Did Africans descend from Ham, or did they escape the flood and descend directly from Adam?

Full Question

I understand that the negro races are believed to be descended from Ham, as are also the Egyptians. I have read in a book called "The Builders of Babel," by Dominick M'Causland, Q.C., LL.D., that as early as in the time of Joseph there were negroes in exist­ence in Africa with exactly the same phy­sical characteristics as to-day–"the woolly head, the projecting jaw, and the black colour," as witnessed by monuments of that time. They are there depicted as slaves of the Egyptians, who were entirely different in facial appearance.

How in such a comparatively short time as had elapsed since the Flood, could they have developed such different characteristics simply by climatic condi­tions, etc.? The writer of the book sug­gests that the negro races (and other races he mentions) are descendants of Adam through another branch, who escaped the Flood, having left the part of the earth affected by the Flood before that catastrophe occurred. I do not, however, think this can possibly be sup­ported by the Scriptures. What is the explanation?


Answer

The origin of the Black Races is lost in remote antiquity, and the existence of negroid types of humanity from very early prehistoric times is beyond dispute. There is no evidence whatever that they are des­cended from Ham, or that their physical characteristics are in any way related to Ham’s delinquency. These are pure speculations, unworthy of serious consideration.

As to the relation of these races to the Flood, whilst there is abundance evidence, from the excavations of Woolley and others, of an overwhelming inunda­tion of considerable duration in the re­gions about the Euphrates, there exist no traces of any associated inundation else­where. Hence the tendency on the part of some earnest Bible students at the present time to interpret the Flood-narrative as having reference to only a limited area of the earth’s surface. This view is thought to be favoured by the reference to the height attained by the waters (30 feet); by the capacity of the Ark to bear only a certain number of humans and of animals, with their neces­sary stores, for many months; and by the diverse flora and fauna of distant lands, such as Australia.

The references in the narrative to the apparent universality of the Flood are therefore regarded in some quarters as not to be taken in the strict sense, but to be interpreted as representing phenomena observed from the necessarily restricted outlook of people who were concerned in the catastrophe. And the possibility must always be borne in mind that the narrative itself may not have come down to us in precisely its original form.

But, however that may be, the evidence for the continuity of the human species in many quarters of the globe over a very long period of time is far too strong to be resisted, and the great inundation which deposited eight feet of silt at Ur cannot have overspread the whole earth.

Compare the use of “world” in this restricted sense in the following pas­sages :—

Luke 2:1: “All the world . . . en­rolled.”

Acts 11:28: “Famine over all the world.”

Acts 24:5: “Jews throughout the world.”

Rom 1:8: “Your faith . . . throughout the whole world.

Col 1:6: “In all the world.”

Rev 3:10: “Hour of trial . . . upon the whole world.

2 Peter 3:6: “The world that then was.”


Responses

W. J. Livermore (Ontario) responded in The Testimony, Vol 5, No 50, p67-69, February, 1935

  • “Question 31” is simply this—Have the Negroes descended from Ham since the Noahic Flood? The above “Answer” does not give a definite “Yes” or “No” to this; but the implied answer is very clearly—that the Black Races are not descended from Ham and Noah, but from Adam through another branch of his des­cendants. The reasons given are—( 1) the antiquity of the Negroids; (2) the supposed impossibility of their physical differences from whites being effected be­tween the Flood and Joseph’s time (when it is alleged some were slaves in Egypt); (3) the very local extent of the Flood, merely the Euphrates valley, and not in Africa, etc.; (4) the Black Races are not descended from Ham.

    The testimony of Gen. 6. 5, 12, 13, is—”the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil con­tinually . . . God looked upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth . . . the end of all flesh is come before me.” From this we learn—( 1) that un­less the Negroids were a distinct race, without inherited ” sinful flesh,” they must have been ” wicked, evil, corrupt” as the others, and therefore subject to destruction by the Flood, (if existing at that time). If they descended from Adam, they must have had ” sinful flesh “; if not, seeing they are of “sinful flesh” now —there must have been a separate crea­tion of a Black Pair and a separate “Fall” of these. Where is the record of such ? (2) The term ” all flesh ” is used throughout the Flood narrative—the “all flesh” that perished in the Flood was necessarily the same “all flesh” that was ” wicked, evil, corrupt.” The Negroids are and always have been ” sin­ful flesh,” so would have been as wicked as the whites of that time, if there were Negroids then.

    The only exceptions given by God to this—” wicked, evil, corrupt all flesh” are (6. 9) ” Noah was a just man .. . and walked with God” (7. 1), ” The Lord said unto Noah, come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.”

    Thus, as the Ark was the only means of salvation from the Flood, and only Noah and seven of his family were saved therefrom, because of Noah’s righteous­ness — therefore, if there had been Negroids on earth, they were not “righteous,” they were not saved, they were among the “all flesh” that perished. By the usage and the solitary ex­ception named by God — ” all flesh ” meant every person outside the Ark.

    Paul, in Heb. 11. 7, states that Noah ” prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world.” Now, ” the world, being over­flowed by water, perished.” Therefore, if there were Negroids then, they were either in the Ark or in the world. Again, Jesus in Luke 17. 26-29, says “that Noe entered, and the Flood came, and de­stroyed them all.” The “all” means all except Noah and family; just as it does in v. 29 re Sodom—Lot and daughters were the only exceptions there. From these testimonies (and others) we learn that the Flood was of sufficient extent to destroy all people upon earth except Noah and family; so the Black Races must be descended from Noah.

    Where is the “evidence for the con­tinuity of the human species in many quarters of the globe over a very long period of time,” that proves the Flood “cannot have overspread the whole earth” ? Is it to be found in the discovery of a thigh-bone and a tooth, no more, from which so-called scientists de­duced a family history, and an antiquity of millions of years ?

    If the Flood was merely local to the Eiphrates valley—as Moab, Canaan, Syria, Armenia, etc., were thus high and dry—why was it necessary for Noah to build an Ark ? Why did not God send him on a journey to Canaan, as He did Abraham later on ? Why was it neces­sary to take all animals into the Ark; as goats and others live on mointains, and woild not be found in the valley at all ?
    Why was it necessary to take birds into the Ark to preserve their lives ? They coild have escaped in an hour’s flying. Birds have been shot in Canada with un-consumed strawberries in their crops that must have come from Florida—over 1,000 miles in less than 24 hoirs. How was it that the Ark travelled some 500 miles north and rested on Ararat (Gen. 8. 14), passing five other mountain ranges on the way?

    If the Flood was only 30 feet deep in the Euphrates valley, what floated the Ark over the five intervening mountain ranges to rest on Ararat? How conies Gen. 7. 19-20 to declare—” all the high hills under the whole heaven . . . all the mountains were covered” ? Are there “mountains” less than 30 feet high?

    Were there no trees at all over 30 feet high throughout the Euphrates valley that men, animals, or birds could have climbed to safety ?

    How came the Ark to rest on Mt. Ararat, 17,000 feet high ? It must have been the top of the mount, becaise the dove “found no rest for the sole of her feet” (Gen. 8. 9)-16 weeks after the Flood had started to recede, and 8 weeks after the mointain-tops were visible (verses 4-8).

    As olive trees “delight in rocky soil,” often grow up on mountain sides, and also reach 30 feet high themselves—how was it that the dove could not find an olive leaf until 120 days after the Flood had started to “decrease “?

    Would it take 70 days to recede enough to make mountain-tops visible? Would it take 7 months to dry off the earth (verses 4 and 14)?

    Why did the people after the Flood set out to build ” a tower whose top may reach unto heaven ” (Gen. 11. 14) to avoid a repetition ?

    As the ocean is over five miles deep in places, and has enough water to cover all the earth two miles deep—why should it be necessary for “all the fountains of the great deep to be broken ip,” as well as “the flood-gates of heaven opened “—to cover the Euphrates valley with 30 feet of water ?

    Would not the submergence of Ararat at 17,000 feet cover the whole world ex­cept a few peaks in the Andes and Himalayas, and one in Africa ?

    There are physical facts that eannot be denied, proving the Flood overspread the whole earth, covering its highest mountains. Here are some of them:

    A mountain on a small island in the Mediterranean is literally covered with animal bones of all kinds hunter and prey do not go together to die. High-up mountain caves in Italy, etc., contain masses of bones of all kinds of animals, buried together en masse. At various places over Western Europe and around the Mediterranean are buried masses of bones of all types of animals—covered by water sediment. At Gibraltar—bones of deer, horses, hyenas, bears, etc., are buried together, broken and mixed, covered by water sediment.

    From Yorkshire to Turkey, Russia to Algiers—are many promiscuous animal graveyards, under water-laid sediment. Immense numbers of mammoths have been found all across Siberia, in perfect preservation, food in their mouths; in solid ice hindreds of feet thick. Nothing bit an overwhelming flood and sudden freezing could cause this.

    Countless millions of fish, perfectly preserved, are found in great shoals, as suddenly buried by water sediment—all over Europe, N. America, etc., the usual source of oil deposits. Deep sea corals alternate with coal beds in U.S.A., Russia, China, Japan, Borneo and Sumatra. 14,000 feet up the Andes in S. America, oysters have been found. North of India, elephants, buffaloes, etc., are buried with sea-shells, fish, etc., under sea-water sand and slime.

    The “Boulder-drift ” is a composition of clay, often sand and shells, with rocks of all kinds; mixed like a gigantic “plum pudding.” In it also are abundant re­mains of animals and vegetables — the animals being of all kinds mixed indis­criminately bears and deer, elephants and tigers, etc., their enmity forgotten before a common catastrophe buried en masse by moving water.

    It is found all over the Eastern hemi­sphere, in Africa, N. America, Argen­tina, Tierra Del Fuego from Spitz­bergen to the tip of S. America.

    There are patches of identical strata, containing abundance of sea fossils as well as land fossils, scattered in every part of the world, like “spots on a leopard.” Either a great flood spread these remains over every quarter of the globe—Africa, Australia, N. and S. America, Europe and Asia—or else the Alps, Appennines, Andes and Himalayas all ducked beneath the ocean some time; which would also flood all land.

C. H. Arnold (Editor) responded in The Testimony, Vol 5, No 50, p69, February, 1935

  • The miracles of the Bible will always be a source of discussion, both on the part of the unbeliever, and among those who, while implicitly accepting the fact of Divine supervention, seek to discern the channel of its operation.

    For the man who is quite blind to the possibility of miracle, we can, perhaps, have nothing but pity; but it must be borne in mind that many devout believers have seen in miracles the working of natural laws, working, we might say, in an unnatural manner.

    For our own part we believe that all miracles follow a process. This does not mean, however, that the pro­cess can be seen, or understood. In some cases it may be dimly followed, but, gen­erally speaking, we have to bow our heads and say “this is the finger of God.”

    Many happenings, apparently natural, have been none the less miracu­lous. It is stimulating to our minds, and to our faith, to try to understand; harm can only come when, failing to under­stand, we refuse to believe.