On Genesis, Part 22: The Sojourn

As we have calculated and presented it in our Genesis chronology, some time around 1880 BC the patriarch Abraham was called by Yahweh to leave Haran, which we believe, for reasons we explained in our recent presentation on The Call of Abraham, was evidently his ancestral homeland before his father had moved to Ur. In Haran, Abraham had also been given many promises by Yahweh, or at that time, simply God Almighty, the one true God who could not have been known to him previously. However this had actually transpired we can only imagine, but Abram, as he should be called at this point, must have readily been convinced that this god who had spoken to him is the true God, because he is portrayed as having immediately acted in accordance with His calling.

In a sense, Abram was very similar in certain ways to his ancestor Noah. Noah had overcome a world of sin which was inundated by water. Abram in turn was chosen to overcome a world of sin which was inundated by lies. As Paul of Tarsus had explained in Acts chapter 17, Yahweh God had “26 … made from one every nation of men to dwell upon all the face of the earth, appointing the times ordained and the boundaries of their settlements,” which is a reference to the division of nations seen here in Genesis chapters 10 and 11, for which “27 to seek God. If surely then they would seek after Him then they would find Him…”, yet it is evident that none of them ever sought Him up to the point at which Yahweh had called Abraham. Ostensibly, Abraham was chosen as a vessel to carry the heritage of Adam through a deluge of lies. While Noah was an example of the importance of preserving the genetic purity of the race of Adam, Abraham was called as an example of the importance of seeking the Will of God and, once it is found, of maintaining the Word of God within that race. But while we cannot know whether Abraham had sought God, it is clear that he became obedient to God once he was addressed by Him.

On Genesis, Part 20: The Tower of Babel

The Roman Catholic, Orthodox and denominational churches have for centuries upheld the myth that all races of hominids on this planet have come from Adam, and that the various races were derived from the different sons of Noah, actually asserting that Noah’s sons had each spawned different races of so-called man. Doing this, they blatantly ignore the fact that the ancient Hebrews had several words for man, including adam, enosh and ish, and that they applied those words only where they were appropriate. The word adam describes a particular race of man, which today we call White, and these are the men who descended from Adam through the sons of Noah. The word enosh describes a mortal man, an adult male hominid, without any connotation of race. They also ignore the fact that there were other so-called men in Scripture who were not descended from Adam, such as the Nephilim and several other groups which are mentioned later, in Genesis chapters 14 and 15. No Nephilim could ever properly be called an adam, but either the sons of Adam or the Nephilim could be referred to as enosh. The later Greek, English and other languages lost this important distinction, and the churches willfully ignore it.

In our last presentation in Genesis, The Appearance of the Sons of Noah, we hope to have sufficiently demonstrated the truth of our assertion, which is that if it can be proven that any one of each of the nations of the families of Shem, Japheth and Ham were originally White, then it must be accepted that all of the sons of Noah were originally White, in spite of the conditions of any of those nations today. Doing that, we presented solid, and even irrefutable, evidence from ancient literary, archaeological and scientific sources demonstrating that the ancient Cushites were White, the ancient Egyptians were White, the ancient Canaanites were White, at least apparently, the ancient Ionians, or the sons of Javan in Genesis chapter 10, were White, the ancient Elamites or Persians were White, the ancient Syrians of the north of modern Syria and Anatolia, whether they were of Aram or Asshur or some other Biblical tribe, were White, and that other Genesis 10 families, such as the Assyrians, Aramaeans, Medes, Arians and others, were also White because the ancient records attest that they were homogeneous and physically indistinguishable from these others.

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]