"Noah found himself at the cornerstone of what we call a "Utopia,"

a planned society--a universal social scheme. animated be a new

principle of government power and knit together by theocratic

symbols such as the rainbow sign of genesis chapter nine, verse

thirteen. (1) John D. Pilkey, 1984

We know from Scripture that all people living today, whether Pygmy, Oriental, Caucasian or whatever nationality, are directly descended from Noah's family. This study is aimed at the identification of Noah's family, as found within the many national mythologies of the Ancients.

Mr. Wright, in his 'Biblical Archaeology' indicates to us the importance of studying the histories and records of the nations as requisite to understanding the Biblical truths of a common origin and post-flood history. He bases his position on the two following passages of Scripture:

"Remember (and recall) the days of old; consider

the years of generations upon generation..."

Deut. 32:7

"(For. remember this, that) God blessed Noah and

his sons and said to them,

'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.'

So, Noah went out and his sons, and his wife,

and his sons' wives with him."

Gen. 9:1; 8:18

Mr. Wright concludes that, Biblical man, unlike other men in the world, had learned to confess his faith by telling the story of what had happened to his people and by seeing within it the hand of God. Faith was communicated, in other words, through the forms of history; and unless history is taken seriously, one cannot comprehend Biblical faith, which triumphantly affirms the meaning of history. He says,


"We cannot, therefore, assume that the knowledge of Biblical history

is unessential to the faith. Biblical theology and Biblical archaeology

(and thus, history) must go hand in hand if we are to comprehend

the Bible's meaning. (2)


Now, Mr. Jacob Bryant, an early mythographer of the late 18th century, emphasizes

the importance of the study of history, where the Biblical accounts is the bases:


"As the desolation of the world by a deluge, and the renewal of it

in one person, are points in these days particularly controverted, many

who are enemies to revelation, upon seeing these truths ascertained,

may be led to a more intimate acquaintance with the Scriptures;

and such an insight (can only be) productive of good. For our

faith depends upon historical experience, and it is mere ignorance

that makes infidels. Hence, it is possible that some may be won

over by historical evidence, whom a refined theological argument

cannot reach. (3)



The following is an attempt to re-establish Biblical monogenetic, historical science as the true foundation of man's origin. The Bible teaches, with all its genealogies and lists of patriarchs, that the races and nations of modern mankind originate from the small family of Noah. The writings of the Gentiles also attest to this monogenetic origin, as I hope to show with the following study.

Many people today are either apathetic or opposed to monogenesis (monogenism - 0ne-family beginning) for many reasons. The two most infamous reasons are personal preference and the scientific argument. The opposing factor which we will be refuting in this study is the scientific view point: polygenesis, the Darwinian teaching that there is more than one origin for man--that mankind today did not originate from any single Noahic gene-pool. Of course, this is not the teaching found in the Bible, nor is it the teaching found in any of the world creation myths. In fact, it is not found in anything except modern textbooks and a few ancient Greek speculative works. This teaching does not go back any further than a few hundred years before Christ. No ancient tradition or myth (that I know of) attests to such a so-called truth. It appears to be only a modern theory of anti-Biblical anthropologists.

Contrary to monogenesis, which teaches that all the races of man--the Sumerians, Egyptians, Mayans, etc.--originate from the family of Noah and Adam and Eve, polygenism teaches that all these races were too distinct in the earliest known times to be given any sort of common origin. In other words, the fundamental races of modern man originated separately or evolved independently from different sub-human primate species, each having a distinct primordial beginning.

The teaching of polygenesis can be found rampant in college-university thinking, both secular and Christian alike. The cause for polygenism among, particularly, Christian scholars is that the teachers and directors of the colleges have propagated fallacious reasoning in failing to recognize the extent to which Darwinism has infiltrated the structures and methods of their thinking , in opposition to sound Biblical and historical evidence. Others, however, are very much aware of the Darwinian influence and think nothing of propounding this doctrine even in the face of Biblical evidence. It has become very damaging to the academic world in its refusal to answer certain questions, such as where the Sumerians came from, and how the different languages developed.

Because of the prominence of Darwinian mentalities and misconceptions among many preachers and teachers, this damaging influence is, I believe, behind the moral decay and degeneracy of our youths, which is demonstrated in their rejection of Western Christian values. Hence, the general acceptance of this influence has consequentially permeated the Christian world by shading with fictional quality the records of Adam and Eve and the Noahic family.

Polygenism has, thus, caused much division and argumentation among even Christian people. In its social aspect, Darwinism has been the main cause of the racial separation and segregation of man into alien peoples with no common origin, e.g. with the black and white races. This has consequently created such evils as racial hatred and white/black/Jewish supremacists' attitudes.

The following monogenetic study of the traditional histories of man will, I hope, offer the student of history an alternative explanation for the origin of man, and with the proper interpretations, offer a consistent explanation for the many origin myths found among the diverse cultures of the world.

In presenting this study, it is hoped that a whole new field of research in the proto-history of man will open up to the scholarly world. It is also hoped that the following studies will help in answering the many questions left behind by polygenetic anthropologists.

Dr. Pilkey, the leading authority in monogenetic research, can best define the study of Genesis, chapters ten and eleven today:


"Monogenesis is a synthetic structure built out of various ancient

materials for the purpose of demonstrating the unity of human

proto-history in a single intrigue based on the unique

experiences of a single family." (4)


Some scholars may question such a synthesis. Of what do our proofs consist? We answer that, like all such structures, any historical synthesis, especially anthropological relies on internal harmony as its only means of "proof." In other words, does it take into account ALL available data and synthesize it into a harmonious demonstration concluding mankind's origin. This is the only sort of proof available to historical science since we cannot subject past events to laboratory experimentation. Now, to disprove a historical theory is to demonstrate its disharmony within itself, or with another more harmonious structure built by others out of more substantive information. Hence, begins the struggle between Darwin's anomaly and the Genesis account.

Some scholars refer to synthetic history as though there were some other kind! No, by definition, there can be no other kind. A non-synthetic history is merely a register and transcription of documents; whereas, synthesis begins the instant there is any transliteration of such documents, much less any kind of interpretation. The phrase 'synthetic-history,' according to Dr. Pilkey, is used strategically as a critical bogey to frighten amateurs and non-specialists from invading the field of historical writing. Consequently, with the invasion of polygenistic infiltrators, the earlier and more primitive monogenetic systems of historical research have been discarded as 'mythography'--an alleged pseudo-science based upon taking the logic of Genesis too seriously to suit scientific atheistic historians.

One may say that, because of Darwinian consensus studies in ancient history and origins have been hampered, damaged and even destroyed if they in any way favor Biblical monogenesis. Furthermore, liberals and conservatives alike have missed the conceptual challenge offered by the Genesis presentation of world origins.

Obviously, if we accept the hypothesis that Biblical monogenesis is true, then we cannot help but arrive at more daring conceptions of antiquity than the prevailing ones: that there was a catastrophic flood that destroyed all mankind and that the recorded life-longevities of Genesis eleven are not fictional. Another more daring concept, for example, would be the radical view taken by monogenists, i.e. the commonly understood Genesis-10 'Table of Nations' is not only a list of nations and tribes, but it is also a list of the patriarchal founders of these so-called given nations. For example, when the names in the list are distinguished from their suffixes, such as 'im' and 'ites,' one obtains the proper name of a specific patriarch: thus, Canaan from the name Canaanites; Lud from Ludim; Arvad from Arvadites and Ham from the Hamites.

In discussing the subject of these Genesis-10 identities, a revolution in the process of historical science is at hand. The ancient rulers of the Near East (i.e. the genesis-10 princes) prior to the second millennium before Christ, were not what they appear to be in modern historical thought. In the majority of cases, they did not die at the close of their reigns. Their actual reigning terms were shorter than commonly believed and were brief episodes in the lifetimes extending (some) three, four or even five centuries.

Dr. Pilkey says that these rulers were ubiquitous, international feudal aristocrats, reigning under different names at different times, and among different linguistic stocks. Their dynasties were personal alliances reigning for equal terms of one to six years within pre-designated frames of thirty years. Their standard epic was the thirty-year generation revealed in the eleventh chapter of the book of genesis, and they were in fact the elite company of princes whose names are recorded systematically in the tenth chapter. Finally, he says that the text of Genesis 9-11 claims to narrate and outline the earliest origins of Gentile mankind.

The names listed in the book of Genesis, chapter ten, have their counterpart versions recorded in the ancient 'Gentile' histories, such as within the Puranic Histories of the East Indians of India. The other mythologies of the world also have their name lists. By identifying these extra-Biblical names with the Genesis lists of names, we can begin to re-interpret and reconstruct the true proto-historical times of the early days of Noah and his family: the period spanning from the Deluge to about the time of Noah's death 350 years after.

These studies help to contend for the truth of the Lord, which is monogenesis, as well as for the simple Gospel message. Therefore, one of the reasons that Genesis-10 study is being revived today is for the purpose of contending for the Biblical testimony of Christ.

Another reason is that monogenesis is a vital aspect of evangelism in that its proof has faith building potential for the modern Thomas, evangelical in scope, if he can begin with the knowledge that the Bible is factual and historically accurate. It helps to support the unity of mankind from a common parentage. No race is superior to another in the

eyes of God, nor more 'godly' than another; no one can be called common or unclean anymore. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Monogenesis is also important in defining, 'that, like in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the last days:' the world will need a Saviour! Monogenesis, from the family of Noah, demands that Noah is the foreshadow or the antitype (i.e. previous-type) of Jesus Christ.

This is very important, for to deny a historical Noah, a Deluge and a monogenetic origin of man, is to deny certain aspects of Christ Himself. At the least, such a denial helps to distract from the truths of Christ, His 'plan,' and the reality of God's working in the lives of humans.

The recognition of these facts and of the deteriorating influences of the polygenesis concept on Western 'Christian' thinking will relieve major spiritual problems; it will diminish problems with the Scriptures as well as with Christ Himself. The study of Genesis-10 is, thus, an evangelical effort as well as a historical effort, to drive back the winds of foul doctrines and lies that eat away at man's only escape from condemnation.

The ultimate goal of this study is to ground the reader in a solid and valid historical foundation, which will consequently facilitate a better understanding of future events such as the return of Christ and the redemption of man. This understanding will save many from the damning effects of evolutionary thinking, which is the culprit behind polygenesis. Genesis-10 study is scriptural and is "...beneficial for doctrine, for reproof, for correction..."(2 Timothy 3:16).

To combat polygenism, the following three essentials must be established and agreed upon: 1) that the elaborate structure of Genesis is evidence of the high-spirited productivity in the earliest postdiluvian world(i.e. pre-flood world); 2) that Noah's community must be viewed in the light of cultural enterprise, no matter what evils entered the scene (this enterprise was both geographical and genetic--the genetic factor being the most crucial); and 3) that we must adopt radical views of early post-diluvian marriage and suspend the Separatistic notions of 'The Godly Seed,' or what has perpetuated today as racial supremacists' views.



Now, one may ask, "Who originated the monogenetic theory?" To answer this , one must turn to the oldest and most accurate source available--the book of Genesis. Here we will see that the author(s) recorded a brief, yet important, synopsis of man's monogenetic origin in two successive and varied beginnings. One is from a primitive couple; the other from a small family of eight persons. The monogenesis we will examine concerns the latter group--Noah's family.

To verify this theory of monogenesis, at least among the Christian community, Jesus affirmed and supported monogenesis from the small survival family, by referring to them as real, historical persons. Even the Apostles of Jesus, such as Peter, referred to them. Jesus alludes to the reality of the Noahic heritage and to the Great Flood in Matthew 24:37-38. Herein lies direct testimony of the Flood and the surviving family of Noah. Jesus was directly referring to the book of Genesis when He referred to Noah. He not only accepted Genesis by faith, but I personally believe He actually knew that Noah had existed at one time, just as He knew Moses. After all, if Jesus was the Angel of Jehovah/Yahweh that visited Abraham and knew him as a historical person, then He could just as well have known of Noah the same way. Remember, it was the Angel of God that visited ancient Babylon's Tower in the time of Noah!

The Apostles also knew of the family of Noah and Noah himself through historical records. Their familiarity with Christ and Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration led them to accept the reality of a historical Noah and the other seven survivors. In other words, if Scripture is correct about Moses, as it was affirmed on the Mount of Transfiguration, then it must be correct about Noah and the Flood. Historically, the Bible has not been proven wrong yet! The Hittites of old were thought to be fictional at one time, just like the Trojans of mythical Troy, until someone dug them up in Asia Minor! Every time someone comes along and claims the Bible wrong or fictional in a certain area, another person comes along and proves it correct and true.

To further trace the monogenetic doctrine, one only has to follow the Apostles wherever they evangelized. From Christ, the Apostles spread out teaching this doctrine, among other theological truths, to their students and converts, who then disseminated it throughout the world, for it was very important to the understanding of the workings of God, through the Gospel, in men's lives (Matt.24; Lk.17:26-27; I Pet.2:5 and 3:6; Heb.11:7).

About 1600 years later a great revival took place in the study of monogenesis, as archaeology and the news lands of Egypt and India opened up to the Western world of scientific study. The doctrine had been a latent teaching among Christians and even among many non-Christians. It had been accepted without question, and for that matter, without any real verification, for the Bible was one of their only accepted records of history. In those days, there was no reason to question the Bible, for there was very little opposition or alternative history--actually, there is no real grounds to question it now. About the 1600's, researchers and students of history began to develop new and exciting ethnological theories based upon the monogenetic doctrine. New foundations and structures of verification began to be developed, and a new science of inquiry begins to develop in the area of the study of man's origin. This period from the 17th to the 19th century progressed until monogenesis was suppressed in the last half of the 1800's by the new mythology of the Evolutionists. This then leads us to the period of the mid-20th century, to the studies of modern monogenists. Thanks to the efforts and research of these early mythographers and historians, and to the few modern students, monogenesis can begin a fresh rebirth, and true history can begin to be written once again. During those two centuries arose a Genesis-10 movement based on such aforementioned writers as Samuel Bochart, Paul Pezron, William Stukeley, Francis Wise, Jacob Bryant, George Faber and Alexander Hislop. The Later humanist anthropologists were born as the above writers died, in the interval between 1820 and 1860.

Nevertheless, in modern times, with updated archaeological data and new literary materials, such as the Sumerian documents, monogenetic study can now recover and revive itself from its dusty hiding places upon the darkened shelves of our libraries, and take up a fresh new stand against its age-old enemy called polygenism.



What is happening today among the Fundamentalist and Christian scientists is a turnaround in the scientific approaches and theories in the studies of man's origin. This turnabout can also be seen in the skepticism developing within anthropological circles as well; thanks to aggressive, persistent Creation scientists. Soon, with the help of Genesis-10 information, we shall see even more profound changes in the thinking of polygenists. If truth is what they really seek, then it is just a matter if time before they see that monogenesis is superior to polygenism.

Our newspapers today speak of a recently organized association of monogenists, which deal with and contend against Darwinian Evolution. These scientists support a Divine Creation and a Monogenesis from a single family of two person whom, in the Genesis account, are called Adam and Eve. Their monogenism can be classed as an Antediluvian Monogenesis. Now, what is also needed is a school of Post-deluvian monogenists--a school of historians who teach that modern man originates and, thus, directly descends from the Genesis family of Noah. The Creation scientists and Adamic monogenists use all kinds of scientific facts to support Creationism. What Christianity needs now, is a school of Noahic historians to rally all the historical evidences together in support of a monogenesis from the family of Noah. Such an association would be important in explaining and answering people's many questions, such as where all mankind comes from, where is he going, and why man is here on earth.

Genesis studies into origins have much to do with Biblical prophecy as can be seen in the Alpha-Omega mystery--i.e. the mystery of the first and the last or the beginning and the end. This mystery is undeniably incorporated into the Biblical arrangement of the Holy Scriptures , as can be seen in the chronological order of the books. Genesis is the beginning or start of the Bible, and the Revelation of St. John is the ending or finish of the Bible. Genesis mentions the first man, Adam; and Revelation mentions the last or second Adam, Jesus Christ--the Omega Man. To understand how we arrived at our present status, one must review the ancient past and all available historical and archaeological data. Then, by this overview, because the understanding of the past and present are both necessary for understanding the future, one can have a better understanding of present political situations, racial types, sociology, and history in the making. With these facets of civilization in mind, and Scriptures as a basis, the student can have a more comprehensive understanding of recorded revealed prophecy and its impact on immediate society. By definition, Prophecy is future historical events made present tense by the sequence of events of its past. To understand future events as they come to pass and their inferences and significance’s, the student must be aware of true history, of Christ and the Noahic Heritage. Lacking all this, it is no wonder that Evolutionists and atheistic scientists are dumb about future events and the processes leading up to them.

Genesis gives us this alternative to modern polygenism, which is outright devilish in its efforts to undermine our true heritage. Genesis-10 studies can assist the truth seeker in his battle for truth against the devil's system. By reviewing the true past as recorded in Genesis, the student is directed towards the future and the second Adam, Jesus Christ, in

anticipation of His glorious return. This is ultimately important if one cares about his future and destiny and soul's condition after death.

There are many questions in need of study, which are necessary for the understanding of the ancient past. Biblically speaking, there is no hint of how the different racial types of mankind originated, or which languages resulted from the confusion of tongues at Babel. These are only a few of the many questions being asked today by scholars. Do you know where Noah's family journeyed after leaving the mountains of Ararat? Or, how this family first divided? Or, why Noah's curse fell upon Canaan instead of Ham? Or, why the Hebrew people spoke the language of Canaan, son of Ham, rather than the language of Shem? And what would have been the language of Shem? What were the names of the wives of Noah, Ham, Shem and Japheth? Why was there only eight survivors instead of more or less?

These and many other questions are in need of answers, and Darwinian science does not, because it cannot, answer them: the reason being that they deny the whole account. There are also many non-Biblical questions that Darwinism cannot answer. For one example: What is the history that leads mankind up to the period of the Sumerian occupation of Mesopotamia? Read the commentaries, and you will find out that they do not know. They do not know whom they were, where they came from, or how they built their civilization so quickly.

The time has come for respectable historians to consider these questions and to find reliable answers to them. This can only happen if monogenesis is honestly considered in light of the Genesis account. It is my hope that this genealogical study will help to begin this accomplishment of the truth of the ancient past.



The polygenetic worldview, regardless of religious preference, can be summed up as 'ungodly.' Polygenetic positions range from anthropological views to pseudo-Biblical ones. No matter what the position is, if it is polygenetic in theory and denies certain historical claims of Scriptures, such as the Flood, then it is, according to Scripture, false. And remember the Bible has never been proven historically wrong yet.

The Saviour of the Christian religion clearly testifies to the historicity of the Noahic Flood, and the true descent of man. The Apostle Peter in the New Testament informs his readers that there was a flood with only eight survivors, out of all mankind! To him, they were real historical people and events. According to Jesus, they were real people and events. St. Paul also believed in these monogenetic doctrines as having historical validity. Paul taught, along with the other Apostles and Christ Himself, that Adam was a real human being and not some mythological or fictional character. They all understood that the many other patriarchs were historical figures too. Christ established this as a standard of truth, for He had the patriarchs and the memories of past events recorded in Scripture.

Christ is shown quoting from the Old Testament and never once inferring the fictional quality of such persons as Adam, Eve and Noah. He considered them historical persons probably for the simple reason that he actually knew them from His Old Testament visitations; something no other man could do. To the Hebrews, Christ and His Apostles,

The writings of Moses were records of true, historical events describing all the events of importance in synoptic form. Extra-Biblical records also testify to the truth of the Genesis record, leading the honest scholar to believe that these sources are also trustworthy (to some extent).

Yet, many scholars reject the traditions of other cultures for the verification of the genesis record. To the Biblical historian, that is fundamentally illogical, for the value of cultural traditions (i.e. myths, legends) is as important as any material evidence for the evaluation of ancient history.

There are many arguments used to disregard the traditional cultural records of the ancients. Some say they are fictions or poetic compilations without any purpose for recording history. Others suggest they are isolated records, especially the genesis account, that have no connection with the true events of the past; they are just oral traditions handed down for long periods of time to teach certain kinds of morals--read Emanuel Swedenborg. Another argument revolves around the Genesis accounts principle of ellipsis or silence. There are gaps of information within the text that leave scholars ignorant about certain areas of ancient history. Liberal Christians will argue the fictional quality of Genesis. The more conservative Christians will argue that what is not recorded was meant to be unimportant. The true historian will disagree with both, in favor for the silence being just as important as what is recorded. What is not written in one account deserves our attention just as mush as what is recorded. The silence found in some records, which may be supplemented by another, is as important a historical guideline as the recorded events. After all, some silence on the part of a writer may allude to some political bias on his part, something he has meant to NOT record. Silence should never mean unimportance and should never cause neglect on historians' quest for truth.

In Genesis 9-11, this principle of ellipsis reaches a peak of importance. For, according to Dr. John Pilkey, the text claims to narrate and outline the earliest origins of gentile mankind. However, a comparison of the text with known facts of antiquity leaves an immense gap of information and logic. For example, Genesis 10:6 names Mizraim, the generic Hebrew name for Egypt, as a son of Ham. Now, there is not the slightest hint of the concrete steps by which this son gave rise to the civilization of Egypt. The brevity of these chapters and verses makes its information deeply mysterious. Such gaps of information are a challenge for anyone who takes the historicity of the Bible seriously. Great masses of extra-Biblical data are invisibly wedged logically between every pair of verses in these chapters. Whole histories are hidden under every single name in a context of only eighty or more such names. The text of Genesis 9-11 defines itself as the tip of a vast iceberg the size of a continent. The issue, therefore, is not whether to apply extra-Biblical data to the text; but, rather, which information is to be used?

Genesis-10 study is merely an organization of Gentile data according to the logic of the Bible. To discredit this study as " extra-Biblical " is much the same as discrediting the study of Church History as postdating the Apostolic period. No doubt some Christians are offended at the details of Church history, and the same is true of the details of the Gentile world of the genesis-10 study. However, no academic program, which acknowledges the value of Church History or the history of Israel, can logically discredit the world of Noah, which is the gentile heritage, as irrelevant to Biblical Christianity.

The simple truth is that Noah's Gentile World Community is older than either Israel or the Church. Its antiquity commands respect, and it is too essential to the context of Jewish and Christian history to be neglected. Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus were descendents of Noah--and all mankind--were kinsmen of all the gentiles. This genetic relationship is neither a joke nor an abstraction, and certainly not "dangerous speculation." It is the detailed substance of a world revealed explicitly by the inspired text of genesis 9-11. In other words, the Noahic Cosmos, as depicted in genesis, is the primordial matrix from which the Jewish and Christian systems are derived. In fact, all the worlds today derive from it. Dr. Pilkey says,


"The text of genesis-10 is one of those better things. It consists

Of personal and ethnic names; and these names are a mighty

Treasure, a virgin storehouse of "gold, silver and precious

Stones" for building the Millennial Kingdom of Jesus Christ

the instant that the malign Gentile cosmos is demolished at

Armageddon. These names are innocent hostages locked up

in the prison of gentile ignorance and Jewish contempt for

more than four thousand years. They are a brief, selective

record of the original postdiluvian cosmos of Noah, the lost

stratum of gentile innocence just beneath the surface of what

is misnamed "secular history." (5)


The Genesis-10 study is guided by a text of Scripture, but it is also actually a study of Gentile tradition by means of that text. Some evangelists and fundamentalists are offended at what is called "extra-Biblical" materials in any sort of Biblical study, but this is only because they approach the Bible analytically for the purpose of establishing basic scripture doctrine.

Genesis 6-11 introduces a vast subject, yet says very little about that subject. For example, the text tells us very little about the maternity of Noah's sons; so we assume that the mothers are not an interpretive crux, but a question of historical science. The only way conventional evangelical scholars can question the right to bring gentile traditions, even mythology, to bear on this question is to deny that the sons of Noah have any place in general historical science. The simple fact is that the bizarre, apocalyptic qualities of Noah's world resulted in the classic pagan mythological habit of mind. All of the data relevant to the history of man in the third millennium is tinged with mythology. Those who would prohibit the serious study of Gentile mythology as a source of historical insight, would prohibit the formation of any historical science for ancient times.



If one gets the impression that literate political history begins about the time we assign a date for Noah's flood, that impression is quite correct because the flood ushered in a dispensation of human government, even the tendency to make oral records of literate political history. Dr. Pilkey says:


"There is nothing in the chronological schemes of Hallo and

Simpson and Finegan or Kramer to suggest that the world

population could have fallen to eight persons in 2535 BC

On the contrary, these writers assume that the literate

civilization of Sumer appearing about 2500 BC could only

have been the products of evolutionary progress between

2900-2500 BC; so we are faced with a simple and familiar

choice between dispensational revolution on the one

hand, and progressive evolution on the other.

There is little difference in principle between this choice

and the one, which divides those who believe Israel, originated

through random accumulations of Semitic influences, and those

who believe that Moses led Israel out of Egypt by miraculous

power, often decisively, "judging the gods of Egypt." The

real problem lies with evangelical scholars who allow the third

millennium to be interpreted for them by POLYGENISTS

while clinging to the second millennium events of the Exodus.

These scholars apparently suppose that a historical Moses is

more vital to the Christian faith than a historical Noah; but

they are mistaken! A Noah of the third millennium is a historical

Noah--a Noah of indeterminate antiquity is a non-functional

bit of folklore." (6)


One of the major claims of scholars today is that we do not have enough data to work with and to develop a monogenetic science. Yet, they seem to believe that there is plenty enough to synthesize a polygenetic one; but how much is enough?

One other reason for a lack of interest in Genesis study is that conservatives are overtly skeptical about taking Genesis 9-11 at face value because of its radical implications. For example, if Shem's longevity made him contemporary with Abraham, a New World of political and religious possibilities opens up. Yet, it is not this, but the dismantling of their old system that they are fearful of. There is another aspect to all this, too: Dr. Pilkey suggests that


"Conservatives have jumped to the conclusion that because the

Book of Genesis presents Noah and Shem as godly men,

they are somehow Jewish separatists unrelated in culture

or thought to paganism and, therefore, unrelated to the

traditions of the Sumerians, Egyptians, Hindus and Greeks." (7)


This great failure to place Noah's family in a historical framework arises from a confused ethical problem, the contrast between Noahic Mankind and Abrahamic Mankind. This problem can be traced to the ancient conflict between the Jews and the Gentiles. "ye know that it is an unlawful thing foe a man that is a Jew to keep company, or to come unto one of another nation." Here the Jews were God's classic separatist people. However, in the Book of Acts, there is a revolution in the Judeo-Christian attitude--a crude attitude toward the Gentiles. "But, God hath shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (Acts 28:10). Now, where that attitude has not changed thoroughly, an attitude of contempt evidences toward the Gentiles in their heritage, which makes it difficult to study this subject. The full implications of this verse have not penetrated the world of conventional evangelical scholarship in dealing with Gentile origins and traditions.

The final word on this great secular-separatist battle is Christ's words in the parable of the Prodigal Son. The parable is given to us for the purpose of showing us how vitally important this conflict is. The older brother, says Dr. Pilkey, illustrates the classic separatist or 'godly man,' whereas, the younger brother is a type of secularist rebel. He is capable of repentance, like the other brother, and he does repent. Yet, the older brother represents a poor attitude towards repentance, like the Pharisees. The older brother's attitude is as the bad attitude of contempt for Gentile conversion. This creates an ideological climate of hostility, which influences the study of this kind of subject. For, the lack of curiosity about the precise origins of an enemy, the Gentiles, is very typical of classic Judaism, it continues to influence the unrepentant judaistic element of thought, as well as evangelical thought.

In classic Judaism, the idea was not to learn about the Gentiles but, rather, to overcome their pattern of immorality--their pattern of idolatry and wickedness. One way to overcome it was to turn one's back on it and not study it. The classic separatists of Old Testament times were in no position to become interested or curious about developing a science or knowledge of the Gentiles. This heritage has left us with a scientific dilemma. Evangelicals and fundamentalists share in the Judaistic component of the Christian faith. They are the only people with a high enough view of Bible authority to make serious use of the traditions of early Genesis. Yet, the cultural pattern of early Protestant history has endowed these same evangelicals with a semi-Judaistic contempt for the Gentile heritage. Scholars with a high of the Bible usually have a low view of the Gentiles or Gentile traditions; whereas, others like anthropologists have a low view of the Bible and a high regard for the Gentiles and their records. Thus, the anthropologists are the cult of the younger brother (the secularist rebels) while the classic separatists (the evangelicals and the fundamentalists) are the cult of the older brother.




The prevailing notion is that the list of names in Genesis-10 is a mere Table of Nations, an enumeration of the nations in random proximity to Palestine in ancient times. Adoptive by modern conservatives as well as liberals, this idea is a compromise with the polygenetic viewpoint, which dismisses the stories of Adam and Noah as fables. Dr. Pilkey says, in his lectures, that


In dealing with Genesis-10, conventional scholars follow the basic

logic of Friedrich Schlegal at the turn of the nineteenth century.

Some Christian scholars who use Schlegal's term "Table of the

Nations" may not realize that the Germans introduced this term

for the explicit purpose of discrediting the universal authority of

the Bible in defining the origins of nations. Schlegal pointed with

scorn at the Joktanite set of thirteen names in Genesis-10, asserting

that any text with this much proportional attention to a few

Bedouin (Hebrew) tribesmen could not possibly define the origins

of the Europeans or other great nations outside the Middle East.

For Schlegal, the phrase "Table of Nations" meant that Genesis-10

was a mere summation of nations located around Palestine in the

days of Moses. Christian scholars have somehow failed to recognize

that this view of Genesis-10 utterly destroys the Noahic tradition

as a principle of historical science. It treats the nations as

given of unknown origin in Moses' time and in every other

time. This agnostic view of the origins of the nations satisfies

the logical positivist, the Darwinian, the liberal Humanist

and the compromising evangelical alike. (8)


In reality, the genesis-10 list actually lists the names of the first fathers of the Gentile nations. Unless we accept this claim, there will be no real progress in the science of ancient history--only piecemeal adjustments of polygenetic schemes. Genesis-10 is not merely a list of nations, but the inner anatomy of a cosmos.

To what extent are the nations of Genesis-10 viewed as the chief stocks of mankind (the major races of mankind), rather than a narrow and casual set of nations living in proximity to Palestine? This is one of the standard views that have weakened Genesis-10 study, in the conventional world of scholarship--that Genesis-10 only contains references to nations. These nations that are represented there, are simply held to be a random, narrow selection of nations living around Palestine, such as Egypt, Babylon and Sumer, and that they do not have the value of the primary stocks of mankind. The stocks that came out of Noah's family, reflected in Genesis-10, have primary value to the human race and extend to all portions of the earth, having no geographic restrictions or limits on them. The conventional view, though, would be that they are restricted geographically. Now, this conventional view is absurd, for Genesis-10 does have universal value in terms of the nations purported there.

Some scholars suggest that the Genesis record is purely a Semitic account of a purely Semitic people. In that sense, the Table of nations is an isolated list; it can have no great comparison to non-Semitic records. Also, they claim that the characters of these records have no identifications in the genesis list of nations and patriarchs. The Genesis list is, however, not purely Semitic, nor is there any problem with identifying the patriarchs with the gentile records. This "Jew vs. Gentile" distinction disappears before the birth of Isaac, for the simple reason that there were no "Jews" before Judah, and that there were no "Israelites" before Israel. Yet, both Semites and non-Semites extended back to those early times of Noah. Thus, anything before Judah, Israel and Abraham is a mixture of both pagan and sacred through Noah. The pagan traditions are only reflections of this Noahic pre-history.



The family of Noah was so renowned that they were spoken of all over the ancient world, even by different names in different places. An example, for instance, would be the names in the Babylonian Enuma-elis Epic, an ancient so-call mythological document telling of the creation and settlement of the world by the Gods, their wars, events and political adventures. As we proceed with this study, it will become apparent that all the names in all the oldest stories, mythologies and pre-historical accounts are only so many different versions of the same list of patriarchs mentioned in Genesis. The reason in that this period of time is their entire heritage, and this is the heritage of the entire human race.

The Noahic family was so prominent and so powerful, that all the nations were originally obsessed with this family. This is a very basic traditional view taken by many of our oldest mythologies and mythographers such as Jacob Bryant, George Faber and others. These Biblicists recognized this truth and knew that Noah's family had to be overwhelmingly predominant to create such a fixation as these early nations held. As a result, they taught that all the nations must of necessity have versions of this Noahic family. Because the truth of these patriarchs was a shared conviction, each culture spoke of them but in its own language with different names, titles and political views.

The family of Noah is a focal point of origins. It was the Third-Millennium's only power center. The history in early Genesis, as well as the histories of the Gentiles, all comes out of this Noahic tradition. All the names in their accounts, therefore, must have a connection with Noah's cosmos and, thus, with Genesis. Monogenesis implies the simultaneous origin of all the races and linguistic stocks in one place and at one time. This principle in Genesis holds that they are coming out of Mesopotamia, the scene of the Tower of Babel. It also implies that the linguistic stocks are coming out within the 350-year lifetime of Noah. All the different language stocks were just tribes in the days of Noah, but they were poised and ready to move outwards into their appointed places in only slightly more than one-half of the lifetime of Noah, and within a few hundred years after the flood. Noah's capacity to bring all the linguistic stocks and races into such a rapid existence within his lifetime indicates that this family was the most powerful ruling house in the history of mankind and, originally, the only one. Surely, the Gentiles recorded their versions of these events in their languages and memorialized the Noahic family members with their own names and titles, emphasizing some political figures over others for political reasons.



How prominent were these Biblical patriarchs? What were their histories? Where does one go to find available data and historical information concerning these patriarchs? If mythology is one of these sources, then are their mythical characters really the same as the Biblical patriarchs; and, if so, how is it that the myths call them "gods" rather than men, as Genesis refers to them?

If one cares to believe in monogenesis from Noah's family, then it is necessary also to believe that these mythical gods had their origin with Noah. In actuality, all the gods of the Pagan records, all their histories and events are only the paganized versions of the histories of the Biblical patriarchs. In other words, the Genesis-10 fathers and their histories are real histories, locked up in the paganized mythologies of all the races of the world. It is, therefore, necessary that we go to these records and synthesize them into the Biblical Genesis, if we are to ever understand early Noahic events.



Euhemerus was an early Greek mythographer who lived around 300 BC He established in his studies that the many 'gods' of the various mythologies arose out of the deification of dead hero-men. His mythological interpretation reduced the 'gods' to the level of distinguished men, leaders, kings and heroes. The origin of mythology, to him, arose from the corrupting of earlier primordial historical events of these heroes. Yes, to him, the many gods were only so many versions of earlier famous leaders, deified by their descendants. In today's mythological studies, this approach to interpreting the myths is called Euhemerism or The Euhemeristic Approach.

Euhemerus described, in his imaginary journey to the Island of Pomchaea in the Indian Ocean, his finding a golden tablet that described the exploits of the gods Zeus, Ouranus and Cronus. It is interesting that the description mentioned that these gods were mere men at one time--that, before they were gods or were made into gods, they were just men of great power and rulership. It was after this, he says, that they came to be worshipped as great gods.

Euhemerus, though, was only expounding upon earlier theories of Asian scholars and such other Grecian writers as Hecataeus, Stesimbrotus and the Sophists. However, Euhemerus was not the last to contemplate this theory. Many others followed him in euhemeristic studies, such as Diodorus in his Bibliotheke and Ennius, in his poem 'Euhemerus.' The Latin’s also contemplated a variation of Euhemerism in their Christian Church writings. Many of them (one example being Lactantius), adopted this theory for different reasons; for many of their quotes confirm the belief that the many gods were not true divinities. Later, the eighteenth-century mythographers revived euhemeristic studies in their quest for understanding and explaining the ancient past. As the printing press advanced education among the laity, and Scripture promoted deeper inquiry into the past, many came to adopt the Euhemeristic approach to origins. It was inevitable that such a revolution in monogenetic study developed; for the Biblical Genesis was the basis for all historical research. Then, along came Evolution and the Darwinian Anthropologists!!



In the study of mythology, there have been many different viewpoints and approaches: The Rationalists, Historicists and Diffusionists vs. the Animists, Irrationalists, Psychologists and Fictionists. Yet, the strongest of the earliest theories was from the Historicist's viewpoint, which contended for 'mythos' as 'logos and historia,' as opposed to 'mythos' as 'fable and fiction.' When we look back into the past records of scholarly studies, we can also see the sublime contention between religion (myth) and culture as their independent unguided activity of man and the more religious view, that it is the divine activity and heavenly planning of God. Today, it has evolved into the debate between the monogenism of Biblical Christianity and the polygenism of evolutionists and anthropologists.

The grass roots period of 1680 to about 1850 was this speculative period of new methodical research and theories where all our major ideas (models) of the nature of myth have their bases of foundation; whereas, the decades of the Twentieth century, though segmented and fragmented, hold the specialized remains.

There are now many different mythological schools, each having their own views, theories and approaches. Some of these mythographers and founding theorists for the common origin hypothesis were the mono-mythologists. For example, the mythologists Mr. Stucken and the school of pan-Babylonianists, though opposed by Mr. A. Bastian, contended for the direct and indirect origins of mythology from the cradle of mankind, Mesopotamia. Even though he emphasized the astronomical significance of myth, he indirectly laid some foundations for later Twentieth-century developments of monogenetic research. In supporting the common origin of most myths, he, in his pan-Babylonian school of thinking, showed the common monogenetic origin of all mankind. Through thematic comparisons, parallel similarities and some identification between mythic heroes and gods, he was also able to point out the similarities of the mythologies as records of the same events, stories and astronomical significance’s.



As a key to history, many scholars of the 1680's to the 1850's thought mythology would illumine the mysterious, lost pages of antiquity, and many other fields of thought stationed around myth. Such authors as Feret, Gibbon, Vico, Herder, Creuzer, Michlet, Quinet, K.O.Muller and Max Muller contended for mythology as a central or synoptic study--a primary extra-study and great master field of importance. Some of the fields in which they claim myth would illumine were philology, linguistics, religion and art. These authors were not so much monogenists as they were Historicists. In interpreting myth, one can be a Historicist and not be a Monogenist.








There were others to come that would contribute to monogenetic research. During the Enlightenment Period, many new discoveries were made that would advance the Christian interpretation of mythology. William Stukeley studied myth in the narrow view of antiquarian nationalism in his "Stonehenge": A Temple Restored to the British Druids. Thomas Blackwell, another 18th century mythographer, believed myth to be true and valuable literary records of the earliest times, in the study of religious beliefs and social codes of early heroic societies (see his studies in, "Letters Concerning Mythology," London,1757). The highly respected Abbe Fourmont used etymological research to show that most of the heathen deities were mere linguistic variations of Biblical names, establishing for Christians the basic principles and methods of multiple-name verifications. About the same time, Samuel Shuckford established in his thesis "The Sacred and Profane History of the World Connected," that the Bible was chronologically and literally true history. He pushed all early extra-Biblical narratives into a harmony with the Scriptural account. Basing his arguments on the old Euhemerism of earlier centuries, Shuckord was able to contend against such persons as Abbe Banier, for the gods as deified mortals (heroes); treating mythology as historical records of earlier times prior to the established commencement of recorded history. His work also established the basic foundations and methods of verification of monogenesis for later Genesis-10 identifications ( see his work: "Sacred and Profane History of the World Connected," 1st.ed.1728 and Last edition,1858).



This is the age of new archaeological findings and the beginnings of the depreciation of the rational and skeptical views of mythology. Where the Enlightenment had studied to discredit myth, the Romantic Period developed to celebrate and even create new myths out of the old, as in the example of the poetry of James Macpherson. Others treated myth as a mode of thinking, a function of the imagination, as in the case with Mr. Herder and Charles de Brosses, who used myth as a key to animism, African fetishism and early religious needs. During this period, others such as Baron d'Holbach and R. P. Knight were using myth as a means to either condemn Christianity or to reduce myth to sexual symbolism. New historical approaches to myth were also developing in the works of such scholars as Haynes, Sir William Jones and the early mythographic scholar, Jacob Bryant. All these, especially the last two, have contributed greatly to the field of monogenetic study.



With new parts of the world opening up to travel (through the development of the steamship and locomotive), such as India, Egypt and Polynesia, many new collections of mythologies and social customs of other peoples were added to the study of man's past, spawning new schools of theories and ideas. This period established three basic views of myth: the historical, the romantic and the naturalistic. Holderlin, Novalis, and Joseph Gorres, even Godfrey Higgins, established the pan-Indian hypothesis that all myth derived from India. Others, such as Wilheim and Jacob Grimm touched on the theory of myth, as a residue of an earlier state of man. There were others of great importance, such as George Stanley Faber and Andrew Ramsey who contended for Christianity and the Bible, while hypothesizing upon the origins of idolatry and paganism; basing their thesis on the monogenetic doctrine as found in the Bible. They emphasized the origins of all mystery-schools and religions from the common experience of the Ark and the diluvian year. Dr. Pilkey, for instance, can sum up George Faber, Jacob Bryant and others of this period, as follows:


"If you want to see an experiment in this kind of logic on religion,

George Stanley Faber, in his ''Origin of Pagan Idolatry,' had some

very strong views traditional to early Euhemerism. He tried to take

the mystery cults, for example, directly out of an obsession with

the salvation experience of the Ark of Noah and its members, the

eight survivors and their events. Now, Faber believed that there

was an obsession on the part of the Gentile Nations with their

origin: the experience with the Ark and the rebuilding of the

nations after the Flood. His work is very much a part, if not

a foundation stone, to Genesis research; but he was more

concerned with the impact of the diluvian year--the tremendous

salvation experience which has been compared to Christian

baptism of going through the Flood. Euhemerism was a novelty,

judged against the background of Genesis-10 study in the crucial

period between 1650 and 1850. During those two centuries

arose a Genesis-10 movement based on such works as Samuel

Bochart's 'Geographia Sacra,' Paul Pezron's 'The Antiquities

of Nations,' William Stukeley's 'Stonehenge,' Francis Wise's

'History and Chronology of the Fabulous Ages,' Jacob Bryant's

''A New Analysis of Mythology,' George Faber's 'Origin

of Pagan Idolatry' and Alexander Hislop's 'The Two Babylon’s.'

In 1940, E. B. Hungerford, in 'Shores of Darkness,' labeled these

writers "mythographers;" and acknowledged their influence on

British Romantic poets, but condemned their thought as contrary

to the anthropological spirit of modern positivistic science. In

general, Hungerford represented the voice of liberal humanism at

war with the great bogey of Christian Fundamentalism. Not all

of the mythographers were consistent fundamentalists, but their

general logic represented a powerful untapped resource of

fundamentalist argument. Humanist anthropology was born as

mythography died, in the interval between 1820 and 1860.

Alexander Hislop's 'The Two Babylon’s'(1854) typified what

became of Euhemerism in the hands of the separatist extremists.

Hislop was a Scot and Presbyterian and typified the Scottish

Separatist tradition which Sir Walter Scott satirized in

'Old Morality' in 1816. The 'Two Babylon’s' is an attack

on Roman Catholicism, based on the logical methods of Jacob

Bryant's New System as modified by Faber's Pagan Idolatry.

The three books should be studied together because they reveal

the steady decline of Genesis-10 research from the heroic vision

of Paul Pezron down to Hislop's time. The imaginative

challenge of Genesis-10 is to explain the evils of Genesis 9-11

without destroying the whole subject. Bryant approached the

subject from a heroic angle but set pejorative precedents followed

by Faber and Hislop. Fascinated by the Abrahamic War of

Genesis-14, Bryant interpreted it as the climax of a

long-standing spiritual struggle highlighted in the Greek mythology

of the Titan-Olympian War. In our own system, we have not

been able to eliminate this dualistic approach altogether;

but the Abrahamic War was an ambivalent and ironic affair

in which Abraham fought on the side of the Amorites and the

King of Sodom! Neither Bryant nor Hislop expressed a taste

for such subtle ties but went for the Gentile jugular, in keeping

with the standard separatist attempt to reduce mankind to

two visible stocks, the godly and the ungodly. Bryant's ungodly

were the Cushites, the tribe of Prince Cush, the black firstborn

son of Ham; but, before jumping to conclusions about Bryant's

racism, we should take note that his Cushites are a race of

heroic 'worthy adversaries,' with the author constantly referring

to their cleverness and unique capacity to create civilization.

In fact, one of his critics ridiculed his belief that the 'wooly

heads' of Africa created world civilization. Bryant's views of

Prince Cush, however, were the reverse of the truth. Our

evidence shows that Cush became a Semitic loyalist in opposition

to the rebel faction of Ham, Canaan and Sidon.

Faber dropped Bryant's concern for the heroic wars and the

origins of civilization and turned Bryant's tradition in

the elegiac direction of religious psychology. His special concern

was the psychological impact of the diluvian year--the voyage

of the Ark--on the religious imagination of mankind, especially

the occult rituals of the mystery religions. A favorite tradition

of Faber's stated that mankind passed through three religious

stages: Barbarism, Scythism and Hellenism. In his view, these

survived in primitive animism, stoic Buddhism and the colorful

sensuous polytheism of Greece, India and Egypt; but all

these owed something to the traumas of the diluvian and

post-diluvian worlds. In our view, these survived in primitive

India and Egypt. Faber's chief fault was in carrying forward

Bryant's habit of identifying too many different pagan gods

with too small a set of Noahic princes--a fault shared with

other British mythographers, such as William Stukeley--who

makes too much of Prince Phut, Edward Davies who makes

too much of Prince Ashkenaz, and Agernon Herbert--who

makes too much of Prince Nimrod.

The essence of Biblical Euhemerism is to bring the entire pagan

pantheons to focus in Genesis-10; but Genesis-10 includes

some seventy princes of equal importance, not just three

or four. The premature monism of the early British

mythographers led Hislop's tendency to make a grand spiritual

scapegoat out of Nimrod, son of Cush. We share in Bryant's

conviction that Nimrod was a leader of the rebel faction that

planned the Tower of Babel, but not in Hislop's conception of

him as a totally unique incarnation of evil.

Our criticism of Hislop is not to add to the case against

extreme separatism, but to only suggest why mythographers

have never been given a real hearing. The only Christian

scholars sufficiently devoted to the radical power of Genesis

9-11 has developed a separatist contempt for the Gentiles,

inconsistent with any sort of affirmative zeal for the Noahic

world. The key theological problem in classic separatism is

the failure to recognize how dispensational revolutions

in Christianity eliminated from the moral world the sort of

pious, assassin's role exhibited, for example, by Phineas in

Numbers 25:11. As an imaginative author, Hislop coveted

such a role, attributing it to Prince Shem through the

vehicle of the Osiris-Seth myth of Egypt. Drawn to the

coincidence of Seth's name with Shem's ancestor, father of

the godly Sethite line, Hislop concluded that Osiris' death

at Seth's hands was a supreme act of righteous indignation--Shem's

divine blow at the "gay-sinner," Prince Nimrod, the blasphemous

Antichrist of Noahic times. Hislop poured into his portrait of

Nimrod-Osiris, a really diabolical hatred of Blacks under the

assumption that Nimrod was visibly Negroid as his father Cush.

In short, 'Two Babylon’s' epitomizes much of the animus which

has brought radical Protestantism into modern disrepute. Hislop's

fellow Scott, L.A. Waddell, completed the process by adding

the diabolical ingredients of anti-Semitism and Nordic

supremacy. Together, the two books, 'Two Babylon’s' and

'Makers of Race and Civilization' bring us to the cultural nadir

opposite to the mythological-mythographic cause, first through

a hasty devotion to the name of Shem, then through a hastier

repudiation of the same name.

A new monogenetic system must overcome the errors of the past;

several steps are essential. One is to notice the elaborate structure

of genesis-10 as evidence of high-spirited creativity in the

early post-diluvian world. Noah's community must be viewed in

the light of cultural enterprise no matter what evils entered

the scene. This enterprise was both geographic and genetic, and

the genetic factor is perhaps the most crucial. We must adopt

radical views of early post-diluvian marriage and suspends

separatist notions of the 'godly seed,' simply by the fact that

Noah was a Sethite, and all three of his sons were Sethites;

and the entire human race, assuming a universal flood,

is Sethite. Separatistic dualism did not go back into effect until

after the call of Abraham and the birth of the nation of

Israel through Abraham's grandson Jacob. Shem's Messianic

line, in Genesis-11, is substantially genetic but chiefly political.

In its monogenetic condition, Noah's family practiced incest and

polygamy according to a Utopian scheme for the purpose of

generating a plenitude of races. We have discovered a

potentially scandalous gap in the Semite line between Arphaxad-I

and Salah, filled by a woman variously known as Inanna, Ishtar,

Ino or Diti. Through her marriage to Sidon, firstborn son of

Ham's son Canaan, the politically-determined Semite line

descended from the male line of Ham and Canaan,

producing grave theocratic consequences, but without "polluting

the godly seed." (10)



The belief in the Judeo-Christian tradition of man's origin, which includes a universal flood, eight survivors and a monogenesis of all the nations of the world, is of prime importance if there is to be any real progress in the science of human origins. The early nineteenth-century mythographer, George S. Faber, in his 'Origin of Pagan Idolatry,' suggests that a close examination of the theology and mythologies of the heathen nations...


...forces us to conclude that all mankind were once assembled

together in a single community, and that they afterwards spread

themselves in detached bodies over the face of the whole earth:

Holy Scripture asserts, that such was actually the fact. (11)


Thus, the nations of the earth genetically arose from the Noahic family, which included the differing skin pigmentation, races, languages and peoples of the modern world. The Bible shows itself to be a book of knowledge, of race, of ethnology as well as of salvation theology. In Genesis studies, it is a gold mine of historical information for the student. The genealogical data contained in the Book of Genesis is of crucial importance for the proper study of pre-Abrahamic history. No other book in the world establishes a stronger foundation for the interpretation of man's ancient beginnings.

It is easy to notice, without much effort, that Genesis, chapters 10 and 11 are loaded with ethnological and genealogical information, which lists tribes, peoples, nations and the names of many of the founding patriarchs. As far as historical information and biographies, the chapters are admittedly lacking much detail. They only give us names and genealogical ties with some historical motifs. Since the necessary details are absent from these chapters for a thorough historical synthesis, where does one go to find detailed biographies and histories of these earliest times? Where does one go to find out who Noah was and what he did to re-establish the nations of the earth? What were the

colors and nationalities of the family members of Noah's household? Mr. George Faber shows us that it is to the records of the Gentiles that we must go if we are to find the histories and details of Noah's family members. The myths, legends, genealogies and kinglists of the ancients are a rich supply house of support materials for Biblical monogenetic studies. Each cosmogony has its monogenesis, its flood and cosmic chaos, its creation account and pantheon of god-patriarchs, in accordance with the Biblical Genesis account. Even though the names are different and the stories vary from account to account, the identities are actually the same. One might ask, what is the most important observation gained from these accounts? None of them ever mention any evolutionary process for the development of mankind. There is no mention of any 'primates' preceding the civilized races of man.

Now, according to Mr. Faber, the reason that the various systems of Pagan Idolatry in different parts of the world correspond so closely (both in their evident purport and in numerous points of arbitrary resemblance), is because they cannot have been struck out independently in several countries, where they have been established. But must have all originated from some common source." It then follows, since each has a pantheon of gods or heroes, as Genesis has patriarchs, the mythical names, when compared to the Biblical names, become crucial focal points for the historian in the reconstruction of post-flood, pre-Abrahamic history. To reconstruct any history from such sources, a thorough chronological and genealogical study of the major pantheons must first be made. Once this is done, a rough historical sequence of events will surface. The Genesis names and events will lose their fictional and legendary character, and the Gentile records will regain their genuine historicity. The gods and the heroes will then be identified for who they really are--the family members of the royal house of Noah.

The following study in Hebrew and Gentile traditions is an attempt at just this: the re-establishment of a firm genealogical and chronological foundation upon, which may be built a more authentic proto-history of man. Contrary to modern scientific cosmogony, every tradition and mythology in the world attests to a monogenesis of man. I personally have not found one cosmogonical myth demonstrating a multiple or polygenetic origin and evolutionary process for man. It is my understanding that the ancients, for the same reasons of the writer of Genesis, believed in a single creation and beginning of mankind, whether it was within a divine pair or a small family. This is one thing that Hebrew and Gentile cosmogony has in common, a monogenesis. Evolutionary science may propound a multiple origin for man and an evolution from more primitive life forms to fully-developed humans, but not one single ancient myth testifies to this. If it is justifiable to allow evolutionary polygenists to gather anthropological and archaeological evidences in support of their theory of man's origins, at the exclusion of all the ancient mythological testimonies: then, it must of necessity, be as justifiable for monogenists to do the same with monogenetic researches at the exclusion of evolutionary theories.

The following is not an anthropological nor an archaeological testimony to monogenism, but a literary-archaeological one. Every Creation Myth or myth of Beginnings that I have ever read testifies to a 'Creation' or 'Beginning' in a monogenetic fashion, whether it be one from a cosmic egg or a lotus flower or a few stones, as in the Greek Myth of man's origin. If anyone is interested in following up my point to verify what I have said above, he may refer to the following resource of cosmogonic myths: Primeval Myths by Barbara C. Sproul, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, 1979.



The importance of genealogies is evidenced in their extensive use in both Jewish and Gentile traditions. The Biblical and mythological chronicles are full of them. The ancient Hebrews, for instance, incorporated them in their Old Testament writings, which God Himself required them to record for the purpose of memorializing their 'chosen' lineage.

To them it was important that they should be "enrolled by such genealogies, according to their generations and the heads of their fathers' households."(I Chron.9:1; 7:9) With this record, future generations could then look back in history in dignity and authority to a genealogical tradition extending all the way back to the first man created by God, and then to God Himself. But what of the future? Israel also knew, from the promises and prophecies of God, that one day their Father would send them a Saviour, and that the Redeemer would come from the Messianic Line descending down from Adam, through Noah and the sons of Abraham. The Hebrew genealogical tradition is one of the oldest and most accurate lineage’s known to historians. It extends back from modern times and the time of Christ to King David, the Judges of Israel and to Abraham. The Genesis account continues this Messianic Line all the way back to Noah and then back to Adam through the Flood.

The early Christian Apostles also testify to the importance of Biblical genealogies. St. Matthew quotes from the Genesis account of Moses and brings this genealogy up to the birth of Christ, with the objective of showing the divine origin of the Messiah and fulfillment of God's promise of the coming Saviour. St. Luke re-emphasizes the importance of the genealogical tradition and the messianic lineage in his chapter three. St. Paul in his letter to the Romans alludes to this also in his comparison between Adam, who brought death to all mankind, and the Saviour who reversed this curse for whoever would believe. Without this genealogical system, such statements by the Prophets and Apostles would have no meanings.



The other nations of the world also used genealogies extensively in their mythologies to memorialize 'their' heroes and ancestral fathers. Most of these patriarchs were so famous and heroic that later generations actually 'deified' them; thus, they introduced polytheism into the world. These mythic and sacred genealogies, though of different backgrounds, do have one thing in common. All of them seem to lead back to an original primitive patriarchal beginning, usually consisting of a small family of 'gods' (a pantheon) or heroes, either being created in some creation story or surviving through some great cosmic disturbance. The potential, historical trace-memories they contain become extremely important to the Biblical historian. When the Hebrew and the gentile genealogies and chronologies are compared, the Biblical doctrine of monogenesis becomes evident and proven, at least literary-wise. When compared, these traditions, or extra-Biblical accounts help to substantiate the Scriptural teaching of monogenesis and the creation of man.

Unlike modern anthropological, polygenetic interpretations, monogenetic studies ultimately lead the historian back to a time in the ancient past when the first ages began, usually to some creative intrigue or cosmic beginning. Without the consideration of such traditional materials, anthropological assumptions and evolutionary theories take over and distort the fabric of historical research, ironically creating a mythology in itself--a true mythology of fiction. The Bible account is consequently discarded as myth and fiction rather than considered as real history; Noah, his family and the Flood are not real, but fictions themselves. The ultimate consequence from all this is a segmented and confused past that has no answers. Professor George Smith in his 'Patriarchal Age'(1848) explains the cause of all this confusion about prehistory among modern scholars, when he says that the problem,


…appears to be that authors regard the origin of nations as

entirely unconnected with the primitive family of Noah and

the light thrown upon the earthly history of mankind by

Divine Inspiration. (12)


The only resolution to this confusion and the most important interpretive key to origin study are the Scriptural doctrine of monogenesis. Even the heathen myths testify to monogenesis, as Mr. Jacob Bryant points out in his 'New Analysis of Mythology:


…from their evidence, and from what has preceded, we shall find,

that the Deluge was the grand epoch of every ancient Kingdom.

It is to be observed, that when colonies made any settlements,

they engrafted their antecedent history upon the subsequent events

of the place (settled). (13)


The Flood, therefore, is absolutely necessary for the revision of ancient history. Without it, no one can or ever will truly interpret man's origin. Ancient history will stay a hodge-podge of segmented ethnological monographs. It is, therefore, a hasty act of the mind and not sound judgment to reject the admission of the Deluge because it does not suit one's pre-adopted theories. The more one studies geology, as Mr. Henry Morris has done (The Genesis Flood), the more they will be convinced that the opponents of the Mosaic account of the Noahic Deluge have not advanced one single step in accounting for the present state of things. For, as it is an event that has really occurred, as every cultural mythology attests to, it will be as impossible to form a true theory of origins without it, as it would be to write a history of England without Roman, Saxon and Danish invasions. (14)



The principle of monogenesis found in all the traditions and genealogies of the world necessitate the assumption of a more mono-mythological tradition, rather than a polygenetic one. Each traditional genealogical record traces itself back to a common 'pantheon' of gods, and these usually trace back to some primal, divine pair. The Greeks, for instance, claim that the god Cronus was the son of the heaven god, Uranus, who was respectfully the son of the flood hero, Deucalion. Many other traditions claim a similar 'common' origin for man and his mythical traditions. A comparison of these various traditions and genealogies demonstrate a universal similarity in the hierarchic structure of the early economy of the 'gods,' i.e. the patriarchs of the Genesis account. This also reveals the high probability of a common identification between the various pantheons as well as a single mythological tradition. The monogenesis revealed in the Bible, therefore, explains the commonality of all the mythic traditions of men. At least most of the primary myths are of universal importance.

The national cosmogonies and their pantheons of gods originate out of the single intrigue of Noah's Flood and Family. As these cosmogonies developed from a gradual corruption of Noahic patriarchalism, it necessarily follows that the great outlines of the latter were the outline of the former. With such being the case, Mr. George Faber, in his 'Origin of Pagan Idolatry,' could accurately state that "pagan Idolatry will be (found to be) Noetic Patriarchalism in grotesque masquerade." (15) Regarding the previously discussed similarities of all the pagan systems of myth and ritual, Mr. Faber says:


The fact is, that the various theological systems of the gentiles

agree, not only in what is obvious and natural, but also in what is

arbitrary and circumstantial. There is such a singular and minute

and regular accordance between them, both in fanciful speculations,

and in artificial observances, that no person who takes the pains of

thoroughly investigating the subject, can avoid being fully persuaded,

that they must all have sprung from some common origin. (16)


Now, the reason for this is because the theory of monogenesis is a fact of history and not a fictional representation. For,

Their various theories respecting this production are of such a nature

as to show very evidently that they must have sprung from some common

primeval origin. In many points they bear so close a resemblance to the

Mosaic cosmogony, that it can scarcely have been the effect of mere

accident. (17)




This Universal accordance, which it is almost superfluous to attempt

formally to prove, can only be satisfactorily accounted for on the

principle of the common origination of all the mythological systems

of the gentiles. (18)


Available data, when arranged properly and applied to the monogenetic scheme, will reveal traces of the Noahic history. This will in turn facilitate the revision and reconstruction of the history of that whole period which ranges from the subsidence of the Flood to the birth of Abraham. (19)



The comparison of Jewish and Gentile traditions reveals a startling similarity of prehistoric chronological intrigues. The first and most prominent traditional motif is the Flood--the cosmic chaos of waters. The next is the small band of survivors or pantheon of creator gods. In most of them the creation and flood are confounded together, giving the flood event greater prominence. The Sacred Mountain is another motif. In almost every mythology concerning Creation, a Sacred Mountain stands up out of the Chaos of Creation and Flood Waters as symbolic of the gods' graces upon the survivors. In the myths, the mountains act as a home or heaven for the gods. Mt. Olympus, Etna, and Meru are only a few examples of the Biblical Mt. Ararat. In Mesopotamian tradition it is Mt. Sumer; in Egypt, and the Near East it is represented by pyramids or ziggurats. The Hindus of ancient India remember this sacred mountain as Meru or Sumeru, established and inhabited after Manu's legendary flood. To Western Civilization, the most famous tradition of the Sacred Mountain, second to the Biblical Mt. Ararat, is Mt. Olympus, the dwelling place of the Greek gods. The tradition of Deucalion and his flood is also duplicated in the legends of the Ogyges Flood and Mt. Etna (or Athos). These stories, therefore, illustrate that the ancients retained in their cosmogonies the memories of a singular origin and historical period. Both Sacred and Profane writers often allude to these emblems, symbols and motifs. The whole system of historical motifs was designed, according to Mr. Bryant, as:


a display of God's wisdom and goodness; and to transmit to latest

prosperity memorials of the preservation of mankind. The symbols in

ancient times were instead of writing; harmless, if not abused: nay,

of great consequence when directed to a proper purpose. Such

were the Serpent, the Ark, the Iris, and the Dove; together with many

others, to which there are apparent allusions in Scripture.


And he continues:


It is true, that these symbols were at least perverted; and the

memorials above mentioned degenerated into idolatrous rites, and

worship. It was accordingly the purpose of Providence, in its

dispensations to the Israelites, to withdraw them from this idolatry

of the Gentiles; and this was affected, not by denying them the

use of those characters, which were the current types of the world,

and to which they had constantly been used; but to adapt the same

to a better purpose, and defeat the evil by a contrary destination. (20)



Contrary to Biblical testimony, modern historians have formulated multiple origin theories. This is called polygenesis, the opposite of monogenesis. It appears that for every continent there is a point of origin. Anthropologists suggest that all mythologies showing similarities in motifs and characters derive their similarities through a universal ideal and independent imaginative invention. When considering all the available data the theory becomes obviously spurious. Furthermore, it aims more at denying the Genesis account than at explaining the available facts. The ancient mythological accounts record the historical testimony , which this theory seems to reject. The polygenetic lie does not,

because it cannot, explain the Hebrew and the Gentile testimony of monogenesis. One reason is that the mythologies do not testify to polygenesis. There is not one myth that can be found to support or substantiate the polygenetic theory. Therefore, it is no wonder that polygenism rejects the Genesis account of man's origin.

A systematic analysis and comparison of the myths with the genesis record substantiates their common origin. Each one tells the same tale but with different vocabularies. Yet, each one is very plain as to the single origin of man. The gentile myths also verify the credibility of the Hebrew cosmogony. In turn, the Genesis account reinforces the historicity of the Gentile cosmogonies.

The comparing of the pantheons of gods and hero men with the genesis Patriarchs is the nucleus of ancient historical research. The 'gods' seem to biographically fill in the details that are lacking in the Genesis record; whereas, the Genesis Patriarchs give 'historical' reality to the gods or heroes of mythology. With the Genesis data the two become compatible and form a unity of historical events helping to revise our modern views of ancient mankind. The historicity of Genesis 9-11 necessitates a 'Euhemeristic' interpretation of the gods in mythology. The identification of the Genesis 9-11 patriarchs, the ancestors of Abraham, with those of the Gentiles is what this book is all about.