Chapter X

We arrive at one final – glaringly left-out – country, on our journey of the identity of nations and principally, the seven sons of Japheth. The informed reader will be doing cognitive cart wheels – for ironically, this nation is famous for its acrobats and tumblers – seeing not just one, but three of Japheth’s sons grouped together, after only discussing four sons thus far.

Tubal is the fifth son of Japheth and Meshech, the sixth. An enduring number of (many) painstaking years elapsed in searching for them both. The Koreas as Meshech and Japan as Tubal was considered; as well as studying the merit of North Korea as Meshech and South Korea as Tubal (with Japan as Togarmah) – Chapter VI Togarmah & the Koreas; and Chapter IX Tarshish & Japan.

Eventually, the pieces of the puzzle led to only one viable answer – the identity arrangement we will now investigate. When searching for scientific support and historic precedent, this writer was incredulous in discovering considerable information for each avenue of enquiry.

A valuable lesson was learned: examine the genetic data more thoroughly and delve more rigorously into history.

Magog is the second son of Japheth. There are very few Bible verses on Magog, yet ironically, he is probably the most well-known of Japheth’s seven sons and the one that certainly leaves, the biggest impression. There has been less confusion surrounding Magog – saying that, many have attributed Magog incorrectly with the Celts (or Britain, as with Gomer) or primarily Russia – yet conversely, considerable mis-understanding regarding Meshech and Tubal. So much so, it has affected accurate research immeasurably.

The Races of the Old Testament, A H Sayce, 1891, pages 45, 47-48 – emphasis mine:

‘Gog is the Gugu of the Assyrian inscriptions, the Gyges of the Greeks… Tubal and Meshech… are almost always coupled together in the Old Testament, and were famous for their skill in archery.’

Israel a History of – emphasis mine:

‘These three sons of Japheth are closely linked throughout scripture. Ezekiel 38:2 mentions all three sons in a prophecy against Gog. Magog’s name possibly means “the place of Gog”, and is very likely that this referred to the region near the Black Sea called Georgia. Josephus states that Magog, or Gog, was the forebearer of the Scythians. The Scythians originally settled in the Black Sea area, which correlates to the meaning of Magog’s name. Ezekiel links these three brothers together in association with Rosh, translated “chief” in the King James… Rosh was the name from which present day Russia was derived. By and large, from the line of the sons of Noah, Magog, Meshech, and Tubal have come to be known and accepted by scholars as the originators of the current Russian peoples.’

The Scythians we will discover, are a line from Shem, not Japheth. Meshech and Tubal may well have lived in Russia and left their names behind while sojourning east. Neither Magog, or his two younger brothers identify with Russia. The Hebrew word ‘Rosh’ is just that, a Hebrew word meaning chief. It is a title, not a name or identity. 

Derek Walker – capitalisation his, emphasis mine: 

‘One of the most fascinating aspects of Ezekiel 38-39 is that Islam has its own version of the Battle of Gog and Magog, called the War of Yajuj and Majuj. In two places the Koran specifically mentions Yajuj and Majuj by name (18:96; 21:96).

Tubal and Meshech are mentioned together in Ezekiel 38:2. Some believe these people intermarried and became known as Magog, the dominant tribe.* There are two main theories for their location: (1) RUSSIA and (2) TURKEY. Whichever it is does not change the overall picture as both are identified by the other names in Ezekiel. 

(1) Regarding Meshech and Tubal, some assign a Russian identification, connecting these 2 nations with the modern Russian cities of Moscow and Tobolsk. This view is partly based on the similarity of sound in these names and their close proximity to Rosh (Russia). L. Sale-Harrison corroborated this identification on linguistic grounds. 

Wilhelm Gesenius, the world class Hebrew scholar, whose Hebrew Lexicon has never been surpassed, said Gog is undoubtedly the Russians. “Meshech was founder of the Moschi, a barbarous people, who dwelt in the Moschian mountains.” He went on to say that theGreek name “Moschi”, derived from the Hebrew ‘Meshech’, is thesource of the name for the city of MOSCOW.

In discussing Tubal he said, “Tubal is the son of Rapheth [Japheth], founder of the Tibereni, a people dwelling on the Black Sea to the west of the Moschi.” His conclusion was these people make up the modern Russian people. 

‘Meshech’ the 6th son of Japheth, [originally] settled in the NE portion of Asia Minor.His posterity extended from the shores of the Black Sea along to the south of the Caucasus. He was the father of the Rossi and Moschi, who dispersed their colonies over a vast portion of Russian territory. And their names are preserved in the names of Russians and Muscovites to this day. The Septuagint version of the Old Testament renders the term: “Meshech” by the words “Mosch” and “Rosch”; while “Moscovy” was a common name for Russia, and the city of Moscow is one of her principal cities.

‘Tubal’ or ‘Tobal’ [originally] settled beyond the Caspian and Black Seas in the eastern possessions of Russia, embracing a very large portion of these dominions. The name of this patriarch is still preserved in the river Tobal, which waters an immense tract of Russian territory; and the City of Tobalski in Russia is still a monument to him.

(2) Another line of study reveals that Meschech and Tubal are the ancient Moschi/Mushki and Tubalu/Tibareni peoples who dwelled in the area around, primarily south of, the Black and Caspian Seas in Ezekiel’s day. Meshech was located near what was known as Phrygia, in central and western Asia Minor, while Tubal was located in eastern Asia Minor. 

So Meshech and Tubal form portions of modern Turkey. Expositors Bible Commentary: “Meshech and Tubal refer to areas in eastern Turkey, southwest of Russia and northwest of Iran.” Assyrian texts & monuments locate Meshech (Mushku) and Tubal (Tabal) in Anatolia (Western Turkey), the areas that became known as Phyygia and Cappadocia. Later migrations north from Turkey to Russia could mean that both identifications are valid, and indeed both Turkey and Russia are directly to the north of Israel (as required by Ezekiel 38:6, 15, 39:2).

In any case, between them, Magog, Rosh, Mechesh and Tubal certainly represent RUSSIA…’

While all these apparent correlations appear superficially convincing, examining scripture thoroughly exposes the flaws in these two theories. We will expand on the potential of intermarrying later, with Derek Walker’s final sentence also key; though this writer would substitute the title Rosh with the personality of Gog.

The Origin of the Nations, Herman Hoeh, 1957 – capitalisation & emphasis his:

‘Russia is mentioned almost by name in some versions of the Bible! Turn to Ezekiel 38:2. Here you will find that a certain power called “Gog” is “the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal”. The proper translation is “the prince of Rosh. Meshech and Tubal!” In Hebrew, the word for chief is “Rosh”. That is also the ancient name for “Russia.”

We will study Russia and its identity as Asshur and scrutinise the word ‘rosh’ – refer Chapter XX Will the Real Assyria Stand Up: Asshur & Russia.

Rosh may look like Rus-sia but it is not a marker for the Russians but rather a clue to Meshech and Tubal’s relationship with Gog.

Herman Hoeh:

‘Over half of all Russia is occupied by a people called “Great Russians” today. The Great Russians are divided into two distinctive people who have remained constantly together since the beginning of history. We shall now prove from history that the Great Russians are the descendants of Meshech and Tubal (Genesis 10:2). Here is what the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA says about the Great Russians: “Not with standing the unity of language, it is easy to detect among the Great Russians themselves two separate branches differing from one another by slight divergencies of language and type and DEEP DIVERSITIES OF NATIONAL CHARACTER…

One branch settled around Moscow. The word Moscow is but an English spelling of the Russian “Moskva”, a word almost identical to the one used by the Assyrians to refer to the the people of Meshech! The other branch constitutes the people of Tubal. This branch of the Great Russians founded the city of Tobolsk in Siberia and named the Tobol River… Meshech and Tubal migrated into Russia! Surely there is no mistaking who Meshech and Tubal are today.’

Meshech and Tubal, as a great many others, traversed and dwelt in the vast landscape that is now incorporated in the present day boundary of Russian land. Their final migratory resting place is not within Russia.

Hoeh: ‘… Do you know where the word “Siberia” comes from? In Asia Minor, where the people of Tubal first settled, a vast tract of land was called Subaria, sometimes spelled less correctly “Subartu”. This word has puzzled historians no end! Here is the origin of “Siberia!”

What is the origin of the word “Russian” – the “Rosh” of Ezekiel 38:2 (when properly translated)? The INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA gives the answer. Here, under the article “Rosh”, we find that a vast area of the Mesopotamian Valley was called “the land of Rashu!” The word “Russ” or “Rosh” means blonde. In modern times the name “Russ” was first applied to Russia because of the blond people of White Russia who live next to the people of Meshech and Tubal.’

Who Magog, Meshech and Tubal are not… the map above is an example of a common representation for the biblical identities listed in Ezekiel chapter thirty-eight. All without exception are incorrect, as our progression through the descendants of Japheth, Ham and Shem will reveal. Put and Cush are cold; Magog (Gog) not quite as cold; Persia warm, yet still cold; and Meshech, Tubal, Gomer with Togarmah very cold.

Hoeh: ‘Turn again to the prophecy of Ezekiel 38 and 39. Notice the identity of Gog and Magog. Who are the people called “Gog” and “Magog”? Magog, rather than Gog, is mentioned in Genesis 10:2. Gog is apparently a tribal subdivision of Magog.* In prophecy, Magog comes to great prominence in the West only in the latter days. Here is what the JEWISH ENCYCLOPAEDIA says about Gog and Mogog: “… [a] wall [was] built by… (Alexander the Great) to shut them off from the rest of the world… Geographically they represent the extreme northeast, and are placed on the borders of the sea that encircles the earth.”

‘Notice what the unrivalled McCLINTOCK & STRONG ENCYCLOPAEDIA says about Gog and Magog: “According to Reinegge… some of the Caucasian people call their mountains Gog, and the highest northern points Magog” –because the people of Magog once lived in these regions in Bible times!

“The [Arabians] are of the opinion that the descendants of Gog and Magog inhabit the northern parts of Asia, beyond the Tartars and Sclavonians (or Russians), and they put Yajuj and Majuj always in conjunction,thereby indicating theextreme points in north and north-east of Asia”. Some writers spell these Arabic words Yagog and Magog. Now to what people are these names referring? They dwell in the northern part of Asia, bordering on the ocean, andrise to prominence… “in the latter days” (Ezekiel 38:8).

The Mongols and their Asiatic kinsmen! In fact, the proper spelling of “Mongol” is “Mogol”, obviously a slightly changed form of “Magog”! And in Asiatic Russia live the Yakuts – the Yagog of the Arab historians. The people of Mongolia, together with China, Manchuria, Korea [Gomer’s son Togarmah] and Japan [Javan’s son Tarshish], are all of this one great branch of mankind. A remnant of the people of Magog appear, with pigtails and yellow skin, on the Egyptian monuments. They were called Kheta by the Egyptians and Ketei by the Greeks. When the Russians first met the Mongolians and Chinese they called them Khitai! Western Europeans used a similar word for China in the Middle Ages: Cathay. Here indeed is “Gog, of the land of Magog.”

Herman Hoeh errs in his conclusions regarding Tubal and Meshech, while he is partially correct with his summation of Magog.

No, The Bible Does Not Predict A Russian Invasion, Thom Jonas – emphasis mine:

‘… there are 3 main sources that heavily influenced the identification of Russia in Ezekiel 38:2. These are The Septuagint translation [1], Gesenius [2], and the Scofield Reference Bible [3].’

When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture, Paul Boyer, 1999, page 154 – emphasis mine:

“The German Hebraicist Wilhelm Gesenius (1786 – 1842), professor of theology at the University of Halle in Prussia, played a key role in the process by which Gog came to be identified as Russia. Gesenius, whose Old Testament lexicon of 1828 long stood as a standard reference work, viewed “Rosh” not only as a proper name but as an early form of the word “Russia.” In another step that would prove highly influential for prophecy interpretation, he also claimed that “Meshech” and “Tubal” were present-day Moscow and the Siberian city of Tobolsk.”

Meshech, Tubal, and Company: A Review Article, Edwin Yamauchi, 1992 – emphasis mine:

“The Hebrew word for “chief” (ros) in Ezekiel 38:2 was transliterated by the Septuagint as a proper name (Ros), giving rise to a widespread impression that “Russia” was intended. These groundless identifications have unfortunately gained widespread currency in the evangelical world through many channels: the first and the second editions of the Scofield Reference Bible; the phenomenally popular book by Hal Lindsey and C. C. Carlson, The Late Great Planet Earth; and the lectures of Campus Crusade evangelist Josh McDowell on numerous college campuses. The perpetuation of such idenfications based on superficial similarities is completely untenable in the light of the clear evidence of cuneiform texts which locate Mushku (Biblical Meshech) and Tabal (Biblical Tubal) [in the distant past] in central and eastern Anatolia.”

The Book of Ezekiel, Daniel I Block, 1997:

“Tubal or Tabal was the territorial designation of the interior Anatolian kingdom know to the Assyrians as Bit Buritash. This landlocked kingdom, between the Halys River and the Taurus River in Asia Minor, was bounded on the west by Meshech, on the south by Hilakku, on the east by Melidu and Til-garimmu (Beth-togarmah) and on the north by Kasku… Meshech, to be identified with Mushku/Musku in neo-Assyrian sources, was also located in central Anatolia. Ancient records attest to contact with the Assyrians as early as the reign of Tiglath-Pileser I in the 12th-11th century.”

Thom Jonas:

‘Further, all of the other places mentioned in Ezekiel 38 also appear together in the table of nations from Genesis 10, but “Rosh” does not appear there at all. In fact, the word “rosh” is never translated as a proper noun, despite appearing many times in the Old Testament.

… the identification of the remaining nations such as Meshech and Tubal has been settled by the discovery of Assyrian cuneiform tablets bearing all of their names. They refer to several ancient places that were situated near each other in the region of Asia Minor. This rules out the identification of Meshech as Moscow, and Tubal as Tobolsk, both of which were based on flawed etymology (they sound a bit the same – go figure!). The same applies to the association of Gomer with Germany, and you can follow this theme with most of the other places listed in that chapter.’

“It is a reflection on evangelical scholarship when some of its spokesmen continue to adhere to the groundless identification of ros as Russia, and the association of Meshech with Moscow and of Tubal with Tobolsk, when we have had cuneiform texts and discussions of them that provided the true clarification of these names since the end of the 19th century” – Meshech, Tubal, and Company: A Review Article, Edwin Yamauchi, 1992, pages 243-244.

Magog principally, is the modern nation of China.

The Chinese are an amalgamation of different, related peoples, with the answer contained inside the Bible all along. Discoveries in genetics have demonstrated the proposition as factual.

Think about it… for the question remains regardless:

Would the scriptures seriously remain silent on an influential mass of people such as the Chinese?

And in the process, ignoring a prominent nation of great magnitude from ‘end-time’ biblical prophecy?

Rosh in Hebrew, means: ‘Head, Chief, Top’.

From the root ro’sh [H7218], which has to do with primality and can mean ‘to shake the head (as most easily shaken), whether literal or figurative (in many applications, of place, time, rank…)’ It can also mean, ‘beginning, first, principal, captain, company’ and ‘height.’ It is used as head, 349 times in the KJV of the Bible; chief, 91 rimes; and top, 73 times. Definitions include: the head of men, a company or a division, the top or tip on a mountain, the height of stars. 

The word following rosh in Ezekiel chapter thirty-eight, verse two is the Hebrew word *nasiy’ [H5387], which is translated by the KJV as prince, 96 times; captain, 12 times; chief, 10 times; ruler, 6 times; vapours, 3 times; and governor, 1 time. It refers to ‘one lifted up’ a ‘rising mist’ or ‘vapour.’ It is linked with H5375, ‘an exalted one’, a king.

Abarim Publications: 

‘The name Rosh belongs to a man and to a region in the Bible. Rosh the man is a son of Benjamin (Genesis 46:21), but other Biblical genealogies of Benjamin don’t list Rosh. Rosh the land is mentioned only by Ezekiel in his apocalyptic vision of the attack of Gog of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal (Ezekiel 38:2-3 and 39:1).’

Rosh is being misinterpreted and is either a title of a person known as Gog, or a description of a region called Gog – not a region called Rosh. Nor does the word rosh come after nasiy’, it precedes it. Thus ‘prince of rosh’ or literally ‘prince of head’ is not what the Hebrew is saying, it is saying: the ‘head prince.’

Abarim: ‘The name Rosh is the same as the noun (ro’sh) meaning head or top… it may also refer to the beginning of a period: adjective (ri’shon) literally means chiefly but is mostly used in the same sense of previous or former. Noun (ri’sha) means pinnacle but may also refer to some past golden age or bygone glory days.’

Magog can be defined as ‘place of Gog’ or ‘agent of Gog’. Magog is derived from the name Gog. Its literal meaning is ‘rooftop’* and ‘place of the roof’, from the noun gag, meaning ‘rooftop.’

Abarim Publications – emphasis mine:

‘Magog was originally a son of Japheth, son of Noah (Genesis 10:2) but later this name came to denote a region (Ezekiel 38:2). Magog is often mentioned in conjunction with Gog of Reuben (1 Chronicles 5:4).’

We will return to Gog the descendent of Reuben, when we study the sons of Jacob – Chapter XXXI Rueben, Simeon, Levi & Gad – the Celtic Tribes.

Abarim: ‘Magog is often mentioned in conjunction with Gog… but later also the name of a certain prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal… literally the Chief Prince of the Occupied Zone that is The World… 

The name Magog is the name Gog with a prefixed mem, which may be a particle of inquisition: (me), what, or (mi), who? Or it may come from the particle (min; often abbreviated to a single mem), meaning from. Nouns that start with an m often describe place or agent of the parent verb. Where the name Gog comes from is not clear; BDB Theological Dictionary resolutely declares its root unknown. Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names, on the other hand, points towards the Hebrew word (gag), usually meaning roof. The noun (gag) means rooftop, but since a society was a “house” its “rooftop” referred to that society’s level of science and technology… the most remarkable usage is in Exodus 30:3 and 37:26 where [it] denotes the top of the altar of incense.

Gog may be a region, and Magog is then said to mean From Gog (BDB Theological Dictionary). But Ezekiel 38:2 speaks of a man named Gog who is of the land of Magog (= the land of the land of Gog), which seems overly redundant. But Gog may mean Roof, and Magog may subsequently mean Off The Roof, which means more in English than in Hebrew. Magog might literally mean Place Of The Roof and describe a center of wisdom, or Agent Of The Roof and describe a person who works in such [a] center.’

Perhaps place of the roof denotes China’s size and influence on the earth, whether it be superior technology, military strength, economic power, or even the gigantic rooftop covering of its colossal population. China blankets civilisation with its increasing number of souls and its deluge of exports. Is the roof or top of the world, a prediction that China will be the preeminent power in the world – refer articles: 2050; and Four Kings & One Queen. It surely isn’t a coincidence that Rosh means top and Magog roof-top. A roof covers the whole building beneath it. It also protects those underneath.

A map of the world from a Chinese perspective – the Middle of the Earth (refer Addendum II) – and note how the United States of America is turned on its head

Lastly, it could be a reference to conquering space and China’s dominance over the rest of the world beneath it. China is actively developing its space program to rival that of Russia and the United States. It became only the third nation to retrieve materials from the Moon, bringing back lunar rocks in December 2020.

The Great Wall of China – visible from outer space

Science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov proposed the idea for a space power station in 1941. China is planning to launch a fleet of mile-long solar panels into space by 2035, that would convert solar energy into electrical energy and be fully operational by 2050. A microwave transmitter or laser emitter would convert the power to a high frequency radio wave and transmit the highly economical green energy to Earth. An Array would capture the signal like a giant fishing net, converting into electricity to be fed into the grid. In 2008, Japan confirmed the idea of space solar power a national goal. The United Kingdom has joined Japan, China, Russia and the United States in pursuing space based power generation, in a new space race. 

The People’s Republic of China receives continual press as an emerging ‘second superpower.’ Barry Buzan said in 2004 that “China certainly presents the most promising all-round profile” of a potential superpower. In 2011, Singapore’s first premier, Lee Kuan Yew, stated that: “[China] have transformed a poor society by an economic miracle to become now the second-largest economy in the world. How could they not aspire to be number 1 in Asia, and in time the world?” using their “huge and increasingly highly skilled and educated workers to out-sell and out-build all others.” Arvind Subramanian an Economist stated in 2012 that, “China was a top dog economically for thousands of years prior to the Ming dynasty. In some ways, the past few hundred years have been an aberration” – Article: 2050.

Though China is considerably ahead of the other top ten economic powers in the world it is yet to catch the United States; as China is lacking in soft power – the ability to influence others to your advantage – and has a low GDP per person. China also has an ageing and shrinking workforce to tackle in the future.

China’s uneasy relationship with the United States demonstrated by its two leaders, Xi Jinping and Donald Trump.

Susan Shirk in China: Fragile Superpower, 2008, lists factors that ‘could constrain China’s ability to become a superpower… limited supplies of energy and raw materials, questions over its innovation capability, inequality and corruption, and risks to social stability and the environment.’ Minxin Pei said in 2012, that China has used its economic power to influence some nations, yet is surrounded by potentially hostile nations. ‘This situation could improve if regional territorial disputes were resolved and China participated in an effective regional defence system that would reduce the fears of its neighbours.’ Also, a ‘democratization of China could improve foreign relations with many nations.’

Prisoners of Geography, Tim Marshall, 2016 & 2019, page 62:

‘China is not weighed down or motivated diplomatically or economically by human rights in its dealings with the world. It is secure in its borders… and now moving around the globe in confidence. If it can avoid a serious conflict with Japan or the USA, then the only real danger to China is itself.

There are 1.4 billion reasons why China may succeed, and 1.4 billion reasons why it may not surpass America as the greatest power in the world. China has locked itself into the global economy. If we don’t buy, they don’t make.’

‘And if they don’t make there will be mass unemployment. If there is… long-term unemployment, in an age when the Chinese are a people packed into urban areas, the inevitable social unrest could be – like everything else in modern China – on a scale hitherto unseen.’

“China is a civilisation pretending to be a nation” – Lucian Pye

Meshech in Hebrew means: ‘Departed, drawn out’ from the verb mush, ‘to depart’; masha, ‘to draw out’; and mashak, ‘to draw or drag.’

Abarim Publications – emphasis mine:

‘In Genesis 10:23, Mash is listed as a son of Aram, who is a son of Shem… In 1 Chronicles 1:17 the same genealogy occurs, although the various generations are now all listed as sons of Shem. And Mash is called (Meshech). Another man named Meshech is mentioned as a son of Japheth… (Genesis 10:2). He is mentioned about half a dozen times in the Bible, mostly along with Javan and Tubal, and it’s clear that these are the names of nations rather than individuals (Psalm 120:5, Ezekiel 27:13). Older translations may have the ethnonym “the Moschi” instead of Meshech.

The name (Mash) does not occur as a regular word in Hebrew, but it may be viewed as a contraction of the word (mush), meaning depart or remove… The verb (mashash) means to feel; to sense or search for tactilely… and appears most often in the negative, when something is typically not ambulant but stays where it’s at… the sweeping or scanning motion that usually accompanies tactile reconnaissance. This same motion could be applied to describe a being footloose or untethered. Verb (nasa’) describes an upward motion, generally of something that is being pulled up and out so as to remove it… to lift up… to bear or carry… to take or take away… to loan on interest… to deceive or beguile.

Noun (mas’et), reflects… uprising (of smoke), uplifting (of hands), utterance (of an oracle), a burden or that what’s carried. Noun* (nasi’) describes a lifted-up one… a captain or chief… a mist or vapour. Note this keenly observed connection between paying interest and being formally governed…mesho’a, ruin or desolation… Plural noun (mashshu’ot) means deceptions…Noun (si’) means loftiness or pride. Noun (se’et) means dignity, swelling or outburst, a rising up… the verb (sha’a), to be noisy or ruinous. 

The verb (nasha)… to lend on interest or to forget, or rather to have a memory slowly evaporate away. Noun (neshiya) means forgetfulness or oblivion. Noun (neshi) means debt… Verb (masha) means… a drawing out of waters: to extract from water. NOBSE Study Bible Name List does not translate Mash but reads Extend(ed), or Tall for Meshech.’

An upward motion into mist or vapour could refer to space, or just how high Meshech is over the world. The final definitions of extended and tall alludes to this as does Meshech appearing to have financial power as a lender and the control or governance, that extends from lending – on a worldwide scale.

According to Abarim Publications, Tubal’s definition in Hebrew is incredible in light of both Magog’s and Meshech’s meanings. They define it from the noun tebel, as ‘the whole world-economy’ and the verb yabal, meaning ‘to flow or carry along’, ‘to bring, lead, conduct.’

Abarim Publications – emphasis mine:

‘In the Bible there’s one person named Tubal and one more named Tubal-cain [Genesis 4:22]. Tubal-cain and his brothers Jabal and Jubal and sister Naamah are the last in line from Cain, the cursed son of Adam and Eve [refer article: Na’amah]… Just Tubal descends from Cain’s youngest brother Seth and is a son of Japheth, who is a son of Noah… The latter Tubal shows up quite a bit in prophetic texts, usually in the company of his brothers Meshech and Magog… 

The verb (balal) means to mix something with oil, usually flour products… as ritualistic food preparation. The emphasis… lies on saturation and overflowing: to fill something with oil until it can absorb no more and begins to reject an excess of oil. Noun (belil) describes a very rich mix of animals to eat… and noun (teballul) tells of insoluble material that obstructs a person’s eye. 

Noun (yabal) means water course or conduit… noun (‘ubal) means stream or river… noun (bul) means produce or outgrowth. Noun (yobel)… describes “a carrier” or “a producer” or “something that drives a flow”… Verb (‘abel)… [is]… often used to describe a collective mourning, which either happened in a procession or else contagious enough to drag others along. Nouns (‘ebel) and (‘abel) both mean mourning, but the latter is also the word for [an] actual water stream or brook… adverb (‘abal)… expresses solemn affirmation (verily, truly, yes indeed I’m totally going along with you there) but later texts appear to put somewhat of a breaking force on the momentum (“yes! … but”)

Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names settles for the general meaning of the verb and reads Flowing Forth for the meaning of the name Tubal. However, identical to the name Tubal is our root’s derivative (tebel), meaning world. Hence the name Tubal means World, but the whole flow and currencies of the world-economy in its broadest sense.’

A ‘very rich mix of animals’ is reflected in the varied taste of the Chinese and the breadth of animals they will eat. Tubal has a role to play in driving the global economy and therefore the world. The Earth appears to comply, though with growing reservation. There are a handful of alternative meanings for Meshech and Tubal, which we will now consider as we study verses on all three brothers.

The Book of Jubilees 8:25:

‘And for Japheth came forth the third portion beyond the river Tina to the north of the outflow of its waters, and it extends north-easterly to the whole region of Gog, and to all the country east thereof.’

Japheth’s area is measured against the land of Gog, as Magog is gigantic compared to his brothers. The Book of Jasher 7:4, 7-8 provides names for the sons of Magog, Tubal and Meshech, who are omitted in the Bible: 

‘And the sons of Magog were Elichanaf andLubal…

And the sons of Tubal were Ariphi, Kesed and Taari.

And the sons of Meshech were Dedon, Zaron and Shebashni.’

Notice the similarity with Meshech’s son Dedon and Javan’s son Dodan: the Filipinos – refer Chapter VII Javan: Archipelago South East Asia & Polynesia. 

The map above provides a good representation of some of Japheth’s descendants after their migration from the Indus Valley following the Flood cataclysm, somewhere between 9500 and 6000 BCE. The sons of Javan and Madai are accurate as they are and Tiras would have been where Javan – which is redundant – is marked. Javan’s fourth son Tarshish, should be located between Dodan and Tiras and would later migrate to Iberia. Gomer is redundant and marks where Magog was actually dwelling. Tubal and Meshech would have been living adjacent to Magog, where Ashkenaz and Togarmah are in eastern Anatolia. Ashkenaz should be where Meshech and Tubal are placed and finally, Togarmah would have been residing where Magog is incorrectly placed in western Anatolia.

Books like the one below reveal the level of interest in China’s destiny, yet its title – with so many others – is misleading for it does not actually explain China’s role in end-time prophecy as the title and caption claim. 

It is not a forlorn quest as many erroneously think, such as Tom Hobson who writes: 

“When I first arrived at seminary 38 years ago [in 1979], I was full of curiosity as to where I could find the Chinese people in the Bible. Which of the names in the Genesis 10 Table of Nations was China by another name? A Chinese student was quick to advise me not to waste my time on the search.”

Talk about the worse advice ever. An example unfortunately, of the vast majority of souls who call themselves christian, yet in name only and typically not by exemplifying the faith of Christ the living Son of God. 

The Book of Ezekiel describes a combined East Asian and South East Asian military alliance, though it is far in the future, after the prophesied return of the Son of Man and at the end of a millennial Kingdom He establishes on Earth. The Book of Daniel as we noted with Kittim, alludes to a battle between the King of the North and his confrontation with an enemy from the North and the East – Chapter VIII Kittim & Indonesia. Therefore China has a two-fold role in figuring prominently in shaping world events through warfare. The first scenario, possibly a few centuries from now involves Magog in opposition to the King of the North – Russia and her ally, a German led, United States of Europe.

Ezekiel 38:1-23

New English Translation

A Prophecy Against Gog

1 ‘The Lord’s message came to me: 2 “Son of man, turn toward [Hebrew: “set your face against”], Gog of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal… Look, I am against you, Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.’

The Interlinear Hebrew text, without punctuation or prepositions says:

‘… set thy face against Gog land Magog chief prince Meshech Tubal… Gog chief prince Meshech…’

4 ‘I will turn you around, put hooks into your jaws, and bring you out with all your army, horses, and horsemen, all of them fully armed, a great company with shields of different types all of them armed with swords. 5 Persia [Elam], Ethiopia [Cush], and Put are with them, all of them with shields and helmets. 6 They are joined by Gomer [Continental SE Asia] with all its troops, and by Beth Togarmah [the Koreas] from the remote parts of the north with all its troops – many peoples are with you.

7 Be ready and stay ready, you and all your companies assembled around you, and be a guard for them. 8 After many days you will be summoned [at the end of the Millennium]; in the latter years [the end of the era following our present age] you will come to a land restored from the ravages of war [the war preceding the return of Christ], from many peoples gathered on the mountains of Israel** that had long been in ruins. Its people were brought out from the peoples, and all of them will be living securely [this is yet future, for the people of the state of Israel do not live securely] . 9 You will advance; you will come like a storm. You will be like a cloud* covering the earth [description of Magog], you, all your troops, and the many other peoples with you.

10 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: On that day thoughts will come into your mind, and you will devise an evil plan. 11 You will say, “I will invade a land of unwalled towns; I will advance against those living quietly in security – all of them living without walls and barred gates – ‘

This is speaking of a future time when the tribes of Israel – not the Jews – are restored to a new homeland without the need for fortifications.

12 ‘to loot and plunder, to attack the inhabited ruins and the people gathered from the nations, who are acquiring cattle and goods, who live at the center** of the earth [a reshuffled Middle East].” 13 Sheba and Dedan [grandsons of Cush] and the traders of Tarshish [Japan] with all its young warriors [East Asian Tiger Economies] will say to you, “Have you come to loot? Have you assembled your armies to plunder, to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to haul away a great amount of spoils?”

14 … On that day when my people Israel [the sons of Jacob, not the current nation of Israel**] are living securely, you will take notice 15 andcome from your place, from the remote parts of the north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great company and a vast army. 16 You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud covering the earth. In future days I will bring you against my land so that the nations may acknowledge me, when before their eyes I magnify myself through you, O Gog.

17 … Are you the one of whom I spoke in former days by my servants the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those days that I would bring you against them? 18 On that day, when Gog invades the land of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord, my rage will mount up in my anger. 19 In my zeal, in the fire of my fury, I declare that on that day there will be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. 20 The fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the wild beasts, all the things that creep on the ground, and all people who live on the face of the earth will shake at my presence. The mountains will topple, the cliffs will fall, and every wall will fall to the ground. 21 I will call for a sword to attack Gog on all my mountains, declares the Sovereign Lord; every man’s sword will be against his brother. 22 I will judge him with plague and bloodshed. I will rain down on him, his troops, and the many peoples who are with him a torrential downpour, hailstones, fire, and brimstone [The Day of the Lord – Malachi 4:1-3]. 23 I will exalt and magnify myself; I will reveal myself before many nations. Then they will know that I am the Lord.’

Footnote:

38:2 translation Hebrew : “the prince, the chief of Meshech and Tubal.” Some translate “the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal,” but it is more likely that the Hebrew noun in question is a common noun in apposition to “prince,” rather than a proper name. See D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 2:434-35. As Block demonstrates, attempts by some popular writers to identify these proper names with later geographical sites in Russia are anachronistic. 

This writer concurs with the NET Bible footnote and does not subscribe to a prince of rosh. It doesn’t make sense to have a ‘prince of head, chief or top’. It does make sense to have a ‘head, chief or top prince’. This prince is the head, chief or top of Meshech and Tubal.

‘The accentual system and syntactical construction of the Hebrew language strongly indicate an appositional relationship between the words “prince” and “chief.” Both terms are related equally, then, to the geographical words Meshech and Tubal. Grammatically, it would seem best to render the phrase, “the prince, the chief, of Meshech and Tubal” – Ralph Alexander.

Foes From the Northern Frontier, Edwin Yamauchi, 2003, page 20:

‘For one thing, even if one were to transliterate the Hebrew rosh as a proper name… rather than translate it as “chief”… it can have nothing to do with modern “Russia”. This would be a gross anachronism, for the modern name is based upon the name Rus, which was brought into the region of Kiev, north of the Black Sea, by the Vikings only in the Middle Ages.’

The top prince, is revealed a few words previously as Gog… of the land of Magog. It is not immediately clear whether Gog is purely a dominant people; government; region within and part of Magog; or an actual leader either named or more likely, titled Gog. Verses 16 and 21-22 support an individual, with the use of the personal you and him. 

Ezekiel, by Joseph Blenkinsopp, 1990, page 184:

‘Gog is further described as “chief prince” of Meshech and Tubal. There are only two proper names here, since ro’sh (“chief, head”) is nowhere attested as such. It has no more connection with Russia (a name of Norse extraction) than Meshech has with Moscow.’

If Gog is a ruler, then it is an individual of great authority^ as they have ‘height’ as ‘one lifted up’ and as ‘an exalted one.’ John MacArthur: “Gog came to be used as a general title for an enemy of God’s people. ‘Gog’ most likely carries the idea ‘high’ or ‘supreme one,’ based on the comparison in Numbers 24:7.”

The rebellion of Magog transpires when the Adversary called Satan, is loosed* from their restraint; thus, the likelihood of Gog being an actual leader of Magog is strengthened. As is their identity being linked to the mysterious Nephilim^ – Articles: Nephilim & Elioud Giants I & II; and Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega.

A supernatural element or explanation for the identity of Gog is plausible – as intimated in the artwork below – for it would mirror what is to befall humanity prior to Christ’s return. Refer Chapter XXI The Incredible Identity, Origin & Destiny of Nimrod; and article: The Pyramid Perplexity.

Gog is clearly the leader over all three brothers; therefore using the name Gog is appropriate when referring to all three peoples comprising Magog, Tubal and Meshech from hereon. 

Ezekiel 39:1-16

New English Translation

“… O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal! 2 I will turn you around and ‘drag you along’ [definition of Tubal and Meshech]; I will lead you up from the remotest parts of the north and bring you against the mountains of Israel…. I will send fire on Magog and those who live securely in the coastlands [principally Magog, Tubal, Meshech and Gomer in Continental SE Asia]…” Then those who live in the cities of Israel will go out and use the weapons for kindling – the shields, bows and arrows, war clubs and spears – they will burn them for seven years. 10 They will not need to take wood from the field or cut down trees from the forests because they will make fires with the weapons…”

11 “On that day I will assign Gog a grave in Israel. It will be the valley of those who travel east of the sea; it will block the way of the travelers. There they will bury [their leader] Gog and all his horde [army]; they will call it the Valley of Hamon Gog. 12 For seven months Israel will bury them, in order to cleanse the land. 13 All the people of the land will bury them… 14 They will designate men to scout continually through the land, burying those who remain on the surface of the ground, in order to cleanse it. They will search for seven full months. 15 When the scouts survey the land and see a human bone, they will place a sign by it, until those assigned to burial duty have buried it in the valley of Hamon Gog. 16 (A city by the name of Hamonah will also be there)…’

The inference is that Gog is the identity of a real ruler. A literal dema-gog-ue. Demagogue definition: ‘a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.’ Magog-China is clearly in the far ‘north’ as is Togarmah – refer Chapter VI Togarmah & the Koreas. Seven months to bury the dead and seven years of using the component parts of their weapons reveals the gigantic size of Magog’s military might and its alliance.

As there are prophetic Kings of the North and south, there is also a name for the Magog led confederacy from East Asia and Southeast Asia: the Kings from the East – article: Four Kings & One Queen.

Revelation 16:12-14

English Standard Version

12 ‘The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, to prepare the way for the kings from the east. 

13 And I saw, coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs. 14 For they are demonic spirits, performing signs, who go abroad to the kings of the whole world, to assemble them for battle on the great day of God the Almighty.

Revelation 20:2, 7-9

English Standard Version

2 ‘… the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound [them] for a thousand years… 7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released* from [its] prison 8 and will come out to deceive^ the nationsthat are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. 9 And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them…’

The book of Revelation is clear in that the gathering of Magog – at the instigation of the Adversary – is an innumerable number of people. Only two nations could provide such a prolific amount of personnel: India or China.  We will learn that India does not descend from Japheth, nor does it fulfil the verses that apply to Magog. Remember, the timing of this attack against the sons of Jacob is at the end of the millennial rule and devoid of any alliance with the King of the South, or against the King of the North as before the Millennium.

It is perhaps signifiant and non-coincidental that the Dragon (Revelation 12:3, 9) will entice and enrage the people (Revelation 20:7-9) represented by none other than… a dragon.

The dragon is the primary symbol of China. In heraldry the dragon is a powerful and charismatic emblem. As formidable or more so even than that of an eagle (United States, Russia) or a lion (India, United Kingdom) both adopted by numerous nations in the world.

A number of biblical scholars claim China is referenced in Revelation 9:16, NKJV: ‘Now the number of the army of the horsemen was two hundred million; I heard the number of them.’

Where Are The Chinese People In God’s Word?, Tom Hobson, 2017: 

‘The only other possible reference to the Chinese is in Revelation 16:12, the “kings from the East” who come in the final days before the return of Christ from beyond the Euphrates, for whom we are given their number: 200 million of them… It is a number probably larger than the entire population of the planet in 95 AD, but it has been argued that today’s China could potentially field an army that large. The claim that this is China cannot be proved, but cannot easily be dismissed.’

Yet the context of the preceding verses and those following verse sixteen is in relation to the supernatural undead – released during the Sixth Trumpet of the Eternal’s wrath and judgement on the world – who then sweep across the Earth exacting plagues and subsequently death (Chapter XXI The Incredible Identity, Origin & Destiny of Nimrod).

China’s standing army contains 2,035,000 active military personnel (in 2024), the highest in the world – followed by India and the United States. China certainly has the potential to raise an army of 200 million in the future.

China’s state flag above and the Manchu Qing dynasty flag of 1890 to 1912 below

The meanings of the names Meshech and Tubal – those with a darker connotation – are compelling when compared with Magog’s, to cover like a cloud with an innumerable number of Soldiers.

Meshech as part of Gog, also means ‘deception,^ pride, forgetfulness’ and ‘oblivion’. Formulating a plan to deceive fellow nations and thereby encouraging them to be involved in the plot to attack the sons of Jacob – not the state of Israel – with a pride in their power; a forgetfulness of a prior age of suffering before the millennium; and a disregard for the then current age of peace; ultimately brings oblivion for the actions chosen and implemented. 

Tubal’s part as Gog, broadly means to ‘lead and drag’ other nations into a conspiracy, like a ‘poisonous wound’ and the forceful ‘flow of water’; other nations ‘agree to be coerced, though with growing reservation’.

Scriptures which pertain to Meshech and Tubal:

Psalm 120:5

New English Translation

‘How miserable I am. For I have lived temporarily in Meshech; I have resided among the tents of Kedar.’

Kedar – a son of Ishmael – is likened to Meshech, due to a similarity in exhibiting an austere and militaristic way of life. 

In reference to trading with Tyre, Ezekiel 27:12-14 NET:

12 “Tarshish [Japan] was your trade partner because of your abundant wealth; they exchanged silver, iron, tin, and lead for your products. 13 Javan [Archipelago SE Asia, principally Indonesia], Tubal, and Meshech were your clients; they exchanged slaves and bronze items for your merchandise. 14 Beth Togarmah [the Koreas] exchanged horses, chargers, and mules for your products.”

Ezekiel 32:26 

New Century Version

“Meshech and Tubal are there with the graves of all their soldiers around them. All of them are unclean and have been killed in war. They also frightened people when they lived on earth.”

Isaiah 66:19

English Standard Version

‘… and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish [Japan], Pul, and Lud [a son of Shem], who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands [or isles] far away, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory among the nations.’

There are a number of scriptures including Magog, Tubal and Meshech together, as well as one each for the brothers where they are accounted for singularly. We could deduce three separate nations or three separate peoples in one nation, as the majority include all three or two together. As we have run out of East Asian nations, or rather attributed the remaining sons of Japheth successfully to their modern day counterparts, this writer believes it is the latter option. 

Obviously at one time, the brothers were separate peoples, before amalgamating. For the purpose of understanding the future prophecies in the Bible, they appear as one identity. It is interesting to note their order. Gog is always before Magog and both are listed first as designated leader of the three brothers. Even though Tubal is older than Meshech, he is always placed second of the two, with one exception. It appears that when the context is militaristic, Meshech has dominance. The one verse that signals economic power, it is Tubal with the superiority and listed first. The individual meanings of their names supports this arrangement. Lastly, the verse where Tubal is listed without Meshech, associates Tubal with Javan’s children; highlighting their extreme eastern coastal location, as well as economic influence.

China’s major exports.

‘The following export product groups categorize the highest dollar value in Chinese global shipments during 2021.

1. Electrical machinery, equipment: US$804.5 billion (26.6% of total exports)
2. Machinery including computers: $492.3 billion (16.3%)
3. Furniture, bedding, lighting, signs, prefabricated buildings: $126.3 billion (4.2%)
4. Plastics, plastic articles: $118.1 billion (3.9%)
5. Vehicles: $108.9 billion (3.6%)
6. Toys, games: $94 billion (3.1%)
7. Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $88.8 billion (2.9%)
8. Articles of iron or steel: $85.4 billion (2.8%)
9. Knit or crochet clothing, accessories: $78.2 billion (2.6%)
10. Organic chemicals: $73 billion (2.4%)

Vehicles represent the fastest grower among the top 10 export categories, up by 42.8% from 2020 to 2021. In second place for improving export sales was toys and games via a 31.4% gain. China’s shipments of organic chemicals posted the third-fastest gain in value up by 28.1%.’

China is the world’s second largest economy, with a projected nominal GDP in current dollars of $19.53 trillion in 2025 – 6.5% higher than in 2024. China has opened its economy over the past four decades and its economic development has improved living standards greatly. The government has gradually phased out collectivised agriculture and industry, allowing greater flexibility for market prices and increasing the autonomy of businesses with the result of foreign and domestic trade investment booming. An industrial policy that encourages domestic manufacturing, has made China the world’s number one exporter. Still, China faces the ‘challenges of a rapidly ageing population and severe environmental degradation.’

China experiences an easier relationship and better understanding with its neighbour Russia, as demonstrated by its leaders Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. Even so in the distant future, China and Russia will become the deadliest of enemies – refer article: Four Kings & One Queen.

Of the top ten countries with the most natural resources China tops the list as number one overall, with an estimated worth of $23 trillion. Ninety percent of China’s resources include coal and rare earth metals. Timber is a major natural resource and other resources China produces are ‘antimony, gold, graphite, lead, molybdenum, phosphates, tin, tungsten, vanadium, and zinc. China is the world’s second largest producer of bauxite, cobalt, copper, manganese, and silver’ and also has deposits of chromium and gem diamonds.

China fulfils the important role of being one of the world’s breadbaskets; in other words, it has large areas of highly arable land. It is in fact ranked number three in the world. The food produced by the country constitutes about twenty percent of the total world exports. China has the largest agricultural output in the world and seventy-five percent of its farming focuses on food crop farming. The country’s primary crop is rice, with rice fields occupying approximately twenty-five percent of its cultivated land. 

That said, ‘China is caught in a catch-22. It needs to keep industrialising as it modernises and raises standards of living, but that very process threatens food production.’ Feeding its population is a growing problem for the Chinese government. If it cannot solve this dilemma there will be unrest. ‘More than 40 per cent of arable land is now either polluted or has thinning topsoil, according to their Ministry of Agriculture’ – Prisoners of Geography, Tim Marshall, 2016 & 2019, page 52.

China makes the top ten most technologically advanced nations in the world, positioned at number nine. Recall South Korea is number three and Japan number one. China has a long list of achievements in the last decade. It currently focuses on furthering advances in robotics, semiconductors, high-speed trains, super-computers and in genetics.

Of the top ten nations with the largest gold reserves, China is at number six, the highest in Asia. It has 1,948.3 tonnes of gold, yet this is only 3.3% of its foreign reserves. As of 2021, China has allowed ‘domestic and international banks to import large amounts of the precious metal into the country in an effort to support prices.’ The only other East Asian nation in the top ten is Japan in eighth position. It has 765.2 tonnes which makes up 3.1 percent of its foreign reserves. In January 2016, China ‘lowered interest rates below zero – which helped fuel demand for gold around the world.’

The gradual decline and shrinkage of America’s economy over ensuing decades; coupled with China’s increasing growth and competition in key sectors such as space, genetics, robotics and particularly artificial intelligence will see increased aggravation and perhaps hostility between the behemoth United States and leviathan China.

China’s wealthiest cities – as listed by The Richest website – assist in gauging any demographic patterns. City number ten Chengdu, is located in the southwest of China. Also in the Southwest is Chongqing at number five. In the Southeast is Hangzhou, nine; Guangzhou, seven; Suzhou, six; and Shenzhen at number four.

Suzhou

Both islands of Hong Kong and Taiwan are situated on the southeastern coast of mainland China. A city that we are all now aware is Wuhan, also in the Southeast and is ranked number eight.

‘Traditionally China’s powerful urban [centres] were along the borders or the coast, but Wuhan has risen up in recent years from central [southeast] China to become an extremely important city in its own right. First settled in 1500 BC, Wuhan is one of the oldest cities in China. Wuhan’s population of 10,220,000 [people] is relatively small by Chinese standards, but the city punches well above its weight economically. Regarded as the key to central China, Wuhan’s economy is based primarily on finance, transportation, and information technology.’

In the northeast there are the cities of Tianjin, three; and Beijing [formerly Peking] the capital, at number two.

‘The national capital of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing is one of China’s cities that the entire world is familiar with. Beijing is China’s political and cultural [centre], and home to virtually all of China’s largest state-owned companies. With a population of 21,150,000 [people], Beijing is home too many of the ruling government’s key leaders and operations, both past and present – the renowned Forbidden City, that housed the Chinese emperors of old, is situated in Beijing. Beijing’s economy is valued at an absolutely astounding 366.11 billion Yuan (approximately $59.88 billion USD). It is by a large margin one of the global economy’s most important hubs, and one of the most prosperous and developed cities in China.’

Stunning photographs of Shanghai

At number one, is Shanghai – the counter point to Beijing in the North – located in the Southeast.

‘Although it might be tempting to assume Beijing is the Chinese economy’s most important city, since it also doubles as the national capital, that would be a mistake. The specter of Shanghai looms large not only over all of China, but also over the entire world. Shanghai proper has a population of 24,000,000 [people] (which doesn’t account for those living just outside the city) making it the most populous city in the entire world. It’s also the world’s busiest port city, and boasts an urban economy valued at an absolutely astounding 410.95 billion Yuan (approximately $67.16 billion USD). Shanghai has emerged in post-reform China as the nation’s economic leader, and its policies and practices have served as an example for China’s other rising cities since the influx of foreign investment into China began. Where Shanghai goes, the Chinese economy will follow.’

Recall Tubal in its broadest sense means the whole flow and currencies of the world-economy. ‘To flow or carry along’, ‘to bring, lead, conduct.’ A breakdown of China’s richest cities includes: two in the Southwest; six in the Southeast; and two in the Northeast – or alternatively, eight in the South and two in the North. Those cities located on the East coast of China, (refer map) are in keeping with Tubal’s location, name and wealth. China has the world’s biggest population, a staggering 1,419,321,278 people. Magog certainly blankets like a ‘covering’ as the rooftop of the world.

Mandarin is spoken in northern and southwestern China and has by far the most speakers. This language group includes the Beijing dialect which forms the basis for Standard Chinese called Putonghua or Guoyu and often translated as Mandarin or simply Chinese. Wu varieties are spoken in Shanghai, most of Zhejiang and the southern parts of Jiangsu and Anhui. This group comprises hundreds of distinct spoken forms, many of which are not mutually intelligible. The Suzhou dialect is usually taken as representative as Shanghainese features several atypical innovations.

Jerry Norman classified ‘the traditional seven dialect groups of China into three larger groups: Northern (Mandarin),Central (Wu, Gan, and Xiang)and Southern (Hakka, Yue, and Min).’ Norman stated that the Southern Group was derived from a standard used in the Yangtze valley during the Han dynasty from 206 BCE to 220 CE, calling it Old Southern Chinese. The Central group was transitional between the Northern and Southern groups. Dialect boundaries between Wu and Min are particularly abrupt, while others, such as between Mandarin and Xiang or between Min and Hakka, are less clearly defined. We will continue to investigate this three-part distinction – as highlighted in the major language groups – as it is a tip of an iceberg with regard to the Chinese composition of China.

There are a number of peoples within China’s borders which include the Han, Manchu, Mongol and Tibetan. Tibetan populations are most genetically similar with other modern East Asian peoples. A 2016 study claimed that the Tibetan gene pool diverged from that of the Han Chinese around 15,000 years ago [likely much later than this]; attributed to a post-LGM [Last Glacial Maximum] dispersal. Analysis of around two hundred contemporary populations showed that Tibetans shared ancestry with 82% from East Asia; 11% from Central Asia and Siberia; 6% from South Asia; and 1% with western Eurasia and also Oceania. 

These results support the premise that Tibetans arose from a mixture of multiple ancestral gene pools and that their origins are more complicated and ancient than previously suspected. The date of divergence between Tibetans and the Sherpas of Nepal has been estimated to have taken place about 11,000 to 7,000 years ago – between the Flood 10,837 BCE and the time of Peleg circa 6755 BCE – refer article: The Younger Dryas Stadial: Ending of the Earth… Beginning of the World.

After modern Oceanic populations, Tibetan populations show the highest rate of allele sharing with primitive hominins [extinct humans not belonging to Homo sapiens] at over 6%. Remarkably, modern Tibetans show genetic affinities to three ancient peoples: Denisovans, Neanderthals and… an unidentified archaic population.* In comparison to modern Han populations, modern Tibetans show greater genetic affinity with Denisovans; however, both the Han and Tibetans have similar ratios of genetic affinity with general Neanderthal populations – Chapter II Japheth Orientalium. 

Tibetans have been identified as the modern population that has the most alleles in common with Ust’-Ishim man. Ust’-Ishim man is the term given to the remains of an early modern [Cro-Magnon (Homo sapiens)] human inhabiting western Siberia. The fossil of a male left femur – discovered in 2008 – was a very important discovery, as it had intact DNA. This allowed the complete sequencing of its genome; the oldest modern human genome to be decoded. Dated as forty-five thousand years old, though about half this age is more likely to be accurate. 

Coupled with this discovery was the finding of a fossil jaw in the Himalayan highlands of Tibet, belonging to none other than the vanished human species, Denisovan. From the scientists perspective, this discovery deepened the mystery of human ‘evolution’ in Asia. A local Buddhist monk found the fossil, which shows these ancient human relatives lived on the roof of the world in the rarefied air of almost 11,000 feet. 

This is an altitude that would leave most people starved for oxygen today. This notable contribution of the Denisovan genome, is an allele of a gene involved in adaptation for low oxygen. This allows today’s Tibetans and the Sherpa people to live at high altitude more comfortably than other people. When this was discovered, it was perplexing to scientists because they have inaccurately placed modern humans reaching the region at ‘forty thousand years ago at the earliest’ and yet the same allele is found in modern populations living in much lower altitudes. For instance, Denisova Cave the discovery site, is seven hundred metres above sea level. 

Scientists now entertain that Neanderthals may have lived past forty thousand years ago and are relying on new fossil evidence to resolve the question. Kirk Lohmueller, a University of California geneticist, admitted: ‘That’s a paradox the field needs to address.’ One answer could be that Neanderthals did not die out that long ago, but rather when the great flood occurred. This would place their demise about thirteen thousand years ago and would assist in understanding the amount of Neanderthal DNA that Europeans and particularly East Asians carry, if it was a far more recent development in our genetic encoding. 

In fact, some scientists after a detailed analysis of the DNA of people living in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, now think our species may have been interbreeding with Denisovans as recently as, fifteen thousand years ago.

Scientists shared interesting evidence in an article, Neanderthal Introgression at Chromosome 3p21.31 Was Under Positive Natural Selection in East Asians, multiple authors, 2014, of ‘accumulation of a Neanderthal DNA region found on chromosome 3 that contains 18 genes, with several [alleles] related to UV-light adaptation, [in] the Hyal2 gene.’ 

A map showing the global distribution of the introgressive Haplotypes from archaic hominins 

‘Their results reveal this region was positively selected and enriched in East Asians, ranging from up to [49.4] percent in Japanese to [66.5] percent in Southern [Han] Chinese… [as well as quite high percentages in Native Americans – see map]… the Neanderthal genomic region suggests that UV-light mutations were shown to be lost during the [unproven] exodus of modern humans from Africa, and reintroduced to Eurasians from Neanderthals.’ 

We touched on the sun light conditions, the UV-light adaptation and the formation of Vitamin D, as well as the atmospheric conditions in the antediluvian epoch previously – refer Chapter I Noah Antecessor Nulla; and The Younger Dryas Stadial: Ending of the Earth… Beginning of the World. We have an extra link between the pre-flood world and the Neanderthal who existed prior to the flood, but not afterwards. Some researchers believe the Neanderthal and the Nephilim* are one and the same. This would indicate they are not. The requirement for the Neanderthal to have this genetic adaptation, means that the lineages of Japheth and Shem, with their generally fairer skins, both received the adaptation. 

The darker skinned peoples descending from Ham’s children are now linked more strongly, as the line of Seth whom Noah descended did not all inter-marry with either the people of Day Six or the descendants of Cain. Thus, Noah was pure in his genetic composition as discussed in chapter one. Cain’s line did mix and may explain some of the Japheth-like names of his family. Plus, we now have the strong likelihood that at least one person – Japheth’s wife ‘Adataneses – and maybe two people in Noah’s family had Neanderthal DNA, to then pass on to Japheth and through admixture, Shem’s children. We also have further support confirming the scientific data from Haplogroups – Y-DNA Haplogroup A and mtDNA Haplogroup L – that darker shades of skin originated first and lighter skinned people have subsequently descended or mutated from them – refer Chapter XVI Shem Occidentalis.

Though I lean away from the out of Africa hypothesis and lean towards the off the Ark scenario, they align in two important points, with science actually affirming the biblical, Sumerian and other ancient written accounts. First, both show that there was an original environment and then a secondary one afterwards. Secondly, there were a reduced number of ethnicities in this first environment and an increased number in the second. Either an African continent, then a post-Africa diversifying migration of future European and Asian peoples; or an antediluvian world preceding a post-diluvian world, with the development of increased variety in the ethnic races going from either two or three, to sixteen. 

The Neanderthal were a separate line of human – prior to Homo sapiens – who existed before the flood. Their larger head and increased brain capacity reveals they were highly intelligent and certainly not ape-like as has been falsely promulgated. It is believed that the Denisovans and Neanderthals split, with the former migrating to Asia and the latter to Europe. In realty, the split is principally genetic and secondarily geographic. The Denisovans component is primarily present in Melanesians, East Indonesians and the Negritos from the Philippines, compared to other southeastern Asians. Thus, only populations situated to the east of the biological boundary traced by Alfred Russell Wallace in 1869, consistently share genetic material from Denisovans; pointing to a close relationship among them. 

The detailed aspects of one, the Neanderthal question; two, parallel humans; and three, the Nephilim* prior to the flood are addressed in a separate chapter, though for now, it is relevant to briefly discuss the relevance of Japheth possessing Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA – refer Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega. Both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA is genetically closer than either is to Homo sapiens sapiens and modern man. About two per cent of the genome [ranging from 0 to 5%] of a typical European contains genetic material almost identical to Neanderthal DNA; though people in China, Japan and other East Asian countries carry 20 per cent – generally ranging from 15 to 30% – more Neanderthal DNA. This remains an inexplicable puzzle to scientists. 

Kirk Lohmueller and graduate student Bernard Kim constructed a computer model of Europeans and Asians, simulating reproduction over time, adding Neanderthal DNA and observing the emerging genetic differences. 

The modelling highlighted that the only scenario that could explain why modern Asians have more Neanderthal DNA, was that they had a second encounter with Neanderthals at a later date – another ‘pulse’ of their genes into the Asian pool. Of course, this two pulse hypothesis explanation runs into the same ‘forty thousand years ago’ difficulty, as the Neanderthal would have disappeared well before the European and Asian populations genetically diverged. ‘How could there have been Neanderthals left to interbreed with Asians a second time?’ Mainstream science remains adamant that Neanderthal man became extinct forty thousand years ago, contrary to growing evidence. 

So scientists are still left scratching their heads how Asians received their additional Neanderthal DNA. Weak explanations offered to this quandary include: ‘European ancestors bred with another yet-to-be discovered species of ancient human that watered down their Neanderthal DNA’… or… ‘Asians also mixed with another group of humans – now extinct – that had interbred with Neanderthals and carried much of their DNA.’

Regardless of time frames, the idea of additional inter-breeding between Neanderthal and East Asians, does not account for the fact that they did and Europeans did not. In a separate section, the Genesis account is dissected for any answers to this question – Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega. What we find, is that there were people that came into existence before Cro-Magnon or Homo sapiens man. These people were the Neanderthal – the people of Day Six in the Book of Genesis. The high level of their DNA and the Denisovan within Oriental Asian people can be answered if it was already included in Japheth’s line.

How and when this happened could be answered a number of ways, aside from Japheth’s wife – Articles: Homo Neanderthalensis II, III & IV. Input on the technicalities of this process would be welcomed, as white Europeans possess considerably less Neanderthal DNA and no Denisovan, while sub-Saharan Black people possess either neither of the DNA genetic material of this early human, or minute traces of Neanderthal.

A perusal of the East Asians does highlight a few salient points.

They stand out from the rest of the world in physiognomy and yet within Japheth’s seven sons, there is far less DNA variation amongst them – as evidenced by Haplogroups – than we will find exhibited in the six sons of Canaan for instance – Chapter XII Canaan & Africa. The Oriental Asians mainly have straight hair, a smaller stature and are by various degrees rather inscrutable. They appear to have a closer affinity with a hive mentality, which adds to their industriousness compared with other peoples. Their languages are pictorial and reminiscent of the hieroglyphs of Ancient Egypt; which in turn possess a rather distinct alien impression and perhaps inspiration. 

Plus, why do so many Asians wear eye glasses? Myopia or nearsightedness afflicts some twelve percent of Americans and twenty-three percent of Australians. It is quite different in East Asia, where it has been recorded as high as 90%, starting in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan and spreading to the big cities of China. High myopia affects two percent of Americans, but upwards of sixteen percent in East Asians. 

Then there is the mystery of the shape of Asian eyes, alluding scientists ability to explain as there is no satisfactory evolutionary answer for the slant of the eyes. Formed by a fold of skin, Asian eyes look deceptively smaller. It can be known as a monolid, a single eyelid or a Mongolian bridle. Its correct name is the epicanthic fold or epicanthus.

Looking at the Haplogroup family trees, it is apparent that with mtDNA – mitochondria passed from mothers to their sons and daughters – the main East Asian Haplogroups alphabetically, of B, D, F and M* plus the addition of the American Indian Haplogroups of A and C are less closely linked to the key Ham Haplogroups of H**, L0 to L6 and M*; or the prime Haplogroups of Shem: H**, J, T and U. 

With regard to the Y-DNA Haplogroups – the Y sex chromosome passed from fathers only to their sons – they show that the main East Asian Haplogroups of C, K, O1 and O2 plus the American Indian Haplogroup Q, are again less closely linked to the key Shem Haplogroups of I1, I2, R1a and R1b or the main Haplogroups of Ham, E1b1, H, J1 and J2. 

It is Ham and Shem who are marginally closer genetically on the maternal Haplogroup side and Japheth and Shem on the paternal Haplogroup side. This means that the wives of Ham and Shem were more closely related than with Japheth’s wife. Even so, the Y-DNA passed from Noah to both Ham and Shem later exhibits more crossover mutations and shared Haplogroups – which we will discuss as we progress – refer article: Y-DNA Adam & mtDNA Eve: The Genesis & Evolution of Homo Sapiens. Meanwhile, Japheth inherited a quite different set of Y-DNA Haplogroups. Considering the high levels of Neanderthal DNA in the Oriental Asian; it remains puzzling, why the African people descended from Ham, possess practically 0% Neanderthal DNA, while the other peoples from Ham and the Europeans from Shem, possess Neanderthal DNA albeit in smaller percentages – refer Chapter XI Ham Aequator.

Comparing autosomal DNA – the 22 pairs of chromosomes that contain about 20,000 genes which determine your traits and characteristics – it is the descendants of Shem and Japheth who are closer genetically; as per the PCA graph above, just to add to the mystery surrounding the origin of the races.

Chinese men

The distribution of Y-DNA Haplogroup D-M174 or D1, is found among nearly all the populations of Central Asia and Northeast Asia south of the Russian border, although at a low frequency of 2% or less. A significant spike in the frequency of D1 occurs towards the Tibetan Plateau [D1a1]. D-M174 is also found at high frequencies among Japanese people as discussed [D1a2], though it fades into low frequencies in the Koreas and China, between the vast expanse of land separating Japan and Tibet.

A study carried out in 2018 calculated ‘pairwise F_ST (a measure of genetic difference) based on genome-wide SNPs, among the Han Chinese (Northern Han from Beijing and Southern Han from Hunan and Fujian provinces), Japanese and Korean populations. It found that the smallest F_ST value was between North Han Chinese (CHB) and South Han Chinese (CHS) (F_ST[CHB-CHS] = 0.0014), while CHB and Korean (KOR) (F_ST[CHB-KOR] = 0.0026) and between KOR and Japanese (JPT) (F_ST[JPT-KOR] = 0.0033). Generally, pairwise F_ST between Han Chinese, Japanese and Korean (0.0026~ 0.0090) are greater than that within Han Chinese (0.0014). These results suggested Han Chinese, Japanese and Korean are different in terms of genetic make-up, and the difference among the three groups are much larger than that between northern and southern Han Chinese.’

Chinese women

A genetic study on the remains of people circa 4000 BCE ‘from the Mogou site in the Gansu-Qinghai (or Ganqing) region of China revealed more information on the genetic contributions of [the] ancient Di-Quiang people to the ancestors of the Northern Han. It was deduced that 3300–3800 years ago some Mogou [Magog] people had merged into the ancestral Han population, resulting in the Mogou people being similar to some northern Han in sharing up to ~33% paternal [O2a1] and ~70% maternal (D, A, F, M10) haplogroups. The mixture rate was possibly 13-18%.’

The contribution of northern Han to southern Han is substantial in both paternal and maternal lineages and a geographic cline exists for mtDNA. As a result, the northern Han [Magog] are the primary contributors to the gene pool of the southern Han [Tubal and Meshech]. The expansion process was dominated by males, as there is evidence of a greater contribution to the Y-chromosome [paternal] than the mtDNA [maternal] from northern Han to southern Han. 

These genetic observations are in line with historical records of continually large migratory waves of northern Chinese inhabitants escaping warfare and famine, to southern China. Other smaller southward migrations also occurred during the past two millennia. A study by the Chinese Academy of Sciences into the gene frequency data of Han subpopulations and ethnic minorities in China, showed that Han subpopulations in different regions are also genetically quite close to the local ethnic minorities, meaning that blood of ethnic minorities had mixed into Han, while at the same time, the blood of Han had mixed into the local populations. 

The most extensive genome-wide association study of the Han population, showed that geographic, genetic stratification from north to south has occurred and centrally placed populations acted as the conduit for outlying ones. Ultimately, with the exception in some ethnolinguistic branches of the Han Chinese, such as Pinghua, ‘there is “coherent genetic structure” (homogeneity) in all Han Chinese.’

Y-chromosome Haplogroup O2 [M122], is a prevalent DNA marker in Han Chinese, as it appeared in China in prehistoric times. ‘It is found in more than 50% of Chinese males, and ranging up to over 80% in certain regional subgroups of the Han ethnicity. The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of Han Chinese increases in diversity* as one looks from northern to southern China, which suggests that male migrants from northern China married with women from local peoples after arriving in southern China.’ Tests comparing the genetic profiles of northern Han, southern Han and southern natives determined that Haplogroups O-M176 [O1b2], O-M88 [O1b1a1a1a1a] and O-M7 [O2a2a1a2], which are prevalent in southern natives, were only observed in some southern Han – 4% on average – but not in the northern Han. This proves that the male contribution of southern natives on southern Han was limited. 

There are consistent strong genetic similarities in the Y chromosome Haplogroup distribution between the southern and northern Chinese population. Analysis indicates almost all Han populations form a tight cluster in their Y chromosome. However, other research has also shown that the paternal lineages Y-DNA O-M119 [O1a], O-P201 [O2a2a1a1a, M-159], O-P203 [O1a1a M307] and O-M95 [O1b1a1a] are found in both southern Han Chinese and South Chinese minorities, but more commonly in the latter. In fact, these paternal markers are in turn less frequent in northern Han Chinese.

The Han Chinese which form some 90% of China’s population are closely related, though there are variations in the Haplogroups to suggest the Han can be split into northern and southern origins. The southern Han have more variation than the northern Han and indicate a further division again.* The Mongols are an ethnic group in northern China or Inner Mongolia, Mongolia, parts of Siberia and Central Asia.

The Later Jin dynasty from 1616 to 1636 CE and the subsequent Qing dynasty from 1636 to 1912 CE were established and ruled by Manchus, descended from the Jurchen people who earlier established the first Jin dynasty during 1115 to 1234 CE in China. Manchus form the largest branch of the Tungusic peoples and are distributed throughout China, forming the fourth largest ethnic group – the 2nd being Zhuang, with 17 million people and 3rd, the Hui with 10 million people. They can be found in thirty-one Chinese provincial regions. They also form the largest minority group in China without an autonomous region.

Manchu men with a single braid of hair known as a queue

While the Manchu ruling elite at the Qing imperial court in Beijing and in posts of authority throughout China increasingly adopted Han culture, the Qing imperial government viewed the Manchu communities – as well as those of various tribal people – in Manchuria as a place where traditional Manchu virtues could be preserved and as a vital reservoir of military manpower fully dedicated to the regime. The Qing emperors endeavoured to protect the traditional way of life of the Manchus in central and northern Manchuria. In particular, they restricted the migration of Han settlers to the region. This had to be balanced with practical needs, such as maintaining the defence of northern China against the Russians and the Mongols, supplying government farms with a skilled work force and conducting trade in the region’s products. Even so, a continuous trickle of Han convicts, workers and merchants found their way to the northeast.

There is debate* over whether the Qing equated the lands of the Qing state – including present-day Manchuria, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tibet and other areas – with ‘China.’ Most Manchu people now live in Mainland China with a population of 10,410,585 people; approximately nine percent of the ethnic minorities and 0.8% of China’s total population.

Northern and southern China are two mega-regions within China. The self-perception of the Chinese nation has been dominated by this concept of two Chinas; as regional differences in culture and language have historically under-pinned distinct regional identities. Used as the geographical dividing line between northern and southern China is the Qinling-Huaihe Line – the Qin Mountains and the Huai River. The Northeast and Inner Mongolia are considered belonging to northern China according to this definition. 

At certain times in history, Tibet and other areas, were not considered* as being part of either the north or south, though internal migration has led to previously marginalised areas being seen as the part of the north. The perception of a northern and southern China originates from differences in climate, geography, culture and physical traits; as well as historical periods of political division. 

Northern and north-eastern China is considered too cold and dry for rice cultivation – though rice is grown there today, using modern technology – and consists largely of flat plains, grasslands or desert, Southern China is contrastingly, warm and rainy enough for rice and consists of ‘lush mountains cut by river valleys’. These differences have influenced warfare during the pre-modern era. For instance, cavalry could easily dominate the northern plains, but encountered difficulties against river navies used by the South. There are also major differences in cuisine, culture and popular entertainment. The Northern and Southern Dynasties showed such a high level of polarisation between North and South that sometimes northerners and southerners referred to each other as barbarians.

For a large part of Chinese history, northern China was economically ahead. The Jurchen or Manchu and Mongol invasion caused migration to southern China, so that the Emperor shifted the Song dynasty capital city from Kaifeng in northern China to Hangzhou, located south of the Yangtze river. The population of Shanghai increased from 12,000 households to over 250,000 inhabitants after Kaifeng was sacked by invading armies. This began a shift of political, economic and cultural power from northern China to southern China. The Eastern coast of southern China has continued as a leading economic and cultural centre for China until the present day.

In 1730 the Kangxi Emperor made the observation in the Tingxun Geyan: “The people of the North are strong; they must not copy the fancy diets of the Southerners, who are physically frail, live in a different environment, and have different stomachs and bowels.” Lu Xun a major Chinese writer, wrote: ‘According to my observation, Northerners are sincere and honest; Southerners are skilled and quick-minded. These are their respective virtues. Yet sincerity and honesty lead to stupidity, whereas skillfulness and quick-mindedness lead to duplicity.’

During the Deng Xiaoping reforms of the 1980s, Southern China developed more quickly than Northern China, leading scholars to wonder whether the economic fault line would create political tension between the North and South. This was based on the idea that there would be conflict between the bureaucratic north and the commercial south. This never eventuated ‘because the economic fault lines eventually created divisions between coastal China [represented primarily by Tubal] and the interior [Meshech] as well as between urban and rural China, which run in different directions from the north-south divide, and in part, because neither north or south has any type of obvious advantage within the Chinese central government.’

The concepts of North and South continue to play an important role in regional stereotypes.

Northerners are seen as:

• Taller: according to the 2014 census, the average male height between the age of 20-24 was 173.4 cm in Beijing, 174.9 cm in Jilin province and 177.1 cm in Dalian
• Speaking Mandarin Chinese with a northern (rhotic) accent
• More likely to eat noodles, dumplings and wheat-based foods (rather than rice-based foods)

Southerners are viewed as:

• Shorter: according to the 2014 census, the average male height between the age of 20–24 was 173.3 cm in Shanghai, 171.6 cm in Zhejiang provinceand 171.9 cm in Fujian province
• Speaking Mandarin Chinese with a southern (non-rhotic) accent or speaking any southern Chinese language, such as those under Yue (e.g. Cantonese), Min (e.g. Hokkien), Wu (e.g. Shanghainese), Hakka, Xiang or Gan
• More likely to eat rice-based foods (rather than wheat-based foods) and seafood

Following: two integral papers regarding Chinese origins. They are lengthy and a little technical for those so inclined. For those not so much inclined, I have highlighted the key findings in bold. We will then put what we have read so far together, to clarify the puzzle of China’s inhabitants.

Ancient DNA Reveals That the Genetic Structure of the Northern Han Chinese Was Shaped Prior to 3,000 Years Ago, multiple authors, 2015 – emphasis & bold mine:

‘The Han Chinese are the largest ethnic group in the world, and their origins, development, and expansion are complex. Many genetic studies have shown that Han Chinese can be divided into two distinct groups: northern Han Chinese and southern Han Chinese. The genetic history of the southern Han Chinese has been well studied. 

However, the genetic history of the northern Han Chinese is still obscure. In order to gain insight into the genetic history of the northern Han Chinese, 89 human remains were sampled from the Hengbei site… 

We used 64 authentic mtDNA data obtained in this study, 27 Y chromosome SNP data profiles from previously studied Hengbei samples, and genetic datasets of the current Chinese populations and two ancient northern Chinese populations to analyze the relationship between the ancient people of Hengbei and present-day northern Han Chinese. We used a wide range of population genetic analyses, including principal component analyses, shared mtDNA haplotype analyses, and geographic mapping of maternal genetic distances. 

The results show that the ancient people of Hengbei bore a strong genetic resemblance to present–day northern Han Chinese and were genetically distinct from other present-day Chinese populations and two ancient populations. These findings suggest that the genetic structure of northern Han Chinese was already shaped 3,000 years ago…’

‘The consensus is that the Han Chinese migrated south and contributed greatly to the paternal gene pool of the SH, whereas the Han Chinese and ancient southern ethnic groups both contributed almost equally to the SH maternal gene pool. However, the genetic history of the NH is still obscure. Currently, NH populations inhabit much of northern China, including the Central Plain and many outer regions that were inhabited by ancient northern ethnic groups. 

The Han Chinese or their ancestors who migrated northward from the Central Plain might have mixed with ancient northern ethnic groups or culturally assimilated the native population. This scenario would indicate that the Han Chinese living in different areas should have genetic profiles that differ from each other. However, genetic analyses have shown that there are no significant differences among the northern Han Chinese populations, which has led to conflicting arguments on whether the genetic structure of the NH is the result of an earlier ethnogenesis or, instead, results from a combination of population admixture and continuous migration of the Han Chinese. 

Until now, only a few genetic studies have investigated the ancient Han Chinese or their ancestors. These studies have been restricted by small sample sizes, high levels of kinship among samples, and short fragments of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and thus provide limited insights into the genetic history of the Han Chinese… a large number of graves were excavated at a necropolis called Hengbei located in the southern part of Shanxi Province, China, on the Central Plain, that dates back to approximately 3,000 years ago (Zhou dynasty), a key transitional period for the rise of the Han Chinese. In a previous study investigating when haplogroup Q1a1 entered the genetic pool of the Han Chinese, we analyzed Y chromosome single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from human remains excavated from the Hengbei (HB) site and identified haplogroups for 27 samples. In the present study, we attempted to extract DNA from 89 human remains. Using a combination of Y chromosome SNPs and mtDNA genetic data, we uncover aspects of the genetic structure of the ancient people from the Central Plain region and begin to determine the genetic legacy of the northern Han Chinese in both the maternal and paternal lineages.

According to a previous study, the haplogroups of the Han Chinese can be classified into the northern East Asian-dominating haplogroups, including A, C, D, G, M8, M9, and Z, and the southern East Asian-dominating haplogroups, including B, F, M7, N, and R. These haplogroups account for 52.7% and33.85% of those in the Northern Han, respectively.Among these haplogroups, D, B, F, and A were predominant in the NH, with frequencies of 25.77%, 11.54%, 11.54%, and 8.08%, respectively. However, in the SH, the northern and southern East Asian-dominating haplogroups accounted for 35.62% and 51.91%, respectively.’

In other words, the southern Han were opposite to the northern Han with a dominance understandably in south eastern mtDNA Haplogroups; as opposed to the northern Han being dominant, unsurprisingly in north eastern mtDNA Haplogroups. 

‘The frequencies of haplogroups D, B, F, and A reached 15.68%, 20.85%, 16.29%, and 5.63%, respectively.’ Recall on our journey through the descendants of Japheth, how the maternal Haplogroups B4/B5, F1 and M7 have figured prominently and of these it has been Haplogroup B which has been the overall common defining marker mt-DNA Haplogroup for Japheth’s children.

‘Notably, in the HB samples, haplogroups D, B, F, and A were also predominant and showed frequencies of 23.44%, 12.5%, 10.93%, and 10.93%, respectively. In addition, the frequency of haplogroup M was high and reached 17.19%. Other haplogroups such as C, G, M7, M8, M9, Z, N9a and R had lower frequencies at 3.13%, 1.56%, 1.56%, 3.13%, 7.81%, 3.13%, 3.13% and 1.56%, respectively. The northern and southern East Asian-dominating haplogroups [from the Hengbei] account for 50.04% and 26.56%, respectively, which is similar to the values in the NH.

To further identify the genetic affinities among the HB, two ancient populations and the present-day Chinese population, represented by 9 NH, 9 Northern Minorities, 14 SH and 57 Southern Minority groups, the mtDNA haplogroup distributions were compared using a PCA. The PCA plot of the first and second components (31.81% of the total variance), shows that the current populations largely segregate into three main clusters: Northern Han (in orange), Southern Han (in blue), and Southern Minorities (in gray), and Northern Minorities (in green). The distribution of populations in the PCA plot was in line with their geographic distribution, and these populations were separated by the first principal component. The populations living in northern China (NH and NM) are located on the right side of the PCA, and they contain the northern East Asian-dominating haplogroups A, C, D, G, M8, M9, and Z.’

‘In contrast, the populations living in southern China (SH and SM) are located on the left side of the PCA, and they contain the southern East Asian-dominating haplogroups B, F, M7, and R. 

Moreover, the NH can be separated from other populations except for two SH (Hubei and Shanghai), using the second principal component. The HB population (PC1 value: 0.071; PC2 value: 1.453) groups closely with the NH (PC1 value: 0.239±0.269; PC2 value: 1.590±0.336). Overall, these results indicate that the HB [Hengbei] population shares a similar genetic profile with the Northern Han that is distinct from the Northern Minorities and ancient northern ethnic groups.

The Han Chinese originated from the Central Plain region, which is substantially smaller than the region the Han Chinese now occupy. According to historical documents, the Han Chinese suffered many conflicts with natives prior to expansion into their lands. The Han migrated northward into regions inhabited by many ancient northern ethnic groups. Based on the advanced agriculture, technology, and culture, the Han Chinese or their ancestors often had a greater demographic advantage over ancient northern ethnic groups. Thus, the Han Chinese or their ancestors might have played a predominant role in the genetic mixture of populations. This scenario would mean that the genetic structure of the NH was shaped a long time ago. In our study, the HB population showed great genetic affinities with the NH when maternal lineages were tested. First, the HB contained a distribution and component of mtDNA similar to that of the NH and clustered closely together with the NH in the PCA plot. Second, the HB shared more haplotypes with the NH than with other populations in the haplotype-sharing analysis. Third, the F_ST value from comparisons between the HB and NH populations was lowest and negative. Generally, F_ST value should theoretically range between 0 and 1. 

However, if the estimate of within diversity is larger than the estimate obtained of variance among groups, negative F_ST values should be obtained, and they are represented as equal to zero. It indicated that HB bore a very high similarity to NH populations. Considering the location and culture of the HB, we suggest that the NH might have provided a significant contribution to the HB and find that the maternal genetic profiles of the NH [principally represented by Magog] were shaped 3,000 years ago. These conclusions are further supported by the relationship between the HB and NM, XN, and XB. 

In our study, the PCA plot is consistent with the SH not only mixing with the SM but also with the NH, which is consistent with a previous genetic study that concluded that the SH was formed from almost equal contributions of southward migrating Han Chinese and southern natives. However, the NH and NM group into two separate clusters, which is not consistent with their current geographic distributions because these two populations often live together in the northern region of China. Moreover, XN, XB1 and XB2 pool into the NM and are far away from HB and NH. 

A haplotype-sharing analysis of the three ancient populations and each present-day Han Chinese population shows that the fraction of haplotypes from HB is significantly higher than that from XN, XB1 and XB2 (all of the p values of HB/XN, HB/XB1 and XB2 are less than 0.01, two-tailed t-test. In the F_ST comparisons, the F_ST values of the XN/HB, XB/HB, XB/NH, XN/NH, and NM/NH are significantly higher, and all of the p values are less than 0.05, indicating that the XN and XB were distinct from the NH and HB. 

This finding indicates that the ancient populations of the XN and XB had a limited maternal genetic impact on present-day Han Chinese.

Y chromosome SNP analysis was consistent with the conclusions drawn from studying the maternal lineages. In the paternal lineage, HB contained the haplogroups or sub-haplogroups N, [O1a, O1b, O2a] and Q1a1. The total frequencies of these haplogroups reached high levels (66% – 100%) in current Han Chinese. Haplogroup Q1a1, which was predominant in HB, is highly specific to the Han Chinese. Haplogroup [O2a1], the second highest frequency (33.34%) in HB, occupies the highest frequencies in almost all current Han Chinese populations (32.5%-76.92%). Moreover, in the PCA plot, HB groups closely [align] with the Han Chinese. 

These results indicate that the 3,000-year-old ancient people from the Central Plain region share similar paternal genetic profiles with the current Han Chinese. In contrast, XN yielded three haplogroups (N3, Q, and C) but no haplogroup O. The frequency of O in NM is significantly lower than the frequency of O in NH, but the frequency of haplogroup N shows the inverse trend. Moreover, NM has a relatively high frequency of haplogroup R, but NH does not.’

Y Chromosomes of 40% Chinese Descend from Three Neolithic Super-Grandfathers, multiple authors, 2014 – emphasis & bold mine:

‘To achieve sufficiently high coverage in the non-recombining regions of Y chromosome (NRY) and an adequate representation of individual samples, we selected 110 males, encompassing the haplogroups O, C, D, N, and Q which are common in East Eurasians, as well as haplogroups J, G, and R which are common in West Eurasians and sequenced their non-repetitive segments of NRY using a pooling-and-capturing strategy.’

Y-DNA Haplogroups G, R1a and R1b are indicative of European men, whereas Haplogroups J1 and J2 are reflective of males of either Arab and Pakistani descent in the Middle East and West Asia, or of admixture with these lines.

‘Results… Overall ∼4,500 base substitutions were identified in all the samples from the whole Y chromosome, in which >4,300 SNPs that has not been publicly named before 2012 (ISOGG etc.). We designated each of these SNP a name beginning with ‘F’ (for Fudan University). We obtained ∼3.90 Mbp of sequences with appropriate quality (at least 1× coverage on >100 out of 110 samples, and identified ∼3,600 SNPs in this region. 

A maximum parsimony phylogenetic tree of the 78 individuals with good coverage was reconstructed, the topology of which is congruent with the existing tree of human Y chromosome. The tree contained samples from haplogroups C, D, G, J, N, O, Q, and R, and thus represented all the three super-haplogroups out of Africa – C, DE and F. In addition to the known lineages, many new downstream lineages were revealed. 

All the earlier divergences were found to be bifurcations, except for three star-like structures, i.e. multiple lineages branching off from a single node, were observed under Haplogroup [O2a-M324+], indicating strong expansion events.’

‘The most surprising discovery in the tree is the three star-like expansions in Haplogroup [O2a-M324+], i.e. under the M117 clade, the M134 [O2a2b1] x M117 [O2a2b1a1] paragroup, and the 002611 clade. Here we denote the three star-like expansions as Oα, Oβ, and Oγ, respectively. 

Since the sample selection for high-through put sequencing was intended for representing a wide variety of clades in East Asian populations, a star-like expansion indicates successful expansion of male lineages within a very short period (<500 years). These three clades are present with high frequency across many extant East Asian populations and encompass more than 40% of the present Han Chinese in total (estimated 16% for Oα, 11% for Oβ, and 14% for Oγ). 

It is conspicuous that roughly 300 million extant males are the patrilineal progenies of only three males in the late Neolithic Age. The expansion dates are estimated 5.4 kya for Oα, 6.5 for Oβ, and 6.8 for Oγ [post Tower of Babel dispersal during the Time of Peleg circa 6755 BCE]… We therefore propose that in the late Neolithic Age, the three rapidly expanding clans established the founding patrilineal spectrum of the predecessors in East Asia. 

Since all the sequenced Han Chinese M117+ samples are under the Oα expansion, and M117+ subclade exists in moderate to very high frequency in many Tibeto-Burman ethnic groups, it would be of interest to know when the M117+ individuals in other ethnic groups diverged with the ones in Han Chinese, and whether they are also under the Oα expansion, in order to trace the origin and early history of [the] Sino-Tibetan language family.

Although most of the sequences in this study were obtained from individuals in China, the haplogroup representation (C, D, G, J, N, O, Q, and R) already enabled us to calculate the times of most of the major divergence events… like G/IJK, NO/P etc., since the times were achieved using the hypothesis of [a] molecular clock, and the results of divergence time between haplogroups would not be affected by from whichever continent or country the individuals were sampled. One good sequence from each of two haplogroups is enough for calculating their divergence time, and more sequences could only help to enhance the precision but would not greatly change the result.’

Additional Supporting Paper:

‘It [remains] mysterious… how many times the anatomically modern human migrated out of Africa, since that among the three super-haplogroups C, DE and F, Haplogroup F distributes in [the] whole [of] Eurasia, C in Asia and Austronesia, D exclusively in Asia, while D’s brother clade E [is] distribute[d] mainly in Africa, so there are two hypotheses, 

1) haplogroups D and CF migrated out of Africa separately; 

2) the single common ancestor [Y-DNA Haplogroup B] of CF and DE migrated out of Africa followed by a back-migration of E to Africa. From this study, the short interval between CF/DE and C/F divergences weakens the possibility of multiple independent migrations (CF, D, and DE) out of Africa, and thus supports the latter hypothesis.’

We will return to Y-DNA Haplogroup E and the continent of Africa – Article: Y-DNA Adam & mtDNA Eve: The Genesis and Evolution of Homo sapiens; and Chapter XII Canaan & Africa.

‘Haplogroup D is comprised of subclade D1-M15 [D1a1a] and D3-P99 [D1a1b], both in continental East Asia… especially frequent in Tibet [D1a1], subclade D2-M55 [D1a2a], nearly exclusively in Japan, and paragroup D, which was discovered mainly in Tibet as well as on the Andaman Islands. In this study, only [D1a1a] and [D1a1b] samples were sequenced. Except for the sample YCH177 (Zhuang ethnicity), all the tested D1 samples (Han and Yi ethnicities) are derivative at SNP N1.

Together with Haplogroup D, C is also considered as one of the harbingers in East Eurasia and Australia. Soon after its divergence with F, Haplogroup C moved eastwards along the coast of Indian Ocean, reached India and China, and might be associated with the earliest known modern human inhabitants in Australia… 

In China, the vast majority of Haplogroup C belongs to [C2]-M217, which constitutes ~10% of Han Chinese, as well as [a] great part of Altaic-speaking populations, e.g. Mongol, Manchu, and Kazakh. Here we identified two clades of [C2] which split at 25.9 kya [?]: a northern clade (C3-n) with SNP F1396, including a Mongol and a Manchu sample, and a southern clade (C3-s) with SNP F1144, including all sequenced Han Chinese [C2] samples. The STRs of YCH168 (Mongol ethnicity) is close to the ‘star-cluster’, which is abundant in the steppe ethnicities, indicating that a substantial part of Altaic-speaking population belongs to C3-n. 

The southern clade expands rather late (only about 6.5 kya, i.e. in the Neolithic Age), including most former [C2] individuals in Han Chinese. Interestingly, the subclade C3d-M407 [C2c1a1a1], which is common in Sojot (Turkic) and Buryat (Mongolic), originated only after this expansion of C3-s. The C3-s clade showed a similar expansion time comparing to the three star-like expansions under [O2], and probably will also be found a multifurcation, if more samples will be sequenced.’

The southern clade expanded later than the north^ because it contained Tubal and Meshech’s lines, who share similar Haplogroup mutations not just with each other but with the northern clade as evidenced by Magog. The reason why these three brothers have easily and inconspicuously become one, is due to their strong similarity genetically, in temperament and in personalty.

‘The Superclade F did not undergo [a] major split since 54.0 kya [?], until the divergence of Haplogroup G and IJK at 35.8 kya [?], which was followed by the emergence of all major haplogroups (IJ, and K, and its subclades NO, P, and LT) during the following 3,000 years. Haplogroup NO… split into N and O at 30.0 kya [?]. Haplogroup P diverged into Q and R at ~24.1 kya [?], slightly before the LGM.’

An alternative explanation is that Noah carried Haplogroup A, with the resulting mutations forming Haplogroups B to T all taking place after* the LGM and the Younger Dryas Stadial – refer Chapter I Noah Antecessor Nulla; and article: Y-DNA Adam & mtDNA Eve: The Genesis and Evolution of Homo sapiens.

Both Japheth and Shem’s male descendants carry Y-DNA Haplogroups K, N and Q; yet they are original groups for Japheth’s descendants while contrastingly, they are mutations from admixture in Shem’s.

‘Most Q individuals in Han Chinese belong to the Q1a1-M120 clade, while R’s in Han Chinese are mostly R1a1-M17. The separation events of R1 and R2, and R1a and R1b are estimated here at 19.9 and 14.8 kya [?], respectively.* This study leads to a discovery of 265 new SNPs under Haplogroup N-M231, adding significantly to the only 11 currently known SNPs. Haplogroup N is frequently found in Tibeto-Burman, Austroasiatic, Altaic, Uralic, Slavic, and Baltic peoples. Haplogroup N went through a bottleneck lasting for 14 thousand years (30 – 15.8 kya).

Haplogroup O, which cover[s] 1/4 of all males [in] the world today, began frequent splitting into subclades before [rather after] the LGM [Last Glacial Maximum]. The ancestor of O-M175 [Noah indirectly circa 19,000 ya and Japheth’s descendants after 13,000 years ago] suffered an intermediate bottleneck event at 30 – 25 kya, and expanded rapidly at 24.7 – 21.5 kya, indicating a southern distribution during [after] the LGM. 

We found that Haplogroups O1 and O2 share 6 SNPs (e.g. F75), forming a monophyletic lineage before joined with [O2]-M122… O1a1-P203 [O1a1a M307] is the major clade of Haplogroup O1 in China, especially frequent (>20%) in the eastern provinces like Zhejiang and Jiangsu, corresponding to the Neolithic expansion of the ancient Yue (ancestral group of present Tai-Kadai and southern Han Chinese). Since Tai-Kadai O1 samples were not included in this study, their divergence time with the East China Yue population is not yet clear.

Among the three main branches of Haplogroup O, [the O1] clade expanded the earliest, fitting the current distribution which is more at the south.^ All the sequenced O2-M268 [O1b] samples other than [O1b2]-M176 form a monophyletic clade, labeled by F1462, and the SNP PK4 lies inside this clade. Further genotyping of the newly discovered SNPs under F1462 clade will unveil the origin and migration routes and time of the Austro-Asiatic and Tai-Kadai peoples in South China, Southeast Asia and India. Haplogroup [O2] covers more than half of all the [male] Han Chinese population.’

Khazaria – emphasis & bold mine: 

Ancient DNA evidence supports the contribution of Di-Qiang people to the Han Chinese gene pool, multiple authors, 2010: 

“Han Chinese is the largest ethnic group in the world. During its development, it gradually integrated with many neighboring populations. To uncover the origin of the Han Chinese, ancient DNA analysis was performed on the remains of 46 humans (1700 to 1900 years ago) excavated from the Taojiazhai site in Qinghai province, northwest of China, where the Di-Qiang populations had previously lived. 

In this study, eight mtDNA haplogroups (A, B, D, F, M*, M10, N9a, and Z) and one Y-chromosome haplogroup [O2] were identified. All analyses show that the Taojiazhai population presents close genetic affinity to Tibeto-Burman populations (descendants of Di-Qiang populations) and Han Chinese, suggesting that the Di-Qiang populations may have contributed to the [Northern] Han Chinese [Magog] genetic pool.”

‘The Y-DNA haplogroup O2-M122 is very common in the Han Chinese population and had a presence in prehistoric China, as did Q1a1a1-M120, which is also found among Mongols. Other branches of Q1a are found among Central Asians, Siberians, Amerindians, and Northern Europeans.

Most Han Chinese lineages are of East Eurasian origin, and in autosomal tests most Chinese people score entirely within the East Asian and Southeast Asian categories. However, some male lineages originating from Central-South Eurasia or West Eurasia have been detected in some groups of northern Han, including:

R1a1, which is particularly common in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and South Asia; 

R2a, which is especially found among South Asians and also found among some Central Asians; 

G2a, which is fairly common in Southern Europe, Asia Minor, and the Caucasus; 

J1, which is especially common in the Middle East among Arabs and among [proselytised] Jews… 

J2a, which is prevalent among Middle Easterners, Italians, southern Spaniards, Pakistanis, and northwestern Indians.’

Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a is a Haplogroup mutation naturally deriving from eastern Europeans. Occurrences in South Asia are from admixture. Haplogroup R2a on the other hand is a mutation in South Asian men stemming from the resulting admixture with R1a.

Haplogroup G2a is the ancestor for I1 and I2 males in Europe.

Haplogroup J1 is indicative of Arabs and only found in other men through admixture.

Haplogroup J2 is complex and stems primarily from Pakistani men and related males in Northern India. J2 found in Western Asia and Southern Europe are mutations inherited from admixture.

‘The Han originated in China’s Central Plain (Zhōngyuán) region and were descendants of the Hua and Xia tribes that farmed the lands near the Yellow (Huáng Hé) River. 

Beginning during the early period of unified China’s rule by kings from the Shang dynasty, beginning around 1600 B.C.E., the Hua and Xia combined to form the Huaxia ethnicity, but they later rebranded themselves the Han after the name of the ruling Han imperial dynasty (260 B.C.E. to 220 C.E.).

The Han people did not originally live as far south as Guangdong or as far southwest as Sichuan, nor in the far northern areas of today’s China. What happened was that in later times, many Han men [Magog] moved southward and northward into lands of other cultures and intermarried with their women, including those from the so-called Yue peoples of the south [Tubal] and the Dian peoples of the southwest [Meshech], and China politically grew to encompass those new lands. 

The Han culture became dominant in southern China after this expansion and the descendants of Han-Yue intermarriages came to regard themselves as Han. Although the Han are a coherent ethnicity on the paternal side, carrying a core group of Y-chromosomal haplogroups across the geographic span of the ethnicity, there are some genetic differences between the Northern Han and Southern Han that persist to the present day, because Southern Han are somewhat shifted towards southeastern Asians and carry some different mtDNA haplogroups. 

Nevertheless, Razib Khan pointed out that the Southern Han Chinese “are not closer to Southeast Asians than they are to North Chinese (the furthest southern dialect groups, such as those of Guangdong, are about equidistant to Vietnamese).”

“On the maternal side, however, the mtDNA haplogroup distribution showed substantial differentiation between northern Hans and southern Hans. The overall frequencies of the northern East Asian-dominating haplogroups (A, C, D, G, M8a, Y and Z) are much higher in northern Hans (55%, 49-64%) than are those in southern Hans (36%, 19-52%). In contrast, the frequency of the haplogroups that are dominant lineages (B, F, R9a, R9b and N9a) in southern natives is much higher in southern [Hans] (55%, 36-72%) than it is in northern Hans (33%, 18-42%).”

“… Our results highlight a distinct difference between spatial genetic structures of maternal and paternal lineages. A substantial genetic differentiation between northern and southern populations is the characteristic of maternal structure, with a significant uninterrupted genetic boundary extending approximately along the Huai River and Qin Mountains north to [the] Yangtze River. On the paternal side, however, no obvious genetic differentiation between northern and southern populations is revealed.”

“…Fisher’s exact test revealed that [mt-DNA] haplogroups M7, D4, R9, A, and B4… displayed the most significant differences in distribution between northern and southern China… Haplogroups D4 [similar with the Koreans and Japanese] and A contributed most to the north cluster, whereas M7, F1, and B4 [similar with southeast Asians] to the south cluster […]”

“… Using only 6 populations (two Han Chinese populations, Japanese, Korean and two Mongolian populations) to reconstruct an individual tree, we found the phylogeny of the populations became clearer. Japanese individuals have their own cluster and Korean individuals are almost distinct from Han Chinese. North and South Han Chinese mixed together, but still have some substructure…”

A Comprehensive Map of Genetic Variation in the World’s Largest Ethnic Group-Han Chinese, multiple authors, 2018 – emphasis mine:
     

‘A comprehensive autosomal DNA study of the genomes of 11,670 Han women from 19 of China’s provinces plus one autonomous region and all four direct-controlled municipalities. Excerpts from the Abstract: “… We identified previously unrecognized population structure along the East-West axis* of China, demonstrated a general pattern of isolation-by-distance among Han Chinese, and reported unique regional signals of admixture, such as European influences among the Northwestern provinces of China…”

Case for Two Divisions: It is clear that China has a north-south divide ethnically and culturally, combined with an east-west divide economically. The concentration of prosperity can be located in the eastern and southern coasts of Tubal… and the governance of the nation in the north of Magog. The Han element to the south has more genetic variations, coupled with a greater variety of minorities – indicating a Meshech-Tubal amalgamation. The north is less diverse, with less minorities that have merged more fully; including the minorities to the far west and far north. This split concept would be indicative of a northern Magog and a southern Meshech-Tubal divide. 

Case for Three Divisions: We have seen the scientific data to support three paternal parentages for the Chinese, as well as for three main language groups. Anciently, there were three dominant kingdoms: Wei, Shu* and Wu. Wei representing Magog, Shu, Meshech and Wu, Tubal.

Bob Thiel: ‘In China, along the coast, there was a people called Three Han by the early Chinese writers [see Addendum]. Han may be a derivative of Javan or Yahan… The three were Ma-Han, Shon-Han and the Pien-Ha. There is, as Bishop writes, a very close relationship between them…’ – The Origin of Nations, History Research Projects, Craig White, 2003, pages 164-165.

It may or may not be a coincidence that the Chinese mafia are known as the Triads. Encyclopaedia: ‘Chinese triads are organized crime syndicates that originated from secret societies in China, primarily in Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. They are involved in various illegal activities, including drug trafficking, extortion, and money laundering, and have a significant presence in many countries with Chinese communities.’

Case for Four Divisions: Even though Gog appears strongly to be an individual, it is plausible to consider Gog as a fourth component in China. Geographically, it would sit with Magog in the north. The Manchus would be a good fit for Gog, as they have had prominence as the ruling element of China historically – or it could mean the greater geopolitic region of the Beijing/Tianjin area.

An informative table and map, found online; with gratitude extended to its anonymous author; for they have marked the four territories, as this writer would approximately position them. 

Province	Population (2010)	Density (/km2)	Area (km2)
NORTHEAST (GREEN) GOG
Jiangsu Province	78,659,903	767	102,600
Hebei Province	71,854,202	383	187,700
Beijing Municipality	19,612,368	1,167	16,800
Tianjin Municipality	12,938,224	1,144	11,305
Shandong Province	95,793,065	623	153,800
Liaoning Province	43,746,323	300	145,900
NORTHEAST TOTAL	322,604,085	522	618,105
SOUTH (YELLOW) TUBAL
Shanghai Municipality	23,019,148	3,630	6,341
Zhejiang Province	54,426,891	534	102,000
Anhui Province	59,500,510	426	139,700
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region	7,061,200	6,396	1,104
Guangdong Province	104,303,132	579	180,000
Jiangxi Province	44,567,475	267	167,000
Fujian Province	36,894,216	304	121,300
Hainan Province	8,671,518	255	34,000
SOUTH TOTAL	338,444,090	451	751,445
WEST (RED) MAGOG
Shaanxi Province	37,327,378	182	205,600
Sichuan Province	80,418,200	166	485,000
Yunnan Province	45,966,239	117	394,000
Jilin Province	27,462,297	147	187,400
Shanxi Province	35,712,111	228	156,300
West subtotal	226,886,225	159	1,428,300
–	–	–	–
Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region	6,301,350	95	66,400
Heilongjiang Province	38,312,224	84	454,000
Gansu Province	25,575,254	56	454,300
Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region	24,706,321	21	1,183,000
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region	21,813,334	13	1,660,400
Qinghai Province	5,626,722	8	721,200
Tibet Autonomous Region	3,002,166	2	1,228,400
Rural West subtotal	125,337,371	22	5,767,700
WEST TOTAL	352,223,596	49	7,196,000
MIDLANDS (BLUE) MESHECH
Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region	46,026,629	195	236,000
Henan Province	94,023,567	563	167,000
Hunan Province	65,683,722	313	210,000
Guizhou Province	34,746,468	197	176,000
Hubei Province	57,237,740	308	185,900
Chongqing Municipality	28,846,170	351	82,300
MIDLANDS TOTAL	326,564,296	309	1,057,200
CHINA TOTAL	1,339,836,067	144	9,622,750

Green and Red equate to Magog, with green representing Gog. Blue for Meshech and yellow for Tubal. The four quarters comprising extremely similar numbers of population; though greater Magog – Gog and Magog combined – represents half the Chinese population and therefore, the dominant tri-partner. As stated in the book of Revelation, their number is like the the sand of the sea. When Gog is spoken to separately from Magog, this would be plausible, whether it is their leader being addressed or if it is in reference to Northeast China and the leadership in Beijing, the capital.

Ezekiel 38 paraphrased with today’s identities, could read: 

‘The Lord’s message came to me: Son of man, turn toward, Beijing of the land of Manchuria… the leader over Southern China…’ 

Alternatively: ‘… turn toward Gog from Northern China… the leader ruling all the rest of China also…’

When comparing Y-DNA Haplogroups from China with Tibet, Bhutan, Taiwan and Mongolia, we find Tibet and Bhutan have Haplogroup sequencing in common, rather than with China. Mongolia has Haplogroups in common with the Central Asian Republics – refer Chapter IV Central Asia: Madai & the Medes – though Inner Mongolia within China has less of Haplogroup C and a higher percentage of O2 like China. 

Only Taiwan of the four, is similar with China; but not the Aboriginal Taiwanese whom we have discussed in Chapter VII Javan: Archipelago South East Asia & Polynesia, but rather the Han Chinese, though this is a mis-leading appellation. 

Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact, The Taiwanese are not Han Chinese, Lin Kenryo:

‘Many people think the Taiwanese belong to the same ethnic group as the mainland Chinese… that 2% of the Taiwanese population are aborigines, 13% are natives of the mainland who fled to Taiwan with Chiang Kai-Shek in 1949 (and their descendants), and the remaining 85% are natives of the mainland who arrived in Taiwan prior to World War II. Therefore, they reach the conclusion that 98% of Taiwanese are Han Chinese. Dr. Lin Mali, professor of hematology at Mackay Memorial Hospital in Taipei, conducted a hematological survey. By analyzing human lymphocytes, she discovered that the genetic makeup of Taiwanese is completely different from that of Han Chinese. The Taiwanese are not Han Chinese.’

The Taiwanese share a similar frequency of Y-DNA Haplogroup O2a1 with the Southern Han Chinese, though they differ enough in O1a and O1b2, to reveal that they are a unique line of descent within the possible Meshech and probable, Tubal gene pool.

China:        O2 – O1b – O1a – C – N – K – D – Q

Taiwan:      O2 – O1a – O1b – C – Q – D

Tibet:          D – O2 – N – Q – C – R1a

Mongolia:  C – O2 – N – Q – O1b – D – K – R1a – O1a

Inner Mongolia: C – O2 – N – K – O1b

Comparing China’s Y-DNA Haplogroups with its nearest neighbours. 

China: O2a1 [56%] – O1b2 [13%] – O1a [12.5%] – C2a [7.5%] –

N1c2 [3.5%] – K [1.1%] – D1 [1.1%] – Q [1%] 

Taiwan: O2a1 [58.2%] – O1a [22.4%] – O1b2 [8.5%] – C [6.3%] –

Q [1.1%] – D1 [0.3%] 

Tibet: D1 [51.6%] – O2a1 [33.9%] – N1c2 [4.5%] – Q [3.2%] –

C [2.6%] – R1a [2%] 

Mongolia: C2a [51%] – O2a1 [13%] – N1c2 [11.5%] – Q [3.5%] –

O1b2 [2.5%] – D1a [1.5%] – K [1.5%] – R1a [1%] – O1a [0.2%] 

Inner Mongolia: C [46.7%] – O2a1 [28.9%] – N1c2 [13.3%] – 

K [4.4%] – O1b2 [2.2%] 

There is a resemblance between the Chinese and the Taiwanese, yet it is clear they are different. The Mongol peoples within China show the result of admixture with the Chinese; otherwise, Mongolia like Tibet is comprised by peoples unlike the Chinese. 

A comparison of the main Haplogroups within China, consisting of the Manchu, the Northern Han and the Southern Han – as well as Taiwan – shows the difference, yet similarity amongst them. Taiwan may well show the truer Haplogroup sequencing for Tubal; since it is mixed with Meshech in the Southern Han. The population of Taiwan is 23,922,655 people.

Manchu:  O2 – O1b – C – N – O1a – K – D – Q

N Han:     O2 – C – O1b – O1a – D – N – Q

S Han:      O2 – O1a – O1b – C – N – D – Q

Taiwan:    O2 – O1a – O1b – C – Q – D

Manchu: O2a1 [49%] – O1b2 [22.5%] – C2a [19.5%] – N1c2 [3.5%] –

O1a [ 2.5%] – D1 [0.5%] – K [2%] – Q [0.5%] 

N Han: O2a1 [53.5%] – C2a [11%] – O1b2 [10.5%] – O1a [8.5%] –

D1 [3%] – N1c2 [2%] – Q [2%] 

S Han: O2a1 [56.5%] – O1a [15%] – O1b2 [13.5%] – C2a [6%] –

N1c2 [3.5%] – D1 [0.5%] – Q [0.5%] 

Taiwan:  O2a1 [58.2%] – O1a [22.4%] – O1b2 [8.5%] – C [6.3%] –

Q [1.1%] – D1 [0.3%] 

A table showing the difference between the Northern and Southern Han and the similarity between the Southern Han and the Taiwanese. The Northern Han are comparable in O2 and O1b, exhibit less O1a and possess more D1 and Q Haplogroups than the Southern Han and Taiwanese. The Manchu’s high level of Haplogroup C gives them a commonality with the Mongol; otherwise they have more in common with the Northern Han overall. 

                                C       D1     K     N     O1a     O1b    O2      Q                  

Manchus:             20     0.5       2     4          3       23      49     0.5

Northern Han:     11        3              2          9        11      54       2

Southern Han:      6      0.5              4         15       14      57   0.5

Taiwan:                  6      0.5                         22         9      58    1.1

China, when compared with Korea and Japan, is closer with Korea’s Haplogroup sequence, yet remains distinct. In fact, the comparison highlights the marked difference between the three nations. Showing that though related as sons of Japheth: Magog, with Tubal and Meshech, and Togarmah from Gomer and Tarshish from Javan are different peoples and do not share the same genealogy just because they dwell in juxtaposition together in the northeast of Asia. 

China:     O2 – O1b – O1a – C – N – K – D1 – Q

Korea:     O2 – O1b – C – N – O1a – D1 – Q – K

Japan:     D1 – O1b – O2 – C – N – O1a – Q 

China: O2a1 [56%] – O1b2 [13%] – O1a [12.5%] – C2a [7.5%] –

N1c2 [3.5%] – K [1.1%] – D1 [1.1%] – Q [1%]

Korea: O2 – [42.1%] – O1b [ 33.1%] – C [12.9%] – N [3.8%] –

O1a [3.1%] – D1 [ 2.5%] – Q [1.8%] – K [0.5%] 

Japan: D1a [39.5%] – O1b [30%] – O2 [19%] – C [7%] –

N [2%] – O1a [1.5%] – Q [0.1%]

The main Y-DNA Haplogroups of a selection of the major nations descended from Japheth, in order: Tarshish, Elishah, Kittim, Magog-Tubal-Meshech, Togarmah, Ashkenaz and Dodan. Tarshish, Elishah, the Kittim and Dodan are sons of Javan; Togarmah and Ashkenaz, sons of Gomer.

Japan:           D1 – O1b – O2 – C – N – O1a – Q 

Malaysia:      O1b – O2a – O1a – K – C – F

Indonesia:    O2 – O1b – O1a – C – K – D1

China:            O2 – O1b – O1a – C – N – K – D1 – Q

Korea:            O2 – O1b – C – N – O1a – D1 – Q – K

Vietnam:       O2 – O1b – Q – O1a – C – D1 – N 

Philippines:  O2 – O1a – K – C – O1b 

Japan and the Philippines bookend the seven nations, with the widest divergence between them. Japan and Malaysia do not have O2a as the prime Y-DNA Haplogroup; the other five do. China sits squarely in the middle, between Indonesia and the Koreas. The Philippines though having O2a as their first Haplogroup, O1b does not figure prominently as it does for the other six nations. 

Adding the Taiwanese ‘Han’ and Aborigines to these seven peoples and comparing the three principle Y-DNA marker Haplogroups for East Asians and Southeast Asians, O, C and K. The data for the Taiwan Aborigine is updated from previous chapters, with figures from a more recent study.  

Japan:           O1b  [30%]     O2a   [19%]     O1a   [1.5%]                      C  [7%]

Malaysia:      O1b  [32%]     O2a  [30%]     O1a      [8%]    K  [8%]    C   [6%] 

Indonesia:    O1b   [23%]    O2a  [29%]      O1a   [18%]    K   [3%]   C  [13%] 

China:            O1b  [13%]     O2a   [56%]    O1a  [13%]      K  [1%]      C   [8%] 

Taiwan [H]:  O1b    [9%]     O2a   [58%]   O1a  [22%]                         C   [6%] 

Korea:            O1b  [33%]     O2a  [42%]     O1a   [3%]      K  [4%]      C [13%]

Vietnam:       O1b  [33%]     O2a  [40%]     O1a   [6%]                          C  [4%] 

Philippines:  O1b    [3%]     O2a   [39%]    O1a  [28%]    K [20%]     C   [5%] 

Taiwan [A]:   O1b   [7%]      O2a     [9%]    O1a  [84%]  

Aside from Haplogroup D1, the brother nations descended from Javan group together – Japan, Malaysia and Indonesia – with the Philippines the outlier. China and Taiwan group together as expected. The Koreas and Vietnam group together as already discussed – refer Chapter V Gomer: Continental South East Asia; and Chapter VI Togarmah & the Koreas.

Returning to the comparison table begun in Chapter IV with those peoples constituting Japhetic lineal descent; with samples from Tiras, Madai, Gomer, Javan and the addition of Magog, Tubal and Meshech.

                                     O     O2a   O1a   O1b     C       D         K       Q   N

NA Amerindian                                                    6                          77

Cook Islands              5                                       83                  8

Kazakhstan                8                                       40                10       2   7

Micronesia                 9                                       19                65

Mongolia                   16       13    0.2        3       51     1.5      1.5     4

Tibet                          34       34                             3     52                  3   5

Japan:                        51       19     1.5      30        7     40               0.1   2

Sulawesi                    51       17      21       13      22                   7      

Tonga                        60                                      23                  1

Borneo                      66       36       9       21      22

Indonesia                 69       29      18      23      13     0.5       3     

Malaysia                   70       30        8      32       6                   8

Philippines               70      39      28        3        5                 20

Sumatra                    72      40      18       14        5       2         4  

N Han                       74       54        9       11      11        3                  2     2        

Manchu                    75       49        3      23     20    0.5         2   0.5    4

Vietnam                    79      40        6      33       4        3                  7   3

South Korea             79      42        3      33      13     2.5      0.5      2   4

China                         82     56       13      13        8        1         1        1    4

Bali                             84       7       18      59        2                 1    0.4         

S Han                         86     57       15      14        6     0.5              0.5  4

Java                            88     23      23      42        2                 2  

Taiwan [H]                89     58      22        9        6     0.3              1.1

Taiwan [A]              100       9      84        7            

The addition of these seven people’s defining marker Y-DNA Haplogroups, is fascinating of itself. Coupled with the fact we have completed the sons of Japheth, it makes the table even more compelling reading.

We now have a rather comprehensive view of Japheth’s male descendants spread of the five key Haplogroups – aside from N [6] – mutated from Japheth, his seven sons and his seven to eleven named grandsons. The Haplogroups are O, made up of O1a [7], O1b [8], O2a1 [9] and O2a2 [10]; C made up of C1a1 [1] and C2a [2]; D, made up of D1a1 [3] and D1a2 [4]; K [5] and Q [11]. It is an interesting coincidence that there are eleven paternal Haplogroups, corresponding with a potential eleven lines of descent from the grandsons of Japheth.

The seven regions or peoples we have added to the table are: Mongolia, Tibet, China, Taiwan, the Manchu, the Northern Han and the Southern Han. As five regions of Indonesia were included due to the diversity of its large population; the three representative peoples of China are in addition, to the overall Haplogroup sequencing for China. 

The two bookends so-to-speak are the Amerindian with the highest percentage of Haplogroup Q and just one other Haplogroup of C, and no Haplogroup O; and the Taiwan Aborigine with the highest percentage of Haplogroup O overall and with no other groups. In fact, the Taiwan Aborigine has a full 100% of Haplogroup O and the highest individual Haplogroup percentage of all, with 84% for O1a. 

To put this into some form of context, it is the Filipino who has the next highest O1a percentage with 28%. Interestingly, it is the Taiwanese who have the next highest overall O Haplogroup percentage with 89%. 

The insertion of Mongolia and Tibet are notable, in that Mongolia has the highest levels of Haplogroup C in Asia, with Kazakhstan next. This indicates a connection with the Turko-Mongol peoples of Central Asia and the Tatars of Russia and Siberia. The Tibetans have lower levels of O and the highest percentage of D, with Japan next. The vast geographic distance between these two peoples does not explain the high levels of D1 in common. Only the distinctive isolations, provide a tantalising clue to the strange anomaly which Tibet and Japan share. 

As remarked upon, the Taiwanese are clearly related to the Southern Han of China, yet their Haplogroups subtly reveal the distinct line of descent which makes them unique. The Manchu and Northern Han are too similar to ignore a common ancestry, with the Manchu possessing a high percentage of Haplogroup C reflecting probable admixture with the Mongols. 

The similarity of the Northern Han and the Southern Han clearly highlights a common ancestry from Japheth, as well as considerable admixture with each other; yet also delineates a separate divergent descent in keeping with if not three different sons, at least two from Japheth.

Highest frequency distribution of paternal Haplogroups include the following patterns:

Haplogroup C – 1: Polynesia 2: Northern and Central Asia

Haplogroup D – 1: Tibet 2: Japan

Haplogroup K – 1: Micronesia 2: Philippines

Haplogroup N – 1: Central Asia 2: Northern Asia

Haplogroup Q – 1: Americas 2: Northern Asia

Haplogroup O1a – 1: Taiwan 2: Philippines; 3: Indonesia

Haplogroup O1b – 1: Indonesia/Malaysia 2: Vietnam/South Korea; 3: Japan

Haplogroup O2a1 – 1: Taiwan/China 2: South Korea/Vietnam

The following peoples possess the highest percentages for the five principle defining East Asian, South East Asian, Central Asian and Amerindian Y-DNA Haplogroups: the Taiwan aborigine men with 84% of O1a; Bali with 59% of O1b; the Taiwanese males with 58% of O2; the Cook Islander men with 83% of C; Micronesia with 65% of K; the North American Indian with 77% of Q, with certain Amerindian tribes carrying 100% of Q; and men in Tibet possessing 52% of Haplogroup D1a. 

A final thought on Haplogroups is the parallel between mtDNA and Y-DNA Haplogroup progression, in that while Japheth’s descendants are represented by a number of maternal Haplogroups, it is mtDNA Haplogroup B [B4, B5] which figures consistently in all seven sons. Yet this Haplogroup while relatively recent, is not the youngest mutation, with F occurring after it. Likewise, of all the paternal Haplogroups, it is O2 [O2a1] which figures not consistently but rather predominantly in Japheth’s male descendants. Similarly, O2 is recent, yet it is not the youngest mutation for it has been followed by Haplogroup Q.

Japheth’s seven sons, or the seven out of sixteen grandsons of Noah are concluded. We may return to some in part as we progress, particularly Madai – Chapter XVIII Elam & Turkey. Historically in the biblical identity field, we have been taught incorrectly, to think that Madai and Magog are mainly attributable with European identities, or in the case of the Medes, with Iran; Meshech and Tubal as Russia and Asia Minor respectively; Gomer with the Germans or the Cymry of Wales; and Javan as the Latin peoples of Europe or with ancient Greece… when really, all these people are actually descended from Shem. The sons of Japheth were predicted to live in the far north and in the far off coastlands and isles – a neon-flashing arrow pointing towards East Asia and the Pacific in one direction and the Americas in the opposite trajectory. 

The children of Japheth were prophesied to eventually dwell in the lands of Shem and today we are witnessing a wide dispersal of Chinese, Filipinos, Thais and Vietnamese into European nations as well as critically the new world nations of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – refer Chapter II Japheth Orientalium.

At a stretch, the word Japheth has the connotation for fair and so identity seekers head off on a tangent in assuming Japheth must be the progenitor of the European peoples. Many East Asians do have fair skin – even a milky white skin – particularly those living in northeast Asia.

It is perplexing, why there has been such a comprehensive inaccuracy in the identities assigned to Japheth’s sons. Some of those interested in the subject, reject out of hand the simplistic view that Japheth, Ham and Shem could actually be the forefathers of the eastern, equatorial and western peoples respectively. This would be too easy and logical an answer. It would also give the scriptures validity, when really they are just fanciful fables, right? 

Regrettably, the complete confusion and lack of coherence on the subject doesn’t overly improve with the sons of Ham with which we shall now turn our attention. It is sincerely hoped the constant reader has received reward from the journey thus far. The path of discovery will continue to catechise and challenge, though this writer trusts we can continue travelling onwards as co-seekers of knowledge with open hearts and minds.

Spend time with the wise and you will become wise…

Proverbs 13:20 New Century Version

“Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance.”

W Clement Stone 

“The thing you resist is the thing you need to hear the most.“

Dr Robert Anthony

© Orion Gold 2020 – All rights reserved. Permission to copy, use or distribute, if acknowledgement of the original authorship is attributed to orion-gold.com

Addendum I

23andMe Increases Resolution of Chinese Ancestry Inference, 2022 – emphasis & bold mine: 

‘With more than 30 detailed ancestry regions in China and 19 in Taiwan, 23andMe was already the best DNA test for people with Chinese ancestry, but there was room for improvement. “I had some specific regional matches in China and Taiwan, but my ancestry breakdown – my pie chart – just said 100 percent Chinese, which was a little disappointing since China has much more diversity than that,” said Alison Kung, 23andMe’s Director of Product Management, whose family hails from Taiwan. With this latest update, the “Chinese” reference population was replaced by three more specific populations: 

‘More than 90 percent of people in China identify as Han Chinese, but nested within that Han identity are many layers of regional variation. For example, separating the northern Han from the southern Han are vaguely defined, but often deeply felt, geographical, cultural, historical, and linguistic differences. To what extent does their DNA reflect those distinctions? 

A recent study, led by a group at BGI-Shenzhen in Guangdong, China, analyzed the population structure of self-described Han Chinese in China. The authors found a gradient of genetic similarity, but they were also able to identify three distinct genetic groups of Han Chinese, color-coded by region in the paper’s supplemental figure… shown below.’ 

Addendum II

Due to the incorrectly ingrained teachings on the identity of the Chinese over not just enduring decades but regrettably over the course of centuries, it may be productive to prove who China is not. 

One theory presented by biblical scholars is the seeming link between the Latin prefixes Sino- and Sin- from Sina (which historically refer to China or Chinese culture) and a. the biblical identity of Sin; as well as b. the reference to Sinim in the Old Testament. 

Firstly, the Sinites are named in Genesis 10:17 as a family line from Canaan, the youngest son of Noah and the brother of Japheth, Shem and Noah – refer Chapter XI Ham Aequator; and Chapter XII Canaan & Africa*. Sin is ostensibly an eighth son of eleven. Though in reality Sin was a city, later identified with Tripoli in Lebanon and once called Shian by the Assyrians. 

Sin was originally a city-state which at a certain point has been recast as a Canaanite clan and is not a literal ethnic or personal name for a person. While the city of Sin may have been foundered by a son of Canaan (perhaps even called Sin), it is probable Sin was at one time inhabited with a specific lineage descended from Canaan’s bona fide six* sons. 

It is debatable whether the naming of the Sinai Peninsula is linked with the southward migration of the Canaanite Sinites, or with the Moon goddess Sin for instance. Regardless, the Sinites were not descended from Japheth, whom the Chinese clearly are – refer Chapter II Japheth Orientalium. For they have little in common with sub-Saharan Africans. Endeavouring to draw an association between the Sinites and the Sino-Chinese is extremely tenuous at best.

One source states: ‘Sinae was an ancient Greek and Roman name for… people who dwelt south of the Seres in the eastern extremity of the inhabitable world. References to the Sinae include mention of a city that the Romans called Sera Metropolis, which is modern Chang’an.’

The Greeks and Romans likely derived the term Sinae from ‘Chin’. On the other hand, the name ‘Serica’ referred to the land where silk came from. Serica is thought to be derived from the Chinese word for silk 丝 sī pronounced ‘ser’.

‘Although the name Sinae appears to be derived from the same etymological source as the Latin prefixes Sino- and Sin-…’ Examples include: sinophile (someone who likes China) and sinologist (a person studying China) ‘… there is some controversy as to the ultimate origin of these terms, as their use in historical texts of classical antiquity in the West appears to antedate the emergence of the Qin (pronounced Chin) Dynasty and its empire, the name of which has often been cited as the source of Latin Sino- and Sin-.’

This is an important point as the Qin dynasty founded by Qin Shi Huang-Di in 221 BCE and which unified the country in the 3rd century BCE (between 259 BCE to 210 BCE), has its roots in the Sanskrit word cīna (China without the h) and was adopted into English through the Portuguese in the 16th century. Though the name China has been in use for centuries, it is not easy to trace to its origin. It may well derive from the Sanskrit word Chinasthana (meaning country to the East of India). 

The Qin (Chin) state (founded in 778 BCE) was situated as the most westerly of the numerous smaller kingdoms that eventually formed China and therefore would have been the first kingdom reached when traveling overland from India and Central Asia.

It is also important to remember that the Chinese do not refer to themselves as China or as Sino-. Just as there are English names for countries, for example Greece is known as Hellas to the Greeks and Egypt is Misr to its people – refer Chapter XIV Mizra: Arabia & North Africa.

The Chinese have various names for their country, though the official name for China is Zhōng guó. It means literally, the middle or central kingdom (or region). The term first appeared in historic records of the Zhou Dynasty (circa 1050/1046 BCE to 236/221 BCE). The name reflects the ancient Chinese belief that China is the centre of the world, geographically and culturally. 

Secondly, the ‘land of Sinim’ is a biblical hapax legomenon (A word or form that occurs only once in the recorded corpus of a given language) and appears in Isaiah 49:12. 

Chapter XXXII Issachar, Zebulun, Asher & Naphtali – the Antipodean Tribes: 

“A curious prophetic verse is in the Book of Isaiah, which describes where certain tribes of Israel were dispersed.

Isaiah 49:12

Christian Standard Bible

‘See, these will come from far away, from the north and from the west, and from the land [H776 – ‘erets: land without return (under) [the] world] of Sinim [H5515: ‘distant, a people living at the extremity of the known world’, by connotation the South].’

We know the North and west relates to the British Isles. The counterpoint to that is Sinim, which is inferred as the opposite direction of, or southwards (and far away). Just as the tribe of Naphtali was to eventually settle in the South and west… exactly where New Zealand is located – Deuteronomy 33:29.”

Scholars favour two interpretations, with the majority supporting China and the minority advocating Australia. Most dismiss Australia without further thought as surely it cannot be Australia? But this is due in large part because in their mind, China must be included somewhere in the Bible for they do not recognise that china is stated under other names elsewhere.

There are two aspects in answering which is correct. First, as Naphtali (New Zealand) is in the South and west, so too Australia (tribe of Asher) is located southwards. As will become palpable, China is in the North and eastwards. 

Second, it suits scholars to lean towards China as a. they do not know where the Chinese are actually spoken of in the Bible and b. any theory which distracts from the identity and location of the ‘lost’ Israelites is agreeably preferable. 

The issue with this line of reasoning is that the context of the passage concerns the return of Israelites from around the world (North America [Ephraim and Manasseh], Britain [Judah, Simeon and Benjamin], Ireland [Gad and Reuben], Southern Africa [Zebulun and Issachar], Australia [Asher] and New Zealand [Naphtali]) to a new Israelite home after Christ’s return during the Millennium. It is definitively not speaking about any gentile peoples and specifically the Chinese, whom as we will discover play a vastly different role.  

“The Jerome translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible for Isaiah 49:12 says: ‘ecce isti de longe venient et ecce illi ab aquilone et mari et isti de terra australi.’ The key phrase being: isti de terra australi. 

By a strange turn, the word Australia is derived from the Latin word australis, meaning ‘southern’. Australia has been colloquially referred to as Oz, slang for Aus’ since the early twentieth century. It is the ‘land down under’ and literally the great ‘southern land’. Australia has been called ‘the Oldest Continent’, ‘the Last of Lands’ and ‘the Last Frontier’. Australia is the last of lands, in the sense that it was the last continent, apart from Antarctica to be explored by Europeans.”

An example of what is hidden in plain sight and of the prevalent and inaccurate view held amongst researchers. 

Where Are The Chinese People In God’s Word?, Tom Hobson, 2017 – emphasis mine: 

‘The Latin version reads de terra australi, “from the land of the south” (not Australia, although it is amusing to consider!). The Greek version reads “from the land of the Persians,” which may be a directional stab in the dark, or a directional understatement; the land in question may be much further east than Persia.’

“The term Terra Australis Incognita, or an ‘unknown land of the South’ dates back to Roman times. After European discovery, its name included Terra Australis.

An anonymous quote: 

‘The earliest recorded use of the word Australia in English was in 1625 in “A note of Australia del Espíritu Santo, written by Sir Richard Hakluyt”, published by Samuel Purchas in Hakluytus Posthumus, a corruption of the original Spanish name “Tierra Austral del Espíritu Santo” (Southern Land of the Holy Spirit) for an island in Vanuatu. 

The Dutch adjectival form Australische was used in a Dutch book in Batavia (Jakarta) in 1638, to refer to the newly discovered lands to the south. Australia was later used in a 1693 translation of Les Aventures de Jacques Sadeur dans la Découverte et le Voyage de la Terre Australe, a 1676 French novel by Gabriel de Foigny, under the pen-name Jacques Sadeur. Referring to the entire South Pacific region, Alexander Dalrymple used it in An Historical Collection of Voyages and Discoveries in the South Pacific Ocean in 1771.’

The name Sinim (סינים siyniym) occurs nowhere else in the Bible and it is evident that it is a remote country; remarkable in that it is the only such land specified by name in the Bible. The Chaldee also interprets it as Jerome has done: of the south. Whereas the Syriac has not translated it but retained the name Sinim.”

Origin, Yair Davidiy, 2002:

‘The Egyptians referred to the southernmost known area of land as “sin-wur”. This corresponds to the Land of “Sinim” meaning Australia. There are reports of Egyptian and Phoenician remains being found in Australia.’

An additional teaching nearly as popular as Sinim in Isaiah 49:12, is that of the Chittim (or Kittim) in Isaiah 23:1, 12. 

An article, Is China in the Bible? by David Vejil spends time (unknowingly) dismissing China’s true biblical identity as that of Russia, while basing China’s identity on the Kittim from just one verse. 

This author with others forms the erroneous conclusion that the Khitai dynasty which ruled northern China from 907 CE to 1125 CE were descended from Kittim. The region to the north of China proper (the Song Dynasty) was the land of the Khitan – becoming Cathay. Whether the name Khitai is linked or derived from Kittim is not clear. The Khitai people were certainly not. 

There are a number of verses regarding Javan’s (Chapter VII Javan: Archipelago South East Asia & Polynesia) son Kittim, of which we will return to two in particular – in this five-part series – when studying the King of the North. 

Chapter VIII Kittim & Indonesia: 

“Isaiah gives a prophecy on Tyre and its demise in chapter 23:1, 12 NCV:

This is a message about Tyre: You trading ships [of Tarshish (Japan)], cry! The houses and harbor of Tyre [Brazil] are destroyed. This news came to the ships from the land of [Kittim (Indonesia)]. He said, “Sidon [South Africa], you will not rejoice any longer, because you are destroyed. Even if you cross the sea to [Kittim], you will not find a place to rest.”

What David Vejil fails to notice or share with his readers is that both the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel reveal that Kittim is an island nation and therefore precludes China being Kittim. 

Jeremiah 2:10

King James Version

‘For pass over the isles of Chittim…’

Ezekiel 27:6

Young’s Literal Translation

‘Of oaks of Bashan they made thine oars [ship building], Thy bench they have made of ivory… from isles of Chittim.’

The sons of Javan include the related peoples of Japan; the aborigines of Taiwan; the Philippines; Malaysia; Indonesia; and Polynesia. There is no place for continental China within these island nations.