Noah's Flood Was Not World Wide – a Critical Review of a sermon by Bertrand Comparet

Noah's Flood Was Not World Wide

We are in Bristol, Tennessee this week, and while I was pondering what to present for this evening, and considering the circumstances which made our travel necessary in the first place, I could think of nothing more appropriate than a critical review of Bertrand Comparet's sermon, Noah's Flood Was Not World Wide .

Before preparing for this presentation, it had probably been at least 22 years since I read this sermon. When I did, I was quite disappointed in many ways which shall become evident as I proceed. While we love Bertrand Comparet, and while he was certainly a notable pioneer trailblazing our path to Christian Identity truth, he nevertheless maintained some critical errors, and they are evident in the conflicts which we shall find here in his own words. So I pray that a critique of this sermon also illustrates the need that we continually examine ourselves, because when something is true, it should be able to withstand all challenges.

As nearly all of our copies of Bertrand Comparet's sermons, this one was taken from Jeanne Snyder's transcriptions which were published under the title Your Heritage, and digitized and prepared for electronic publication by Clifton Emahiser, who had also added some of his own notes. Here in this particular sermon Clifton added only one brief note, which I will insert at the appropriate point. Of course, since this is a critical review, I will also add much of my own commentary.

When Clifton published these, he did not ask me to proofread them, or perhaps there may have been many more notes included in his original. The only Comparet sermons he published which Clifton had asked me to proofread are the Revelation sermons, and with that he published quite a few of my notes. Here, I will have many contentions and differences of opinion with Comparet, although we certainly agree on the general fact, that Noah's flood was not worldwide.

I have also noticed, that in the audio copy of this sermon at the Bertrand Comparet archive at Christogenea, which was prepared many years ago from a set of Clifton's copies on cassette tapes by the original proprietor of the Israelect.com website, there are, according to this transcript, 145 missing words immediately following Comparet's mention of the Mississippi Valley. The ellipsis, which is bracketed below, occurs at the point where the original cassette recording had to be changed from Side A to Side B, so evidently when it was copied to digital format it was not copied correctly. We have also made some corrections to the transcription. So now we shall proceed with:

Noah's Flood Was Not World Wide by Bertrand L. Comparet

Among the many mistaken and unscriptural notions, commonly taught in nearly all churches, is the idea that the flood mentioned in the Bible, covered all the earth and drowned everybody on earth excepting only Noah and his family, who escaped death by being in the ark. So m any churches have firmly insisted the Bible says this, when there is ample proof the flood was not world wide , that they have destroyed the faith of multitudes of people. They have made atheists or agnostics out of hundreds of thousands of people who might have become Christians, if they had only been taught the truth about the Bible.

More likely the numbers are high into the tens of millions of people who over time have rejected lies about trees, apples, snakes and a global flood. Comparet continues:

Part of this mistaken idea about the flood is due to the many mistranslations found in the commonly used King James Version of the Bible. But also, part of it appears plainly to be false, if you even carefully read the King James Version. Let’s have a look at this.

Before we begin to look at this , I must state that t he problems are greater than mere mistranslation, and Comparet himself exacerbates them because he evidently did not understand them all. Throughout this sermon, he employed the chronology of the Masoretic Text, following the estimation of it by 17th century Anglican b ishop James Ussher, and he evidently took the accuracy of that chronology for granted. According to that chronology, the flood of Noah would date to approximately 2345 BC. But according to the chronology of the manuscripts of the Septuagint, it would date to no later than 3245 BC, a difference of 900 years. Differences in post-flood chronology amount to nearly another 600 years up to the birth of Abraham. Clifton once made a brief paper describing the differences, and we made charts to accompany that which are still available on his website under the title Patriarchal Chronology .

Clifton himself did not discover these differences, but only sought to explain them in a simple and direct fashion. Early in my own Identity studies I had read about them in the works of other writers, but I honestly do not remember who they were. There are many articles published on the Internet by mainstream scholars which also explain them, along with the varying chronologies found in other sources, Josephus and the Samaritan Pentateuch. But s earching through the sermons which we have by Comparet, I find no mention of the differences in the chronologies of the various manuscript traditions.

Yet observing the chronology as compared to the historic records found in the inscriptions of the various early Genesis 10 nations, the Septuagint chronology is far superior to that of the Masoretic Text, which is virtually impossible and makes the Scriptures out to be a lie, and a collection of lies. So before the scope of the flood can truly be understood, the chronology has to be corrected, at least to the best extent possible.

Now Comparet goes immediately to the account of the flood where it begins in Genesis chapter 6 and says:

In Genesis chapter 6, we read that Yahweh found the people so corrupt that He regretted that He had ever created them, and so He decided to wipe them out by a flood. Then He warned righteous Noah of the coming flood and told Noah to build a great boat, or ark, in which he and his family might find safety and where they might preserve a few of each kind of the animals. In Genesis chapter 7 it tells how Noah received the final warning that the time was now at hand and that he should move into the ark. Then it says, according to the King James Version:

“And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.... [Now skipping from verse 12 to verse 18:] And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl and of cattle, and of beast and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; and every man. [Then skipping verses 22 and 23:] And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. [Now Comparet reads into Genesis chapter 8:] And Yahweh remember ed Noah and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark; and Yahweh made a wind to pass over the earth and the water s ass w aged. [Skipping verse 2:] And the waters returned from off the earth continually and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. And the ark rested, in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.”

Note that in Genesis chapter 6, it was Yahweh's desire only to destroy the Adamic man which He had created, along with the animals that were dwelling with him. But He never said anything about destroying the so-called giants which were in the earth in those days, who were the cause of the corruption of the children of Adam. Continuing, Comparet reacts to his citation describing the waters of the flood:

Now first let’s see what the translators have done to what Moses originally wrote. You will remember the King James Version says that the rain was upon the earth and the waters increased greatly upon the earth and all flesh died that moved upon the earth. But are they right in translating this “the earth”? Definitely not! Remember that in Genesis 4:14, when Yahweh had driven Cain away in punishment for his murder of Abel, the King James Version quotes Cain as saying, “Behold, Thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth.” So what did Cain do, climb into his rocket ship and take off for outer space? Of course not! He was not driven from the face of the earth, and he never said so, only the translators said so.

Comparet is certainly correct, that if this word earth means to refer to the entire planet in Genesis chapter 7, then it must also be interpreted in that same manner in Genesis chapter 4. But the meaning in Genesis chapter 4 is clear, that earth refers only to the land, and there is plenty of additional evidence to see that such is also true here in Genesis chapter 7. Comparet did not raise all of that evidence, so perhaps we can fill in some of what he missed. For now, he discusses the Hebrew word translated as earth in Genesis chapter 4:

The word Cain used was ad-am-ah, meaning the ground. Yahweh had told him that his farming would no longer be successful, so Cain said, “Thou hast driven me off of the ground.” You have probably noticed that Cain’s descendants today are not farmers; they run pawnshops and other money lending institutions.

When we come to the 7th chapter of Genesis where it is talking about the flood, wherever it says the flood covered the earth, the Hebrew word used in the original writing by Moses was er-ets , meaning the land . The flood did cover the particular land where it occurred. It was a local flood which covered one particular region or land, not the whole earth.

The Hebrew word erets, Strong's # 776, appears in 2,190 verses of the Old Testament, for a total of 2,505 times. In the King James Version, according to Bible Works software, it was translated 2,504 times, but I will not attempt to account for the difference as both figures are from the same source. The same statistics inform us that erets was translated as land 1,543 times, as earth 712 times, country 140 times, ground 98 times, world 4 times, way 3 times, common 1 time, field 1 time, nations 1 time, and wilderness in company with another word, 1 time. It should be clear from that observation alone that the word does not describe the planet as a whole, as we may often use the term earth today. The way we understand English words today, as compared with 1611, it could probably be translated differently in a lot of places, because it simply means land. Now continuing with Comparet:

Again, notice that it specifies, “Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.” In ancient times two different lengths of the cubit were in use. The Hebrew sacred cubit of 25 inches and the common cubit of 20-5/8th inches. Therefore the waters rose above the tops of the mountains of which he was speaking by either 25 feet 9 inches or 31 feet 3 inches according to which cubit you use. If this meant that all the mountains on earth were covered, the waters would have to cover Mount Everest, which is nearly six miles high. Therefore, all the earth would be covered by water six miles deep. In that case, where could it have run off to when the flood subsided? No, I don’t mean that the Bible was that badly mistaken, only the translators made this mistake, because they took a Hebrew word eh-rets, which means “that land” and mistranslated it to mean the whole world. A little later, we shall look over the evidence which proves where that land was.

We cannot read what was in the mind of the King James Version translators when they made their translation. B ut at the least, they translated erets in these chapters in a manner so that it could be misinterpreted to refer to the whole world, or planet, whether they meant it to or not . I would not even think that concepts of the planet as a whole as earth , as it is perceived today, were even fully or uniformly form ulat ed in 1611. Copernicus may have been studied by this time, but not Galileo, and the concepts which they presented were not fully accepted.

As for the question of what would happen to all of the water, if the entire planet were flooded, the argument is valid but nevertheless debated . The radius of the earth is 3,958.8 miles. The earth being covered with water 6 miles deep, the radius would be extended by that figure, to 3,964.8 miles. Based on that radius, the volume of the water sitting atop of the earth would be nearly 1.2 billion cubic miles . But that is only a small fraction, 0.4% of the volume of the earth, which is nearly 260 billion cubic miles. [See the Calculator Soup website for the mathematics.] Of course, for this presentation we must disregard the contention that the planet is not a sphere.

So on the other hand, while there are underground aquifers in many places on the earth, from observation we generally do not see oceans, rivers and lakes simply being absorbed into the ground. Flood waters need to run off somewhere, or they remain stationary and form a new sea or lake. If the lake is not replenished with new waters, it eventually dries up through the long and slow process of evaporation. An example of such a lake is the Aral Sea, which was once the fourth largest lake in the world, but which took about 60 years to evaporate and dry up after the Soviet government diverted the rivers from which it was fed. If the relatively small Aral Sea took 60 years to dry up, then Noah's floodwaters must have run off to some other land. They did not dry up or disappear by soak ing into the ground within a few months. According to Genesis chapter 7, the waters flooded the land for 5 months, and took three months to subside completely.

Now, in my opinion, Comparet runs into another problematical argument:

If the whole earth was covered by six miles of water, then all nations must have been completely exterminated.

That part would certainly be true, but the problem becomes evident where he continues and says:

However Babylonian, Egyptian and Chinese history runs right through this period without a break. The Bible gives the date of the flood as commencing in 2345 BC and ending in 2344 BC. In lower Sumer, later called Chaldea, which occupied the same Plains of Shinar to which Noah’s family journeyed after the flood, the city of Ur of the Chaldees was the leading city from about 2400 BC until about 2285 BC. Its history is not broken by any flood in this period. Farther to the north, Babylon was rising to power from about 2400 BC on and reached a great height of civilization under the famous King Hammurabi, who lived at the same time as the Hebrew patriarch Abraham, about 2250 BC. There is no break in this history due to a flood. In Egypt, the eleventh dynasty began to reign about 2375 BC over a great and powerful nation. The eleventh dynasty ruled to about 2212 BC, and was followed by the twelfth dynasty, which ruled to about 2000 BC. There was no break in the eleventh dynasty at the time of Noah’s flood, 2345 BC. The nation continued to be large and powerful throughout this period.

Here Comparet is referring to the history of the nations of the Biblical world according to information provided in ancient inscriptions and other discoveries by which various chronologies can be pieced together. While these are not entirely accurate, certain pivotal events recorded in the inscriptions of more than one nation, such as wars or treaties or mentions of notable kings, allow historians to create a general narrative by coordinating various chronologies even where there are no written chronicles.

But Comparet's problem is that the chronology provided by the Masoretic Text of the Bible may lead one to deduce that the flood of Noah occurred around 2345 BC, as Bishop Ussher had concluded. In Genesis chapter 10, we are informed that the tribes which provided the Babylonian history to which Comparet refers had descended from Shem and Ham. We are also informed that Mizraim, which is the name translated as Egypt throughout the Old Testament, was also a descendant of Ham. [The word from which the name Egypt is derived is from the much later Greek name for the country.] So if these nations in Egypt and Mesopotamia had descended from the sons of Noah, as the Genesis record attests, then how could they have existed as nations before the flood of Noah? Following the historical narrative, and abiding by the chronology of the Masoretic Text, this is a serious discrepancy that places history in direct opposition to Scripture, and it cannot be overcome.

There are also other features of the chronology provided by the Masoretic Text which create unrealistic and even impossible circumstances. For example, when Abraham was born, if the Masoretic chronology is true, then that same year Noah would have died, and 7 other generations of his fathers would have still been living, which is every post-deluge patriarch who preceded him except for Peleg and Nahor. If Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, Heber, Reu and Serug were all still alive when Abraham was born, along with his father Terah, you would think that at least one sentence in the narrative of Scripture may help to verify that circumstance , but there is not one. And in fact, according to the Masoretic Text, Heber would have actually outlived Abraham by 4 years, while Heber, Arphaxad and even Shem would have outlived Abraham's father Terah! How does a man outlive his own great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson? If the chronology of the Masoretic Text is true, Shem would have outlived Terah by 75 years, and he would not have died until Abraham was 150 years old! All of this is evident in charts and graphs in an article at Clifton Emahiser's website, titled Patriarchal Chronology.

But there really is no conflict between Bible and history, because the chronology of the Masoretic Text is not true. While we may acknowledge that no chronology constructed from the rather incomplete records of our Scriptures is perfect, the chronology of the Septuagint is much more accurate when it is compared to the history and inscriptions of those same peoples. Once an approximate date for the Flood of Noah is deduced from the Septuagint, we find it happened 900 years earlier than Comparet had imagined. In 3245 BC there was no Babylon as it is known in later history, and there were no Assyrians. Hammurabi was an Amorite, and in 3245 BC there were no Amorites, t here were no Egyptian hieroglyphics, and there were no pharaohs in Egypt. Not even the earliest estimated dates for the beginning of the first dynasty of pharaohs go back beyond 3200 BC.

Furthermore, according to the Septuagint chronology, the only patriarch still living when Abraham was born was his father Terah, while his grandfather Nahor died 5 years before his birth. The texts of Flavius Josephus and the Samaritan Pentateuch do not agree entirely with the Septuagint, but they are much closer to it than they are to the Masoretic Text. Unfortunately, Genesis chapters 5 and 11, the pivotal chapters in determining the chronology of the flood of Noah, did not survive in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So while Comparet had good intentions, he cannot use Babylonian, Assyrian, Amorite or Egyptian history to prove that the flood was not world-wide. But now he moves into another problematical area, and he had already mentioned the Chinese:

Accurate history of China begins nearly 3000 BC The Shu King historic record of China, shows that King Yao came to the throne in 2356 BC, 11 years before the start of Noah’s flood, and ruled China for many years after the flood. During the reign of Yao, the Shu King reports that the Hwang Ho river, which drains the mountains and a great basin in Sinkiang province, had excessive floods for three generations. Here again, there was no break in history. The Chinese nation was not wiped out. Its own records show it continued in existence right through the period of Noah’s flood.

Actually, there is no substantial knowledge of Chinese history until after the emergence of the Xia dynasty, which is believed to have been around 2100 BC, but even that date is highly questionable. The Chinese king of which Comparet speaks is legendary, but is generally dated to have lived at around the time when Comparet thought that the flood of Noah had occurred. There are legends of floods associated with that Chinese king, but that does not mean that they are Noah's flood.

Floods of great magnitude appear periodically in many places on earth. In the northern parts of North America, rivers are sometimes stopped with ice I the Winter, and if the ice melts too rapidly in the Spring, entire towns or villages can be destroyed as the waters rush downstream. That very thing happened on the Susquehanna River in 1904, resulting in the destruction of most of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. All along the southern coasts, floods and surges of the sea caused by storms can do the same. In areas under the ocean which are prone to earthquakes, nearby lands can be flooded and cities destroyed as tsunamis are triggered. Many of these events are of such significance that they remain in the memory of local cultures for many centuries. So not all ancient floods are Noah's flood.

What may be true, however, is that there are petroglyphs and discoveries of pottery, much of it containing inscribed symbols, which do help to establish an unbroken presence of hominids in China predating the flood of Noah, and even the creation of Adam, by at least several millennia. But writing did not emerge in China until the late 2nd millennium BC, perhaps as late as 1200 BC, which is evidenced in the ancient Chinese oracle bone script that is commonly dated to that period.

But we still agree with Comparet's conclusion, even if we do not like the arguments which he has presented, where he says:

Therefore, the Bible is correct in stating the flood covered only eh-rets, that land. The translators are wrong when they change the meaning of what Moses really wrote in Genesis chapter 7, and say the flood covered all the earth.

It seems that if Moses wanted to convey the idea that the entire planet was flooded, rather than erets, or land, he may he used the Hebrew word tebel, Strong's # 8398, which is often translated as world. But unfortunately, Comparet in this sermon does not resort to the best witness of the scope of the flood of Noah, which is Scripture itself. Rather, his claims about history and the flood are even contrary to Scripture, as we have demonstrated.

In his sermon on The Cain/Satanic Seed Line Comparet had properly associated the so-called giants of Genesis chapter 6 with the fallen angels described by the apostles and in the Revelation. He further observed that those giants were actually Nephilim, or fallen ones, which is also correct. The fallen ones already having been fallen, Genesis 6:4 states in part that “There were giants [Nephilim] in the earth in those days; and also after that,” upon which it begins to describe the nature of the sin which had precipitated Noah's flood. So the Nephilim were already in the earth, as the fall of the angels must have preceded the creation of Adam, and the Nephilim remained in the earth after that time, after the descendants of Adam had been destroyed for having mat ed with them.

But the Nephilim could not have been on the ark of Noah. Yahweh God was in the process of punishing the children of Adam in the flood because they were mixing themselves with the Nephilim, and therefore it would have been contrary to His stated purpose for Noah and his family if He had Noah preserve the Nephilim on the ark. Noah was told explicitly what to admit onto the ark, and it cannot be imagined that he may have been disobedient. Yet the Nephilim continued to survive after the flood. In Numbers 13:33 the Anakim are identified as giants in the King James Version, where the Hebrew word is also Nephilim. But in Deuteronomy chapter 2 the Anakim are identified as giants where the Hebrew word is Rephaim, and by that and other passages we see that the Rephaim were also descended from of the Nephilim. Others of the Rephaim mentioned later in Scripture included Og of Bashan and Goliath and his brothers. Outside of the Bible, it is evident that there were Nephilim giants who had ruled over at least several of the cities of Mesopotamia in ancient times, including the legendary king Gilgamesh.

So the Nephilim having survived after the flood in several subgroups in diverse places, it is evident that the flood could not have covered the entire planet, but rather, it only covered the particular land where the children of Adam were dwelling. In Genesis chapter 10, there is a genealogical table identifying all of the descendants of Noah as they existed and were divided into nations at the time when Moses had written. But in Genesis chapters 14 and 15, there are tribes of people who are not listed in Genesis chapter 10, where it is evident that other races which were not related to Adam, who are first apparent in Scriptures in Genesis chapter 4 (as Cain was able to find a wife and thought it necessary to build a city in the land of Nod) had also survived the flood of Noah. Among these are the Zuzims of Genesis 14:5, and their name simply means “roving creatures”, so they really did not even have a name. In that passage the Emims are also mentioned, and later they are identified as Anakim. Apparently, some lexicons define the word anakim to mean long-necks, and emim to mean terrors, so it is evident that these tribes were only called by pejoratives and neither did they have proper names.

Later, in Genesis chapter 15, five more tribes are listed among the tribes of Canaan who have no genealogy with Adam. Four of these are the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Perizzites, and the Girgashites. In Genesis chapter 13 the Perizzites were already distinguished from the Canaanites. But the Hittites, Amorites and Jebusites are divisions of the Canaanites, as we are informed in Genesis chapter 10. Then there are the Kenites, who are the descendants of Cain and whatever people from which he had obtained a wife, and the Rephaim, who are of the Nephilim, are also mentioned as being among the Canaanites, which is something that later Scriptures further elucidate. All of these are the tribes of Canaan which the Israelites were commanded to exterminate.

Furthermore, we know that these other tribes who are listed in Genesis chapter 15, but who are not found in Genesis chapter 10 are not descendants of Noah because Moses was writing from his own perspective when he wrote out the genealogy, and not from any ancient perspective. Therefore knowing these tribes yet not including them in the genealogy, we can be confident that Moses did not consider them to be of the race of Noah or of Adam. If they are not of the race of Noah, they must have survived the flood of Noah, and therefore the flood could not have covered the entire planet.

Now Comparet will return to Genesis 10 later in his sermon, but first he turns to discuss the geography of the area where he thought that the flood of Noah had occurred, and he says:

This leaves us ready to inquire where the flood did occur. For this, we will have to start with Adam and Eve and trace where they and their descendants went. They started out in the garden of Eden. Genesis 2:10-14 tells us that a river went out of Eden and this river divided into four streams. It names these four rivers. Pison and Gihon, neither of which can be identified among the rivers existing today. Hiddekel, which is the ancient name of the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers. The Tigris and Euphrates rise in what is today extreme southeastern Turkey, a little north of modern Iraq. Making some allowances for the fact that many rivers have changed their courses considerably in the passing of several thousand years, this still placed the garden of Eden at the northern end of ancient Akkad.

Comparet should have actually checked this passage before he wrote his sermon, as Moses mentioned the Euphrates by name and as a river which is distinct from the Hiddekel. We believe that the four rivers of the garden of Eden can be identified, although one of those rivers is now dried up. We also have a more expansive notion of what had constituted the garden of Eden. The following citation, which includes an actual citation from Genesis chapter 2, is from Part 3 of our Pragmatic Genesis series, presented here in October of 2013, although I will add some comments:

Genesis 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. 

Moses is giving a geographical description which correlates to his own time, approximately 1500-1450 BC. Of course, Havilah, Cush [Ethiopia] and Asshur were not even born until after the Flood of Noah, and therefore these names could not have belonged to the regions which they described in the actual time of Adam. [Rather, Noah used the contemporary names to describe these rivers, so that people of his own time and later could identify the location of the garden.]

The land of Havilah can be identified as having been in Arabia, from Genesis 25:18 and 1 Samuel 15:7. Therefore the first river, the Pishon (Pison), may be identified with a river which is now dried-out that once flowed through the Arabian Desert, ostensibly before it was a desert. Archaeologists [now] call this river the Kuwait River. It evidently had its sources in the mountains of Western Arabia, near the Red Sea, and flowed eastward to the Euphrates. The second river, the Gihon seems to refer to the Karun River, which flows from the Zagros Mountains and currently empties into the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The third river [the Hiddekel on the east of Assyria] appears to be the Tigris, and the fourth the Euphrates, which together encompass Mesopotamia.

These four rivers emptied into the Persian Gulf running into the same confluence, and three of them are still there today. Evidently, as can also be determined from ancient history, the Arabian peninsula was a much more fertile place at one time. However the English version of the language of Genesis seems to indicate that the rivers flowed in the opposite direction, and we are informed that it had not yet rained upon the earth in verse 5, so the rivers may not have formed in the manner which we today understand the forming of rivers through rainfall. However the Greek version says that the river was divided into four beginnings, or sources, and not necessarily four heads.

Therefore however [it was that] the Antediluvian ecosystem [had] functioned, what we can conclude here is that Moses depicted the ancient Garden of Eden as all of the land from the current-day Arabian peninsula and the Red Sea in the west, to the Zagros Mountains of Persia in the east, and centered in the ancient land of Sumer or as it was later called, Babylonia....

Now, returning to Comparet:

When Adam and Eve were driven out of the garden of Eden, Genesis 3:24 tells us that Yahweh placed cherubim with a flaming sword at the east side of the garden of Eden, to keep Adam and Eve from returning and having access to the tree of life. If this guard was to accomplish anything, it must have been placed between Adam and the garden of Eden. So we see that Adam and Eve were driven out to the east. From Eden, Adam’s course would naturally have led him across northern Iran, around the southern end of the Caspian Sea, into what was formerly called Chinese Turkistan and today is known as Sinkiang province in the extreme west of China.

But I cannot agree that the Scripture is clear that Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden to the east. First, after his parents had already been driven out of Eden, which was before he was even born, Cain was driven out to the east of Eden, where we are informed that the land of Nod was located. As we read in Genesis 4:16, “And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.” So it may be evident that Adam and Eve must have raised Cain and Abel elsewhere than the land of Nod which was on the east of Eden.

But more significantly, Comparet is mistaken that the cherubim, a plural form of cherub, were placed on the east of Eden to prevent Adam from returning to the Tree of Life. Rather, the cherubim were only symbolic of the fact that the path would be kept, or preserved, by which Adam could ultimately return to the Tree of Life. This is confirmed where the cherubim next appear atop the ark of the covenant which contained the tablets of the law, and were arranged around the mercy seat of Yahweh.

In our opinion, the cherubim were placed on the east of the garden as a symbol, because that is where the sun rises, and in the rising of the Son the Adamic race is rejoined to the Tree of Life, which is Yahweh God in Christ. It may also be significant, that the cherubim were placed on the east side of the garden because that is the location of the land of Nod, which is wandering, and an allegory for sin.

In any event, it is evident that the place where Noah first landed after the flood was east of Shinar, which is Babylonia, as Comparet will explain a little further on. But that does not mean the flood was centered in some distant place in China, however here Comparet presents that thesis, where he continues and says:

In the southern part of Sinkiang there is a great basin, rimmed by high mountains on all sides, with an outlet on the eastern end of it, through the mountains where the headwaters of the Hwang-Ho river, the Yellow river rises. This basin is nearly all desert today, but it bears evidence of a fertile and heavily inhabited past. Explorers have found ruins of ancient cities, uncovered by the drifting sands of the desert. Also the known geological structure shows, in ancient times at least, beneath this desert lay enormous underground natural reservoirs, caverns filled with water. It is the same geological structure which furnishes artesian well water in many parts of the world today.

While I do not remember many of the details described by earlier Christian identity writer Fred e rick Haberman and the other British-Israel writers who m I may have read over 2 0 years ago, t hey had also identified the Tarim Basin, or perhaps the more westerly Pamir Plateau, as the location of Noah's flood. Sinkiang, or Xinjiang, a province in western China, is several hundred miles northeast of the Pamir Plateau, on the opposite side of the Pamir Mountains . It is a province of western China where the Tarim Basin is located, and later on in this sermon Comparet does identify it by that name.

But the oldest of the ancient cities or other settlements which have been discovered in Xinjiang province are dated by archaeologists to be only 3,500 to perhaps as many as 4,000 years old. Human remains, called “mummies” only because of how remarkably they were preserved in an arid climate, are also dated to no more than 4,000 years old. It is admitted that the race of those mummies is European, and that does not mean that they were actually f r om Europe, but it is highly unlikely that these people were from before the flood of Noah. Other archaeological discoveries in Xinjiang date to the Buddhist or early Silk Route periods.

References: Xinjiang has been multicultural since ancient times, new archaeological evidence finds, Battle for the Xinjiang Mummies, 3,500-year-old settlement site discovered in Xinjiang, Buried in Sands: Environmental Analysis at the Archaeological Site of Xiaohe Cemetery, Xinjiang, China, New discoveries in Xinjiang awe archaeologists.

However there are no archaeological discoveries of any significance in Xinjiang which may be attributed to the presence of antediluvian Adamic people. So Comparet's thesis on the location of the flood fails him, and it needs to be revised by modern Identity Christians.

These underground reservoirs were covered by waterproof layers of rock, which kept the waters beneath from overflowing out on the land surface above them. In this mountain rimmed basin, then a fertile and well populated land, Adam and Eve, or at least their descendants of a few generations later, settled.

In my opinion, it is folly to attempt to locate the precise area which the descendants of Adam had inhabited before the flood of Noah. That is because when “all the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up”, it seems to signify that there were great geological changes to the land which they inhabited, so that we may never be able to recognize it today. So Comparet's search for a land which is presently compatible with that description is vain, and w e are better off not taking a position on the land where the flood had occurred.

Furthermore, if Cain was driven off to the east of the land that Adam and Eve had inhabited, and Cain's destination was the land of Nod which bordered on the east of the garden of Eden, then Adam and Eve and their descendants may well have inhabited land somewhere west of Nod, and Comparet's entire thesis disintegrates. So I cannot accept any fables about the Tarim Basin or Xinjiang province, all of which are completely without merit.

Now Comparet makes a digression, which is necessary in order to clarify his assertions:

You who study these lessons, already know that Adam was not the first man. He was only the first man of the present white race. Adam and Eve found this land to which they had come already populated by an Asiatic people, among whom they had to live.

While we cannot say that any of the people who may have been in their vicinity were “Asiatic”, it is true that branches of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which represents the fallen angels, and from which other races must have sprung, had apparently always been nearby. Continuing with Comparet:

Through the following generations, the inevitable happened. Wherever there is integration, intermarriages and mongrelization of the races follows. If Yahweh had no purposes in mind which could not be properly served by the Asiatic and negro races, there would have been no reason for Him to create Adam. Neither could the purposes which Adam and his descendants were intended to serve be fulfilled by a mongrelized race. The consequences of this mongrelization are described in Genesis 6:5. “And Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” We find the word there mistranslated earth is the Hebrew word erets, which only means the land, that particular land. There is a reason for using this Hebrew word. This was the place where integration and mongrelization had taken place, with its degenerative effects as compared to the qualities possessed by each race separately.

Now in reference to this, Clifton Emahiser had made his only note for this sermon, and he wrote:

Comparet stated: “In Genesis chapter 6, we read that Yahweh found the people so corrupt He regretted He had ever created them...” Surely, Yahweh didn’t have the non-adamic in mind when He said this. Rather Yahweh regretted creating the Adamic race only to be mixed with the non-adamic! The other races, already being satanic, really wouldn’t make that much difference!

In Genesis chapter 6, the word for man is adam, so it can only refer to the Adamic race, and no other. Of course, Comparet espoused the heresy which we call the 6th & 8th Day Creation Theory , the errant belief that Yahweh created other races on the 6th day, and the White Adamic race on the 8th day of Creation. But there was no 8th Day of creation, and Yahweh only created one race, which is the White Adamic race. The 6th day man is adam, the same man in Genesis chapter 1 as in Genesis chapter 2, and there was no other creation of another adam. The other races, with whom many of the Adamic nations have since mingled, are among the corruptions of His creation perpetrated by the fallen angels, a history which is wanting in Genesis but which is revealed in the Gospel and Revelation of Christ. We have already addressed this in many papers by both Clifton and myself which may be found at Christogenea, and it is far too long a digression to say much more about it here. Now to return to Comparet:

We find confirmation of this in the reason why Yahweh spared Noah. In Genesis 6:9, the King James Version tells us Noah was perfect in his generations, a meaningless phrase. When anything in the King James Version fails to make good sense, it is a sign that you should go behind the mistranslation and see what the words were in the original Hebrew or Greek. The word here translated generations was the Hebrew word to-le-dah, which means ancestry. Noah was perfect in his ancestry, a pure bred, not a mongrel.

Here Comparet made another error, and I must state that all of these small errors can ultimately serve to discredit Christian Identity truth if we do not correct them. In Genesis 6:9 the word generations appears twice. Where it says “these are the generations of Noah”, the word is toledah, Strong's # 8435, and it does mean descent. But where it says that Noah was “perfect in his generations” the word is dor, Strong's # 1755, and that word has a variety of uses. It may refer to a period of time, a remnant, a generation, as of men, or even a habitation. In my opinion, the meaning that connects all of these definitions is that dor refers to what remains or abides. I also believe that the Latin words which give us English terms such as durable, duration and endure had come from this same Hebrew term. Noah was perfect in his generations because he and his family were pure specimens of what had remained of the Adamic man which Yahweh God had created. So while Comparet's conclusion is correct, this important distinction between the two different words and their meanings must be identified and explained, and they cannot be confused.

Now Comparet continues:

Noah and his family were the last remaining pure blooded Adamites in the world. Therefore, Yahweh needed to save them to carry out the purposes He had planned for the Adamic people. The mongrelized people among whom Noah and his family lived must be removed, or they would be a trap which would eventually lead to the complete end of the pure blooded Adamites.

Here Comparet does not have the correct perspective. The mongrelized people were not all removed, which is clear from Genesis chapter 6 where it says that “there were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,” and by saying “after that” it must refer to the time following the flood, where we have witnessed the continued presence of the Nephilim. Rather, as Yahweh explicitly stated in Genesis chapter 6, the flood was to punish the Adamic race, and not the Nephilim. The Adamic race was evidently being punished for violating the only commandment which it had been given, which is not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and Evil, which Yahweh had commanded Adam in Genesis chapter 2, and which Adam had also transgressed in Genesis chapter 3.

If Noah and his family were the last pure Adamites, Peter would not have been able to describe Christ as preaching the Gospel to those who died in the flood of Noah.

Once again returning to Comparet:

Have we had any other evidence to support our view that this was the region where Adam and Eve and their descendants settled? Yes. Remember that Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden to the eastward. Later, when Cain murdered Abel, and as a punishment was banished from the land where Adam and Eve lived, Genesis 4:16 tells us, “Cain went out from the presence of Yahweh and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.” The Hebrew word nod means wandering. In the upper Tigris and Euphrates valleys, north of Eden, these rivers were running swiftly downhill from their mountain sources. Therefore, they cut deep channels in the ground. Even today we can find the traces of the ancient diversion dams, built by the ancients, to raise the water level up close to the surface of the ground. Then they would not have to pump it so high to get it into their irrigation canals.

It cannot be told just how ancient these ancients actually were, and even though these rivers have over time cut deep channels, so that their courses are unlikely to change, the water level in the river is usually not that far below the surrounding riverbanks as images of those rivers found in literature describing the geography of the area ascertain. Furthermore, the slower flow of the Euphrates river has often been contrasted to the much swifter Tigris river, so their characteristics are not the same. Returning to Comparet:

Farther to the south, in the lower Tigris and Euphrates valleys where the slope was no longer steep, the accumulation of silt picked up by the rivers where they ran swiftly, was now settling to the bottom of the river beds, constantly raising the level. [This is more true of the Euphrates than it is of the Tigris – WRF.] Every high water season, the rivers overflowed their banks and flooded the valleys. This is exactly the same as we have in our own Mississippi valley. [These annual floods washed away the people’s houses and sent them fleeing to higher ground. Therefore it was correctly called the land of Nod, the land of wandering.

We do not agree that for this reason the land to which Cain was sent was called Nod. Rather, Nod, which does mean wandering, is an allegory for sin, and the whole world outside what Yahweh had created was in a state of sin. Cain built a city, so he was not wandering in the way that Comparet imagined.

Here Cain settled, and taught the people to build high dikes along the river banks, just as we have done along the banks of the Mississippi river. This enabled them to stop the annual floods, so they could now build permanent cities of good houses, in the lower Tigris and Euphrates valleys, the land then called by its own inhabitants Sumer, and later called Chaldea.]

Of course, this is conjecture, as Comparet is going to confuse Cain with a historical figure from a much later time.

[In a very few places the Bible calls it the Plain of Shinar. Cain went back westward from where Adam and Eve lived. It was thus that Cain started his great empire. Yes, Cain is a well known historical character, found not only in the Bible. However, he is known in history under] another name. Cain established an empire which extended from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea and even took in some of the larger islands in the Mediterranean Sea. Some day I will tell you about Cain and his empire but, that is another story.

In these last two paragraphs of Comparet's sermon we have bracketed words which are missing from our copy of the recording, which Jeanne Snyder must have had when she made her transcription.

In another sermon, titled No Evolution Here, Comparet mentioned Sargon of Akkad, an Assyrian king who lived some time around the 24th century BC, and Comparet repeated the claim that this Sargon was actually the Cain of Genesis chapter 4. This was the subject of an early British Israel book titled Sargon the Magnificent, written by Mrs. Sydney Bristowe, an apparently wealthy British woman who was also an artist. Bristowe based her claims on the so-called Cylinders of Nabonidus, which are interpreted by some to date Naram-Sin, the son and successor of Sargon of Akkad, to about 3200 BC. So then she extrapolates that to date the rule of Sargon himself to 3800 BC, so that she can connect Sargon to Cain, according to the chronology of the Masoretic Text. The cylinders are not necessarily historically accurate, since they date only to the mid-6th century BC, Nabonidus having been the last king of the short-lived Neo-Babylonian empire. This entire scheme depends on the Masoretic Text dating for the flood of Noah in the 24th century BC, and the creation of Adam in the 40th century BC.

The identification of Cain with Sargon of Akkad is ludicrous, and even childish, and it has served to help discredit and debunk Christian Identity truth. It must be abandoned, as it is in direct conflict with Scripture. Sargon of Akkad was certainly an Assyrian by race, he was celebrated in the myths and legends of the later Assyrian empires, and other inscriptions help to establish the fact that he ruled some time around the 24th century BC. So Comparet was quite naive, at the least, to accept Mrs. Bristowe's fabulous lies. For Sargon of Akkad to have been an Assyrian, he must have descended from the Asshur of Genesis chapter 10, who was the eponymous ancestor of the Assyrians, and he could not have been Cain, or even a Kenite.

Now Comparet continues arguing in favor of his theory that the flood of Noah occurred in the Xinjiang province of western China:

Another bit of evidence is found in Genesis 11:2 , which tells us that after the flood, Noah’s descendants journeyed from the east , until they came to the land of Shinar. Therefore, they must have come from some place east of the Tigris and Euphrates valleys. The only place where such a flood as the Bible describes could have occurred, eastward from the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, is this mountain basin in Sinkiang [the usual spelling is Xinjiang - WRF ] which I have been talking about.

While the text does state that Noah and his family traveled from the east to the land of Shinar, that does not necessarily mean that they travelled over two thousand miles east, as the Tarim Basin is almost exactly 2000 miles east of Mesopotamia as the crow flies. But to make that journey through some of the world's highest mountain ranges and across several significant rivers one would necessarily travel many more than 2000 miles, and Noah and his sons, at least initially, had but few people and few tools to help them on their way. Furthermore, Noah and his ark did not necessarily land after the flood in the same place where they lived before the flood, and we cannot tell the size of the area which was originally flooded. So it is not appropriate to conjecture, as Comparet now digs himself in even deeper with his own conjecture, where he continues and says:

More evidence is found in the high water mark found in many places along the mountains which rim this basin, showing at one time this basin was a lake, extending to this well marked shoreline. The mountains which rim this valley were not fully covered, for many of them range from 16,000 to 25,000 feet in height and one even rises over 28,000 feet. But, within the basin are several smaller mountains which could be fully covered by a flood held within the higher rim of the valley. This basin, through which flows the Tarim River and which is sometimes known as the Tarim Basin in southern Sinkiang, is identified as the site of Noah’s flood.

So we must ask whether water that created a flood which lasted only 5 months, as the Genesis 7 account informs us, and of which the crest of the waters would have an even shorter duration, could possibly create a permanent watermark on mountain ranges which would last for over 5,200 years, or perhaps with the Masoretic chronology, even for 4,300 years. The high point of a five-month flood would indeed be much shorter than the total duration of the flood, as the waters would gradually rise to a crest, and almost as soon as they finished rising they would slowly start to recede. So they would hardly have time to create such a watermark, and therefore the mark, if indeed there actually is such a mark, must have a different origin. So this is not actual evidence of Noah's flood, although it is a location that may have been flooded many times, whenever the course of the river through the basin is impeded by ice or by other natural circumstances.

Now Comparet returns to the Genesis narrative:

In the King James Version Genesis 7:11-12 reads, “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up and the windows of heaven were opened. The rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.” A more careful translation makes it clear what really happened. In Moffatt’s Modern English translation we read, “The fountains of the great abyss burst , and the sluices of heaven were opened”. Smith and Goodspeed’s American translation says, “The fountains of the great abyss were all broken open , and the windows of the heavens were opened”. A great earthquake broke up this waterproof layer of rock over the immense, water filled abyss or cavern beneath this Tarim Basin, causing the floor of the valley to settle and allowed the enormous underground reservoir to overflow and submerge the valley floor.

Continuing with Comparet, we must remember that this entire thesis is not proven, and many of his arguments are actually defective, so we cannot take them for granted as if they are true:

The great earthquake in the Himalaya mountains several years ago, produced similar effects in some places. Of course, the 40 days of torrential rains added to the flood. This filled the valley high enough to submerge the mountains which were inside the valley, exactly as Genesis 7:19-20 says. Don’t be misled by the mistranslation, “All the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered”. The word mistranslated heaven is the Hebrew word shaw-meh, meaning the sky. Since this Tarim Basin is somewhat more than 350 miles wide by more than 650 miles long, all the sky visible from anywhere near the center of this valley would cover only this valley and therefore only those lower mountains which were within the valley itself.

But Comparet's explanation is actually contrary to the text of Genesis. Much of Mount Everest, which is not much higher than some of the mountains which Comparet describes here, can easily be seen from Katmandu, a city which is 124 miles away. But the top of Everest can be seen from as far away as 211 miles. So these facts, together with Comparet's own admission that the Tarim Basin is only about 350 miles wide, unravel Comparet's claim that this was the area of the flood of Noah, as those who had survived it would not have avoided seeing the peaks of 25,000 to 28,000-foot-high mountains which were not covered with water, according to Comparet himself. So if the flood were in this basin, it could not have been said that “all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered... and the mountains were covered.” Comparet is claiming that the visible hills were covered, but not the mountains, contrary to what it says in the text! Therefore the flood could not have been in this basin. Rather, the description is more accurate of a wider area and a wide plain from which very tall mountains in the distance would not have been visible. Now continuing with Comparet:

What about Genesis 8:4 reading, “And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat”?

Sometimes failure to translate can be as misleading as mistranslation. Most people understand this to mean Mount Ararat in Armenia, some 1,600 miles west of the Tarim Basin. This is not what the Bible says. First of all, note it reads mountains of Ararat, mountains being in the plural, while Mount Ararat in Armenia is only a single peak. However, Mount Ararat in Armenia was known until comparatively recent times as Mount Massis. Nobody had ever heard of it being called Mount Ararat in Bible times. Furthermore, the Hebrew word ararat, means only the tops of the hills, Therefore, correctly translated, Genesis 8:4 only says the ark came to rest upon the top of the high hills, some of the lower mountains which were within the valley.

Actually, Mount Ararat in the Armenian Highlands is in far eastern Turkey, and it is 1,700 miles from the extreme western edge of the Tarim Basin, while I would prefer to measure distances from the center of the Basin. But Comparet is correct, that the word a rarat has a generic meaning. In my opinion, it comes from the Hebrew word s ar , or mountain, and erets , or land, and it means mountain land . The same Hebrew word, ararat , is also translated in the King James Version as Armenia, another word that I believe is derived from Hebrew. Armenia is from ar , or mountain , and minny , or parts (Strong's # 4480) , and means mountain parts . That same Hebrew word, min or minniy , gives us our English words such as mince and minute . I n any event, Comparet is correct that the Ararat in Genesis chapter 7 is not necessarily the mountain in far eastern Anatolia, which was later called by that name.

Now he takes a digression to discuss aspects of the denominational fantasy of finding Noah's ark:

A recent newspaper report mentions an expedition, equipped with the latest electronic equipment, which is going to Mount Ararat in Armenia to find the ark. The expedition will melt the ice, which covers what they think is the ark, by coating it with black powdered carbon. They won’t find the ark because it isn’t there. Several expeditions have gone to Mount Ararat to find the ark. Some of them got within sight of a mass on the side of the mountain which, from that particular point of view, looked to be shaped somewhat like a ship. That point has been very carefully inspected from the air by airplanes flying over it very closely. It has proven to be nothing but a ledge of rock which does give a silhouette shaped like a ship, when seen from the right direction. I need not mention the many places, such as the Grand Canyon etc., where similar ship rocks can be seen and none of them are Noah’s Ark.

When we carefully examine the whole affair, and correct the mistranslations, we find that there is no conflict between what the Bible really says and either science or history. In fact, there never is any such conflict, it is only the preachers who find themselves contradicted by either science or history. This is only because they either won’t take the trouble to find out what the Bible really says, or they have made the mistranslation a supposedly sacred church doctrine and now they are stuck with it. Don’t let any church shake your faith in the Bible. The Bible is always right, even if the preachers are often wrong.

Even if your preacher is Bertrand Comparet, the Bible is right, although I do not want to sound arrogant. When our teachers are wrong, we must correct them, or our learning is in vain. So I pray that this is a lesson to us all. We may contrive schemes which sound true, but if we do not inspect them from every possible angle and in every detail, we are bound to err grievously, and even when we do so, we still may err, so we must always be willing to correct ourselves.

Comparet now returns to Chinese legends, however with all certainty the flood of Noah had preceded the Chinese king known as emperor Yao by nearly a thousand years:

Let’s remember another thing, the Chinese historical records. The Shu-King records that during the reign of King Yao, at a time beginning about the date of Noah’s flood, the Hwang Ho river carried excessive floods for three generations. Drainage out of the Tarim Basin to the eastward would have been carried off in the Hwang Ho river and would account for this.

One thing is certain, during this time the Chinese subsisted by eating rats, cats and dogs. But I really do not care about appeals to Chinese legends in order to validate the Christian Scriptures. Returning again to Comparet:

Now we come to another false doctrine taught in many churches. Since nobody survived in all the earth except Noah and his family, everybody now living is a descendant of Noah and related by blood, no matter what race they belong to. We have already learned the flood did not cover the whole earth, but only one valley about 350 by 650 miles in size. Chinese history was not interrupted by the flood although they do report purely local floods in the Hwang Ho valley where the waters were draining off. We have seen that Egyptian history is not interrupted by the flood, so the continent of Africa was not touched by it and the negro race continued unaffected by it.

Of course we agree that the negros of sub-Saharan Africa were not affected by the flood of Noah, but that by itself does not prove Comparet's assertions. Here we will ignore these additional assertions on the location of the flood, as they are already invalidated. But Comparet certainly is correct in his assertions concerning Noah:

It would be absurd to think Noah and his wife, both of them being white, could have one white child, one negro child, and one Chinese child. Remember in Genesis 1:11-25, when Yahweh created the world and its inhabitants and made the laws governing their reproduction. He did not make it absurd chaos, with whales giving birth to cattle and fish hatching out of birds’ eggs. His law, several times repeated for emphasis, is always that each creature must bring forth strictly after its own kind.

We wholeheartedly agree with Comparet here, that all of the descendants of Noah were indeed White, unless any of them race-mixed later in history, and it is apparent that many of them did. But originally, it is historically demonstrable that they were all White, whether they were of Shem, Ham or Japheth. That is the subject of one of our earliest essays at Christogenea, The Race of Genesis 10.

However if all of the people of the world did descend from Noah, then Jude would not have been able to describe fornication as the “going after of strange flesh”, that word for strange meaning different , and all of the commandment s forbidding the children of Israel from committing such fornication, or race-mixing, would be nonsense, as all races would be of the same flesh. Yet the existence of those laws and the related statements in Scripture also proves that not all races come from Noah.

Continuing with Comparet:

The churches that teach this false doctrine of everybody being descended from Noah, never got it from the Bible, that is in any true translation of the Bible. As Moses wrote it in the Hebrew language, under divine inspiration, the Bible correctly tells that Noah’s descendants went out into a world already populated by people who had lived right through the time of the flood and were still going strong.

Now this is true, as we have already demonstrated here in relation to the Nephilim, the Rephaim, the Kenites, and the various other tribes of Canaan whose origins are not found in Genesis 10 or in earlier chapters of the Scriptures. But it is not true in the way which Comparet attempts to prove it here, from the ill-begotten Fenton translation of the Bible, which he next cites where he says:

Ferrar Fenton’s Modern English Translation gives this correctly. In Genesis 10:1-5 we read about the descendants of Noah’s son Japheth, “From these they spread themselves over the sea coasts of the countries of the nations, each with their language amongst the Gentile tribes.” Genesis 10:20 tells of the descendants of Noah’s son Ham, “These were the sons of Ham, in their tribes and languages, in the regions of the heathen”. Genesis 10:31 completes it: “These are the sons of Shem, by their tribes and by their languages, in their countries among the heathen.”

Now before I comment on the value of the Fenton Bible, I will present Comparet's conclusion to his sermon:

So never let anybody tell you the Bible consists of the fables of a primitive people. It is perfectly consistent with all true science and all true history. It is the history of our race, the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Teutonic white race.

This is absolutely true. The Bible is concerned with one race of people only, the White Adamic race, and the history and origins of any other race have no part in it, unless they are described as coming in contact with its White Adamic subjects.

But it is not true that any of nations which had descended from the sons of Noah had purposely settled “among the heathen”. So what follows are comments I had made at the Christogenea Forum on this very subject, in July of 2013. The subject of the original post which I was writing in response to is James Moffatt or Ferrar Fenton Bible Translation? I will edit them only slightly here :

I have perused the Fenton Bible on a few occasions, but I have not read it through. From what I have seen, however, while Fenton had a few good ideas, and for those he is loved by many Christian Identity adherents, he made just as many serious errors.

For instance, his rendering of elohim in the 82nd Psalm is disgraceful. If your only perspective is the Old Testament it is fine, but through the understanding which our Savior has provided - which is the best way to understand the Old Testament (Paul: "but we have the mind of Christ", 1 Cor. 2:16), it is terrible. It is terrible because Christ Himself referred to the 82nd Psalm when He said "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" as it is recorded in John 10:34.

Now while the Hebrew word elohim may be understood to mean judges, and there are clearly places where it should be, yet if Christ interprets it as gods in this Psalm (the words are not to be confused in Greek) then how could any man following Christ interpret it as judges? So for this I believe Fenton fails, and this is one example: that he did not consider the greater judgment of Christ in order to gain a better understanding of Scripture.

Where Fenton did do well, I have acknowledged him in my notes, where he correctly understood Paul's "works of the law" phrase to be referring to the rituals, which can also be demonstrated from other Biblical literature (LXX, DSS).

From there I proceeded to discuss my ignorance of Moffat, and then my own methods of Biblical interpretation. Then immediately following that I made a second post in that same thread discussing Fenton's treatment of these verses which Comparet cited from his translation of Genesis chapter 10:

One other important Fenton error (or perhaps innovation) I forgot to mention above:

In Genesis chapter 10, in each of verses 5, 20, 31 and 32, he seems to have "missed" a 3rd person plural pronoun. This facilitated his renderings, "amongst the gentile tribes", or "among the heathens" rather than, as the King James and the Greek of the Septuagint would have it, "in their nations", or "after their nations", which the Hebrew certainly supports - and insists upon - according to the resources which I have available.

Fenton's rendering in English seems [intentionally] designed to convey the idea that the Adamic race was purposely settled among other races. 

I would agree that there were other hominids here on earth when the Adamic race was created and multiplied. But I would not twist the Scripture in order to convey such an idea. And twisting the Scripture here, he causes more damage than good, because he would lead one to believe that it is the non-Adamic nations which are referred to in the balance of Scripture where the phrases "the heathens" or "the nations" are used, and that is not true.

Fenton's rendering in English seems purposely designed to have the Bible acknowledge the non-Adamic races as if they were legitimate members of our society, in the promotion (purposeful or not) of certain British Israel ideas which I, for my part, find rather objectionable.

After that I made a third post criticizing Fenton for some of his renderings of certain words in 1 Chronicles chapter 4. Ferrar Fenton, being a British-Israel adherent, embraced the so-called Dominion Theology doctrine by which such men sought to legitimize the British Empire. When the empire crumbled, they became subjects of scorn and ridicule. Fenton's translation of those verses in Genesis chapter 10 certainly also deserve to be scorned and ridiculed.

With this I pray that we have proven that Noah's flood was not worldwide. But I also pray that we have demonstrated the importance of continual introspection and self-correction of the basis of our doctrines and the assertions which we make to disseminate them. That means we must also perpetually evaluate and correct all of our teachers, until we are finally blessed with the presence of The Teacher, Yahshua Christ. Our Christian Identity profession, because it is truth, should not ever be mingled with lies.