Misinformation and the Table of Nations

When the famous naturalist and zoologist Georges Cuvier devised his classification of races in 1790, he listed three types: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Soon afterwards many started comparing this classification with Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. The churches and literalists picked up on Cuvier's classification and molded it into a new religious doctrine. They taught that the Negroid race descended from Ham, the Mongoloid race from Japheth, and the Caucasian race from Shem. This doctrine insults and contradicts both the word of YEHOVAH God and science.

Perhaps one of the more difficult problems proponents of a universal flood have to answer -- and one they most often avoid -- is how could the eight survivors of the Flood produce the numerous racial types of man that now exist upon the earth.

A belief of many in the "Christian" churches today is that all the world was populated from the descendants of Noah's three sons. In other words, all tribes and races came from a common ancestral population. They are forced to place this common population, consisting of eight persons, some time after the Flood since they believe in the extinction of all people by a universal Flood.

Genesis chapter 10 -- commonly known as the Table of Nations -- is a list of the patriarchal founders of seventy nations which descended from Noah through his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. Twenty-six of the seventy descended from Shem, thirty from Ham and fourteen from Japheth. Genesis 10:32 sums up the chapter succinctly: "These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood." Chapter 11 recounts their division at Babel.

The term "nations" to describe the descendants is a standard English translation of the Hebrew word "goy," following the c. 400 A.D. Latin Vulgate's "nationes"/"nationibus," and does not have the same political connotations that the word entails today. According to Wikipedia:

In the early pages of his research paper, The Biblical Origin of Nations, author C. M. White makes the following grandiose claim:

Now all these comments are based on the premise that Noah and his family were the only ones to make it through the Flood -- but is this true?

Many who realize that the Flood was regional, not universal and covering the highest mountains, still seem to feel it was universal in the sense that all men on the face of the earth were drowned. They have the idea that the world's population was limited at that time to the Mesopotamian valley. But, in disagreement with this, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states, "An insuperable objection to this theory is that the later discoveries have brought to light remains of prehistoric man from all over the northern hemisphere, showing that long before the time of the Flood he had become widely scattered."

At first glance the writings of the first-century Jewish scholar Josephus would have us believe the flood destroyed all human beings in the world. But if you delve further into his works you will find statements that indicate otherwise. We find, in a quote from Nicolaus of Damascus, the following: "There is a great mountain in Armenia...upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote."

This, of course, begs the question -- since there were supposedly only eight people in the ark who survived the Flood, who were these "others" they persuaded to come down from the mountains or hills to establish homes?

There are some more passages in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that most people read right over -- verses that unmistakably show there were MANY survivors of the Flood. Notice!

Josephus goes on to say, "He [Noah] also entreated God to accept of his sacrifice, and to grant that the earth might never again undergo the like effects of His wrath; that men might be permitted to go on cheerfully in cultivating the same -- to build cities, and live happily in them; and that they might not be deprived of any of those good things WHICH THEY ENJOYED BEFORE THE FLOOD..." (ibid.).

Amongst the Chibcas of Central Columbia is a strong tradition of a flood in which people survived by climbing to higher ground:

While this myth is a garbled account of Nimrod's visit to their region and an old memory of the flood, the fact that their traditions mention flood survivors hiding in the hills or mountains is very interesting.

Aside from the traditions of survivors of the Flood in lands around the world however, and the Biblical account of Noah and his family, there is certain evidence within the book of Genesis itself that strongly implies there were other survivors. In chapters 4 and 5 we find mentioned TWO family lines that descended from Adam. The line of which Noah was a part is as follows: Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mehalelel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and his three sons -- Shem, Ham and Japheth. Now the OTHER line is: Adam, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech and his three sons -- JABAL, JUBAL and TUBAL-CAIN. Writes Ralph Woodrow --

Notice Genesis 4:20-22: "And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell [present tense] in tents and have [present tense] livestock. His brother's name was Jubal. He was the father of all who play [present tense] the harp and flute. And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron."

Please note that the writer says these people "dwell" (not dwelled) in tents, and that they "have" (not had) livestock. They "play" (not played) the harp. And "every craftsman in bronze and iron" implies post-flood artisans -- there is no great evidence of bronze and iron use before the flood. Had they all been drowned in the flood, this wording would not be correct. As The Interpreter's Bible plainly states, they were "nomads, musicians, and metal workers EXISTING AT THE TIME OF WRITING [of Genesis]." Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics adds that this wording implies "an UNBROKEN history of civilization" and that the writer of this section of Genesis did not, obviously, regard the flood as "a universal Deluge."

It is more than interesting to postulate that these descendants of Cain -- who had migrated EAST from the Garden of Eden -- had by the time of Noah populated a different region from that of Noah in the Tigris-Euphrates valley. And if the Flood was indeed regional (not universal in that the highest mountains were covered with water) then we have a very good explanation of how these people were still living at the time the book of Genesis was written.

Following the Flood, the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth migrated to various countries and settled there. Records Genesis 10:5: "By these were the isles [coastlands] of the GENTILES divided in their lands; every one after their tongue, after their families, in their nations." Then, in Genesis 10:32, we read: "These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood."

How can we explain the existence of these nations to which Noah's descendants migrated and which were "divided" by them if the Flood had drowned all but the eight people in the ark? "The word that is here translated 'divided' (Strong's Concordance, #6504) is translated 'dispersed' in Esther 3:8: '...there is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom.' If we understand this same meaning in connection with Noah's descendants, they were dispersed among various Gentile nations, implying, it would seem, there were other nations of people who did not descend from those in the ark" (Noah's Flood, Joshua's Long Day, and Lucifer's Fall, p. 55).

While the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 lists the nations known to the author, depicting them as the descendants of Noah's three sons, a number of problems with this genealogical tree have convinced scholars that this table is not a reliable account of the origins of mankind as we know it today. Some of the difficulties underscored by the scholars are as follows:

Frederick Haberman, writing in Tracing Our Ancestors, points out that when correctly translated

When realizing that Noah and his family were not the only ones to survive the Flood some of the problems pointed out by the scholars dissipate. Another factor that we need to understand is that Noah and his descendants were Caucasian (white) in physiology -- including Ham, Cush and Nimrod!

In the conventional understanding, Ham is touted as the father of the Negroids -- the darker-skinned peoples who inhabited Africa, India, and, anciently, certain eastern Mediterranean countries like Canaan. However, while many claim that the name "Ham" means "burnt" or "black," the Hebrew meaning of the word does not allow for a dark skin color at all. The name that occurs in the English Bible as Ham is, in reality, two completely different Hebrew names; one which is pronounced "Cham" (חם), and the other "Ham" (הם). They have two completely different meanings. The first one is identical to the adjective חם (ham), meaning "WARM," and also to the noun חם (ham), meaning "FATHER-IN-LAW."

The second one, which is spelled הם and pronounced as "Ham," denotes a once-mentioned town where kings Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer and Tidal defeated the Zuzim during the war of four against five kings (Genesis 14:5). Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names derives this Ham from the verb המה (hama), meaning "CRY ALOUD" and renders the name as "NOISY."

Now Cush, who was the father of Nimrod, has also been touted to be black and hence used to further the conception that the line from Ham was black -- including Nimrod. Hislop, in his book The Two Babylons, attempts to show that Nimrod was black, however reality also shoots this down.

The origin of the name Cush is irretrievably obscure, and none of the translators have more to say about it than that it is related to Ethiopia and to perhaps having a dark countenance. The prophet Jeremiah rhetorically asks, "Can the Cushite change his skin?" (Jeremiah 13:23), which may or may not suggest that the Cushites were known for being black. Still, this says very little about the meaning of the name Cush.

However, the Hebrew word for black is שחר (sahar). The heth and rosh in this word are so dominant that the name Cush can hardly have come from it. Allowing this would link Cush to pretty much any other word that contains a shin. Like the word ישש (yshsh; weak, impotent, aged) for instance, which makes a far more plausible candidate as a repeated letter often falls away and the yod alternates with the vav. In concert with the common Hebrew particle כ (ke; as if, like), the name would mean "As If He Were Weak."

And then there is the root ישה (yshh; meaning uncertain), which yields the noun תושה (tushiya), meaning wisdom, sound knowledge, which would yield the meaning of Cush as "As If He Were Getting Smarter."

Early statue of Nimrod showing Caucasian
features.

Still -- and for no apparent reason other than a rusty tradition that cost a lot of people their lives and dignity -- Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names reads "A Black Countenance, Full Of Darkness," but also submits the calmly clarifying afterthought, "the etymology is most uncertain"!

Author and scholar David Rohl notes that both the Egyptian god Osiris and the Assyrian god Asshur originated with the historical King Nimrod, whose origins can be traced back to Eridu (the original Babel) where he became worshiped as the god Asar. This being the case -- how was Osiris depicted in the statuary and wall paintings of ancient Egypt? Notice what E. A. Wallis Budge, in his definitive work on Osiris, has to say: "Osiris was white and was the personification of good..." (Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection, p. xxiv).

To the Egyptians Nimrod was known as Osiris and also as Khons, God of the Hunt. He was depicted as a massive black, white or green skinned man -- often wearing leopard skins and a crown with bull horns. However, the color black represented death and the afterlife to the ancient Egyptians. Osiris was given the epithet "the black one" because he was the king of the netherworld and both he and Anubis (the god of embalming) were portrayed with black faces.

The Egyptians also associated black with fertility and resurrection because much of their agriculture was dependant on the rich dark silt deposited on the river banks by the Nile during the inundation. When used to represent resurrection, black and green were interchangeable. As a result, the gods Osiris and Geb were depicted with black or green skin to emphasize their connection with fertility. Egypt was known as Kemet, "the black land" and this was a reference to the Nile -- not a description of ethnicity.

The statuary and wall paintings of Egypt show Osiris (Nimrod) to be decidedly non-black in features.

Thus we can clearly see that earliest secular history shows Nimrod and his forebears were NOT black or Negroid men. These historical accounts show that those Nimrod was descended from were Caucasian or white in physiology.

The concept that all nations and races descended from Noah's sons did not originate with the early Christian writers. When the famous naturalist and zoologist Georges Cuvier devised his classification of races in 1790, he listed three types: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Soon afterwards many started comparing this classification with Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. As racial distinctions became more evident and debated, the churches and literalists picked up on Cuvier's classification and molded it into a new religious doctrine. They taught that the Negroid race descended from Ham, the Mongoloid race from Japheth, and the Caucasian race from Shem. This doctrine insults and contradicts both the word of YEHOVAH God and science.

1). Certain nations known to Israel, as well as those of North Africa, India -- and those further eastward -- are not mentioned in the Table of Nations because they did not descend from Noah and his sons as they were of the nations that survived the Flood. Also, the nation of Israel was later on the scene and those nations that Israel dealt with were not yet in existence, and therefore were not known when Genesis was written down.

2). The regions that are mentioned as being part of Nimrod's kingdom were all Caucasian or white and, since we have shown that Nimrod was white in his physiology, this makes perfect sense. The same applies to Assyria.

3). The Table is not manifestly wrong. Nubia has been considered to have been founded by Nimrod because of the erroneous understanding that he was black! Nubia is not even mentioned in Genesis 10.

4). The same thing applies to Cush -- whom we have shown was also not black or Negroid in his physiology. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate that he fathered the founders of at least six Arabian nations that show no signs of Nubian or black origin.

5). When Canaan and his people spread out among the nations that were already in existence and had not been affected by the Flood they, in all likelihood, adopted the language of those they settled near to or among. It was Mizraim (other son of Ham) who settled the area of North Africa and who obviously developed a different language. We also must remember that the languages of the white Caucasian descendants of Noah were confused at the Tower of Babel, not the rest of the nations that came through the Flood unscathed.

6). The same thing applies to the Hittites. When the language that Noah and his sons spoke when they passed through the Flood was confused at the Tower of Babel, the Hittites spoke the language, or one similar to the one spoken by those they settled near.

8). Noah and his sons spoke the same language until it was confused at the Tower of Babel. Therefore, the Elamites would not have spoken the language that Shem spoke before Babel. They undoubtedly adopted or modified one of the languages spoken by those whom they settled close to.

9). Understanding that other nations made it through the Flood renders this assumed problem moot -- the white, Caucasian races descend from Noah and a point in the Middle East, while some of the other races that passed through the Flood are shown by genetics to have originated in Africa.

10). The short answer -- neither! The other nations that were unaffected by the Flood can be dated back to the pre-Adamic creation mentioned in Genesis 1:27. The Adamic creation occurred in Genesis 2:7. See our article, Adam Was Not the First Man!

Noah and his family were obviously of one race and language. The Bible states that Noah was "perfect in his generations" (Genesis 6:9). The word "generations" here is the Hebrew word "TOLEDAH," and means "descent." Noah was perfect in his descent from Adam meaning his lineage had not mixed with any other races. Creationists try to tell us that this racially pure family developed (or evolved) into the present day races, but never specifically explain how, when or why this transformation occurred.

Creationists would have us believe that eight white people that existed after the Flood, somehow changed into different racial types almost instantaneously. Why is it that this type of drastic evolutionary change has never occurred since? If we can believe that such a racial transformation occurred, then there should be no reason not to believe any manner of evolution occurring over tens of millions of years, for the latter is more believable than the former.

If an amphibian could not gradually evolve into a reptile, then a group of white people could not have evolved into Negroes, Indians, Chinese, Polynesians, Pygmies, Aborigines etc. -- especially in just a few hundred years time or less. It cannot be supported by any rational or biblical means that all races were destroyed by a flood and then instantaneously reappeared or were formed thereafter. It is infinitely more logical that all races were separately created by YEHOVAH God on the planet, and they each survived the Flood, as did numerous other life forms, by being outside its realm and geographical influence.

Georges Cuvier's classification of races was just prior to the advent of Egyptology and the studying and discovering of the ruins of ancient Egypt by such men as Jean Francois Champollion in the 1820s. The ancient Egyptian monuments, tombs, and temples reveal a vast storehouse of ethnographical records in the form of paintings, mummies and sculptures displaying different racial types of man. Certain racial types can be distinguished in paintings and sculptures dating as far back as the 4th millennium B.C., as Professor Coon explains: "…racial differentiation can be traced back to at least 3,000 B.C., as evidenced in Egyptian records, particularly the artistic representations" (Carleton Coon, The Origin of the Races, 1962, p. 3).

In the era just after the Flood (2300 to 2000 B.C.) there appear many clear and well marked racial types in the paintings and sculptures from Egypt as well as Mesopotamia. By 1600 B.C., an even greater diversity of distinct racial types can be found. Each of these types are represented as they appear today showing that they were permanent throughout all history and had never undergone any type of transformation.

The racial evidence supplied to us by the ancient paintings and sculptures from Egypt and elsewhere clearly dispels any foolish notion of all the nations of the earth descending from just Noah and his sons. This evidence of the antiquity and permanence of the races, which is verified by the laws of genetics, proves that all people were not destroyed in a universal Flood. The science of ethnology and anthropology have shown that every single racial type that existed prior to the Flood existed after it.