Noah´s ancestral line

 

originally written by npetreley:

"Did you know you can trace many ancestral lines right back to the sons of Noah? Noah's son, Shem, is where the term "Semite" comes from. Shem had a son, Ashkenaz. Sound familiar? You can read all about him and others starting at about Genesis chapter 9. If the names don't sound familiar, they would if you study the history of various European and Asian countries... ...I can provide some info for you that even secular historians accept as accurate..."

 

Please provide.

 
 
Here is some corroboration for "Shem" and "semite" (including other lines, such as the Canaanites) from various sources.

Mesopotamian History:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/AKKAD.HTM

The Akkadians were Semites, that is, they spoke a language drawn from a family of languages called Semitic languages (the term "Semite" is a modern designation taken from the Hebrew Scriptures; Shem was a son of Noah and the nations descended from Shem are the Semites). These languages include Hebrew, Arabic, Assyrian, and Babylonian. After the final end of Sumerian power and civilization around 2000 BC, the area came under the exclusive control of Semitic peoples for centuries.

European History:

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/euro-c.htm

Semite means Shem, son of Noah alias Ut-Napishtim the Sumarian, father of Ashur, Aram and Heber and alleged ancestor of the Assyrian, Aramaean. The Sumerian language evolved to Akkadian and then Arabic. The other is an offshoot of these three. Heber is from whom the Jews are called Hebrew. Heber is the son of Sala who is the son of Arphaxad (Chaldeans), son Shem, son Noah according to Flavious Josephus (37-100) the historian.

Here's an interesting bit from a Lebanese site:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/2587/identity.html

Canaanites are described as a Semitic people. The term Semitic or Semite is frequently used and it is important to understand what it means as it applies to a number of peoples. The following definitions are found:

Se•mit•ic
Pronunciation: (su-mit'ik),
—n.
a subfamily of Afroasiatic languages that includes Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and Phoenician.
—adj.
of or pertaining to the Semites or their languages, esp. of or pertaining to the Jews

Sem•ite
Pronunciation: (sem'It or, esp. Brit., sE'mIt),
—n.
1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Hebrews, and Arabs. These peoples are grouped under the term Semite, chiefly because their languages were found to be related, deriving presumably from a common tongue, Semitic.
2. a member of any of the peoples descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah.
3. a Jew.

The Canaanite language was indeed Semitic as per the first definition, however the Canaanites were not the descendants of Shem. According to Genesis, Noah had three children, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The eldest son of Noah, Shem, is the traditional ancestor of Semites (Genesis 10); descendants include Hebrews, Aramaeans, and Arabs. Ham is biblical ancestor of Hamites, who included the Cu[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]es, the Canaanites, and the Egyptians (Genesis. 8;9). According to tradition the descendants of Japheth inhabited Europe and Asia Minor along the Mediterranean coast. Ham had a son called Canaan who in turn had one called Sidon (Genesis 10;15). These decedents of Canaan, the Canaanites lived on the coast of the eastern Mediterranean (Genesis 10;19).

I'm not going to trace all the traceable lines of Shem, Ham, and Japheth for you with quotes from secular historians, since that would take a great deal of time and effort to collect. I don't know of any single secular source for all this information, since they're not out to prove Genesis 10, they're simply exploring one line of interest and that confirms that single line in Genesis 10. So you'd have to pick a line and research it in secular history books to see for yourself.

Here's a brief overview from AiG that covers many of the lines of descent to get you started. Not all of the lines that are generally accepted are included here, just the "biggies," only a couple of which I've ever seen in dispute. The references are to encyclopedias and Josephus, so this is pretty standard stuff. If you think any of the connections between the nations and Genesis 10 are suspect, I encourage you to research that particular history for yourself. I think you'll find that many, if not most of the connections are not in dispute thanks to corroborating archaeological evidence and references to names and places in other ancient texts.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4215cen_s1998.asp

Here are some pages with details and discussion:

http://www.osterholm.info/man/

http://www.ldolphin.org/ntable.html

I tossed in this site just because it has some interesting stuff. It draws from some fascinating sources for corroboration, such as Greek mythology! I'm not endorsing this page, I just thought it was fun.

http://www.geocities.com/amuse_amenace/tablenation.htm
 
Upvote 0
By the way, I found this section of http://www.osterholm.info/man/ particularly interesting in light of the recent discussions of Chinese characters:

3The vast aggregate of peoples who are generally classified as Mongoloid, who settled the Far East, have been a question as to where they fall into the Table of Nations. The evidence shows they are Hamitic, even though some have incorrectly reasoned that the Chinese were of Japhetic stock, and the Japanese were either Japhetic or Semitic. There are two names which provide clues. Two of Canaan's sons, Heth (Hittites) and Sin (Sinites), are presumed to be the progenitors of Chinese and Mongoloid stock. The Hittites were known as the Hatti or Chatti. In Egyptian monuments the Hittite peoples were depicted with prominent noses, full lips, high check-bones, hairless faces, varying skin color from brown to yellowish and reddish, straight black hair and dark brown eyes.

The term Hittite in Cuneiform appears as Khittae* representing a once powerful nation from the Far East known as the Khitai, and has been preserved through the centuries in the more familiar term, Cathay. The Cathay were Mongoloids, considered a part of early Chinese stock. There are links between the known Hittites and Cathay, for example, their modes of dress, their shoes with turned-up toes, their manner of doing their hair in a pigtail, and so forth. Representations show them to have possessed high cheekbones, and craniologists have observed that they had common characteristics of Mongoloids.

*Khittae has, at times, been incorrectly associated with Kittim or Chittim (Greek Kition, Roman Citium, Jewish Cethimus), son of Javan, son of Japheth. Interestingly enough, Javan has been incorrectly interpreted to mean Japan. History distinctly shows Javan to be the ancestor of the Greeks and other related Mediterranean people groups.

Sin (or Seni), a brother of Heth, has many occurrences in variant forms in the Far East. There is one significant feature concerning the likely mode of origin of Chinese civilization. The place most closely associated by the Chinese themselves with the origin of their civilization is the capital of Shensi, namely, Siang-fu (Father Sin). Siang-fu appears in Assyrian records as Sianu. Today, Siang-fu can be loosely translated, "Peace to the Western Capital of China". The Chinese have a tradition that their first king, Fu-hi or Fohi (Chinese Noah), made his appearance on the Mountains of Chin, was surrounded by a rainbow after the world had been covered with water, and sacraficed animals to God (corresponding to the Genesis record). Sin himself was the third generation from Noah, a circumstance which would provide the right time interval for the formation of early Chinese culture.

Furthermore, those who came from the Far East to trade were called Sinæ (Sin) by the Scythians. Ptolemy, a Greek astronomer, referred to China as the land of Sinim or Sinæ. Reference to the Sinim in Isaiah 49:12 notes they came "from afar," specifically not from the north and not from the west. Arabs called China Sin, Chin, Mahachin, Machin. The Sinæ were spoken of as a people in the remotest parts of Asia. For the Sinæ, the most important town was Thinæ, a great trading emporium in western China. The city Thinæ is now known as Thsin or simply Tin, and it lies in the province of Shensi. Much of China was ruled by the Sino-Khitan Empire (960-1126 A.D.), which Beijing became the southern capital. The Sinæ became independent in Western China, their princes reigning there for some 650 years before they finally gained dominion over the whole land.

In the third century B.C., the dynasty of Tsin became supreme. The word Tsin itself came to have the meaning of purebred. This word was assumed as a title by the Manchu Emperors and is believed to have been changed into the form Tchina. From there the term was brought into Europe as China, probably from the Ch'in or Qin dynasty (255-206 B.C.). The Greek word for China is Kina (Latin is Sina). As well, Chinese and surrouding languages part of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Years ago, American newspapers regularly carried headlines with reference to the conflict between the Chinese and Japanese in which the ancient name reappeared in its original form, the Sino-Japanese war. Sinology refers to the study of Chinese history.

With respect to the Cathay people of historical reference, it would make sense to suppose that the remnants of the Hittites, after the destruction of their empire, travelled towards the east and settled among the Sinites who were relatives, contributing to their civilization, and thus becoming the ancestors of the Asian people groups. Still others migrated throughout the region and beyond, making up present-day Mongoloid races in Asia and the Americas. The evidence strongly suggests that Ham's grandsons, Heth (Hittites/Cathay) and Sin (Sinites/China), are the ancestors of the Mongoloid peoples.

Edit: Added the color to highlight the flood event parallel in Genesis.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by armageddonman
Thank you. I see one major problem here: the autors base their conclusions on the premise that Genesis describes actual historical events. That would be inconsistent with your claim that these infos would be accepted by secular historians.

Are you suggesting that the Encyclopedia Britannica is endorsing the literal interpretation of the Bible? ;)

How do you even know what the secular historians think about the EVENTS of Genesis?

The secular historian's job is simple: Uncover the records and sort out the archaeological evidence in order to trace the history of a people. If that points back to the same names listed in the geneologies of Genesis 10 (and it does), then there isn't much the historians can do about that, is there? No doubt many of these historians dismiss or ignore the possibility of the flood itself, but they still can't ignore the data about the names, histories, and legends that all lead back to the names (and sometimes events, as can be seen above in the China writeup) in Genesis.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by armageddonman
All that doesn´t proof that there was a flood. It proofs that these names exist(ed). It doesn´t proof that the people who carried these names in genesis existed. Everyone can make up a tale about how a name originated.

Wow. A worldwide conspiracy unmasked.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ben Reid

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2002
496
2
45
Sydney
Visit site
✟8,347.00
Originally posted by npetreley


What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

See -- this is a little known fact -- Noah was ordered to take aboard the ark two of every type of unclean "tea plant" (and seven of every clean).

However, this was kept secret from the others. When Noah got off the ark, he decided to stash all the tea for himself.

Via careful manipulation of the tea stock market (Noah "gradually" realeased tea to the world during his lifetime -- this is where the word "gradualism" may have originated (?) Alternatively, the chinese symbol for "gradually" is comprised of the symbol of "Noah" and "tea" -- freaky, no?) 

Anyway, to cut a long story short, the tradition of tea gradualism was passed down from generation to generation, however the secret stash of tea was never disclosed.

Then one day, the first Chinese king (Fohi) happened to stumble across a piece of paper, which had some words scribbled down on it. Low and behold! It was the directions to the tea stash!

Fohi was ecstatic! He went up to the Mountain of Chin and sacrificed animals to God to celebrate.

The price of tea in China has never been the same since.

HTH.
 
Upvote 0
npetreley wrote:

The Chinese have a tradition that their first king, Fu-hi or Fohi (Chinese Noah), made his appearance on the Mountains of Chin, was surrounded by a rainbow after the world had been covered with water, and sacraficed animals to God (corresponding to the Genesis record). Sin himself was the third generation from Noah, a circumstance which would provide the right time interval for the formation of early Chinese culture.

That is quite interesting. The Chinese calander began in 1953 B.C., just 150 years after the flood, at the time of Babel. So, Fu-hi being third generation from Noah would line up here also. The first Chinese king was the first after the confounding of language and speech at Babel.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by armageddonman
What? Where does any secular historian (or the Enzyclopaedia Britannica) claim that Noah, Sem, etc. were actual persons?

They don't need to. They confirm that ALL the semitic peoples trace their lineage back to Shem. So either Shem actually existed, or all the semitic peoples managed to contrive similar histories out of nowhere, and they all did it simultaneously from locations all over the world.

As for the global conspiracy to make up connections to all the sons of Noah and their sons, all of which are reflected in obvious connections to places like Assyria, etc., can you clear up one little thing for me? As the various countries emerged, named their cities, recorded their ancestries and geneologies, and handed down their legends of their past, how did they manage to coordinate their records with other countries all across the globe so that the names could all be traced back to the geneologies in Genesis 10?

If they used cell phones, what brand were they, and what long distance services were available at the time?
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley


They don't need to. They confirm that ALL the semitic peoples trace their lineage back to Shem.


That doesn´t make Shem an actual person. The japanese emperors trace back their linage to a godess. Are they divine?

 

So either Shem actually existed, or all the semitic peoples managed to contrive similar histories out of nowhere, and they all did it simultaneously from locations all over the world.

I fail to se the logic in this satement. Surely, you don´t claim, that semites popped into existence all over the world with the same myths?


 As the various countries emerged, named their cities, recorded their ancestries and geneologies, and handed down their legends of their past, how did they manage to coordinate their records with other countries all across the globe so that the names could all be traced back to the geneologies in Genesis 10?

What "countries across the globe" are you talking of?

 
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by armageddonman
That doesn´t make Shem an actual person. The japanese emperors trace back their linage to a godess. Are they divine?

First, show me what you're talking about. Then demonstrate that the Japanese, Cantonese, Mandarins, Koreans, etc., all happen to trace their lineage back to the same "goddess." Then perhaps you might actually have something worth looking into. There might actually be someone in history to which these peoples refer - not a real goddess, maybe, but a real person from which they all descended.

That's the point of Shem. Just look at all the peoples who claim to trace their ancestry back to Shem, and then explain how it's possible they all separately came to that conclusion without it being likely that there actually WAS a Shem. Most people I know consider the Jews to be THE semitic people. But the Bible doesn't say that. It lists lots of ancestral lines starting with Shem. And lo and behold, when you look into non-Jewish, non-Christian accounts of histories (I gave you Lebanon, and the Akkadians as two examples, but there are many others), they trace their lineage back to Shem, which is exactly where the Bible says they come from.

Now add to that the fact that OTHER countries trace THEIR origns back to other sons and grandsons of Noah, and you either have a case where all these people somehow got a copy of the Hebrew scrolls long after the time of Noah and then planted archaeological evidence as a hoax to lend credibility to these scriptures, or you have an amazing coincidence that these people trace their origins back to people who happened to have the same names as those listed in Genesis 10, or these people actually DID descend from the sons and grandsons of Noah.

Originally posted by armageddonman
What "countries across the globe" are you talking of?

If you're going to argue this at all, then at least read the links I posted. That will give you an idea of what countries I'm talking about.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
npetreley,

I don't know about anyone else but from my point of view what you've provided very convincing evidence. To argue with these facts seems a bit silly unless one can debunk them in an intelligent way and not just say "I did read lots and lots of claims". One could say the same about any science book. You've provided evidence to support your "claims" yet they aren't accepted due to bias. I'd go so far to say that if God came down and stood before some of these people and gave them convincing evidence of his existance they still wouldn't beleive. Humm seems I'd seem something like that written in the Bible. :)

Doc
 
Upvote 0
The problem is that the claims are "supported" by more claims and unbased conclusions. Is there evidence that Noah and his sons were actual persons? No, there isn´t. The claim that the existence of the names is evidence for the existence of the persons is as unbased as claiming that the existence of the city of Athens was evidence for the existence of the godess Athena or that the existence of Rome would prove that it was founded by Romulus and Remus. The Planets carry the names of gods, but does that make those gods real?

Get my point?
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by armageddonman
The problem is that the claims are "supported" by more claims and unbased conclusions. Is there evidence that Noah and his sons were actual persons? No, there isn´t. The claim that the existence of the names is evidence for the existence of the persons is as unbased as claiming that the existence of the city of Athens was evidence for the existence of the godess Athena or that the existence of Rome would prove that it was founded by Romulus and Remus. The Planets carry the names of gods, but does that make those gods real?

Get my point?

 

Yes but then can you prove the existance of your great-great grandparents? Is there any evidence they were real? You only have claims and possibly a grave site to go by. Which isn't as much evidence that is available for the subject of this thread.

Get my point?

Doc

 
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Originally posted by armageddonman
The claim that the existence of the names is evidence for the existence of the persons is as unbased as claiming that the existence of the city of Athens was evidence for the existence of the godess Athena or that the existence of Rome would prove that it was founded by Romulus and Remus.

Actually, it's more like saying that the fact that historical documents and archaeological evidence that many cultures mention the city of Athens tells you Athens is likely to be a real place.

Now we happen to know that Athens is a real place. But there was a time when we thought the Hittite empire as described in the Bible was mythical, and there was a time when we thought that Troy was a mythical place.

Then archaeologists spoiled everything by digging up and finding the Hittite empire and Troy. Well -- we have archaeological evidence and documentary evidence of the lines of Noah, yet you still refuse to believe these people existed. There's a word for that -- denial.
 
Upvote 0