Rex Banks
P. J. Wiseman and the Structure of Genesis.
Archaeology and the Pre Flood Period.
The Civilisation Explosion.
Shem Ham and Japheth.
Introduction
From the book of Genesis through to the book of Revelation the writers of Scripture claim to preserve accounts of real personages, events and places. References to kings and shepherds, battles and treaties, cities and empires are found in abundance in both Testaments as the inspired writers record the working out of the divine plan to bring about the redemption of mankind through Jesus Christ. Now, it is true that the Bible does not purport to be a treatise on history, science or geography, but it is also true that the Bible claims to be the product of inspiration, and clearly if this is the case scripture will be free of error whenever it touches upon matters relating to these or any other areas.
In this context it is certainly true that in modern times the discipline of archaeology has confirmed the accuracy of biblical historiography at a number of points. Often described as the "handmaid of ancient history," archaeology is " the scientific study of the material remains of past human life and activities". (Britannica) We read:
"These (material remains) include human artifacts from the very earliest stone tools to the man-made objects that are buried or thrown away in the present day: everything made by human beings - from simple tools to complex machines, from the earliest houses and temples and tombs to palaces, cathedrals, and pyramids. Archaeological investigations are a principal source of knowledge of prehistoric, ancient, and extinct culture. The word comes from the Greek archaia ('ancient things') and logos ('theory' or 'science')... Archaeology proper... first developed in 18th century Italy with the excavations of the Roman cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum." (ibid)
However it was not until the 19th century that archaeology was established on a more scientific basis, and since then its contribution to our understanding of the past has been enormous. This is illustrated by the following comment by E.M. Blaiklock in his book The Archaeology Of The New Testament:
"When Samuel Johnson remarked in his pontifical fashion, some two centuries ago, that 'all that is really known of the ancient state of Britain is contained in a few pages, and we can know no more than the old writers have told us' he was representing the attitude of the day. To be sure, when he talked in the George Inn of Fleet Street, Roman London lay beneath his feet, with part of its surviving wall within five minutes walk of his house, up the narrow lane across the street. But the 18th century had not learned to read the record in the soil."
Since Johnson's time this "record in the soil" has gradually yielded many secrets from the past as the techniques and tools of the archaeologists have become more sophisticated, and there is no doubt that in many quarters respect for the historical accuracy of the Bible grew immensely as the scriptural record was confirmed at many points by extra biblical materials. We need to keep in mind of course that "archaeology is not to be used to 'prove' the Bible or to 'prove' that our faith is correct... (because) it is impossible to give that kind of absolute certainty for matters in the areas of the humanities" (Walter C. Kaiser The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant?). What archaeology is equipped to do, and what it has done in many ways, is to demonstrate that "one is morally warranted in accepting the direction of the evidence as reasonably certain" (ibid).
The following quotes from renowned archaeologists of a previous era are typical of those that appear in many books on Christian apologetics:
"As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirmed in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible." (Rabbi Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert)
There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition. (William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religions of Israel) Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy..(and) should be placed along with the very greatest historians". (William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament)
"Any attempt to reject (the) basic historicity (of the book of Acts) even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted." (A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament)
Of course we need to keep in mind that such quotations do not constitute proof that these men subscribed to the "high view" of inspiration, but clearly such endorsements of the biblical record by those who are leading specialists in their fields are very welcome to those of us who are convinced that scripture is a product of inspiration. Clearly too, the verdict of these specialists was based upon a scholarly examination of the evidence, and we will consider some of this evidence below.
However these quotations do not tell the whole story about the relationship between archaeology and the Bible. The sad fact is that from about the 1970's there has been a shift away from the position held by Glueck et. al., as an increasing number of archaeologists adopted what might be called the "biblical minimalist" approach to the study of ancient history. Speaking of this shift, archaeologist J. Randall Price says:
"(M)ost modern archaeologists have abandoned the Albright and Glueck schools, which began with the biblical text and correlated archaeological data with it, and instead have adopted T.L. Thompson's dictum (1974) that 'archaeological materials should not be dated or evaluated on the basis of written texts which are independent of these materials; so also written documents should not be interpreted on the basis of archaeological hypotheses.' " (The Stones Cry Out)
Randall Price points out that typically modern archaeologists "object to attempts to demonstrate the historicity of the patriarchal or Exodus - Conquest narratives through archaeological methodology, because as they view these accounts, they are theological, not historical in nature." It is not difficult to see that a humanistic world view is at work here.
Unfortunately this world view problem is compounded by the fact that although archaeology is not an exact science, some who are involved in this discipline have committed themselves to certain theoretical frameworks which function as a straitjacket when it comes to interpreting the data. In other words, some in the field of archaeology have come to treat certain interpretations of the facts as matters which are beyond dispute, and their presuppositions have functioned as a straitjacket when it comes to handling the raw material provided by the archaeologist's spade. There is no doubt that to a large extent this "straitjacket effect" explains why the relationship between archaeology and the Bible is not what it was in a previous era.
A good example of how commitment to a particular theoretical framework can hinder the work of investigation is found in the approach which many archaeologists have to the so-called "conventional chronology" of Egypt. Now, the "conventional chronology" grew out of certain assumptions made by J. F. Champollion, the "father of Egyptology" in the 19th century and the great importance of this chronology becomes evident when it is understood that it has been used to date the archaeology of other countries around the Mediterranean. Clearly because of this, any inaccuracy in this chronology will have far-reaching implications for the study of ancient history. This being the case, it is important to be aware of the fact that in recent years more and more archaeologists have argued that the "conventional chronology" is seriously flawed and must be revised. They are adamant that commitment to a demonstrably false historical reconstruction has created problems for the study of many ancient civilisations. These ancient historian revisionists differ among themselves about just how to correct the "conventional chronology" but they are united in the conviction that it must be discarded. This may prove to be good news for those involved in the field of biblical archaeology.
One of the best-known revisionists is Egyptologist and ancient historian David Rohl, author of a best -selling book entitled A Test Of Time. The paperback version of the book is almost 600 pages long and is not always easy to read, but it is certainly worth the effort because the author does an excellent job of explaining why it is that many archaeologists reject the historical credibility of the biblical narrative. In his Introduction, Rohl sums up the approach of the so called "Copenhagen school" of biblical exegesis in a blunt statement: "the Old Testament has no value as an historical source". In answer to his own question "What lies behind this jaundiced opinion of the Bible as history?" Rohl says the following:
"Peeling away all be layers of scholarly debate which have tended to camouflage the issue over the years, we are left with one fundamental problem for those who would advocate using the Bible as a source for history; archaeological excavations in Egypt and the Levant (i.e. the land lying between the two great civilisations of Egypt and Mesopotamia [Rex]) ongoing for the best part of the last two centuries have produced no tangible evidence to demonstrate the historical veracity of the early biblical narratives. Direct material support for the traditional history of the Israelite nation, as handed down in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, is virtually non-existent. It is as if the Israelites had somehow failed to leave their archaeological footprints in the ancient lands of the Bible. Moses and the Israelites simply picked up their belongings, left Egypt in the reign of Rameses 2nd (thirteenth century B.C.) and walked into Sinai to miraculously disappear from history for around 400 years before resurfacing in the campaign inscriptions of the 19th century kings of Assyria. Where did they go? According to the Bible, they went to settle in Palestine where they were eventually to forge nationhood under the charismatic kings of the United Monarchy period - Saul, David and Solomon. But virtually nothing resembling those epic adventures is to be found in the archaeological record of Palestine. For that matter, their centuries-long Sojourn in the land of the Pharoahs has also left absolutely no trace in the Nile Valley or its Delta. Small wonder then that specialists in biblical criticism and their colleagues, the Levantine archaeologists, prefer to see the stories of the Old Testament as 'traditions' rather than genuine 'history'." (emphasis mine)
The thesis of A Test Of Time is that the "conventional chronology" of ancient Egypt which grew out of 19th century scholarship is inaccurate, and that "a recognition that this fundamental misinterpretation of the archaeological evidence has occurred, will then lead on to some quite astonishing implications for biblical research." In a nutshell, Rohl maintains that once the shackles of the "conventional chronology" are thrown off, archaeological finds provides strong support for the historical accuracy of the books of Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. (In fact his book is subtitled The Bible - From Myth To History) His thesis is that there does indeed exist evidence for the Israelite sojourn in Egypt, the exodus, the conquest and the Israelites' early occupancy of Canaan, but that in the past commitment to the "conventional chronology" has made it impossible to harmonise the results of archaeological investigation would be biblical account.
According to Rohl (who has no religious axe to grind) there is no conflict between the scriptural record and the factual evidence of archaeology: rather the conflict is between the scriptural record and a particular interpretation of those facts.
Now clearly when the experts disagree it is difficult for the non-specialist to make an informed decision, and it may well be that alternatives to the "conventional chronology" offered by various schools of revisionists are also flawed. The real point however is that we must always keep in mind that "Archaeology is not an exact science (and) therefore its results may undergo subjective selection and interpretation..." (Donald J Wiseman and Edwin Yamauchi, Archaeology And The Bible, An Introductory Study) Evidence is fragmentary, dating methods are fallible, unsubstantiated presuppositions are abundantand consequently it is most unreasonable and unfair to charge the Bible would error when it conflicts with some current theory. Just as the Bible is in harmony with all known facts of science, but is in conflict with the man-made theory of evolution, so too the scriptural record is in harmony with all known facts of archaeology but may not always be in harmony with various theories and proposed chronologies. Facts are constant; theories rise and fall like hemlines. In this article we will mention a number of examples of how the abandonment of certain unproven frameworks of interpretation (such as the "conventional chronology") removes alleged contradictions between the biblical and archaeological data.
Equally we must keep in mind that archaeological corroboration of the biblical text cannot provide evidence of inspiration or evidence of supernatural intervention in human affairs. For example archaeology may provide confirmation that the city of Sodom was destroyed, but clearly it cannot tell us if this destruction was a matter of divine judgment. Provided we recognise the limitations of archaeology we will find it a very useful tool in the Bible study and also a great source of encouragement to our faith. Hopefully the following paragraphs will provide examples of the various ways in which archaeology has contributed to the study of Scripture, among them the following:
1) Confirmation of the biblical record. In an esssay entitled The Use of Archaeology in Interpretation, Blaiklock tells us:
"Confirmation of otherwise unsupported detail in the biblical records by the documents from the Euphrates Valley and Assyria, or by the epigraphical evidence of Asia Minor and of Greece has been a constant encouragement to those who rightly see a firm foundation for Christian doctrine in the reliability and authority of the Bible." (Hermeneutics, Bernard L. Ramm and others)
2) Refutation. In his Archaeology and Higher Criticism, Joseph Free has the following:
"(I)n the 19th century, the Biblical critic could hold with good reason that there never was a Sargon, that the Hittites either did not exist or were insignificant, that the patriarchal accounts had a late background, and that the sevenfold lampstand of the tabernacle was a late concept, that the Davidic Empire was not as extensive as the Bible implied, that Belshazzar never existed, and that a host of other supposed errors and impossibilities existed in the biblical record."
Archaeological discoveries showed, on the contrary that Sargon existed...that the Hittites not only
existed but were a significant people, that the background of the patriarchs fits the time in the
Bible, that the concept of a sevenfold lamp existed in the Early Iron Age, that a significant city
given in the record of David's Empire lies far to the north, that Belshazzar existed and ruled over
Babylon, and that a host of other supposed had errors and contradictions are not errors at all
(quoted by Josh McDowell, More Evidence that Demands a Verdict.)
3) Background Information. In his Introduction to the Old Testament, R.K Harrison reminds us that "the essential message of the Old Testament cannot be fully comprehended without a knowledge of the cultural, religious, historical, and social background of the people to whom the revelation of God was given." Harrison adds:
"Archaeological investigation has brought to light many new facets of Israelite life that had been lost with the passing of ages and has helped to set Hebrew culture in proper perspective in relation to the trends and currents of ancient Near Eastern life generally....the main function of biblical archaeology is to expose the human environment and furnish a properly accredited background to the study of the ancient Hebrews."
As we will see, again and again archaeological discoveries have illuminated the text of Scripture by placing the actions of biblical characters in the context of culture and custom.
4) The Text: confirmation of its accuracy and clarification of its meaning. The best example of this is provided by the Dead Sea Scrolls, perhaps the greatest literary discovery of all time. In his Secrets Of The Dead Sea Scrolls, Randall Price tells us that "one of the more obvious benefits derived from discovering the Scrolls" has been that "they confirm for us the accuracy of the Old Testament text." Randall Price affirms that the Qumram text "confirmed the accuracy with which the scribes had carefully preserved and transmitted the biblical text through time." In an essay entitled The Dead Sea Scrolls and Interpretation, Robert B. Laurin tells us that "The manuscripts from Qumram and the new appreciation of the Persians had yielded information that clarifies many individual texts, particularly in the Old Testament" (Hermeneutics, Ramm et. al.) We will have more to say about the Scrolls later on.
Conclusion: In the following paragraphs we will say something about a number of different
archaeological discoveries which have contributed to our understanding of Scripture, confirmed
the accuracy of the biblical narrative at a number of points and enhanced our appreciation for the
integrity of the text. Clearly we can only look at some of the highlights, but hopefully the
information below will be an encouragement to your faith as it has been to mine. This paper will
continue to be a work in progress for some time and we will continue to add to it as time permits.
P. J. Wiseman and the Structure of Genesis.
The work of P.J. Wiseman in the first part of the 20th century provides a very good example of the real contribution that archaeology can make to our understanding of Scripture. Many believe that Wiseman's knowledge of Near Eastern literary activity enabled him to supply the key to the structure of the book of Genesis, and in doing so Wiseman provided a satisfying alternative to the so-called Documentary Hypothesis of Julius Wellhausen. In the late 19th century Wellhausen had suggested that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses but rather by various unknown teachers beginning from about 800 B.C. Wellhausen's theory was of course highly speculative. Wiseman's primary idea on the other hand was a very simple one, and it had the great advantage of harmonising with well - attested ancient literary methods. In fact it was Wiseman's familiarity with ancient literary practices which led to the formulation of his theory.
In 1977 Donald J.Wiseman, P.J's son presented his father's studies in a single, easy-to read volume entitled Clues To Creation in Genesis. In his Introduction, Donald Wiseman submits that the following explanation, which summarises his father's central thesis, "unlocks the door to (the) literary structure" of the book of Genesis:
"The book of Genesis was originally written on tablets in the ancient script of the time by the Patriarchs who were intimately concerned with the events related, and whose names are clearly stated. Moreover, Moses, the compiler and editor of the book as we now have it, plainly directs attention to the source of his information. (emphasis mine)
Wiseman reached this conclusion after extensive study of Near Eastern antiquity revealed to him that most of the clay tablets from antiquity which he examined had what are called "colophon phrases" at the end. These "colophon phrases" contained the name of the writer or owner of the tablet, words to identify the subject and some kind of dating phrase. Also often a "catch line" to connect several tablets in correct sequence, often records related to family histories and beginnings. This observation helped him to discern a pattern in the book of Genesis which hitherto had not been recognised.
Wiseman suggested that the phrase "these are the generations (toledoth) of..." followed by a name (e.g. Terah, Isaac, Jacob ) which occurs 11 times in the book of Genesis, was a "colophon phrase." He concluded that as such, the expression "these are the generations of " had originally occurred at the end of a clay tablet. He further concluded that in keeping with ancient practice, the name mentioned in each colophon (e.g. Terah, Isaac, Jacob) was the name of the writer or owner of the tablet. This makes sense because it is clear that in the book of Genesis the section preceding the phrase "these other generations of" contains information with which the person named would have been familiar. Thus according to this theory "the book of Genesis consists of a set of tablets, each of which was written by an actual eye-witness to the events described therein. These tablets were finally compiled by Moses" (Curt Sewell, Bible and Spade 1994) So, for example, Terah was the writer or original owner of the tablet containing the information found in the section immediately preceding 11:27, Isaac was the writer or owner of the tablet containing the information found in the section immediately preceding 25:19 and so on. Moses, under inspiration, used these tablets to put together the Genesis account.
Accordingly the pattern of the book of Genesis is as follows:
Tablet Divisions
Tablet No. Owner or Writer
1. Gen. 1:1 2:4a God Himself (?) He alone knows this directly.
2. Gen. 2:4b 5:1a Adam-His account of naming animals, Eve. 3. Gen. 5:1b 6:9a Noah.
4. Gen. 6:9b 10:1a Shem, Ham and Japheth (3x Gen. 7; 18,19, 20).
5. Gen. 10:1b 11:10a Shem.
6. Gen. 11:10 11:27a Terah.
7. Gen. 11:27b 25:12 Ishmael.
8. Gen. 25:12 25:18 Isaac.
9. Gen. 25:19b 36:1 Jacob.
10. Gen. 36:2 36:9 Esau through Jacob.
11. Gen. 37:10 37:2 Jacob's 12 sons.
We said earlier that ancient clay tablets were noticed to begin and end with the repetition of significant words and phrases and Wiseman points out that such repetitions are found in appropriate places in the book of Genesis:
1) Genesis 1:1 Genesis 2:4 God created the heaven and the earth.
2) Genesis 2:4 Genesis 5:2 When they were created.
3) Genesis 6:10 Genesis 10:1 Shem Ham Japheth.
4) Genesis 10:32 Genesis 11:10 After the Flood.
5) Genesis 11:26 Genesis 11:27 Abraham, Nahor and Haran.
6) Genesis 25:12 Genesis 25:19 Abraham's son.
7) Genesis 36:1 Genesis 36:8 Who is Edom.
8) Genesis 36:9 Genesis 36:43 father of the Edomites.
P.J. Wiseman's insight is a good example of how familiarity with ancient practices enhances our understanding of Scripture. R.K. Harrison reminds us that earlier scholars had "assumed, quite without warrant, that the phrase ("these are the generations of") was being employed as a preface or introduction..." He adds:
"What is evident however is that the principal facts concerning the individual involved have been recorded before the incidence of the phrase in question, and that they are not recorded after its occurrence...(Thus for example) after the phrase 'These other generations of Jacob' (Gen. 37:2) the narrative deals with the story of Joseph, and mentions Jacob only in a rather incidental manner as the unfolding of the events warranted" (R.K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament)
What's more, it is evident from the above that the sources of the book of Genesis are of great
antiquity and that "critical" theories which assign a late date to the Pentateuch run counter to the
evidence. Clearly Wiseman's familiarity with well - attested ancient literary methods enabled
him to make a significant contribution to our understanding of the book of Genesis.
Archaeology and the Pre Flood Period.
Has archaeology provided insight into the world of Adam and Eve, Cain, Able, Seth and others who inhabited the early earth in the pre-Flood period? Typical of many comments relating to the pre-fall habitat of our first parents is following by John H Sailhamer in The Expositor's Bible Commentary Vol 1:
"The location of the Garden of/in Eden has long been a topic of debate. Two of the rivers mentioned in association with the garden can be identified with certainty, the Euphrates...and the Tigris ...It is difficult to identify the other two, the "Pishon"...and the "Gihon."
Now, although well-meaning, such comments reveal a failure to appreciate the immense impact which the Flood of Noah had upon the surface of the earth. In his Scientific Creationism, prominent creationist Henry Morris speaks of the "torrents of water from the skies...erupting reservoirs from the depth...universal destruction...violent tidal actions...rising mountains and sinking basins" which would have accompanied a cataclysm such as a universal flood. A worldwide flood would have deposited a vast layer of sediment over the face of the earth, altering topography all over the globe. Thus land masses, mountains, streams and seas in the post flood era tell us little about the early earth. Reference to "fountains of the deep" (Gen. 7:11) suggests that vast subterranean reservoirs supplied much of the flood water, and perhaps after the release of this water these reservoirs collapsed to form the present sea basins. According to Psalm 104:7 the waters " fled" and "hurried away" which may be a description of the flood waters retreating from the land into these newly created basins. In the same Psalm we read that: "The mountains rose" (v.8) and John Whitcomb (Jnr) comments on this verse:
"Orogeny, or mountain - building is one of the unsolved mysteries of modern uniformitarian geology; but the Bible supplies the missing dynamic in terms of God's omnipotent intervention at the closing phase of the Flood year. Before the huge sedimentary deposits laid down during the Flood had time to consolidate or solidify they were pushed up to great heights. Still somewhat plastic in consistency, they did not split or shatter when uplifted, but rather were bent and twisted like pages in a thick magazine." (The Early Earth)
Anyway, although all the details are not clear, it is quite evident that the post Flood world is quite different from the earlier earth. The site of Eden may now be at the bottom of a sea, under a mountain range, or buried under sedimentary deposits. Luther made the following sensible comment:
"My opinion of the matter...is that paradise ...left no trace or vestige of its original state remaining...The awful Deluge destroyed all things...And therefore mountains exist where fields and fruitful plans before flourished so they can be no doubt that fountains and sources of rivers are now found where none existed before, and where the state of nature was changed by the mighty convulsion..." (Commentary On Genesis)
In 1929 during his excavations in Mesopotamia, Sir Charles Leonard Woolley came upon a clay
deposit about three metres thick, under which was discovered evidence of human habitation.
Woolley announced to the world "We have found the Flood!" He was wrong. The rivers which
we know as the Tigris and the Euphrates are not the rivers spoken of in Genesis 2. Likely these
names were given to these rivers by the descendants of Noah, and we should not expect
archaeologists to find evidence of Eden in the region which we call Mesopotamia.
The Civilisation Explosion.
In his illuminating little book entitled The Puzzle of Ancient Man, Dr Donald E. Chittick states:
"With the possible exception of the amazing developments of the past 100 years, the further we go in the past, the higher the level of science and technology as reflected by human artefacts." (emphasis mine)
Chittick points out that a recurring theme emerges as ancient cultures around the world are examined: "Cultures appear to emerge in a high state of development and then decline after a period of time.' He tells us that "cultures around the world appear to have originated at about the same time of roughly 5,000 years ago. (3000 B.C.) They appear with an already developed high level of technical development" and the puzzle is that "there is little if any evidence to support the idea that these ancient cultures experimented with engineering designs." Instead, "each culture appears full blown right from its beginning. Erich Von Daniken (of Was God An Astronaut fame) points out that "ancient Egypt appears suddenly and without transition with a fantastic ready-made civilisation." He explains:
"Great cities and enormous temples, colossal statues with tremendous expressive power, splendid streets flanked by magnificent sculptures, perfect drainage systems, luxurious tombs carved out of the rock, pyramids of overwhelming size - these and many other wonderful things shot out of the ground, so to speak. Genuine miracles in a country that is suddenly capable of such achievements without recognisable prehistory." (Chariots Of The Gods)
A similar observation by evolutionist researcher Graham Hancock (Fingerprints of the Gods) is recorded by Steve Carno in an article entitled The Mystery of Ancient Man which appeared in Creation Ex Nihilo magazine March-May 1998:
"The archaeological evidence suggested that rather than developing slowly and painfully, as is normal with human societies, the civilization of Ancient Egypt, like that of the Olmecs, emerged all at once and fully formed. Indeed, the period of transition from primitive to advanced society appears to have been so short that it makes no kind of historical sense."
Technological skills that should have taken hundreds or even thousands of years to evolve were brought into use almost overnight - and with no apparent antecedents whatever. (emphasis mine)
Now of course none of this is consistent with evolutionary theory: but it is consistent with the
biblical account. Clearly the people of the pre- Flood period had attained a very high degree of
development. For example it is likely that they had mastered the technology and chemistry
required by the smelting process (Gen. 4:22) and of course Noah was capable of constructing a
sea-going craft large enough to carry about 125,000 sheep. The preservation of this knowledge by
certain descendants of Noah in the post-Flood period would explain the early pyramids of Egypt,
the "stone calendars" of the Mayans, the ability of the builders of the ancient city of Sacsahuaman
to manoeuvre rocks that weighed an estimated 20,000 tonnes and many other "anomalies."
What's more, a rapid decline of technology as a result of isolation caused by the confusion of
languages (Gen. 11:19) also fits the known facts of archaeology.
Shem Ham and Japheth.
According to Scripture, at the time of the Flood, the human seed was preserved in the person of Noah, and all the races upon the earth have descended from his three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Gen. 7:13; 10:32) Many critics of the Bible have expressed the view that the great variation of skin colour which we see in the world today is proof that the Bible is an error on this point since such diversity could not come about in just a few thousand years. However this objection is unfounded. Biologist Dr Gary Parker, a one-time evolutionist, explains why in his very readable book Creation Facts of Life:
"How long would it take to get all the variation in the amount of skin colour we see among people today? A million years? No. A thousand years? No. Answer: just one generation!
Let's see how that works. The amount of skin color we have depends on at least two pairs of genes. Let's call these genes A and B. People with the darkest skin color have genes AABB as their genotype (set of genes for a trait); those with very light skins have aabb. People with two 'capital letter' genes would be 'medium skinned' and those with one or three such genes would be a shade lighter or a shade darker.
Suppose we start with two medium-skinned parents AaBb ..Less than half (only 6 of the 16 combination) would be medium-skinned like their parents. Four each would be a shade darker or lighter. One in 16 of the children of medium-skinned parents (AaBb) would have the darkest possible skin color (AABB) while the chances are also 1 in 16 that a brother or sister will have the very lightest skin colour (aabb)....The Bible doesn't tell us what skin color our first parents had, but, from a design point of view, the "middle" makes a great beginning. Starting with medium-skinned parents (Aa Bb), it would take only one generation to produce all the variation we see in the human skin colour today...."
Parker goes on to explain that the isolation of various human groups which would have followed the confusion of the languages (Gen. 11:7) would have caused those groups to get "locked in" to producing offspring of a particular colour, giving rise to the various racial groups which we see today. There can be no legitimate objection raised to Genesis account on this score.
In 1995 after more than 25 years of research, Bill Cooper of the Creation Science Movement published a fascinating book entitled After The Flood, in which he demonstrates that many peoples of the earth have independently preserved the memory of Shem Ham and Japheth and their descendants. Concerning Japheth Cooper says:
"The father of all the Indo-European peoples, it would be surprising indeed if his name had gone unremembered among them. As it is, we find that the early Greeks worshipped him as Iapetos, or Iapetus, whom they regarded as the son of heaven and earth, the father of many nations. Likewise in the ancient Sanskrit vedas of India he is remembered as Pra-Japati, the sun and ostensible Lord of Creation. As time went by his name was further corrupted, being assimilated into the Roman pantheon as Iupater, and eventually Jupiter. None of these names are of Greek, Indian or Latin origin, but are merely corruptions of the original name of Japheth. Both the early Irish Celts and the early Britons traced the descent of their royal houses from Japheth, as did also the early Saxons who corrupted his name to Sceaf....."
The sons of Ham are Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan. Cooper explains how history has preserved the memory of Ham's four sons:
"Cush. Josephus writes that Cush reigned over the Ethiopians and reports that in his day the Ethiopians were called Cushites. 'The name Cush (originally rendered Chus in Josephus) is preserved in Egypt's heiroglyphic inscriptions as Kush, these records referring to the country that lay between the second and third cataracts of the Nile...Some have claimed also that the name of Cush was likewise perpetuated in that of the Babylonian city of Kish, one of the earliest cities to be built after the Flood........
Mizraim. A collective name, these people settled in Egypt. Modern Israelis still use the name for that country; it is preserved as Msrm....According to Josephus some six or seven of the nations descended from the Mizraim were destroyed..(he) lists these nations as the Ludim; the Anamin; the Lehabim; the Naphtulim; the Pathrusim; the Casluhim and the Caphtorim.
Put. The country in which the descendants of Put settled is well known to us from the Egyptian records...It is always spoken of as closely associated with Egypt, and its close geographical proximity to Egypt is confirmed by an inscription from the archives of Darius the Great king of Persia from 522-486 B.C. Here the land of Puta is shown as lying in the proximity of Cyrenaica, i.e. on the North African coast to the west of Egypt.
Canaan. The posterity of Canaan settled in the land that was later to be given to Israel. At the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan, the population consisted of all the tribes descended from Canaan."
Finally we have Shem, the father of all the Semetic nations, whose sons are given as Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram." (Gen. 11:22)
Again Cooper gives examples of how the descendants of Shem preserved the memory of their remote ancestors:
"Elam. The founder of the Elamites, who were known to the Babylonians as the Elamtu, to the Greeks as Elymais, and whom they Romans knew as the Elymaei. The Elamites recorded their own name as the Haltamti...
Assur. The founder of the nation to whom he gave his name, Assyria. It may be possible to identify Assur in the early king lists of Assyria as Puzur Asshur 1 ...Assur was one of the earliest men to be deified and worshipped by his descendants. Indeed, as long as Assyria lasted, that is until 612 B.C., accounts of battles, diplomatic affairs and foreign bulletins were daily read out to his image; and every Assyrian king held that he wore the crown only with the express permission of Asshur's deified ghost.
Arphachad. Arphaxad was the progenitor of the Chaldeans, his name, apparently, corresponding to that of Arp-keshed, the border marches of Chaldea. That he was indeed the forbear of the Chaldeans is confirmed by the Hurrian (Nuzi) tablets, which render the name as Arip-hurra - the founder of Chaldea.....
Lud. The early descendants of Lud, the Ludim, were known to both the Assyrians and Babylonians as the Ludu. Josephus tells us that their land was later known as Lydia.....
Aram. He was the founder of the Aramaeans, known to the Akkadians as the Amaru, but who were later known to the Greeks as the Syrians... A clay tablet from Ur bears the name of Aramu, and it is of interest to note that the Aromaic is still spoken today."
Cooper provides many other examples of how the writings, legends and worship practices of people throughout the world had preserved the memory of Noah's three sons and their children. Thus investigations into the records of early peoples by ancient historians has provided very good evidence that Shem Ham and Japheth and their descendants were real figures of history. Home|Contents