oldest fossils of anatomically modern humans have been found. These facts are open to debate, for the oldest fossils discovered are no where near that age. L0a arose later, associated with the southeastern part of the African continent. L equates to the original Homo sapiens, a mitochondrial Eve of science, also known as the biblical Eve – refer Chapter I Noah Antecessor Nulla; and Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega.
Haplogroup L1 – one of the oldest branches of the maternal family tree is a daughter of mitochondrial Eve and sister to L0. Frequently found in western and central sub-Saharan Africa, though seldom appears in eastern or southern Africa.
L2 – direct descendant of mitochondrial Eve. It is currently found in a third of sub-Saharan Africans and its subgroup L2a is the most common mtDNA Haplogroup among African Americans.
Haplogroup L3 – another daughter of mitochondrial Eve and not just associated with Ham’s descendants, as it is the ancestor of all the non-African Haplogroups in the world today.
Haplogroup M – Subgroup M1 ‘intrigues scientists with its presence in East Africa’ and another subgroup, M3, is native to India.
Haplogroup N – from L3, is one of the two major lineages with M, from which non-African Haplogroups descend. Today, members of this Haplogroup are found in most continents around the world.
Haplogroup R – both ancient and complex. Its carriers are found all over the world. Hamitic members of super Haplogroup R are located in Africa and the Middle East.
Haplogroup X – located globally, as well as North Africa, and the Near East.
It is important to realise that Ham was like his brothers Japheth and Shem, who had inherited DNA from their father Noah and Emzara, their mother – Chapter I Noah Antecessor Nulla. The mtDNA Haplogroup mutations in Ham’s descendants are those deriving from Ham’s wife, Na’eltama’uk. She is certainly the maternal ancestor of Cush, Mizra and Phut; while the jury remains out on whether she is the mother of Canaan.
The global distribution of Y-DNA paternal Haplogroups associated with Ham’s descendants are summarised in Retina, Fifth Edition, 2013:
‘Y DNA haplogroup A represents the oldest branch of the Y-chromosome phylogeny. Like haplogroup B, it only appears in Africa, with the highest frequency among… groups in Ethiopia and Sudan.
Haplogroup E [M96] is one of the most branched, with many subhaplogroups described. E1 [P147] and E2 [M75] were described in… Africa, and [E1b1 (P2), formerly E3] shows a wide geographic distribution, with two main [sub-]clades: [E1b1a V38], present all around Africa and among African-Americans; and [E1b1b M215], present in Western [southern] Europe [derived from admixture*], North Africa, and the Near East.’
The African dominated V38 clade divides again into E1b1a1 M2 and E1b1a2 M329. The M215 clade shared with Europeans* and Berbers divides into E1b1b1a V68 and E1b1b1b Z827. We will encounter these sub-Haplogroups frequently in the following chapters concerning Ham’s descendants.
‘Haplogroup F is the parent of haplogroups from G to R; however excluding these common haplogroups, the minor clades F, F1, and F2, seem to appear in the Indian continent. Until now, haplogroup H has not been well studied, members of this haplogroup were mainly found in the Indian continent.’
‘It is generally agreed that haplogroup J was dispersed by the westward movement of people from the Middle East to North Africa, Europe, Central Asia, Pakistan, and India.
Haplogroup K is the ancestral haplogroup of major groups L to R, but, in addition, also includes the minor K and K1 to K5 [K2] haplogroups, which are present at low frequencies in dispersed geographic regions all around the world.’
‘Haplogroup L is found mainly in India and Pakistan, as well as in the Middle East and, very occasionally, in Europe, particularly in Mediterranean countries.
The highest frequencies of haplogroup M are shown in Melanesia, being restricted to the geographical distribution of Papuan languages’ – refer Chapter VII Javan: Archipelago South East Asia & Polynesia.
‘The P clade is the parent of haplogroups Q and R, and is rarely found. It has been detected at low frequencies in the Caucasus and India.
Haplogroup R1a [mutations from admixture are] currently found in central and western Asia [and in] India… [while R1a in] Slavic populations of Eastern Europe [is a specific and original defining marker Haplogroup].’
Haplogroup T is unusual in that it is both geographically widespread and relatively rare. It is found predominantly in East Africa, Egypt, Western Asia, South Asia and adjoining areas.
The following chapter investigates the enigmatic Canaan and the role of his descendants in the world today.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15 English Standard Version
“A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true.”
“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”
Isaac Newton 1643 – 1727
Addendum
The enigma of Genesis chapter nine is finally solved and the pieces of the puzzle now all fall into their rightful place, both scripturally (and genetically – which will be discussed in chapter XII). While certain aspects of our case summary remain the same others have changed. Such as the heart of the crime being incestuous rape, though Canaan is not the perpetrator but rather the result of the act; Ham is not his father, but rather Noah is; and while Canaan may have been taken in as Arphaxad’s ward, his biological mother was not Rasueja.
This writer admits being swayed by all the biblical scholars before him, into thinking that the crime involving rape and a play for power was a male centric riddle to solve. Thus a rather chauvinistic approach was adopted. Though the truth is that a woman can exert the same influence and use rape as a tool in acquiring power.
The start of chapter nine begins with the Eternal blessing Noah and all three of his sons, including Ham – Genesis 9:1. At some point between this event and Noah after the Flood drinking wine for the first time with the sacrifices he offered – around the time of the Passover and Unleavened Bread festivals – a plan was hatched by either Ham or his wife, Na’eltama’uk. As the woman involved is not named or punished directly, it is safe to assume she either shared her idea with Ham or he shared it with her. Regardless, she was a willing accomplice even if coerced by her husband. It may even have been a spur of the moment decision when the family was together and Noah grew steadily drunk.
Either way, the motive was to increase the share of the pie to be divided between Japheth, Shem and Ham. Each was to receive 33% of the whole world. An addition of another son – born from Noah and Na’eltama’uk, Ham’s wife – would increase the Hamite share to 50%.
Ham was clearly involved even if not the instigator, for he witnessed the aftermath of the act between his wife and his father and couldn’t wait to tell his two brothers what had happened – Genesis 9:22. Shem and Japheth came in and covered Noah and Na’eltama’uk, so that Noah would learn what had happened to him – Genesis 9:23. One would assume Ham’s wife was as inebriated as Noah at this point and may explain her being able to follow through in her role.
The feminine clues now also make sense. In that genitalia were exposed not just of Noah, but that of a woman too. The covering sheet or cloak was covering not just Noah but the woman next to him. Also, this is how Noah knew when he woke up, what his son Ham had plotted when he saw Na’eltama’uk next to him – Genesis 9:24. For the Hebrew word for knew can mean to know a person carnally and to be revealed.
Ham and his wife Na’eltama’uk – while their skin tones would have been opposite to that shown, it captures the unsavouriness of the scheming pair.
The only seeming anomaly in this scenario is that Ham is equated as the youngest son, when he always appears as the middle son. Of course this couples with the fact Shem is always placed first and Japheth last when listed in Genesis. The Bible states Japheth was the elder brother of Shem, yet some translations misleadingly word it the other way around – Genesis 10:21. It shows Shem was next in age after Japheth; so that it appears Ham really was the youngest son after all. For even Genesis chapter ten where all the grandsons of Noah are named has them listed beginning with Japheth, then confusingly with Ham and Canaan next before Shem last.
Verse twenty-five supports the idea that Ham and his wife were seeking power and control over Japheth and Shem’s descendants when Noah curses the offspring of their diabolical plot, Canaan. While Canaan was innocent, it struck a blow at Na’eltama’uk in particular. The following two verses lend weight to intrigue and the substantial role played by Ham and not just his wife – Genesis 9:26-27. For Ham does not receive a blessing from Noah at the end of chapter nine like he did from God at the beginning. Only Shem and Japheth do.
For the purpose of this work, we will begin with Noah and his family as our starting point and the family tree or Table of Nations, listed in Genesis 10:1-32 and 1 Chronicles 1:1-20.
Professor Aaron Demsky comments in Reading Biblical Genealogies, The Table of Nations, Humanity as an extended Family:
‘Genesis 10, known as the “Table of Nations,” describes mankind after the Flood; it is a veritable storehouse of ethnographic and geographical information regarding the biblical period. The chapter divides humanity into the descendants of the three sons of Noah: Japheth, Ham and Shem in that order according to their increasing numbers and according to their ethnic closeness to the unmentioned Israel, whose Patriarch Abraham was not yet born. This chapter expresses the ideal brotherhood of humanity, implying an innate equality and collective responsibility. This ideal is expressed in the use of segmented genealogies creating a world of one big family: the Sons of Noah.’
Continuing in Genesis, English Standard Version:
1 These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Sons were born to them after the flood.
2 The sons of Japheth:
Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. 3 The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. 4 The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. 5 From these the coastland peoples spread in their lands, each with his own language, by their clans, in their nations.
6 The sons of Ham:
Cush, Egypt [Mizra], Put, and Canaan.
7 The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan…
13 Egypt [Mizra] fathered Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, 14 Pathrusim, Casluhim (from whom the Philistines came), and Caphtorim.
20 These are the sons of Ham, by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations.
15 Canaan fathered Sidon his firstborn and Heth, 16 and the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, 17 the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, 18 the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites. Afterward the clans of the Canaanites dispersed…
21 To Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber… children were born.
22 The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram.
23 The sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash.
24 Arpachshad fathered Shelah; and Shelah fathered Eber. 25 To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother’s name was Joktan…
31 These are the sons of Shem, by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations.
32These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, in their nations, and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood.’
Dr Herman Hoeh’s Introduction in Origin of the Nations – capitalisation his:
‘Let us first turn to Genesis 10 and 1 Chronicles 1. Here is the place to start. Yet here is the place from which almost no one begins. To begin here is looked upon as “unscientific.”
These two chapters hold THE KEY NAMES… The whole human family sprang from the three sons of Noah. But their descendants turn up today in the least expected places! Now read Genesis 10:32: “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations; and OF THESE were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.” Did you notice the wording of this verse! “of these” were the nations divided – not after some other families, but OF THESE VERY FAMILIES MENTIONED IN GENESIS 10. The nations today are descendants of these family names.
All nations and races sprang from Japheth, Ham and Shem, the three sons of Noah. From the three sons sprang 16 grandsons of Noah. These 16 family names illustrate all the general types of people extant today. All these sons had children, but their names are not recorded in Scripture. We did not need to know their names in order to understand the Bible.
Historian Arthur Kemp explains race versus ethnicity and the importance of understanding the second point raised in the introduction, discussing migration.
March of the Titans, 1999 & 2016, pages 1, 8:
‘A race is defined as a group of individuals sharing common genetic attributes which determine that group’s physical appearance and, more controversially, their cognitive abilities. Ethnicity is defined as the creation of groups by individuals (most often within racial groups but also possible across racial divides) of certain common traditions, languages, art forms, attitudes, and other means of expression. A culture is the name given to the physical manifestations created by ethnic groups – the actual… religion, social order, and achievements of a particular group… ethnicity and culture – are directly dependent upon each other, and flow from each other in a symbiotic relationship.
… If all [of a specific nation of] people on earth had to disappear tomorrow, then fairly obviously, [their] civilization and culture would disappear with them. It is this startlingly obvious principle which determines the creation and dissolution of civilizations – once the people who create a certain society or civilization disappear, then that society or civilization will disappear with them. If the vanished population is replaced by different peoples, then a new society or culture is created which reflects the culture and civilization of the new inhabitants of that region… That this should happen is perfectly logical. It has nothing to do with which culture is more advanced, or any notions of superiority or inferiority. It is merely a reflection of the fact that a civilization is a product of the nature of the people making up the population in the territory.’
Regarding Haplogroups – the fourth point mentioned in the introduction (primus verba) – Eupedia explains:
‘Mitochondrial DNA is found outside the cell’s nucleus, inside the mitochondria – organelles that provide energy to the cell. It consists of only 16,569 base pairs, or 0.000005% of the human genome. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited only through one’s mother. As it does not recombine like chromosomes, it can be used in population genetics to trace back ancestry on the matrilineal side and to divide populations into haplogroups. The same can be done on the patrilineal side using the Y-chromosome (Y-DNA), which is inherited exclusively from father to son and does not recombine with the X chromosome. Only a few mutations distinguish the Y chromosome of a man and his father. These mutations are cumulative from generation to generation, so it is easy to trace the family tree of humanity by analyzing these mutations (SNPs) [single nucleotide polymorphism] on the Y chromosome and mtDNA.’
Humanity have two lineages, the Y-DNA Haplogroups traceable via their fathers and mtDNA Haplogroups traceable from their mothers. Maternal Haplogroups are determined from mitochondrial DNA information passed down from mothers to all of her offspring; whereas paternal Haplogroups are determined from the Y sex chromosome passed down only from fathers to sons. Every single human being belongs to or has, a Haplogroup. However, males have input from two Haplogroups and females have only one. Thus males inherit a maternal Haplogroup from their mother and a paternal Haplogroup from their father; while females only inherit a maternal Haplogroup.
A brief summary of Mitochondrial DNA analysis by John M Butler, Defining mtDNA Haplogroups in Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Methodology, 2012:
‘Over the course of typing mtDNA samples from various populations, researchers have observed that individuals often cluster into haplogroups that can be defined by particular polymorphic nucleotides… These haplogroups were originally defined in the late 1980s and 1990s by grouping samples possessing the same or similar patterns when subjected to a series of restriction enzymes that were used to separate various mtDNA types from diverse populations around the world…
Haplogroups A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and M are typically associated with Asians while most Native Americans fall into haplogroups A, B, C, and D. Haplogroups L1, L2, and L3 are African, and haplogroups H, I, J, K, T, U, V, W, and X are typically associated with European populations…’
Scientific discovery in the decade beginning the late 1980s has corroborated the table of nations in Genesis Ten. Ostensibly, we can be confident as we progress, that Noah’s three sons and their wives represent the main racial strands on the Earth today.
As we progress, we will make a startling discovery in that there are actually four lineages in the world – East Asian and South Eastern Asian (1); African (2); Middle Eastern and South Asian (3); and European (4).
March of the Titans, Arthur Kemp, 1999 & 2016, page 3:
‘Research carried out by L.L. Cavalli-Sforza and two colleagues, P. Menozzi and A. Piazzia, in their work The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994), has revealed an astonishing 2,288 genetic point difference between whites and black Africans… the English differ from the Danes, Germans, and French by a mere 21-25 points of genetic difference, whereas they differ from North American Indians by 947 points…’
During the course of this research it became imperative that an improved chronology was devised. It is impossible to have a wholly complete chronology for the very distant past. Conversely, it is possible to form a reasonably accurate time frame much further back than one would first anticipate. It has involved considerable effort to create a reliable timeline from before Adam through to the present day. A whole different jig-saw puzzle and a significant challenge in its own right. A chronology based on a re-interpretation of the Old Testament chronology prior to the Great Flood, combined with the Sumerian sexagesimal numerical counting system for the postdiluvian age to Abraham, has contributed to a pragmatic timeline of Earth’s ancient history. As there are already conventional and revised chronologies, it is an unconventional chronology – refer Appendix IV: An Unconventional Chronology.
Everything You Know Is Still Wrong, Lloyd Pye, 2009 & 2017, pages 375-376:
‘Sumerians… created an efficient system of mathematics based on the number 60 (called sexagesimal). It enabled them to easily divide into tiny fractions and to multiply with equal ease into the millions, to calculate roots and raise numbers by any power. The 60-second minute and the 60-minute hour are two vestiges that remain from their original system. So are the 360-degree circle, the 12-inch foot, and the dozen’ – Article: The Calendar Conspiracy.
‘They had accurate calendars fashioned around the mind-boggling timeframe of 25,920 years, the “Great Year” based on a sophisticated celestial phenomenon known as precession (the time Earth’s polar axis needs to circle the sky and point again at the same North star)’ – refer Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega; and article: The Pyramid Perplexity.
There is considerable support in dating the biblical flood to coincide with when the Last Glacial Maximum ended approximately 13,000 years ago, coinciding with the Younger Dryas event; or precisely, 10,837 BCE – refer article: The Younger Dryas Stadial: Ending of the Earth… Beginning of the World. A growing number of scientists and historians – outside of the mainstream institutions which deliberately support an erroneous agenda of either no flood at all, a localised Middle Eastern flood, or that it occurred about 2400 BCE – concur with the dating of circa 11,000 BCE.
For instance, though humans were eating cereal-based foods well before the flood, wheat was only domesticated since the last ice age; created from a still-living ancestor plant known as emmer. Wheat is a grain crop with some 25,000 different cultivars in the world today and most of these 25,000 different forms of modern wheat are varieties of two broad groups, called common wheat and durum wheat. Common or bread wheat, Triticumaestivum, accounts for some 95 percent of all the consumed wheat in the world today – the other 5 percent is made up of durum or hard wheat, Turgidum durum, used in pasta and semolina products.
Lloyd Pye, pages 517-519, 523:
‘In The Twelfth Planet Zecharia Sitchin calls Sumeria “The Sudden Civilisation”… it blossomed out of nowhere nearly 6,000 years ago… its roots extend back twice that far… The first official traces of domesticated plants and animals appear… around 12,000 ya, which scientists acknowledge was the time and point of origin for virtually all the domesticated agriculture and animal husbandry that has subsequently spread around the world.
… the first farmers… chose to begin cultivation in highlands… a terrible choice because they are subject to extreme variations in weather, they possess thin, less-than optimally-fertile soil, and they require construction of labour-intensive terraces to hold the poor soil in place… After the Flood, the plains were covered with soggy mud and silt that could not dry out or be washed away until new riverbeds provided drainage by carving their way down from the mountains above, which would have required many centuries.
In the Wars of Gods and Men, Zecharia Sitchin points out:
“Scholars are agreed that agriculture began… with the harvesting of ‘wild ancestors’ of wheat and barley some 12,000 ya (10,000 BCE), but (they) are baffled by the genetic uniformity of those early grains grasses; and they are totally at a loss to explain the botano-genetic feat whereby – within a mere 2,000 years (8,000 BCE) – such wild emmers doubled, trebled, and quadrupled their chromosome pairs to become the cultivable wheat and barley of outstanding nutritional value (and) with the incredible ability to grow almost anywhere, and with the unusual twice-a-year crops.”
We first read of the patriarch Noah in Genesis 5:28-29, English Standard Version:
28 … Lamech… fathered a son 29 and called his name Noah [H5146 – Noach: rest], saying, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief [comfort] from our work and from the painful toil of our hands” – Genesis 3:17-18.
During the antediluvian epoch the terrain was affected by the worsening ice age, making agricultural farming in particular extremely difficult. The deluge in effect, ended the ice age so that the process of crop growing began as we recognise it today.
Noah is referred to in Sumerian texts as ZI.UD.SUD.DRA and in separate Akkadian accounts as Atra-hais, meaning ‘exceedingly wise’ and in the Epic of Gilgamesh, as Ut-napishtim. The Greco-Roman account, records the name Duecalion for Noah. Noah means rest or quiet. Noah being saved from the impending doom of a worldwide flood meant mankind could continue and therefore we are alive today; a testament to the Creator’s promise to spare Noah.
Ezekiel 14:14
English Standard Version
‘… even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord God.’
Noah was one of the three most righteous men to live, listed with Daniel and Job. When this was written, Daniel was still alive. Even though Noah’s righteousness didn’t save humanity; it was in part because of his very righteousness, that ultimately mankind was spared.
2 Peter 2:5
King James Version
‘And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly…’
It is of note that Noah is counted as the eighth person of eight. For the number 8 is simply a vertical symbol for infinity (∞) – derived from the last letter of the Greek alphabet omega (Ω ω) – representing something which is ongoing and eternal. In this case, Noah was the progenitor for the preservation and continuation of humankind.
Book of Enoch Chapter Ten:
1. ‘Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great One spake, and sent Uriel’ [Ariel the Archangel] – refer Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega – ‘to the son of Lamech, and said to him: 2. and tell him in my name “Hide thyself!” and reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge is about to come upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it. 3. And now instruct him that he may escape and his seed may be preserved for all the generations of the world.’
The world in Noah’s day had grown evil beyond compare. Corrupted by fallen Angels who had interfered with the creation on Earth and humankind in particular. The Creator planned to cleanse the Earth and start anew.
The account is explained in Genesis 6:1-22, New Century Version:
‘The number of people on earth began to grow, and daughters were born to them. 2 When the sons of God saw that these girls were beautiful, they married any of them they chose. 3 The Lord said, “My Spirit will not remain in human beings forever, because they are flesh. They will live only 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also later.* That was when the sons of God [angels] had sexual relations with the daughters of human beings. These women gave birth to children, who became famous and were the mighty warriors [giants] of long ago. 5 The Lord saw that the human beings on the earth were very wicked and that everything they thought about was evil. 6 He was sorry he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy all human beings that I made on the earth. And I will destroy every animal and everything that crawls on the earth and the birds of the air, because I am sorry I have made them” [note: marine life was not included].
8 But Noah pleased the Lord. 9 This is the family history of Noah. Noah was agood [H6662 – tsaddiyq: ‘just, lawful, righteous’ – spiritual] man, the most innocent [H8549 – tamiym: ‘complete, healthful, without blemish, undefiled’ – physically] man of his time, and he walked with God.
10 He had three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 People on earth did what God said was evil, and violence was everywhere. 12 When God saw that everyone on the earth did only evil, 13 he said to Noah, “Because people have made the earth full of violence, I will destroy all of them from the earth.
14 Build a boat of cypress [H1613 – Gopher: meaning ‘to house in’] wood [H6086 – ets: meaning ‘tree’ from H6095 – atsah: meaning ‘firmness, shut’] for yourself. Make rooms in it and cover it inside and outside with tar [H3722 – kaphaph: meaning ‘to cover over’ (with bitumen [pitch]) or ‘to make an atonement, to cleanse’]…”
We will return to the Ark and examine its exact composition and design.
17 “I will bring a flood of water on the earth to destroy all living things that live under the sky, including everything that has the breath of life. Everything on the earth will die. 18 But I will make an agreement with you [Genesis 9:8-17] – you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives will all go into the boat. 19 Also, you must bring into the boat two of every living thing, male and female. Keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, animal, and crawling thing will come to you to be kept alive. 21 Also gather some of every kind of food and store it on the boat as food for you and the animals.”
22 ‘Noah did everything that God commanded him.’
The Nephilim will be repeatedly encountered during our journey and they will be discussed in more detail – refer Chapter XXI The Incredible Identity, Origin and Destiny of Nimrod; Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega; articles: Nephilim & Elioud Giants I & II; Monoliths of the Nephilim; and Na’amah. Various sources which recount a global flood, mention other survivors apart from Noah’s family; consequently, Nephilim presence in the post-flood world is mentioned repeatedly in the Old Testament.*
Not only does Noah receive high praise about his character from his Maker, these verses also describe the physical purity of his genealogy. An unarguable reason why Noah was the ideal candidate to continue the human race. Noah’s ancestors going back to Adam and his son Seth, are listed in Genesis chapter five.
Author Alan Alford says the following regarding Noah in his first book, Gods of the New Millennium, 1996:
‘Noah’s birth was far from normal. According to the Book of Enoch, when Noah was born, his father Lamech was extremely perturbed to find that, “his body was white as snow and red as the blooming of a rose”. Lamech was so shocked that he asked his father Methuselah to make enquiries of Enoch who was staying among the sons of the Gods (the Nephilim), because: “I have begotten a strange son, diverse from and unlike man, and resembling the sons of the God of Heaven and his nature is quite different, and he is not like us… And it seems to me that he is not sprung from me but from the angels.” Enoch’s response was to assure Lamech that Noah was indeed his son, but his unusual disposition was part of a plan to save Noah and his family in a coming deluge.
It would seem that Noah’s father may have become known as Lamech, meaning “He who was Humbled”, as a result of this rather embarrassing accusation against his wife. Lamech’s hope for better times was not to come true, for mankind’s problems were only just beginning. According to the Atra-Hasis, some time before the Flood… God…decided to punish… man with infectious diseases and a series of droughts… and the Biblical reference to the ground which had been cursed by the Lord may well refer to the beginning of the last ice age…’ – which gradually began about 27,000 BCE, reaching its greatest advance some 21,000 years ago and ending with the flood almost 13,000 years ago.
This description is not necessarily saying Noah was an albino, though this is a plausible scenario. It could be referring to Noah being pale, with very fair skin. We find a remarkably similar description, of the Son of Man in Revelation 1:14-15, New Century Version:
‘His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyeswere like flames [G5395 – phlox: ‘a flash or blaze’] of fire. His feet were like bronze [G5474 – chalkolibanon: superficially ‘fine brass’, though could be a ‘metal like gold if not more precious’] that glows in a hot furnace…’
The description is not saying the Son of Man has red or orange eyes. He could have blue eyes which are radiant and piercing. The colour of a pure oxygen rich, high temperature flame is blue-white. People can be described as having flaming eyes or smouldering blue eyes – refer article: The Seven Churches – A Message to the Church of God in the Latter Days.
Similarly, it is not necessarily correct to assume bronze or brass means brown or coppery, as the Greek word chalkolibanon derives from a compound of G5475 and G3030, which mean ‘whiteness’ or ‘brilliancy.’ When fine brass is burnt in a furnace it becomes white hot. When it cools, it remains white with a golden hint to it.
In Daniel 7:9-10, New English Translation:
9 “While I was watching, thrones were set up, and theAncient of Daystook his seat. His attire was white like snow; the hair of his head was like lamb’s wool. His throne was ablaze with fire and its wheels were all aflame. 10 A river of fire [the Holy Spirit] was streaming forth and proceeding from his presence.”
The Ancient of Days and source of all life is similarly described as the Son of Man. Some translations say the Ancient One. The CEV translates as, the Eternal God and the TEV as, One who had been living for ever.
The Book of Enoch corroborates the biblical description of the Son of Man and the Ancient of Days.
Book of Enoch 46:1-4
1 At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the time before time. And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of splendor like that of one among the kodesh [holy] malakim [angels]. 2 And I asked… “Who is this, and from whence is he who is going as the prototype of the Before-Time?” 3 … “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells… for Yahweh [Lord] of Hosts has chosen Him, and He is destined to be victorious before Yahwehof Hosts… 4 “This Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the kings and the mighty ones [rulers of this world] from their comfortable seats and the strong ones [the unseen rulers of this world] from their thrones…” – refer articles: The Establishment:Who are they… What do they want? and Principalities & Potentates: What they want… Who they are.
The Bible states that Noah was ‘perfect’ in his ‘generations’. The word generations, is the Hebrew word Toledah, and means ‘descent.’ The Hebrew word Tamim means ‘without blemish’ in his generations and is the technical word for bodily and physical perfection; not a reference to Noah’s righteousness. It is the same word used for the purity of sacrificial animals. Noah was without blemish physically because – in his pedigree from Adam and Seth – his lineage had not mixed with any other human line or more crucially, been tainted by the Nephilim.
The Genesis Apocryphon parallels the birth of Noah in the Book of Enoch:
‘… behold I thought then without my heart that conception was due to the watchers [fallen dark Angels] and the holy ones [righteous Angels] and to the giants [Nephilim], and my heart was troubled within me because of this trial. Then I, Lamech approached Bathenosh my wife in haste and said to her, ‘… by the Most High, the Great Lord, the King of all the world and Ruler of the Sons of Heaven, until you tell me all things truthfully… Tell me… and not falsely… Then Bathenosh my wife spoke to me with much heat [and mastered her anger]…’
Though she cryptically replies: ‘… O my brother, oh my lord, remember my pleasure… the lying together and my soul within its body. [And I tell you] all things truthfully… I swear to you by the Holy Great One the King of the heavens, that this seed is yours and this conception is from you, whose spirit was planted by you and by no stranger or watcher or son of heaven.’
The Genesis 6 Conspiracy, Gary Wayne, 2014, page 31 – emphasis mine:
‘Lamech mistook the holy nature of Noah as possessing the startling physical characteristics of [a] baby Nephilim… the first book of Enoch:
“… Methuselah, took a wife for his son Lamech, and she became pregnant by him and bore him a son. And his body was white as snow and as red as a rose; the hair of his head as white as wool and his demdema (long curly hair) beautiful; and as for his eyes, when he opened them the whole house glowed like the sun… And his father, Lamech, was afraid of him and fled and went to Methuselah his father; and he said to him, “I have begotten a strange son. He is not like [an ordinary] human being, but [he] looks like the children of the angels of heaven to me, his form is different and [he is] not like us… It does not seem to me that he is of me, but of angels.”
‘So too, did Atlantean giants, according to Frank Joseph, author of the Destruction of Atlantis, possess ruddy, white skin, with blond and red hair and glowing eyes… other ancient giants… also possessed fair skin and were known as lucent, or “shining gods”…’
Something was strikingly evident immediately upon Noah’s birth, reflected in his unique physical appearance. The description again, could refer to albinism, with a white, pinkish skin and white hair; or pale skin with platinum blond hair. If the Nephilim, being angelic-human hybrids had white skin, with blond or red hair, and Noah stood out like one of them, this would imply that humans naturally possessed darker shades of skin tone rather than lighter up to this point. Lamech’s reaction signifies that he saw something special in Noah’s ‘miraculous’ birth aside from the colour of his skin and hair. One chosen by the Creator before birth, as were Jeremiah, John the Baptist and Christ after him.
Jeremiah 1:5
English Standard Version
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Lamech is afraid of Noah, and runs to his father Methusaleh with his concern. Methusaleh contacts his own father Enoch, who responds in calming their fears; revealing to them Noah’s role as the saviour of humanity in the upcoming Flood cataclysm, as well as actually giving Noah his name.
Book of Enoch 106:6-8, 10, 12, 16, 18-19
“… and [Lamech feared] that a wondrous phenomenon may take place upon the earth in [Noah’s day]. So I am beseeching you now, begging you in order that you may go to his grandfather Enoch, our father, and learn from him the truth, for his dwelling place is among the [angels].” When Methuselah heard the words of his son, he came to us at the ends of the earth; for he had heard that I [Enoch] was there… [Methuselah says:]
“my father, hear me: For unto my son Lamech a son has been born, one whose image and form are not like unto the characteristics of human beings; and his color is whiter than snow and redder than a rose, the hair of his head is whiter than white wool, and his eyes are like the rays of the sun”… Lamech, became afraid and fled, and he did not believe that he the child was of him but of the image of the [angels] of heaven…
“There shall be a great… deluge and a great destruction for one year… Now, make known to your son Lamech that theson who has been born is indeed righteous; and call his name Noah, for he shall be the remnant for you, and he and his sons shall be saved from the corruption, which shall come upon the earth on account of all the sin and oppression that existed, and it will be fulfilled upon the earth in his days. After that there shall occur still greater oppression than that which was fulfilled upon the earth the first time[yet future]; for I do know the mysteries of the [holy] ones; for He, Yahweh, has revealed them to me and made me know; and I have read them in the heavenly tablets.”
By having Enoch name his great-grandson, it intensifies a connection that is already found in the Bible; in their typological location in the primeval genealogy; seventh – the number symbolising perfection and applicable to Enoch – and tenth – the number symbolising completion or judgement and highly applicable for Noah – from Adam.
Enoch and Noah are kindred spirits, as the same phrase is applied to both of them and to them alone: they walked with God – contrast with Abraham in Genesis 17:1, Genesis 6:9 and 5:24, ESV.
‘When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless.‘
‘Noah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his age; Noah walked with God.’
‘Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, for God took him.’
It would appear that the Nephilim – and likely their fallen angelic fathers, based on the description of the Son of Man and the Ancient of Days – were not white as in a typical European, but rather they were white like an albino. For those who have watched the Matrix trilogy, the second film features twin dreadlocked characters who exhibit exactly the kind of white skin we are speaking of.
Serious consideration must be given to Noah being the first truly light skinned human. His father’s description of him in the Book of Enoch, would explain Noah’s seemingly other-worldliness. It may well be more than coincidental that Albinism affects the production of the pigment melanin, which colours skin, hair and eyes – Chapter XVI Shem Occidentalis.
While it is a lifelong condition from birth, it does not worsen with age. People with albinism have a reduced amount of melanin, or no melanin at all. This affects albinos colouring and eyesight. Albinism is caused by for the want of a better word, ‘faulty’ genes a child inherits from its parents.
One in 17,000 babies in Europe and the USA are born with either Oculocutaneous albinism (OCA), which involves the eyes, hair and skin, or Ocular albinism (OA), which is much less common and affects only the eyes.
Dr Mary Lowth clarifies – capitalisation theirs:
‘People presume that all people with albinism have white hair and white skin; however, this is not usually the case. A common myth is that they have red eyes; however, this is also not true. Most people with albinism have blue eyes and some have hazel or brown eyes. However, in certain light conditions there is a reddish tint reflected through the iris and pupil from the retina and the eyes appear red (similar to the ‘red eye’ in flash photography). Albinism results from inheriting an albinism gene from both the mother and the father (who often have normal pigmentation themselves, as their OTHER gene is normal). When both parents carry the albinism gene (and neither parent has albinism) there is a one in four chance at each pregnancy that the baby will be born with albinism. If a parent has albinism then they will pass on one affected gene to their child. The child will still only develop albinism if they also inherit an albinism gene from the other parent.’
There are seven types of Oculocutaneous albinism. We will look at the main condition.
‘OCA1 results from a genetic defect in an enzyme called tyrosinase. This enzyme helps the body to make melanin pigment. There are two subtypes of OCA1. In OCA1A, the enzyme is completely inactive and absolutely no melanin is produced, leading to white hair and very light skin. In OCA1B, the enzyme is minimally active and a small amount of melanin is produced. This leads to hair that may darken to blond, yellow/orange or even light brown, as well as slightly more pigment in the skin.’
Noah’s whiteness may or may not have been a faulty gene or defect, but he does seem to be the melanin absent or reduced, Ancestor Zero and fulcrum in the equation on either the actual origination of the different races or more likely, the increased diversity of races after the flood. Thereby impacting their characteristics and the varying amount of melanin skin pigmentation exhibited by a variety of skin tones, that would ultimately differentiate the descendants from his three (four) sons and sixteen (twenty-one) grandsons from one another – refer Chapter XVI Shem Occidentalis; and Chapter XI HamAequator.
Alan Alford’s comments on this question, in Gods of the New Millennium – emphasis mine:
‘The Flood thus acted as a gateway or bottleneck through which the genes of man were transmitted to the post-Flood generations. According to the Bible, the three sons of Noah – Shem, Ham and Japheth – took separate territories and fathered everyone in the world alive today. Did these three sons represent three distinct races? Modern studies of human racial diversity are unfortunately few and far between. As Jared Diamond notes:
“The subject of human races is so explosive that Darwin excised all discussion of it from his famous 1859 book On the Origin of species. Even today, few scientists dare to study racial origins, lest they be branded racists simply for being interested in the problem.”
‘Genetic scientists, however, have projected backwards from all of the human racial diversity which exists today and found a common point, known as mtDNA Eve (Mitochondrial Eve)… These findings suggest that racial diversity must have been preserved on Noah’s Ark if the Flood occurred only 13,000 years ago. Biblical scholars would (agree) with this conclusion.
A major clue lies in the names of Noah’s sons, particularly the name Ham which literally means “He who is Hot”, implying a dark coloured skin. Furthermore, the location of the Hamitic tribes in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10) has been clearly identified by Biblical scholars as the African lands. The Koran, too, is explicit in referring to separate nations on board Noah’s Ark, when it states “blessings upon thee and on the nations with thee”. The scenario of preserving mankind’s racial diversity on Noah’s Ark is entirely consistent with the Biblical record that all living creatures were saved.
Unfortunately, most people have regarded the tale of the Ark as a myth, due to the logistical problems of confining so many types of animals and birds in such close proximity, added to the practical difficulties of gathering together so many different species.
However, if we were to be forewarned of a Flood tomorrow, we would, with the benefit of modern scientific knowledge, not round up the animals themselves but theirgenes. And there are two clues which suggest that this is exactly what happened 13,000 years ago. The Utnapishtim legend of Noah states that Utnapishtim loaded aboard whatever he had of “the seed of all living creatures”. And in the Atra-Hasis (Fragment III)… God… (says) “game of the field and beasts of the field, as many as eat herbs, I will send unto thee”. An echo of this is found in Genesis 6:20 which states that “two of every kind… will come to you”. If the seed or genes of all living animals were kept alive in the Ark, why not also the genes representing human diversity? However, the problem of human races goes much further back in time, prior to Noah’s Ark, for no-one can explain how the races evolved. As Jared Diamond points out, all of the current theories on the origin of racial characteristics have fundamental weaknesses. In my view, the key to the mystery is genetic science. Here is my theory on how (it was done).
The unusual birth of Noah, discussed earlier, was the first step in (a) far-sighted strategy… (before) selecting… three women from three diverse races of mankind… the eggs of each of these women were fertilized by Noah’s sperm, and implanted into three surrogate mothers. Nine months later, Noah became the father of three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, as recorded in the Bible… the three ethnic mothers of Shem, Ham and Japheth were to marry their own sons.
These, then, were the three women who accompanied Noah, his unnamed wife and his three sons onto the Ark. Using this strategy… caused a further significant dilution of Noah’s “pure” genes and a significant increase in the proportion of “ethnic” genes in the next generation. Whilst Shem, Ham and Japheth had retained 50 per cent of the pure seed. Their sons and daughters became 25 per cent pure seed and 75 per cent ethnic… three separate races emerged…
There are several further factors which tend to corroborate the above theory… the independent account in the Book of Enoch of Noah’s unusual white/red pigmentation describes a deliberate step… for obtaining a greater range of colour variation in the three new lines of mankind. Without Noah’s whiteness… could only have blended three shades of black. Is it possible that Lamech’s fathering of Noah was really subject to genetic intervention?
A fragment from the Book of Noah, discovered at Qumran, records an ambiguous response from Lamech’s wife, when questioned about the conception of Noah. She implored her husband to “remember my delicate feelings” – perhaps a sign that she was keeping a secret of the Gods. (Another) corroborating factor is the apparent birth of all Noah’s three sons in the same year. The King James Versionof the Bible (KJV) translates the original Hebrew literally: And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham and Japheth.
The New International Version of the Bible (NIV), on the other hand, has attempted to conceal the impression of three sons in the same year by altering the translation: After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth. The deliberate vagueness of the word “after” suggests a fudge. However, in order to make the illusion succeed, it is also necessary to disguise the fact that all three sons were 100 years old when the Flood occurred 100 years later. Therefore the NIV states: Two years after the Flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of Arphaxad. However, the KJV retains the original and literal meaning of the Hebrew: Shem was a hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the Flood.
Whilst the NIV fudge conveniently allows 24 months for the birth of three separate children, the reality is that all of Noah’s sons were born in the same year. Why did the NIV Biblical revisionists find this idea so offensive that they tried to hide it? Could it have implied to them that Noah’s three sons came from three different wives within the same year?’
A thought provoking hypothesis which certainly gives pause for consideration. The origin of the races is a complete mystery to researchers and theologians alike. Alan Alford’s theory offers an original and plausible solution. As the introduction of the variety of racial branches from sixteen (twenty-one) grandsons strongly appears to have been new, how many races before the flood were there? Just the one from Adam and Eve’s son Seth; two including Cain; or perhaps three? As we shall later investigate – refer Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega.
It has been entertained that the mark of Cain introduced in Genesis 4:15, relates to Cain’s skin changing from white to black. An alternative explanation would be required, if Cain was already dark skinned. Regarding Adam, it states in Genesis 2:7, English Standard Version:
‘… then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.’
There is an anomaly in that we will learn that Adam was not Cain’s biological father – refer Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega. Nor did Adam start as ‘dust from the ground’ but became dust from the ground; this was not his original beginning. The incident in the Garden of Eden led to his and Eve losing their spiritual status in exchange for a composition that was physical. This was the core of the Serpents’s trick played on Eve.
The name Adam in Hebrew from the root, dmm means ‘to begin, to produce.’ Adam had a beginning, asone from the soil. The name Adam is the same as the noun, ‘adam, which means man[kind] in [the] sense of ‘a creature made from earth,’ or likeness-made-from-soil. The verb dama, describes making an ‘image’ and the noun dimyon means ‘likeness.’ Adama means ‘arable soil’ or ‘clay-red earth’.
Adam does not mean red as in colour or complexion. Verbs adom and adem mean red, as do the adjectives adom and admoni, as well as the noun edom, used for Abraham’s Grandson, Esau – Chapter XXIX Esau: The Thirteenth Tribe. The ubiquitous noun, dam means ‘blood, the seat of life.’
Abarim Publications – emphasis mine:
‘The name Adam… means Acre Man, but since the word for acre is distilled from the action of producing agricultural crops, the name Adam really means Produce… But that root that covers the action of producing is also the same as the root that covers redness. That means that Adam is also Red Man. Since red is the color of blood (2 Kings 3:22) and also since the nameAdam is the word (dom), meaning blood, with an aleph in front of it, and alephs sometimes appear in front of words without essentially altering the meaning, Adam also means Blood Man. And since blood is the seat of the breath (or life), Adam is also Life Man. All in all, the name Adam is probably best interpreted as Living Creature or rather the corporeal part of a living creature. The name Adam simply means Corporeal One or Dustling; prior to receiving breath, Adam was quite literally a corpse (Genesis 2:7).’
Some have incorrectly surmised that Adam’s redness – from red-clay earth – meant he was white with a ruddy complexion. One commentator says: “Adam means ruddy complexioned, to show blood (in the face), flush or turn rosy.” Later, we will learn that King David of Judah and Jacob’s brother Esau are described in this manner. Adam is not. For Adam, it is accentuating his coming alive and beginning as the first of his kind – with different genetic DNA, symbolised by his blood – for indeed, their were other humans created prior to Adam – refer Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega.
The line of Cain in Genesis chapter four is fascinating, because we learn that another Lamech – different from the father of Noah – is a progenitor of polygamy, having two wives. They are only the second and third women after Eve to be recorded in the Old Testament, implying significance. Adah means ‘ornament’ and has the connotation of beauty.Zillah means ‘dark’ or ‘to be dark’. So some have conjectured that Adah was light skinned and Zillah dark skinned; or, it could be referring to Zillah possessing a proclivity towards the dark arts – Article: Na’amah.
Intriguing, are the two sons born of Adah and especially the son from Zillah and their very Japheth-like names. There is the primogenitor of Cain’s line, Cain and on Seth’s family tree, a Cainan – of which a derivative becomes a Hamitic name. The Book of Jasher in chapter two says that Cainan, the Grandson of Seth was the father of three sons and two daughters, who are none other than Adah and Zillah. The book also says that Zillah was barren when she was old, until towards the end of her life.
In Genesis chapter four, we learn there were other humans – not descended from Adam and Eve – in the Land of Nod, where Cain went to dwell.
Genesis 4:16-17
New Century Version
16 ‘So Cain went away [not just physically but also spiritually] from the Lord and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 17 He had sexual relations with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. At that time Cain was building a city, which he named after his son Enoch.’
Cain already had a wife – a sister according to some sources, a fallen Angel in others – before sojourning to Nod and building a city.
Book of Jubilees 4:9
‘And Cain took Awan his sister to be his wife and she bare him Enoch… And… houses were built on the earth, and Cain built a city, and called its name after the name of his son Enoch.’
Cain would not build a city, if it were not for an already large population of people living in Nod – Article: Monoliths of the Nephilim. Genesis 1:27 reveals man was created on the Sixth Day or era, whereas, Genesis 2:7 shows Adam was created on the ‘Eighth Day’, the day or era after the Seventh Day rest. If there were inhabitants prior to Cain’s arrival, they were not descended from Adam and Eve. We will return to this question in a later chapter – Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega.
Cain didn’t waste any time, in becoming the first person in endeavouring to establish and consolidate centralised power – a precursor for a one world government. The Way of Cain has survived many millennia right through to our present day and age – Chapter XXI The Incredible Identity, Origin & Destiny of Nimrod.
When Adam’s son Seth is born, we learn in Genesis 5:3 NCV:
‘When Adam was 130 years old, he became the father of another sonin his likeness [H1823 – dmuwth: ‘similitude’] and image [H6754 – tselem: ‘resemblance’], and Adam named him Seth.’
Seth was in other words, the spitting image of his biological father. The line of Seth, his sons and their wives is amplified in the Book of Jubilees.
Book of Jubilees 4:11-28
11 ‘… Seth took Azura his sister to be his wife, and… she bare him Enos. 13 … Enos took Noam his sister to be his wife, and she bare him a son… [calling] his name Kenan. 14 And… Kenan took Mualeleth his sister to be his wife, and she bare him a son… and he called his name Mahalalel. 15 … Mahalalel took unto him to wife Dinah, the daughter of Barakiel the daughter of his father’s brother, and she bare him a son… and he called his name Jared, for in his days the malakim of Yahweh descended on the earth, those who are named the Watchers, that they should instruct the children of men, and that they should do judgment and uprightness on the earth.
16 And… Jared took to himself a wife, and her name was Baraka, the daughter of Rasujal, a daughter of his father’s brother… and she bare him a son… and he called his name Enoch. 20 And… he took to himself a wife, and her name was Edna, the daughter of Danel, the daughter of his father’s brother, and… she bare him a son and he called his name Methuselah. 27 And… Methuselah took unto himself a wife, Edna the daughter of Azrial, the daughter of his father’s brother… and he begat a son and called his name Lamech. 28 And… Lamech took to himself a wife, and her name was Betenos the daughter of Baraki’il, the daughter of his father’s brother, and… she bare him a son and he called his name Noah, saying, ‘This one will comfort me for my trouble and all my work, and for the ground which Yahweh has cursed.’
Let’s ask the question: was the consternation exhibited by Lamech toward his son Noah due to everyone – Cain, Seth and the inhabitants of Nod, the people of Day Six – in the antediluvian world, having darker shades of skin, black or brunette hair and brown eyes. The Earth then – during the antediluvian epoch – whether it be human beings, flora and fauna or the climate, was not exactly the same as today – refer article: The Younger Dryas Stadial:Ending of the Earth… Beginning of the World.
This is partly why the conundrum of the origin of the races exists. If there were only one, two or three races and they ranged between dark to medium brown skin, with dark hair and brown eyes, then Lamech’s shock of seeing Noah so completely and utterly white skinned and fair, with platinum blond hair and blue eyes would not be surprising at all. Instead, it would have been very disturbing.
The names of Japheth, Ham and Shem’s wives are not stated in the bible, though they are mentioned in the Book of Jubilees (dated between 160 to 150 BCE) as ‘Adataneses the wife of Japheth; Na’eltama’uk the wife of Ham; and Sedeqetelebab, Shem’s wife. The Syriac Targum, a similar work, states the wives names as Arathka for Japheth’s wife, Zedkat Nabu for Ham’s wife and Nahalath Mahnuk as Shem’s wife.
Noah’s wife is mentioned five times in Genesis, without her name being revealed. Some believe she could be Naamah, the sister of Tubal-Cain in Genesis 4.22. As she is from the already imperfect line of Cain, it would seem to be a contradiction for Noah to marry Naamah, mixing the two genetic lines – refer article: Na’amah. With that said, if there is any merit in Alan Alford’s theory or a version of it, Noah may have had three wives from which three sons were born; taking only one wife on board the Ark.
The Book of Jubilees 4:46-47, supports the Bible and states Noah had one wife and that she bore all three sons:
‘… Noah took to himself a wife, and her name was Emzara, the daughter of Rakeel, the daughter of his father’s brother [a brother of Lamech]… And in the third year thereof she bore him Shem, in the fifth year thereof she bore him Ham, and in the first year… she bore him Japheth.’
Genesis 11:10 states Shem is two years younger than Japheth, yet Genesis 10:21 says Shem is the eldest. Comparing all the Bible verses where the three sons are mentioned, it establishes their order of birth as Japheth first, then Shem and lastly Ham. Shem is sometimes placed first in order because from him, the patriarch Abraham would later be born. If Noah only had one wife and Alford’s theory is not applied, then Japheth, Shem and Ham very likely had wives with different genetic characteristics.
The Book of Tobit – dated between 225 to 175 BCE – does not name Noah’s wife, though does say she was one of his ‘own kindred’. An Arabic source with Islamic tradition links Noah’s wife descended from either his own family bloodline from Methuselah or less accurately, Mehujael from Cain’s line, giving her name as Haykel or Amzurah respectively – Amzurah being similar to Emzara.
Unknown source:
‘[Noah’s] family were probably mid-brown, with genes for both dark and light skin, because a medium skin colour would seem to be the most generally suitable (dark enough to protect against skin damage and folate destruction, yet light enough to allow vitamin D production). Adam and Eve would most likely have been mid-brown as well, with brown eyes and brown (or black) hair. In fact, most of the world’s population today is mid-brown.’
There is genetic evidence supporting the premise that the world’s inhabitants before the flood were darker skinned and medium brown in tone – Chapter XII Canaan & Africa.
We will investigate this question in a later section, as Y-DNA and mtDNA Haplogroups support such a conclusion – refer article: Y-DNA Adam & mtDNA Eve:The Genesis & Evolution of Homo sapiens. Noah would have been the carrier of the genes that were passed on to his three sons, while combining with the DNA of their wives and producing sixteen (twenty-one) grandsons now ranging from dark to light, black to white, who had not existed previously.
If Noah did possess a DNA mutation or variation which introduced racial distinction and produced numerous ethnicities, he must have either inherited recessive genes, passed down from Adam, Eve and Seth, or his genetic code was manipulated prior to his birth.
Albinism seems to be a throwback to when humans were dark and the mutated gene* that causes reduced melanin and white skin appeared. Research supports the introduction of light skin in our more recent past – an acknowledgment that earlier humans did possess brown skin.
White Skin Developed in Europe Only As Recently as 8,000 Years Ago Say Anthropologists, Liz Lea Floor, 2015 – emphasis mine:
‘The myriad of skin tones and eye colors that humans express around the world are interesting and wonderful in their variety. Research continues on how humans acquired the traits they now have and when, in order to complete the puzzle that is our ancient human history. Now, a recent analysis by anthropologists suggests that the light skin color and the tallness associated with European genetics are relatively recent traits to the continent.
An international team of researchers as headed by Harvard University’s Dr. Iain Mathieson put forth a study at the 84th annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists recently. Based on 83 human samples from Holocene Europe as analyzed under the 1000 Genomes Project, it is now found that for the majority of the time that humans have lived in Europe, the people had dark skin, and the genes signifying light skin only appear within the past 8,000 years.This recent and relatively quick process of natural selection suggests to researchers that the traits which spread rapidly were advantageous within that environment, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
This dramatic evidence suggests modern Europeans do not appear as their long ancient ancestors did.
Previous research published in 2008 found thatthe earliest mutations in the eye-color genes that led to the evolution of blue eyes probably occurred about 10,000 years ago in individuals living in around the Black Sea. The surprising aspect of the findings is that while it is fundamental to natural selection that advantageous genetic attributes spread, it is not often a speedy process. The study shows that these genetic pale skin traits swept across Europe speedily, andthatphenomenon is of particular interest to researchers.’
Humans are not from Earth – A Scientific Evaluation of the Evidence, Ellis Silver, 2017, pages 27, 42 and 278 – emphasis mine:
‘Until about 7,700 years ago, all humans had brown eyes… Since blue eyes offer more protection against cataracts, it’s surprising that they didn’t evolve much sooner. And it’s bizarre that they’re rarely found in climates where the sunlight is strongest… Everyone with blue eyes has a single, common ancestor who lived about 7,700 years ago and had a genetic mutation – a single switch that turns off or limits the eye’s ability to produce melanin. Researchers have found that if this gene is completely destroyed it leads to albinism.* Around the time that blue eyes first appeared, so did white skin…
… light skinned people appeared on Earth more recently than most of us realize… when the allele associated with light skin first originated in the SLC24A5 gene… lighter skin, like blue eyes, might simply have been a genetic anomaly rather than a necessity.The Caucasian did first appear around 7,700 years [ago], and we don’t know why. We’d been living in temperate regions including Scandinavia for tens of thousands of years before that time, yet we retained our dark skin, hair, and eyes. And it seems we hadn’t succumbed to vitamin D deficiency. So the sudden switch to white skin, blond hair, and blue eyes is both unexpected and unexplainable. Most mainstream biologists say it was a simple genetic mutation that people found attractive. But another explanation is that the Caucasians were hybrids…’
White skin, blond and red hair with blue and green eyes, suddenly came out of nowhere, springing out of the genetic gene pool, much like Noah. A recent study has offered alternative dating for this genetic mutation, between 11,000 to 19,000 years ago. We will learn that this dating is especially accurate.
The dating of nearly 8,000 years ago is still highly relevant, as that takes us back to the time of Peleg and the Tower of Babel, at which time one of Shem’s sons had a pronounced divisional split in his descendant’s line. This was represented by the major Y-DNA paternal mutations of the European R1a and R1b Haplogroup strains. R1a being one of the principle Haplogroups for Eastern European men – aside from mutations found in Central and South Asia as the result of admixture – and R1b, the primary Haplogroup of Western Europeans, including the Latino-Hispano peoples of the Americas.
The Genetic Origin of the Nations, 2006 & 2020:
‘The scientific evidence indicates that there were seven so-called “Eves” to the genetic mtDNA pool in the Caucasian [line] but that there are 26 female lines overall.
Noah was understood to be pure in his generations. The Bible also maintains that the people in the Ark were all the family of Noah. Thus, to properly account for the genetic diversity, Noah must have maintained the capacity to throw genetically distinct offspring, and this offspring had the characteristics of the line from which it came, but not the entire sequence that Noah had originally. For Noah to be the father of the human structure he is held to have had the capacity for the… YDNA substructure, as all humans are descended from him. Any male on the planet will have only the mutations that signify his branch and path.Noah held the base YDNA that was able to mutate into… other subgroups [that is, Haplogroup A].
… when we examine the tree of mtDNA we find some interesting group derivatives. The so-called “supergroups” are really only in three basic groups. In other words, they came from three main female lines. That is what we would expect to find if we assume there were only three females that bred on from the Ark, namely the wives of Shem, Ham and Japheth. These Haplogroups are all descended from a single female supergroup, namely Haplogroup L. So in reality, all females are descended from one female line, Hg L. That is super L. This line then split into L1, and then L2 and L3. The line L3 diverged and from L3 came the other mtDNA mutations. Thus, all females came from one Eve whose mtDNA line was L.
The supergroups M and N were next to diverge or mutate. From a biblical point of view we can argue easily that L was formed with Eve and the other groups were pre-Flood divisions that came on to the Ark. Thus, we could correctly argue that L, M, and N came on to the Ark within the accepted biblical account.All mtDNA Haplogroups are subdivisions of L, then M and N and subsequently R, which itself is a mutation of Hg N.
Thus, we can assume that Eve produced the line L and the three wives of Shem, Ham and Japheth are at least the three groups L, M and N. There may have been further divisions given the fact that Noah may have had daughters not mentioned and their mtDNA line may have been L, or M or N. It may have even been R, if we assume that the entire L line came in through the wife of Ham, as the L line is almost confined to the sub-Saharan tribes. We also have to address the fact that Eve was dark skinned and the fact that Adam means the one who was red. Thus the capacity for the development of skin colour was an original trait [even if recessive] of the human creation.
M produced three subdivisions… including C [and Z, which split from each other], and D and G… [with subdivisions] E and Q… [all associated with East Asian peoples].
We might thus also deduce that the wives of the sons of Noah were taken from the one family lineage, maintaining purity in the generations in the female line also. The L2 and L3 split may have come from the family structure before the Flood. [Any] daughters of Noah and the wives of the sons could have carried all three of the L subdivisions and the basic core sub-groups of M, N and perhaps R. It is therefore possible that the women of the Ark… could easily have contained the basis for the modern mtDNA diversity.
The supergroup N… split… [including] Haplogroups I and W… The R supergroup split into the following: B; F; HV, which split into H and V; P; The J and T subdivision; and U, from which came K… [all associated with European peoples].’
According to the author, the mtDNA super Haplogroup L originated with Eve and split into L0, L1, L2 and L3. All mtDNA L haplogroups from L0 to L6 are primarily associated with sub-Saharan African people and to a lesser extent, Berbers (and Arabs). The remainder of the mtDNA Haplogroups then derived or mutated from L3. L3 gave rise to the super subgroups M and N.
Broadly speaking, L3 relating to African peoples, M with East Asian and N for Europeans. The author states that Japheth, Ham and Shem’s wives would have carried these new mutations. Though in reality, it would have been the potential for them to be realised in their descendants.
For the three wives of Noah’s sons to each represent these three core racial strands in the future, the connecting dots not suggested by the author are that these wives could have also been daughters of Noah by his wife Emzara. Though there is reason to believe this is not the case.
More probable and advanced by this writer, is that Noah would have passed on to each son the paternal genetic Y sex chromosome represented by Haplogroup A. First to Japheth and his subsequent seven sons, then Ham and his three sons; Shem and his five sons; and finally Canaan* and his six sons with each of the twenty-one grandson’s male descendants forming the Haplogroup mutations presently today of B through to T.
While Ham, Shem and Japheth resembled each other, it would be their descendants who would exhibit the mutations which would arise respectively in the darker equatorial peoples, dwelling from Africa to India; the lighter skinned peoples inhabiting Europe; and the eastern peoples of Asia and the Americas.
Noah’s wife would have received the maternal recessive genes consisting of Mitochondria DNA, originating in the L line from Eve, which included the future Haplogroup M and N mutations. Thus, L3, M and N were new mutations that had not existed during the antediluvian epoch.
The new racial characteristics carried by Noah’s daughters (in law), ‘Adataneses, Na’eltama’uk and Sedeqetelebab and possessed by Japheth, Ham and Shem, would eventually reveal two further racial strands: yellow from Japheth (C, D) and ‘Adataneses (M); and white from Shem (G) and Sedeqetelebab (N, R); to add to an original brown skin tone. The latter now carried a new mutation too; creating extra diversity in Ham (H, J) and Na’eltama’uk (L0, L1-L6). Canaan* (A, B, E) is a separate line again and is discussed in depth in Chapter XI Ham Aequator; and Chapter XII Canaan & Africa.
What is of fascinating interest is that while the white line when it mutated long after the Flood was new; the yellow line of descent was a throwback to the people of Day Six – refer articles: Homo neanderthalensis I, II, III & IV; and Chapter II Japheth Orientalium.
It is understandable why these eight people were saved and that not just Noah was genealogically pure, but so was his wife. They then had (probably) three to (possibly) six children prior to the flood who received the three (actually four) new core racial lines, which then mutated into the sixteen (in reality twenty-one) new sub-racial strands through their children after the flood – Noah’s and Emzara’s grandchildren.
This leaves the L and specifically the L0 pre-flood line from Eve. The simple answer is that L was passed to Cain and his family line and what became L0 was passed to Seth and his line of descent which later included Noah and his wife. L3 with M and N, being the later mutations from Seth’s line L0 after the Flood. The L and L0 lines were mid-toned skinned lines, with the darker and lighter shades of skin and racial diversity included in the L3 line we presently have now, deriving from Noah’s descendants. The undeniable scientific support for this argument, is that a black couple can have white children, but a white couple cannot have a black child.
Recent research has found incredible evidence to corroborate the Genesis account regarding humankind descending from at least three original fathers.
Finding Ham, Shem, and Japheth via the Y-Chromosome, Genesis and Genetics, 2021 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘… we have examined [paternal] Y-chromosome genomes searching for Noah and his three sons, Ham, Japheth, and Shem. They were easy to find. According to our analysis, if you have the rs17306671 Y-chromosome mutation nucleotide A you are from Shem. If you have the rs9786139 Y-chromosome mutation nucleotide A you are from Ham. If you have the rs3900 Y-chromosome mutation nucleotide G you are from Japheth. The following presents the easy-to-follow logic and analysis… [and] Our findings are consistent with the Bible and modern science raw data.
…Y-chromosome DNA is exclusively found in males; it is inherited from one’s father. The Y-chromosome has approximately 60 million base pairs, each of which is subject to mutations. Mutations develop in the Y-chromosome, typically at the rate of 2 mutations per generation. This is based on a mutation rate of 1.0*10^-9 mutations /nucleotide/year (Reference 1) and 30 years per generation.
These mutations allow us to track ancestry. If one man populated all the earth, all males would have his Y-chromosome, and if this man had two sons, one would expect that roughly half of the world would have one son’s mutations and the other half would have the other son’s mutations. Furthermore, if our original ancestor had 10 grandsons, one would expect that each grandson would have mutations that would each exist in approximately 10 percent of the male population. Successive generations would continue to generate new mutations that would form a human family tree, known as a phylogenetic tree to geneticists.
In our research, we used the above principles in tracking our most ancient ancestors. We made no assumptions and shelved our preconceived ideas. We wanted to see where the data led us. Our strategy was simple; we gathered the Y-chromosome mutations, which are seen in more than 5 percent of human males, and entered them into a spreadsheet. We looked for patterns and color-coded the resulting groups. The data used in this research came from the 1000 genomes project and retrieved using the Ensembl browser. The data appeared to be correct with no errors. No data was eliminated due to suspect errors, and no data was “cherry-picked” to suit any preconceived ideas. Our thanks to the great effort of those who did the sequencing and publishing of the raw data. We also greatly appreciate that it was made available to the public.
We started by taking 57 Y-genomes of diverse people (Americas, East Asia, Europe, South Asia, and Africa). Next, we gathered mutations that were in at least 5 percent of the world’s male population. The technical term for this is those with a Mean Allele Frequency (MAF) greater than or equal to 0.05 (5 percent). These mutations are the most interesting; any smaller MAF mutation is a subset of those greater than 5%.’
‘The spreadsheet… provides 57 rows (individual male humans) and 30 columns (mutations over 5 percent of the population). Each column element of the matrix was color-coded to show us whether the individual had the mutation or not. We noticed patterns beginning to form… Next, we switched columns and rows to form groups. The groups were obvious. We also took each group and moved the columns so that the columns for each group with the largest MAF were on the left. Now we can see a clear pattern in the figure below. We see that each individual fits into just one group and had no mutations in any other group. Also, we see that every individual in the group has the mutation with the greatest MAF; this is the mutation of the most ancient ancestor of that group.
Looking at the matrix… we see that each group has one maximum MAF. The yellow is .38, the red is .52, and the green is .10. They add up to 100 percent. Now that we have shown that our most ancient ancestor had three sons, we can state that this finding is consistent with the Bible. The three groups are consistent with the three sons of Noah: Ham, Shem, and Japheth. Therefore, one could easily conclude that Ham is the yellow group, Shem is the green group, and Japheth is the red group.
Note: Noah’s Y-chromosome is also known since it would be that of the three sons with all mutations removed.
Bible in Genesis 10, the Table of Nations, states that all humanity came from these three sons:
Genesis 10:1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
Genesis 10:32 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.
This means that roughly 1/3 of the earth’s male population came from each son, but, since Japheth had 7 sons, Ham had 4 sons, and Shem had 5 sons; therefore, the worldwide distribution should be closer to the following:
Patriarch Number of sons % Projected World Population Observation
Japheth 7 sons 43.75 52
Ham 4 sons 25 38
Shem 5 sons 31.25 10
The chart above shows that both the Ham and Japheth results were higher than expected, and Shem was lower than expected. However, this can be explained in at least two ways:
The Ham and Japheth offspring are in the world’s heavily populated areas, namely South and East Asia.
The Thousand Genomes Project did not provide representatives of the Near East, the Mid-East, or Northern Africa, all of which would increase the Shem percentage, thereby decreasing Ham and Japheth’s percentages.
The above two issues are not meant as criticism but offered as an explanation.’
The percentage is lower for Shem, compared with Japheth and Ham because the descendants from Shem only include those people who are of European descent. The grey area includes the Latino-Hispano peoples of Central and South America who are in part either Hamitic or descend from Japheth. While primarily descended from Shem’s fifth son Aram, considerable intermixing means only a minority are deemed fully white.
As well as the fact and a surprise for many, that the Arabic peoples of North Africa and the Middle East, are related to the equatorial people of Ham and not Shem. Adding the White western populations of Europe with those in the New World equals approximately eight hundred million people, or a tenth of the approximate eight billion people on the planet – therefore confirming the figures above.
A further vital element to consider in the above figures is that the percentage for Ham comprising 38% is in fact shared with Canaan (who is not Ham’s son) – refer Chapter XI Ham Aequator. So that Canaan’s descendants reflect 19% to 20% of the world’s population, with Ham’s three sons – Cush, Mizra and Phut – constituting the remaining nineteen percent.
‘Our findings are consistent with the Bible, secular ancient history, and genetic diversity:
The Bible documents Noah and his family to be the only ones spared from the deluge which flooded the entire earth, and the earth was repopulated through Noah’s three sons.
The historical period began when the Sumerians began writing cuneiform tablets. These early writings documented the kings before and after the flood.Also, the Sumerian legends are consistent with the world being populated by the three sons on the Ark.
According to the Bible and Sumerian history, all humanity came from one family. As they migrated throughout the world, the genetic diversity would be lost from those who separated from the core population; therefore, the most genetic diversity should be where Noah’s family settled, the Near East. Those who migrated to the Americas, Australia, and southern Africa lost some genetic diversity. We can consider two levels of observing genetic diversity, first, what we see and, second, what DNA tells us. We can easily see eye color, skin color, and hair color. Looking at a globe, it is apparent that those with the most visual diversity meet in the Near East, the place of disembarkation from Noah’s Ark. From a DNA standpoint, one can look at the diversity of haplogroups, both Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial. The extremities are South Africa, Australia, and the Americas, which have only a few haplogroups. The location with the most haplogroups is, again, in the Near East.’
Rather, the reason being that the Middle East was not the disembarkation from Noah’s Ark, but where the prime settlement of human beings some time after the Flood was located. Coupled with the fact, that the Middle East has been the region where the greatest number of migrations and changes in resettlement have taken place.
‘To summarize our findings:
(1) From a Y-chromosome perspective, it appears that all humanity came from three male humans.
(2) Item (1) is not proof of the Biblical narrative concerning Noah’s three sons, but it is consistent with it. To prove it, one would have to sequence every human male ever born and analyze his genome. If anyone can trace an individual human Y Chromosome back to some basal mutation other than the three given, please let us know…
(3) We can now project Noah’s DNA; it is that of his three sons with no mutations.
(4) Our findings are consistent with the Bible, Sumerian history, and our current state of human diversity.
Future analysis: It is now possible to know the Y-chromosome DNA of each of Noah’s grandchildren. This is in our job jar.’
Noah’s epoch prior to the Flood comprised major centres of civilisation and futuristic alien-like advancements – Article: Antartica: Secrets of the Lost Continent of Atlantis. Staggeringly further ahead than our current technology – though we ourselves are rapidly progressing to that point. We read in Matthew 24:37-38, English Standard Version:
‘For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark…’
These verses reveal that mankind will be living life as usual and acting as if the Son of Man is not coming. As the Flood caught the world unawares in the past, so too will the return of the Son of Man in the future.
Alan Alford comments on the literal boarding of every animal species – presumably some plant species as well – on to the Ark, has left the credibility of the account vulnerable. The exception, would be the seven of each kind of clean or domesticated animals taken on board and the birds stated; these would have been literal animals.
The world was an impressive, yet tragic dystopia, so for Noah to protect and continue each species primarily via DNA, may explain how an improbable event becomes a very plausible one. The word ark in Hebrew [H8392 – tebah] can mean a ‘box, basket or chest’. It has the connotation of a protective egg. A safe place which is enclosed; offering a nourishing environment. Given the superior technological capability of the age, we can begin to appreciate the length of time it took to build the ark – in reality, either a submersible vessel such as a submarine, an aircraft like a space ship, or combination of the two. For we learnt in Genesis 6:14 that the Ark was hermetically sealed.
The cataclysm of the Flood was so violent and severe, a literal wooden ship – incorrectly translated gopher wood, but not a wood from timber at all, but an unknown substance, perhaps like titanium – would have easily been destroyed. Descending down very deep – or possibly into Earth’s orbit – would have been the only way to survive.
If the ark contained primarily DNA samples, seven pairs of clean animals – see Leviticus 11:1-46 and Deuteronomy 14:3-21 – birds and vegetation to eat, with just eight people, then it would have been a realistic, controllable size to manoeuvre. It corroborates the dimensions of the vessel in Genesis 6:15-16, New Century Version, that would have been too small for every animal species to be included.
‘This is how big I want you to build the boat: four hundred fifty feet long, seventy-five feet wide, and forty-five feet high. Make an opening around the top of the boat that is eighteen inches high from the edge of the roof down. Put a door in the side of the boat. Make an upper, middle, and lower deck in it.’
R A Boulay in his first published version of Flying Serpents and Dragons, printed in 1990, devotes a chapter to Noah’s Ark; yet in later additions the original chapter thirteen is intriguingly omitted. Boulay discusses the only two descriptions of the Ark, one in the scriptures and the second a Sumerian account. Zecharia Sitchin confirms the Flood occurred circa 11,000 BCE and the god Enki instructed Ziusudra (Noah) to build a submersible ship.
Boulay says the dimensions of the Ark, reveal it would ‘displace 43,300 tons.’ He adds: ‘In his study The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, the noted scholar Aleksander Heidel brought up the problem of interpretation where certain scholars believe that a circular design of [a submersible] ark would be much more practical and that the text lends itself easily to this interpretation. Their views, however, have been summarily dismissed by other scholars.’
Of special interest is Boulay’s comments on the Sumerian description of the craft having ‘punting poles’. Where he states: ‘Apparently these were of paramount importance for they were loaded while the construction was going on and before the Ark was finished. Only then were the food, supplies, and personnel brought aboard. This was a closed and sealed craft and… [so a] traditional translation and interpretation [is] illogical. This strange item also appears earlier in the epic at the time that Gilgamesh had to cross a dangerous area called the “sea of death,”… While this dangerous “sea” which he had to cross has been interpreted as a watery area, it may very well have been a metaphor for a journey through that vast sea of air called the atmosphere, that had to be traversed to reach the gods.
For this trip, Gilgamesh had to procure 120 of these punting or thrusting poles. These could be used only once and were consumed as they were used. Each pole was good for only one thrust and then became contaminated and had to be thrown away. For want of a better name, they have been called “punting poles,” no doubt influenced by modern day river craft, but the meaning is not clear and basically the term means a thrusting stick or rod. In modern terms we would describe them as fuel rods since they were associated with the propulsion system of a ship. In this sense, they could be either fuel rods inserted into a nuclear reactor in order to control its energy output or, more probably, tubes or rods filled with solid propellant used in some sort of rocket propulsion system.’
Genesis and Genetics, delve deeper into the logistics of the Ark and its inhabitants and the actual housing of the Earth’s primary species.
The Genetics of Kinds – Ravens, Owls, and Doves, 2013 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The basic dilemma concerning the voyage of Noah’s Ark is: how did Noah keep so many kinds of animals alive on the Ark for a year?’ – refer article: The Calendar Conspiracy. ‘Since there are so many birds species presently living on earth (Sibley, Charles G., and Monroe, Burt L.), the tendency for creationists is to speculate that the Biblical kinds were only a portion of the present-day species, and that the Ark contained possibly only the “genus,” “family,” or “order.” The problem with this speculation is that it is in conflict with the Biblical, fossil, and DNA evidence. The Bible clearly states that every kind and sort of bird was taken on the Ark (Genesis 6:19, Genesis 7:14); and, the fossil record shows that before the flood there were multiple species of each genus, family, and order. Then, the most daunting task encountered by this speculation is explaining how the reduced number of kinds expanded into the numerous species living today.This dilemma has placed creationists in the position of having to decide between the Bible and evolution.
Many have chosen a euphemistic version of evolution and used terms such as microevolution, natural selection, speciation, etc., However, it is still evolution. This means that if evolution could produce these species in such a short time, there would be much available proof of evolution; however, this is not the case and evolution is not observable; theonly reason evolutionary theory has survived is by expanding the time frame to millions of years and by adding the multiple, fictitious common ancestors.
John Woodmorappe addressed these problems of lodging large numbers of animals in a book called “Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study” (Woodmorappe, John. 1996). He went into great detail in discussing the problems of space, feeding, cleanliness, ventilation, air quality and all the other problems associated with the Ark.
His feasibility study resulted in the conclusion that if only a portion of the present-day species (fewer than 16,000) were onboard, it would be possible, although difficult, to keep them alive on the Ark for approximately one year. This book did a very good job of defining the problems involved with lodging so many animal[s] and keeping them alive; however, in all practicality, it would take a miracle to survive the work, the environment and the predator/prey instincts.
Anyone who has kept one horse in a stall knows what a Herculean task it would be to keep thousands of animals on the Ark.’
Woodmorappe: “Our conclusion would necessitate that on the order of 6000 amphibia, 10,000 bird, 6,000 mammals, and 8,000 reptile kinds/species were aboard the Ark. Accounting for pairs, sevens of clean animals, and those that have gone extinct since the flood, the total number aboard the Ark would be on the order of 100,000. This would be no problem for the very large Ark with all of the animals in Biblical “deep sleep”.
Genesis and Genetics: ‘Genetic resets are documented in the Bible…
The First Genetic Reset
As a result of the original sin, God reset the creation genetics. The DNA was necessarily changed in humans in that they became mortal and women’s pain was multiplied in childbirth (Genesis 3:16).Other DNA changes included the serpent who lost his legs (Genesis 3:14);and,all of the livestock and beasts of the field were cursed (Genesis 3:14), “but not as much as the serpent.” This implies… DNA changed in all the livestock and beasts of the field. Concerning plants, the earth brought forth “thistles” and “thorns” (Genesis 3:18) implying new and different DNA and a new ecosystem to accommodate the new genetics.
The Second Genetic Reset
The second DNA reset occurred at the time of the flood. Man’s life span was greatly reduced from 900[0] plus years (Genesis chapter 11) implying a DNA change; the concept of clean and unclean animals appeared in the scriptures (Genesis 7:2) ; and, the authorization of eating meat was introduced (Genesis 9:3). The flood changed the entire ecosystem implying significant DNA changes to all life forms. The fossil record bears out that the ecosystem was very different before the flood, e.g. massive dinosaurs with small nostrils, dragonflies with 2 foot wingspans, and tropical vegetation near the poles.
Twice, God gave the command to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth”. The first occasion was in the beginning on day six… (Genesis 1:28). The second occasion was after the departure from the Ark (Genesis 8:17,9:1). So, it is evident that His purpose did not change in the new ecosystem; He wanted the new world to be filled; this required man and animals to be equipped for survival and reproduction in the new world, including its new ecosystem. There was no time for natural processes (i.e., multiple accidents and accidental selection of accidents) to prepare the creation for the new world…
It is evident that God reduced lifespan immediately [long] after the flood down to approximately 120 years at the time of Moses (Deuteronomy 34:7) and 70 years at the time of David (Samuel 5:4, 1 Kings 2: 10-12).
This is a transition that is probably coincident with the ice age which was initiated [ended] by the flood… And, the entire ecosystem was changing to what we have today. These facts render the question, “what mechanism did God use to accomplish this?” – refer article: The Younger Dryas Stadial:Ending of the Earth… Beginning of the World.
DNA is a language (Collins, 2006) and God possibly spoke the genetic reset… and it appears that mitochondrial heteroplasmy is a possible [tool] that he used for this task.
In human reproduction, the mature oocyte contains 100,000 to 750,000 mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) copies and is fertilized by the sperm which generates a blastocyst containing approximately 483,000 copies of the mtDNA in the Inner Cell Membrane (ICM); which in turn develops and harbors the Primodial Germ Cells (PGM) each of which contains approximately 200 copies of the mtDNA (St. John, Justin C., 2010); and each of the embryonic stem cells used in this construction contain approximately 20 copies of mtDNA (Rivolta MN, 2002). The processes involved with replication and inheritance of mtDNA are not well understood, but show what varied genetic information is available for transmission of mitochondrial DNA from generation to generation.
This transmission of mtDNA is quite different than nuclear DNA in that with nuclear DNA, only one copy is transferred to the next generation. It is a shuffled mixture of ovum haploid and sperm haploid DNA, but once it is determined the resulting embryo is defined by only one nuclear DNA. This method of transmission of mtDNA is of great interest concerning the inheritance and possible prevention of mitochondrial diseases, but also of interest from a genealogy standpoint. It has been found that it is common to have mitochondria that are heteroplasmic, meaning that it contains more than one mitochondrial genome. From a creationist standpoint, this is very interesting in that this heteroplasmic mitchondria could explain why the genetic reset took several generations to establish as documented in Genesis chapter 11. If there are only a few copies of a certain variation of mtDNA in the oocyte, they can be latent for several, or even many generations.
Mitochondrial heteroplasmy is somewhat common in humans. The American Journal of Human Genetics reported in 2010 that 37 heteroplasmies at 10% frequencies or higher at 34 sites were found in 32 individuals (Li, M., et. al. 2010). It would be tempting to use this heteroplasmic attribute coupled with a stocastic modeling to explain speciation after the flood; but, it wouldn’t fit the general theme of the Bible. There is a difference between natural variation which gives us our uniqueness and mutations which have developed due to the original sin. Mutations result in disease and shorter life span. Heteroplasmy, is most probably a result of sin.
The subject species examined in this paper [Raven, Owl, Dove] are genetically distinct, meaning the species do not have a genetic overlap, but all demonstrated a genetic void between species. The data show that within species the natural variation, genetic distance, is approximately one percent of cytb [Great Owl to great Owl 1% or less] and between species the variation is much greater: between 4.1 percent and 25.3 percent. This means that if one species varies from another by 10 percent of cytb, there is a void of 9 percent (10-1/2-1/2). There is no known mechanism that can bridge this void to produce a new species, especially in the short, young earth, timeframe. This is true for all our subjects as shown by the data presented in section 3.0 of this paper [not shown].
Any variation of [a] bird displaying this genetic void is assumed to be a unique kind and most probably was represented on the Ark.
Tables 5a. and 5b. [not shown] show that even owls of the same genus have diversity commensurate with the human compared to chimpanzee variation[of] (11%) [Great Owl to Eagle Owl, 11%; Spotted Eagle Owl to Barn Owl, 25.3%]. So, considering that speciation was involved in generating these owls is tantamount to saying that the ark not need carry a chimpanzee since they could evolve from Noah, or worst yet that Noah was a chimpanzee and evolved to modern humanity. This is a severe logic problem.’
Other comparisons include Pig to Mouse, 20.3%; African Lion to Domestic Cat, 12.9%; Horse to Cow, 19.3% and Cow to Zebra Fish, 29%.
‘It appears from this owl analysis that it is not possible to decide which creatures were on the Ark without having DNA.
Another tool God uses to control His creation is that of “deep sleep.” Here are three Biblically documented examples of God using “deep sleep”:
To make physiological changes – When God created Eve, he put Adam into a “deep sleep” so Adam would not feel the pain of the surgery in which Adam’s rib was removed (Genesis 2:21).
To establish a new covenant – When God established the covenant with Abram (Abraham), he, Abraham, was put into a deep sleep. While Abraham was in this “deep sleep” the Lord dealt with him and prepared Abraham for a new covenant (Genesis 15:12).
To separate enemies – When Saul wanted to kill David and had the opportunity, God put Saul and his entire army of 3000 into a “deep sleep” (1 Samuel 26:2,12) so that David would be spared.
The tool of “deep sleep” may very well have been employed on the Ark providing the perfect solution to all the problems: it would provide the anesthetics for the physiological changes required to reset the DNA; it would give God an opportunity to establish His new covenant with all flesh; it would protect the prey from the predators; and, of course, it would solve all the problems of space, food, waste, and air quality.
The design of the Ark is obviously not suited to keep the creatures alive in the full metabolic state, but well suited to the “deep sleep” state. The exact mechanism for “deep sleep” is not known, but it is logical to assume that it shares some similarities with the various mechanisms that we observe in nature: hibernation, comas, aestivation, brumation, and dormancy. Each of these mechanisms is different and serves the purpose for which it was designed.
We know that God… masterfully designed the Ark to accommodate the safe and peaceful transportation of the creation from one eco-system to another. It is a point of interest that all mammals have the ability to hibernate and that mammalian metabolic rates can be reduced to as little as 1% of normal rates (Carey HV, et. al, 2003).
The results of this investigation support the Biblical statement of Genesis 7:14 “… and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.”
All of the birds in this investigation were distinct and differed from one another sufficiently to secure a birth on the Ark. Also, these results support the long held stance of creationists that the species are distinct with no intermediate forms (Morris, 1974).
There is no known mechanism that could explain the genetic diversity of the post-flood birds; even evolution, if it did exist, could not function quickly enough to explain the genetic diversity in the Biblical time frame. Any attempt to explain this genetic diversification by natural processes, such as speciation, is indefensible faced with the DNA evidence.
The following hypotheses are submitted which are in tune with the DNA evidence and the Bible, requiring no reliance on evolutionary principles.
1. The DNA of the original creation was reset to accommodate the new ecosystem.
This is in agreement with the fossil record, the cytochrome b genetics presented in this paper and the Bible. The fossil record is clear, many existing species lived before the flood, but they were somewhat different: usually in size or small differences in bone structure. The genetic reset hypothesis explains this and can be generalized as follows: the genetics of pre-flood creatures are different than the genetics of modern creatures; this was accomplished by God’s voice, speaking the required changes into the creation preparing it for the new covenant and the new eco-system. One of the best examples of this is in pre-flood [Homo neanderthalensis] man (Genesis and Genetics, 2011).
2. The occupants of the Ark were generally in a deep sleep.
The Ark’s design is perfectly suited to the deep sleep scenario and in God’s own words the goal was to “keep them alive” ( Genesis 6:19). There are examples of God using deep sleep in the Bible… all of which apply to the state of affairs on the Ark. Contrary to common perception, life on the Ark may have been very peaceful with all of the animals asleep; this presents a comforting picture: all the reset animal DNA necessary to replenish the world with its new eco-system, in one peaceful… Ark.
3. Divine wisdom and creativity
God created all things in six days [epochs], it should not be difficult to accept that He had the perfect design for the Ark and made the perfect provisions for those on it; He is not only a divine creator, but He is also full of mercy (Psalm 100:5)… the Bible implies that not one animal was lost, during the voyage of Noah’s Ark (Genesis 8:19). Just looking at the Ark design should be enough to lead one to believe the animals, and [possibly] Noah, were in a deep, merciful sleep.
4. Defining “Kinds” – Rule of Thumb
From this very limited research, it appears that a kind will vary in cytochrome b from its own kind by generally one percent or less; if the variance is 4 percent [or] more, the subjects are different “kinds”; and any variance between 1 percent and 4 percent are in a gray area and would need more investigation using additional genes.’
Lloyd Pye discusses the incredible aspects and implications of the Great Flood, offering his theory on its cause, in Everything You Know Is Still Wrong 2009 & 2017, pages 495, 497-498, 501-503, 505-507 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘… a remarkable number of cultures past and present believe a worldwide inundation did occur within human history, though they tend to be hazy on its details. The Sumerians are not. They state emphatically that a Great Flood surged up from the south… a sudden, overwhelming event… They say it occurred around 11,000 BCE [within 163 years of 10,837 BCE according to an unconventional chronology] at the end of the last Ice Age.
Ironically, their contention is strongly supported by conventional science, which has determined that the last interglacial warming trend began slowly, at around 13,000 BCE in the northern hemisphere, and gradually moved south until around 11,000 BCE, when something happened to accelerate full global warming to warp speed – in perhaps as little as twenty years.
Because so many sources around the world forcefully assert that a Great Flood did cause widespread death and destruction, we need to explore the kinds of actual events that might have created one. And guess what? There is a genuinely legitimate candidate in the Antarctic icecap – refer article: Antartica: Secrets of the Lost Continent of Atlantis. Today it covers 5.5 million square miles, it contains 7.0 million cubic miles of ice, and it has an average thickness of over a mile. A ridge of mountains under it divides it into two sections: the West Antarctic Ice Sheet [WAIS] (about 1/4 of the total), and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (3/4 of the total).
The WAIS slants from the mountain range division toward the Pacific Ocean. The much larger East Sheet points opposite, toward the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. At the South Pole the ice is two miles thick and flows slowly toward Africa. All that was quite different…[in] 11,000 BCE. Earth was coming out of the last ice age that had gripped Earth for the previous 90,000 years [probably closer to between 8,000 to 16,000 years], and world sea levels were more than 300 feet lower than today.
Today those 330-plus feet are covered by 3.5 million cubic miles of water, but during the ice age much of that water was trapped in ice swirled across the polar ice caps. Even today, the Antarctic continent at the South Pole holds over 60% of the fresh water on Earth, and if it were all to melt, sea levels would rise by over 190 foot (58 metres).
… a strong earthquake could rattle the continent to its foundations… [caused by] a large celestial body passing in the vicinity… with enough gravitational force to create geophysical disturbances on any other planet it passes near. A planet like… Nibiru, for example?’ – refer Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega; and article: The Pyramid Perplexity.
‘As it happens, Sumerian texts claim Nibiru did indeed pass through the solar system at around 11,000 BCE, which makes it a prime candidate to shake a badly cracked icecap off of its foundations on Antartica… [after] 90,000 [16,000 years of icecap build up and] 2,000 years of warming… [causing] huge cracks to develop along the shelf edges where the unstable water-supported ice adjoined the far more stable land-supported ice.
Now imagine the size of waves that would be kicked up by icebergs with volumes from hundreds of thousand to perhaps a million or more cubic miles! Walls of water as high as a mile (over 5,000 feet) or more might surge forward! Apart from disrupting worldwide weather patterns, the tsunamis would strike every ocean, sea, and coastal plain on earth. The planet would slosh for days (the text says six), until equilibrium was reached at some greatly elevated sea level… the new level… is where it would stay, because as any iceberg melts, it only changes its form, not its volume.
In 2010, researchers at the University of Sheffield in England announced that they had found evidence of a catastrophic flood at approximately 13,000 ya (exactly when the Sumerian tablets place the flood), which created such havoc that it temporarily shut down the Gulf Stream (the constantly circulating current of warm water that keeps global temperatures as steady as they are)… a sudden influx of cold water into the North Atlantic… temporarily impaired the current’ – Article: The Younger DryasStadial: Ending of the Earth… Beginning of the World.
An alternative theory was published… [by]… the National Academy of Sciences in May 2012, proposing that some sort of celestial body entered Earth’s atmosphere at roughly 12,900 ya [within a mere 38 years of 12,862 years according to an unconventional chronology], but broke up before it could make a large, easy-to-find impact crater (although thousands of smaller impact craters may have been produced by the debris). Nonetheless, the force of its passage through the atmosphere could have initiated tidal waves… new evidence collected from Greenland ice core samples in 2013, combined with evidence from soil samples in North America published in 2017, shows that right about 13,000 ya… there was suddenly an “abundance” of platinum at surface level in these areas. This precious metal is extremely rare on Earth, but it is common in asteroids. The new results fit perfectly with a large, platinum-laden asteroid crumbling on entry into Earth’s atmosphere and spraying fine debris over a huge area’ – refer article: The Younger DryasStadial: Ending of the Earth… Beginning of the World.
Outside the Genesis account, the Flood is mentioned in the following Bible verses:
Psalm 29:10
English Standard Version
‘The Lord sits enthroned over the flood…’
Isaiah 54:9
English Standard Version
“This is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth…”
1 Peter 3:19-20
English Standard Version
‘… when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.’
New Zealand born actor Russell Crowe in the 2014 film, Noah.
Added to the scenario presented by Lloyd Pye, there would have been the following dramatic influences.
Genesis 1:6-8
New English Translation
‘God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” So God made the expanse [H7549 – raqiya: ‘firmament, vault (arch) of heaven supporting waters above’] and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. God called the expanse sky. There was evening, and there was morning, a second day [or epoch].’
Footnotes
The Hebrew word refers to an expanse of air pressure between the surface of the sea and the clouds, separating water below from water above. It is called “sky.” An expanse. In the poetic texts the writers envision, among other things, something rather strong and shiny, no doubt influencing the traditional translation “firmament” (NRSV “dome”). Job 38:18 refers to the skies poured out like a molten mirror. Daniel 12:3 and Ezekiel 1:22 portray it as shiny. The sky or atmosphere may have seemed like a glass dome.Though the Hebrew word can mean “heaven,” it refers in this context to “the sky”.
The atmosphere was different on the antediluvian Earth. It was an important component in the added longevity of humans before the flood, an explanation for the lengthy Ice age and an additional puzzle to the production of Vitamin D.
The expanse or sky, divided the oceans, seas and land from a vault or canopy of water surrounding the Earth raised above the sky, in the Earth’s atmosphere. A cloudier sky would have positively affected the climate, generating less distinction between seasons; levelling out both temperate and tropical regions so that the whole planet was highly habitable – until the Ice age hit. Another difference would have been the decreased rays of UV radiation from the Sun to safer levels than today.
Genesis and Genetics, 2017 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The early atmosphere was different from what we have now. The fossil evidence shows us that there were giant dragonflies, mammoth millipedes, and huge cockroaches, just to name a few. These insects could not survive in our present atmosphere and would have required 30 to 50 percent more oxygen than we have presently.
This early atmosphere would affect the vitamin D production in humans… Increased oxygen, by itself, would not significantly reduce the amount of ultraviolet radiation on the surface of the Earth, but ozone which does filter ultraviolet radiation is a product of oxygen. The assumption being that a higher percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere would result in a more protective ozone layer.’
Vitamin D is required for healthy bones, teeth and muscles. As it is contained in only a few seafoods, our bodies can produce it through certain cholesterols in other foods, which are converted into Vitamin D from exposure to the Sun’s radiation. The liver and kidneys then turn the vitamin into an active form we can use called D3. Dark skinned people can be prone from deficiency as the higher percentage of melanin in their skin, blocks the suns rays more effectively. This is a factor in our present climatic conditions.
Reliance on the Sun may not have been the primary option; or human skin tone was dark enough to protect against skin cancer, yet light enough to receive the necessary UV rays. Did the inhabitants of the early Earth have an alternative way of procuring Vitamin D, or did they have different food? Genesis 3:18 reveals the world before the flood – specifically, the agrarian line of Seth – had a plant based diet and it was only later after the flood that enigmatically, meat – including Vitamin D rich seafood – was introduced into the diet: Genesis 9:3-4 – Article: Red or Green?
The passing of a celestial body, whether a rogue planet and or, an accompanying comet, meteorites or asteroids would have undoubtedly impacted on this firmament dome of water – Article: The YoungerDryas Stadial: Ending of the Earth… Beginning of the World. The plunging of this vast volume of water downwards to the earth would have been seismic and added with the huge tidal waves sweeping the Earth, could have easily and literally covered the entire planet and left no one alive, unless protected.
Genesis 7:4-24
New English Translation
“For in seven days I will cause it to rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the ground every living thing that I have made.”
Genesis and Genetics – emphasis mine:
‘Noah was… old when the floodwaters engulfed the earth. Noah entered the ark along with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives because of the floodwaters. And after seven days the floodwaters engulfed the earth.
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month [April/May, Hebrew calendar], on the seventeenth day of the month – on that day all the fountains [springs] of the great deep [underneath the ocean] burst open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And the rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. The flood engulfed the earth for forty days. As the waters increased, they lifted the ark and raised it above the earth.
The waters completely overwhelmed the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the waters. The waters completely inundated the earth so that even all the high mountains under the entire sky were covered. The waters rose more than 20 feet above the [tallest] mountains. And all living things that moved on the earth died, including the birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth [insects], and all humankind. The waters prevailed over the earth for 150 days.’
The heavens were opened, in that the vast canopy of water dropped onto the earth – for forty days and nights – so that even the top of Mount Everest was covered. The verses are very specific even, of the level the waters reached; leaving no doubt that the Great Flood was a global catastrophic event, smothering the earth for five months.
Noah and the Deluge Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence, Gérard Gertoux – emphasis mine:
‘The sudden disappearance of many animal species as well as moving erratic blocks would fit better with the biblical explanation of the Flood. The flood story is presented as an authentic history in the Gospels (Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 17:26-27).
According to the Bible there was at the origin some waters upon the earth (sea and ocean) and waters above the earth in the form of a vault of water (Genesis 1:7). At the time of the Flood… the vault of water fell to earth…
The disappearance of the vault of water (2 Peter 3:5-6) resulted in anew climate (Genesis 8:22) and its collapsing on the earth’s crust led to the emergence of big mountains (Psalm 104:6-8), which is consistent with the model of Pangaea in the plate tectonics.
In the past the oceans were smaller and the continents were larger than they are now, as is evidenced by river channels extending far out under the oceans. It should also be noted that scientists have stated that mountains were much lower than at present, and some mountains have even been pushed up from under the seas.’
Pangaea: a scientifically proved supercontinent which broke up and resulted in the seven continents we know today… North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia and Antarctica – Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega.
Gertoux: ‘As to the present situation, it is said that: there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles [2,400 metres] deep (National Geographic, January 1945, page 105). With the sudden opening of the ‘springs of the watery deep’ and “the floodgates of the heavens,” untold billions of tons of water deluged the earth (Genesis 7:11). This may have caused tremendous changes in earth’s surface.
The earth’s crust is relatively thin (estimated at between 30 km and 160 km thick), stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of kilometres in diameter. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time new mountains evidently were thrust upward, old mountains rose to new heights, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now about 70 per cent of the surface is covered with water. This shifting in the earth’s crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressure alone was equal to “2 tons per square inch”, sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly.
The concentration of [Carbon-14] during the last glaciation was much lower than at present, this fact has been highlighted by dendrochronology (measure of age by the rings of a tree). Scientists suppose that the long-term variation correlates with fluctuations in the earth’s magnetic field strength (the geomagnetic moment). The geomagnetic moment affects C-14 production because cosmic rays are charged particles and are therefore deflected by a magnetic field. If the magnetic moment is high, more cosmic rays are deflected away from the earth and production of Carbon will fall; if low, the production rises.
According to the biblical account, the earth was surrounded by a vault of water before the Deluge (perhaps in the stratopause where the temperature is at present around 0°C) – Article: The YoungerDryas Stadial: Ending of the Earth… Beginning of the World. Now water has the remarkable property of stopping neutrons very effectively since a screen of 23 mm thick stops 90% of neutrons (and a screen of 46 mm thick stops 99%), as demonstrated by nuclear pools. If there was water, Carbon production could not take place, which would explain the decrease in C-14 before 1000 BCE…’
Above: the Okotoks Erratic in Alberta, Canada, where ‘according to geologists, this enormous quartzite block, weighing about 16,500 tonnes and measuring about 41 x 18 x 9 metres, was carried here on the surface of a glacier. It came from the Rocky Mountains (Canada) in the Jasper area (a location 450 km away), probably between 18 and 10 thousand years ago. That means that Canada was completely under a sheet of ice 10,000 years ago (a deluge of ice).’
In Genesis chapter seven, all physical life ended that was not aboard the Ark. The Bible uses the word humankind instead of humans or people. It does not include all the Nephilim-kind with those destroyed. It was noted earlier that the Nephilim were on the Earth following the Flood. A number of post-flood Nephilim, included survivors – Article: Nephilim & Elioud Giants I.
The flood was decreed to halt the corruption of humanity by rebellious dark spirits and so these fallen angels were put in restraint. Presumably, they did not produce further offspring this side of the deluge. Though we will find this is not entirely true – Chapter XXVI The French & Swiss: Moab, Ammon & Haran. As this matter has wider repercussions in explaining biblical identities, this topic will be returned to in later sections. The Book of Jubilees also records the Flood narrative, with additional details.
Book of Jubilees Chapter Five:
22 ‘And Noah made the ark in all respects as He commanded him, (on the new month [moon] of the first month) [1st of Abib/Nisan – March/April]… 23 And he entered in the sixth (year) thereof… in the second month [Iyar – April/May], on the new month [new moon] of the second month, till the sixteenth [first day of the week]; and he entered… and Yahweh closed it from without on the seventeenth evening [2nd day of the week].
24 And Yahweh opened seven flood-gates of heaven, And the mouths of the fountains of the great deep, seven mouths in number. 25 And the flood-gates began to pour down water from the [heavens] forty days and forty nights, And the fountains of the deep also sent up waters, until the whole world was full of water. 26 And the waters increased upon the earth: Fifteen cubits did the waters rise above all the high mountains, And the ark was lift up above the earth, And it moved upon the face of the waters. 27 And the water prevailed on the face of the earth five months – one hundred and fifty days.’
28 ‘And the ark went and rested on the top of Lubar,* one of the mountains of Ararat. 29 And (on the new month [moon]) in the fourth month [Tammuz – June/July] the fountains of the great deep were closed and the flood-gates of heaven were restrained; and on the new month [1st day – Feast of Trumpets] of the seventh month [Tishri – September/October] all the mouths of the abysses of the earth were opened, and the water began to descend into the deep below.
30 And on the new month of the tenth month [Tevet – December/January] the tops of the mountains were seen, and on the new month [new moon] of the first month [1st day of Abib/Nisan – March/April] the earth became visible [almost one year to the day]. 31 And the waters disappeared from above the earth in the fifth week in the seventh year… [seven years since Noah began to build the Ark] thereof, and on the seventeenth day [2nd day of the week] in the second month [Iyar – April/May] the earth was dry. 32 And on the twenty-seventh** [5th day of the week] thereof he opened the ark, and sent forth from it beasts, and cattle, and birds, and every moving thing.’
As the worst of the flood effects dissipated, the ark would have risen to the oceans surface or perhaps descended down onto the surface as explained in Genesis 8:1-5, New Century Version:
‘But God remembered Noah and all the wild and tame animals with him in the boat. He made a wind blow over the earth, and the water went down. The underground springs stopped flowing, and the clouds in the sky stopped pouring down rain. The water that covered the earth began to go down. After one hundred fifty days it had gone down so much that the boat touched land again. It came to rest on one* of the mountains of Ararat on the seventeenth day of the seventh month. The water continued to go down so that by the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains could be seen.’
Kashmir above and below
A salient point is that when the early part of Genesis was compiled, many thousands of years had elapsed. It states ‘mountains’, not Mount Ararat, so that the location is a mountain range not a specific peak – Book of Jubilees excepted. There is reason to consider that the Ararat Mountains in Asia Minor drew their name from a more ancient location: the Himalayan Mountain range to the East and North – refer Chapter XIII India & Pakistan: Cush & Phut. Searchers for Noah’s Ark may well have been looking in entirely the wrong place, when heading to Mount Ararat in present day Turkey.
Heading westward from Turkey leads to southern Europe, not Mesopotamia or Sumer – Genesis 11:2. Please refer to point number two in the introduction (primus verba). It is worth noting Roman author Pliny the Elder in 50 CE, recorded the ancient Atlantean civilisation had fled to the Himalayas after catastrophic events had destroyed their homeland – Article: Antartica: Secrets of the Lost Continent of Atlantis.
A persistent belief is that the Garden of Eden was located below the Hindu Kush in present day Kashmir – Article: The Eden Enigma. What is not considered, is that Kashmir may be the re-beginning of civilisation after the flood.
When the Ark could safely navigate the surface of the oceans, it is credible that the first observed land to appear would be amongst the now highest mountains on the earth. If the Ark rested on one of these peaks in the original mountains of Ararat, it would explain how civilisation after the Flood appeared first in the Indus Valley, present day Pakistan. There are numerous mountains – all plausible sites for landing, including K2 – which are over 8,000 metres in height, such as Mount Everest.
It would be logical that after the passengers on the Ark eventually disembarked, they found a suitable region to live, right where they were. Kashmir is stunning with its majestic mountains and lakes and is located in one of the four Himalayan Mountain ranges, the Karakoram range in the north west. Below is the Western Himalayan range. To the east is the Great Himalayan range, where Everest is located and then the Eastern range – Brahmaputra. Its climate was likely quite different 13,000 years ago and would account for:
Genesis 9:20
New Century Version
‘Noah became a farmer and planted a vineyard.’
Book of Jubilees Chapter Seven:
1 ‘And in the seventh week** [late in the 4th month Tammuz – early July] in the first year [after the flood] thereof… Noah planted vines [today, ideal planting is from October to March] on the mountain on which the ark had rested, named Lubar, one of the Ararat Mountains, and they produced fruit in the fourth year [it takes a grapevine from rootstock, four to five years to mature]… and he guarded their fruit [by pruning in the ninth and tenth months (November) – and ensuring roots are not damp through adequate drainage and the soil is nutrient rich], and gathered it in this year in the seventh month [end of summer harvest, September/October – usually from August to October]. 2 And he made wine… and put it into a vessel, and kept it…’
Remember, the lower lands and plains were water soaked, soggy and boggy for many years. According to Zecharia Sitchin, the god Enlil granted the remnants of mankind implements and seeds, with agriculture indeed beginning in the highlands.
Legend holds that Noah was rather reclusive and dwelt near where the Ark came to rest; with the Book of Jubilees stating in 10:15: ‘And Noah slept with his fathers, and was buried on Mount Lubar in the land of Ararat.’ Possibly, remaining in Kashmir was as far as Noah travelled after the flood.
The Epic of Gilgamesh – part of the plot summary repeated below – alleges the King of Urek, Gilgamesh (normally attributed to Nimrod – Noah’s great great grandson – though possibly Nimrod’s son instead) begins a quest and journeys very far to the solitary Utnapishtim (or Noah). He seeks immortality and apparently meets with Utnapishtim to learn his secret, as he has lived longer than any other mortal man after the Flood – refer Chapter XXI The Incredible Identity, Origin & Destiny of Nimrod.
Spark Notes: ‘… Gilgamesh, king of Uruk [south of Babylon]… was two-thirds god and one-third man. He built magnificent ziggurats, or temple towers, surrounded his city with high walls, and laid out its orchards and fields. He was physically beautiful, immensely strong, and very wise. Although Gilgamesh was godlike in body and mind, he began his kingship as a cruel despot. He lorded over his subjects, raping any woman who struck his fancy… He accomplished his building projects with forced labor, and his exhausted subjects groaned under his oppression… Gilgamesh… traveled to the edge of the world and learned about the days before the deluge and other secrets of the gods, and he recorded them on stone tablets’ – refer article: Thoth.
‘… Gilgamesh hopes that Utnapishtim can tell him how he might avoid death… After a harrowing passage through total darkness, Gilgamesh emerges into a beautiful garden by the sea… Gilgamesh [journeys] across the sea and through the Waters of Death to Utnapishtim.
Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh the story of the flood – how the gods met in council and decided to destroy humankind. Ea, the god of wisdom, warned Utnapishtim about the gods’ plans and told him how to fashion a gigantic boat in which his family and the seed of every living creature might escape. When Gilgamesh insists that he be allowed to live forever, Utnapishtim gives him a test. If you think you can stay alive for eternity, he says, surely you can stay awake for a week. Gilgamesh tries and immediately fails. So Utnapishtim orders him to… return to Uruk where he belongs… When Gilgamesh returns to Uruk, he is empty-handed but reconciled at last to his mortality…’
Gilgamesh eventually found the reclusive Utnapishtim, though was left frustrated as access to the Tree of Life had been withdrawn and there was no way to cheat death.
Noah’s family would have grown quickly and with sixteen (twenty-one) grandsons all jockeying for position, they would later travel south along the Indus River, populating it as they travelled. Mankind continued migrating westward and civilisation eventually re-emerged in the fertile crescent of the Middle East. The family groups now substantially larger, stamped their names throughout the Middle East, North Africa, West Asia, Asia Minor (Anatolia) and the Greek Archipelago, and it is from these records that Genesis Ten’s geography is derived. Well after the initial, early smaller groupings along the Indus River.
A possible reason the bulk of Noah’s family travelled west and not east, is that either a. the grandchildren knew civilisation had once been important in that location before the Flood and were keen to re-visit so-to-speak – yet we do not know where Noah and his sons had dwelt previously, perhaps Lemuria or even Atlantis (refer article: Antartica: Secrets of the Lost Continent of Atlantis) – or b. the Middle East might have actually been their original homeland.
The Races of the Old Testament, A H Sayce, 1891, pages 39-42:
‘… the tenth chapter of Genesis is ethnographical rather than ethnological. It does not profess to give an account of the different races of the world and to separate them one from another according to their various characteristics. It is descriptive merely, and such races of men… are described from the point of view of the geographer and not of the ethnologist.’
Sayce’s stance is peculiar, for it would seem the converse would be more logical, since a genealogical family tree is being listed. This writer proposes the account in Genesis Ten is both ethnological and ethnographical. That is, the family groups are listed in a certain order and described living next to each other in a particular fashion because they are family. Families stay together and the listing of Noah’s son’s grandchildren is to help us understand who is more related to who. Please refer to point number one in the introduction (primus verba).
Sayce: ‘… when it is said that Elam and Assur were the children of Shem, it is to geography, and not to ethnology, that we must look for an explanation. Assyria, Elam, and Babylonia, or Arphaxad as it seems to be called in the Ethnographical Table, all bordered, at one time, one upon the other. They constituted the three great monarchies of the eastern world, and their three capitals, Nineveh, Susa, and Babylon, were the three centres which regulated the politics of Western Asia. They were brethren not because the natives of them claimed descent from a common father, but because they occupied the same quarter of the world.’
Sayce is claiming geography is the key element in their positioning, yet the land they occupy is secondary and merely reflects their relationship as brothers from the same father. Elam, Asshur and Arphaxad are three of the five sons of Shem. The remaining two sons, Aram and Lud, migrated further afield. We will discover that Elam, Asshur and Arphaxad’s descendants today live in a similar pattern as they did in the past – Chapter XVIII Elam & Turkey; Chapter XX Will the Real Assyria Stand Up: Asshur & Russia; and Chapter XXIV Arphaxad & Joktan: Balts, Slavs & the Balkans.
They each dwell closer to one another and more than their mere geographical histories have been entwined. Aram and Lud are located on the periphery of Shem’s children today, as they were in the past – Chapter XVII Lud & Iran; and Chapter XXIII Aram & Tyre: Spain, Portugal & Brazil. Please refer to point number one in the introduction (primus verba).
Sayce: ‘Attempts have been made to explain the names of the three sons of Noah as referring to the colour of the skin. Japhet has been compared with the Assyrian ippatu white, Shem with the Assyrian samu olive-coloured while in Ham etymologists have seen the Hebrew kham to be hot. But all such attempts are of very doubtful value. It is, for instance, a long stride from the meaning of heat to that of blackness a meaning, indeed, which the Hebrew word never bears. Moreover, the sons of Ham were none of them black-skinned, with the possible exception of a part of the population of Cush. [Professor] Virchow has shown that the Egyptian, like the Canaanite, belongs to the white race, his red skin being merely the result of sunburn.’
We will endeavour to show that Japheth’s children can be light skinned, though others are not; that some of Shem’s children are olive-coloured and that Ham’s children do in fact live in the hottest parts of the world, in relation to the equator. We will find, that all very dark skinned people have descended from either Ham or Canaan – though not all of Ham’s children are dark – and that the original children of Canaan were dark skinned, not red or sunburned and that in time, white people became known as Canaanites because they lived in the same land after the original Canaanites had migrated south-west. Please refer to point number two in the introduction (primus verba).
A H Sayce comments regarding our origin, page 38:
‘Great as may be the diversity between race and race under the microscope of the ethnologist, the unity which underlies it is greater still. God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth. Black or white, [brown] red or yellow, we are all bound together by a common nature ; we can all alike claim a common ancestry, and recognise that we have each been made in the image of the Creator.’
Sayce is quoting from the Book of Acts, where Paul in the midst of the Areopagus, addressed the men of Athens.
Acts 17:26
King James Version
“And hath made of one blood [from Adam] all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation…”
In the English Standard Version it says in verses 24-25:
‘The God who made the world and everything in it… nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind lifeand breath and everything.’
New Century Version, verse 26:
‘God began by making one person, and from him came all the different people who live everywhere in the world. God decided exactly when and where they must live.’
Daniel 7:13-14
New English Transaltion
“I was watching in the night visions, And with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man was approaching. He went up to the Ancient of Days and was escorted before him. To him was given ruling authority, honor, and sovereignty. All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him. His authority is eternal and will not pass away. His kingdom will not be destroyed.”
We really are one, not as in ‘one human race’ – for we are a variety of ethnicities – but rather one humankind; containing family groups grown large, now called peoples and nations. Most scientists now agree that all humans are genetically extremely similar – unexpectedly so, for evolutionists to adequately explain why.
The biological differences between races are small. The DNA differences are minute. The DNA of any two people in the world typically differs by just 0.2%. Of this, only 6% – a minuscule 0.012% – can be linked to racial categories – the rest is within race variation. Most evolutionists would concur that the various races did not have separate origins and evolve from different groups of animal primates. They would reluctantly agree with the biblical creationist, that all peoples have come from the same original ancestor.
There is a false perception that different racial characteristics like skin colour are due to remarkably different genetic configurations. An understandable but incorrect premise. For example, it is easy to think that since different groups of people have yellow skin (red skin), black skin, white skin, and brown skin, there must be many different skin pigments and therefore different chemicals for colouring, involving numerous codes in the DNA for each ethnicity.
Rather, we all have the same colouring pigment in our skin: melanin. It is a dark-brown pigment that is produced in varying amounts in unique cells in our skin. If we had none as previously discussed, then we would exhibit a very white or pinkish skin colouring of an albino. If we produce small amounts of melanin, we are white. If our skin produces a lot of melanin, we are black and in between, all the shades of brown.
Races of People, William C. Boyd PhD [Geneticist], 1955, pages 43-45:
‘The color of normal human skin is due to the presence of three kinds of colored chemicals, or pigments. The most important of these pigments is melanin, a dark-brown substance…
The second of the three pigments is carotene. This is a yellow substance which is present in carrots (from which it gets its name) and egg yokes as well as human skin…
The third pigment is haemoglobin, which is the red coloring matter of blood… the haemoglobin occurs in the blood vessels beneath the skin, so that very little can show through.
The presence of fair amounts of either melanin or carotene in the skin covers it up completely. Haemoglobin does show up however in the skin of white men, particularly in those of light complexion. It is the haemoglobin that accounts for pink cheeks and the ability to blush.’
From an untitled article:
‘Other substances can in minor ways affect skin shading, such as the coloured fibres of the protein elastin and the pigment carotene… we all share these same compounds… Factors other than pigment in the skin may influence the shade perceived by the observer in subtle ways, such as the thickness of the overlying (clear) skin layers, and the density and positioning of the blood capillary networks.
In fact, ‘melanin’, which is produced by cells in the body called melanocytes, consists of two pigments, which also account for hair colour. Eumelanin is very dark brown, phaeomelanin is more reddish. People tan when sunlight stimulates eumelanin production. Redheads, who are often unable to… tan, have a high proportion of phaeomelanin.’
We will encounter individuals on our journey who are red. An article on Eupedia elaborates – emphasis mine:
‘Red hair is a recessive genetic trait caused by a series of mutations in the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R), agene located on chromosome 16′ – refer Chapter XVI Shem Occidentalis. ‘As a recessive trait it must be inherited from both parents to cause the hair to become red. Consequently there are far more people carrying the mutation for red hair than people actually having red hair. In Scotland, approximately 13% of the population are redheads, although 40% carry at least one mutation. There are many kinds of red hair, some fairer, or mixed with blond (‘strawberry blond’), some darker, like auburn hair, which is brown hair with a reddish tint.
This is because some people only carry one or a few of the several possible MC1R mutations. The lightness of the hair ultimately depends on other mutations regulating the general pigmentation of both the skin and hair. Skin and hair pigmentation is caused by two different kinds of melanin: eumelanin and pheomelanin. The most common is eumelanin, a brown-black polymer responsible for dark hair and skin, and the tanning of light skin. Pheomelanin has a pink to red hue and is present in lips, nipples, and genitals.
The mutations in the MC1R gene imparts the hair and skin more pheomelanin than eumelanin, causing both red hair and freckles. Redheads have very fair skin, almost always lighter than non-redheads. This is an advantage in northern latitudes and very rainy countries, where sunlight is sparse, as lighter skin improves the absorption of sunlight, which is vital for the production of vitamin D by the body. The drawback is that it confers redheads a higher risk for both sunburns and skin cancer.
Studies have demonstrated that people with red hair are more sensitive to thermal pain and also require greater amounts of anesthetic than people with other hair colours. The reason is that redheads have a mutation in a hormone receptor that can apparently respond to at least two different hormones: the melanocyte-stimulating hormone (for pigmentation) and endorphins (the pain relieving hormone).
Folk wisdom has long described redheads as hot-tempered and short-tempered. Red hair has long been associated with Celtic people. Both the ancient Greeks and Romans described the Celts as redheads… red hair is an almost exclusively northern and central European phenomenon…these people share a common ancestry that can be traced back to a single Y-chromosomal haplogroup: R1b.
… the frequency of red hair is highest in Ireland (10 to 30%) and Scotland (10 to 25%), followed by Wales (10 to 15%), Cornwall and western England, Brittany, the Franco-Belgian border, then western Switzerland, Jutland [Denmark] and southwest Norway. The southern and eastern boundaries, beyond which red hair only occurs in less than 1% of the population, are northern Spain, central Italy, Austria, western Bohemia, western Poland, Baltic countries and Finland.
The question that inevitably comes to many people’s minds is:did red hair originate with the Celtic or the Germanic people? Southwest Norway may well be the clue to the origin of red hair. It has been discovered recently, thanks to genetic genealogy, that the higher incidence of both dark hair and red hair (as opposed to blond) in southwest Norway coincided with a higher percentage of the paternal lineage known as haplogroup R1b-L21, including its subclade R1b-M222, typical of northwestern Ireland and Scotland… It is now almost certain that native [predominantly women] Irish and Scottish Celts were taken (probably as slaves) to southwest Norway by the Vikings, and that they increased the frequency of red hair there.
What is immediately apparent to genetic genealogists is that the map of red hair correlates with the frequency of haplogroup R1b in northern and western Europe. It doesn’t really correlate with the percentage of R1b in southern Europe, for the simple reason that red hair is more visible among people carrying various other genes involved in light skin and hair pigmentation.’
‘Mediterranean people have considerably darker pigmentations (higher eumelanin), especially as far as hair is considered, giving the red hair alleles little opportunity to express themselves. The reddish tinge is always concealed by black hair, and rarely visible in dark brown hair. Rufosity being recessive, it can easily stay hidden if the alleles are too dispersed in the gene pool, and that the chances of both parents carrying an allele becomes too low. Furthermore, natural selection also progressively pruned red hair from the Mediterranean populations, because the higher amount of sunlight and strong UV rays in the region was more likely to cause potentially fatal melanoma in fair-skinned redheads.
At equal latitude, the frequency of red hair correlates amazingly well with the percentage of R1b lineages. The 45th parallel north, running through central France, northern Italy and Croatia, appears to be a major natural boundary for red hair frequencies. Under the 45th parallel, the UV rays become so strong that it is no longer an advantage to have red hair and very fair skin. Under the 41th parallel, redheads become extremely rare, even in high R1b areas.
The 45th parallel is also the traditional boundary between northern European cultures, where cuisine is butter-based, and southern European cultures, preferring olive oil for cooking. The natural boundary probably has a lot to do with the sun and climate in general, since the 45th parallel is exactly halfway between the Equator and the North Pole.’
We will investigate further the Celts, the British Isles, the significance of red hair and its correlation with the Y-DNA, R1b Haplogroup.
It is unimaginable how anyone, could hate, torture, or kill their fellow human being because of the colour of their skin. Skin is only skin deep – just seven layers of tissue, coloured by a pigment we all possess in varying degree. An African and a European could have two children. One has dark skin and straight hair, thin lips, a smaller nose and narrower, blue eyes. The skin may be dark, the features European. Whereas, the other child has light skin, curly hair, fuller lips, a broader nose and larger brown eyes. The skin may be light, the features African. The physical features are more racially characteristic than the skin tone.
1 Samuel 16:7
New Century Version
“… God does not see the same way people see. People look at the outside of a person, but the Lord looks at the heart.”
The Bible laid bare, is simply an incredible story about a family. That family has grown exceptionally large, comprising multiple billions. At the heart of that extended family, there is one particular family which was given certain responsibilities and in turn had certain expectations required of them. They were to be blessed regardless if they measured up or not, as a promise had been made by the Creator, bound by his word to an ancestor who proved himself faithful beyond measure. The Bible is written in essence from this family’s perspective and the messages, warnings, events and circumstances in the scriptures, pertain to them. Other family members – people and nations – are mentioned either directly or indirectly in proportion to their interaction with this one central family.
Acts 10:34-35
New Century Version
Peter began to speak: “I really understand now that to God every person is the same. In every country God accepts anyone who worships him and does what is right.”
There are a number of subjects we have touched upon in this chapter which deserve continued consideration and so we will return to these topics in later sections. Chapter Two focuses on the Table of Nations in Genesis chapter ten, beginning with the eldest son of Noah, Japheth and his seven sons.
God gave the people a dull mind so they could not understand. He closed their eyes so they could not see and their ears so they could not hear. This continues until today.
Romans 11:8 New Century Version
“There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know.”
The Lightkeeper 