Ancient Genealogies support the Bible and Noahic Flood

It was the 1800’s, a century when both Darwinism and Uniformitarianism would raise their ugly heads and cast ripples, nay, giant waves through the scientific community. Those waves kept going, sweeping into other disciplines such as History and Bible Studies and on until they washed back through the place they had begun, Philosophy. It was a tsunami that has done lasting damage and I am among those who work to repair and rebuild.

Darwinists fear the teaching of Intelligent Design even while loudly crying that it is “not science!” No, it is not their science because it doesn’t fit into a materialist (some say naturalistic – To-may-toe, to-mah-toe) philosophy within which Darwinism must be encased. Darwinism doesn’t play so well when all possibilities are allowed to be considered and Darwinists furiously fight to remain the only players allowed on the field. That way, they always win!

Once historical documents were cast aside or ignored by the powers that be because those documents did not fit the Catholic point of view. These were the days of the Catholic-church-as-totalitarians, days that produced the Inquisition and also, eventually, the pushback of Martin Luther and the Reformation. Yet many old documents remained obscure by omission rather than nonexistence. Later, when Darwinism came into bloom, there came the need to find long ages whenever possible. New textural criticisms of the Bible (the JPED Documentary Hypothesis in particular) arose, not from better information, but because there was a need to find long ages and discount all information that indicated otherwise. Few “theories” are as twisted and unlikely as the JPED and yet it is satisfactory to Darwinists because it casts doubt on the veracity of the book of Genesis.

“The evidence presented here points to the following conclusion: there is much more uniformity and much less fragmentation in the book of Genesis than generally assumed. The standard division of Genesis into J, E, and P strands should be discarded. This method of source criticism is a method of an earlier age, predominantly of the 19th century. If new approaches to the text, such as literary criticism of the type advanced here, deem the Documentary Hypothesis unreasonable and invalid, then source critics will have to rethink earlier conclusions and start anew.” (p. 105 of The Redaction of Genesis by Rendsburg (Eisenbrauns: 1986) as quoted by Glen Miller.

Unfortunately long-agers, there are many other historical records that help prove that the Genesis account is genuine and remarkably accurate. These are records gleaned from different cultures and eras, many by peoples who did not interact and had no knowledge of the records held by others. These are records from all over the globe.

I may have mentioned previously that Noah is recorded in cultures around the globe as the patriarch that built the Ark and was preserved along with family and wildlife in the Noahic Flood. Some of the cultures that have an historical Noah include Hawaii (where he was called Nu-u), the Sudan (Nuh), China (Nu-Wah), the Amazon region (Noa), Phrygia (Noe) and among the Hottentots (Noh and Hiagnoh)(Hat tip to Chris Parker of S8int). But now let us take a closer look at historical records, some of which have been ignored by the Orthodox keepers of the Darwinist flame due to their content, and see what we may see:

Bill Cooper, who spent 25 years in compiling the evidence for his book, After The Flood, and has authored The Table Of Nations (Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal) and other reference materials, has compiled a wonderful treasure trove of information from ancient documents and I will be using them during the rest of the post. All quotes below, unless otherwise attributed, are taken from those two sources.

I had previously posted that Manetho had mentioned Peleg and the Tower of Babel in his writings concerning the history of Egypt, and indeed Egyptians did consider themselves the offspring ofCush, the son of Ham, the son of Noah.

“Josephus writes:

‘…time has not at all hurt the name of Chus (i,e. Cush); for the Ethiopians over whom he reigned, are even at this day both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Chusites’. “

Cooper notes that,“The name of Cush is preserved in Egypt’s hieroglyphic inscriptions as Kush, the name referring to the country that lay between the second and third cataracts of the Nile. This same land was later known as Nubia. Additional confirmation of this location is given in an inscription of Esarhaddon of Assyria (681-668 BC), who tells us that he made himself king of ‘Musur, Patorisi, and Cush. Some assert that the name of Cush was also perpetuated in that of the Babylonian city of Kish, ostensibly one of the earliest cities to be built after the Flood “

A numbered geneological table of descendants of Ham with each number corresponding to a paragraph of historical information is in the Table of Nations.

After the Tower of Babel, the descendants of Ham tended to move South and West, the descendants of Shem remained closer to their original homes and those of Japheth scattered to the East and North. It is my intent to focus on records of the descendants of Japheth, seeing as how both myself and my readers are most likely to have come (primarily) from that branch of the Noah tree.


The name of Japheth as progenitor is found in many historical geneologies of peoples that have been passed down to us. For the Greeks, he was Iapetos. In Sanskrit (India) Pra-Japati (Father Japheth). The Romans called him Io-Pater or Jove and later of course, Jupiter. He was normally Japheth for Irish-Celtic and Viking lines but in the Saxon tongue it was Sceaf (!).


Edgar Truax translated the geneologies of this people, who had kept the geneologies for thousands of years before coming in contact with a Bible. Consider the line of progression:

Dirt (or “Adam” who was named after the red dirt from which he was formed) is the first man. Just as Genesis says that all other men were descended from Seth, the Miatso call him Se-teh. Other men between Adam and Noah (Nuah to the Miatso) are identifiable in the Genesis account. Unlike the Bible, Noah’s wife is named (Gaw Bo-lu-en).

In Genesis, Noah’s three sons are Ham, Shem and Japheth. In the Miatso account they are Lo Han, Lo Shen and Jah-phu. The Miatso are descended from Jah-phu. It is amazing that the same names are in the cultures so far apart in ways other than geographical. Amazing unless, of course, they are truly historical records.


“The records in which early Irish history is preserved have been masterfully set out and enumerated by Miss Cusack, authoress of The Illustrated History of Ireland, published in 1868 (and from which the above passage is taken). For her history, she drew upon an extensive number of manuscripts, many of which still survive, and are known under such evocative names as The Book of Leinster (written in 1130 AD, and copied from the much older Saltair of Cashel;) The Book of Ballymote (1390 AD;) and the Annals of the Four Masters. But two others received special mention, the Chronicum Scotorum, and the even more important (because earlier) Cin Droma Snechta.

The Cin Droma Snechta is now lost by all accounts, yet its contents were preserved by Keating, the Irish historian who wrote his own History from this and many other early manuscripts in about 1630. (See Bibliography.) The importance of the Cin Droma Snechta lies in the early date of its compilation, concerning which a note in the twelfth-century Book of Leinster tells us:

“Ernin, son of Duach, that is son of the King of Connacht….it was he that collected the Genealogies and Histories of the men of Erinn in one book, that is the Cin Droma Snechta.” 3

The importance of this statement lies in the fact that Duach, Ernin’s father, lived towards the end of the fourth century AD, which places the compilation of the Cin Droma Snechta well before the coming of Christianity to Ireland (and the oft-alleged forgeries of the Christian monks)!”

The Irish records include dates beginning with the creation of the world (Anno Mundi) and record the landing of the first colony on Ireland as 2520 AM. Irish geneologies begin with Noah, through Japheth, through Magog and some 24 generations later produce Riondal. There were several incursions from different groups in the Japheth line, including:

1) PARTHOLAN. The first person to colonize Ireland after the Flood, His people landed in Ireland in the year 1484 BC, Patholan died in 1454 BC, and the entire colony was wiped out by plague 300 years later in 1184 BC.

2)BAATH and JOBHATH. These two names also occur in the earliest portions of the British genealogy where JOBAATH is rendered IOBAATH. An intriguing thought is the possibility that these two names may betray the origins of the European royal blood. The very concept of royalty has long been a mystery, as has the reason why descendants of a certain family have always been set apart from and above the common herd. The royal families of Europe have always been interrelated to a greater or lesser degree throughout history and it seems very likely that the blood-royal began with Baath and Iobaath. The fact that here Baath and Jobaath are depicted as brothers, whereas in British genealogy, they are depicted as father and son, testifies to the distortion these records underwent in transmission. Their historicity, however, is convincingly demonstrated in their appearance in such diverse records as the Irish-Celtic and British.

3) EASRU and SRU. These two names, along with those of Baath and Iobaath, also occur in the earliest portions of the British genealogy where they are rendered IZRAU and EZRA, and again they appear to be the names of important founders of European royalty who lived before the division and dispersal of the various races and tribes of Europe.

4) HEBER and EREMON. The leaders of the Milesian settlement who landed in Ireland in the year 504 BC. From Heber, from whom Ireland derives its name Hibernia, are descended the great southern clans of Ireland, the McCarthy’s and O’Brien’s, and so-on, while from Eremon are descended the northern clans of O’Connor, O’Donnnell and O’Neill.

“The appearance of Magog’s name in the Milesian ancestry is of great significance, for we saw in Part I of our study how Magog was the founder, or co-founder, of the Scythian peoples, and the early Irish chroniclers were emphatic in their claim that the Irish were descended from Scythian stock. This claim is confirmed in many points, not the least of which is the fact that “Scot” and “Scythian” share the same etymological root:

“Scot (is) the same as Sythian in etymology; the root of both is Sct. The Greeks had no c, and would change “t” into “th” making the root “skth,” and by adding a phonetic vowel, we get Skuth-ai (Scythians,) and Skoth-ai (Skoths.) The Welsh disliked “s” at the beginning of a word, and would change it to “ys;” they would also change “c” or “k” to “g,” and “th” to “d;” whence the Welsh root would be “Ysgd,” and Skuth or Skoth would become “ysgod.” Once more, the Saxons would cut off the Welsh “y,” and change the “g” back again to “c,” and the “d” to “t,” converting the Ysgod to Scot.” 10

The early Irish were originally known as Scots, of course, and they were later to leave Ireland and invade and settle the country that still bears their name, displacing and subduing the native Picts in waves and waves of invasion.

“The Books of Genealogies and Pedigrees form a most important element in Irish pagan history. For social and political reasons, the Irish Celt preserved his genealogical tree with scrupulous precision. Property rights and the governing power were transmitted with patriarchal exactitude on strict claims of primogeniture, which could only be refused under certain conditions defined by law…and in obedience to an ancient law, established long before the introduction of Christianity, all the provincial records, as well as those of the various chieftains, were required to be furnished every third year to the convocation at Tara, where they were compared and corrected.”


“We shall begin this section of our study by considering the work of a British scholar named Nennius. (The term British means he descended from the original peoples who settled in Britain after the Flood. The modern Welsh are descended from that same stock.) Nennius completed his famous work, the Historia Brittonum, towards the very end of the eighth century AD, and his achievement was to gather together, and thus preserve, a whole series of documents and sources that collectively shed much light specially upon the early pagan (i.e. pre-Christian) history of the early Britons. 16 In the preface to his work, he tells us (in Latin) that he is recording certain facts that the British had stupidly thrown away (quae hebitudo gentis Brittaniae deiecertat.)”

British geneologies also begin with Noah and Japheth but it is then that they are descended from Javan, although some intermarriage with the line of Magog is later not uncommon. Several generations later there is Alanus, from whom the Franks, Latins, Albans, British, Bavarians,Vandals,Saxons,Thuringians, Goths,Walagoths,Gepids,Burgundians and Langobards all trace descent.

The British Kings trace their descent from Noah down to the first ruler, Brutus. (He was the first to colonize the British mainland after the Flood, and was Britain’s first king. The land of Britain and its people, the Britons, derived their name from him. His wife, Ignoge, the daughter of a “Greek” king named Pandrasus, was married to Brutus against her will.) The line goes unbroken from Brutus through some well-known kings such as Coel (“Old King Cole”) and Utherpendragon and Arthur (later fictionalized as the Arthur of Camelot and the Knights of the Round Table) and Cadwallader (The son of Cadwallo, he succeeded his father as king. Bede knew him as Cliedvalla, and the Welsh knew him as Cadwaladr. He died in 689 AD.)

Yvor was the last king of pure British blood, taking the rather diminished throne in about 665 AD.

Interestingly, Bill Cooper was able to use five different sources to trace the lineage of the British from Japheth down to Brutus, sources that include Virgil, The Early History of Rome, Geoffrey Monmouth (discounted by modernists due to philosophical reasons primarily) and Nennius.


“One of the most remarkable things to be noticed about the Anglo-Saxon genealogies, is that so many have survived. Not only have they endured intact the ravages of some twelve or more centuries of war, worm, damp and decay; they have also survived the ravages of kings whose political interests once lay in the suppression of such records, namely the Vikings, Normans and Plantagenets.”

The Geneologies of the Saxons, Danes, Icelanders and Norwegians all trace their lineage through Woden (Voden, Uuothen, Othin, or Uuoden) who was a descendant of Noa (Noe) and all lines include Fin (Finn). Various sources miss one name here and one there but by combining them the geneology is illustrated and preserved.

All six Saxon houses trace their lineage from Woden (who, like Japheth becoming Jupiter, was turned into a mythical Norse figure as Odin) and that includes the House of Kent.

“The Houses of Wessex (Occidentallium Saxonium;) of Lindsey (Lindis feama;) of Kent (Catwariorum;) of Mercia (Merciorum;) of Northumbria (Northa hymborum;) and of East Anglia (Estranglorum,) are all represented and all are seen to have traced their ancestry directly back to Woden and beyond. Fortunately, Woden’s own ancestry is also shown in various sources, and this goes way back to Noah through Sceaf (of whom more shortly,) thus providing us with an invaluable and unbroken link with the immediate post-Flood era.

The political supremacy of these various Houses fluctuated almost from one decade to the next, and the particular king who at any one time held sway over the others, was accorded the title Bretwalda. The East Anglian king, Redwald, was a particularly famous Bretwalda and it is thought by many that it was his grave that was discovered during the excavations of the Sutton Hoo burial.

Redwald, however, as well as being an East Anglian king, also belonged to the famous clan of the Wuffingas. This name derived from his ancestor Wuffa, and it demonstrates the seriousness with which the early Saxons kept their genealogies. Undoubtedly, Wuffa would in time have been deified as an ancestor, as were other notable founders of clans before him, and it was only the presence of the early medieval Christian Church that prevented this happening in Wuffa’s case. For example, Geat was not only the founder of the Geatingas (Beowulf of epic fame was a Geating,) but he became also one of the major gods or demi-gods of the Saxon pantheon.”

There is more, yes, there is more. The curious reader can begin by clicking on some of the links provided. There will be another installment coming in the next days to continue the presentation of evidence for the geneological records in Genesis and their historical accuracy.

(original link)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s