On Genesis, Part 19: The Appearance of the Sons of Noah

Now that we have completed our exhibition of the historical identity of the nations of the sons of Noah as they are described in Genesis chapter 10, we are going to take a respite in order to describe the physical appearance of at least some of the sons of Noah as it is revealed in both the history and the archaeology of those nations, or that of their neighbors. As we had asserted earlier in this commentary on Genesis, in our discussion of the tribes of The Japhethites listed in Genesis chapter 10:

Any honest man who studies archaeology and history and who reads Genesis chapter 10 from the perspective of classical antiquity, where one must consider the nations of the sons of Noah in their ancient forms rather than in their modern conditions, must ultimately face the fact that all of the descendants of Noah were originally White, or what was called in the past Caucasian or considered to be related to modern [White] Europeans. As a digression, the words of the prophets also explain the modern condition of those nations, and we may make some references in that regard as we discuss them here. In the 19th century, White Europeans were termed Caucasian because learned men who studied this aspect of history had realized that to a great extent, the early settlers of Europe had migrated from Mesopotamia and the ancient Middle and Near East by travelling through the region of the Caucasus Mountains. That view is oversimplified, but for many of our Keltic or Germanic or even Slavic ancestors it is certainly true. Others had come from the east at an even earlier time, in which most of them had migrated by sea rather than by land.

Now we hope to prove that assertion, and if we can prove that merely one nation each which had descended from Ham, Shem and Japheth were White, then it must be admitted that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been lying about Genesis for centuries, and that all of the sons of Noah must have been White.

On Genesis, Part 17: The Shemites

In our recent discussion of the Hamites and the description of Nimrod and the first Adamic empire, of which ancient Akkad was a part, we had discussed the first Akkadian empire and the presence of a historical Cush in Mesopotamia in the 3rd millennium BC. Then in our separate discussion of the accursed tribes of the Canaanites, we had described the rise of several Canaanite empires in the early 2nd millennium BC, namely the Babylonian Empire of the Amorites, the Hittite Empire, and the Mittani Kingdom of the Hurrians. These Canaanite empires were relatively short-lived, as compared to those of Egypt and Assyria, but it is quite possible that they were not the only Canaanite empires which existed in ancient history.

For example, there is ancient Ebla, the importance of which was not even discovered until the site of the city was excavated after its discovery in 1964. Evidently, Ebla had dominated what is now northwestern Syria from the mid-to-late 3rd millennium through most of the 2nd millennium BC. Ebla was about 34 miles southwest of Ḥalab, or Aleppo, which is said to have been the seat of another kingdom, Yamhad, although it is apparent that the empires of Yamhad and Ebla had each covered the same general territory at the heights of each of their power, along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea in modern northwestern Syria. As a digression, in this sense an empire is only a city-state which subjects to itself other city-states within a particular region, whose inhabitants were not necessarily of the same tribe, and these empires were quite small compared to the empires of later history.

In an example of this, Yamhad is mentioned in an inscription which recorded a letter by an unnamed king of Assyria which is addressed to Zimri-Lim, a king of Mari in the 18th century BC where we read in part that “Moreover, with regard to what my lord wrote here to the kings, saying, ‘Come to the sacrifice in honor of Ishtar,’ I gathered the kings to Sharmaneh and conveyed this message to them: ‘There is no king who is strong just by himself. Ten (to) fifteen kings are following Hammurabi the man of Babylon; so, too, Rim-Sin the man of Larsa; so, too, Ibal-pi-el the man of Eshnunna; so, too, Amut-pi-el the man of Qatanum; (and) twenty kings are following Yarim-Lim the man of Yamhad.’” [1]