Angels, the Flood, & Saturn (Part 2)

















Noah & Ham - Two "Wise" Ones

If there were, indeed, different groups of people who went aboard the ark – possibly, up to 80 individuals
in all – then we would have had a representative conglomerate of the human race aboard. These people,
obviously, must have been unaware of their future. On top of it, most were probably very scared. They
lost almost everything they once had, and were used to. There was some knowledge God wanted mankind
to keep, and use after the flood, however. Much of this knowledge began with knowledge that was taught
to Adam, of which was hand down, generation to generation, to Noah, himself.
Ultimately, it was Noah’s turn to do something with all of the beneficial information God wanted for mankind.
Tradition tells us that an angel of God made sure a good deal of information was to go to Noah, to be used
after the flood. He was instructed to inscribe all of this knowledge either on tablets of stone or metal, and
then bury it. It was not to go aboard the ark. Noah did inscribe it all like he was told, and did hide it; hoping
it would be available when they stood on solid ground, again.[98]

On the other hand, there was a lot of “valuable” knowledge the
Serpent, and other terrestrial angels,
revealed to the people, as well. This was also about to be lost – unless
someone was able to inscribe this
information onto metal or stone, too. It seems that, indeed, someone
was able to record a lot of this; in fact,
this “someone” was a person very close to
Noah, himself! This person went aboard the ark, along with the
rest of them!

Ham, one of the few aboard the ark, found quite a bit of merit to this knowledge, and considered it valuable
enough to keep - regardless if God was dead-set against knowledge such as this existing for the post-
flood world. Ham still set out to do the same thing as Noah: preserve it through the Deluge.[99]

Why would he do this? Why would Ham attempt to preserve that which God dictated for them to abolish?
Ham’s questionable character would continually be on the rise. At first, he “was looked on as a good
person, following the orders of his father.”[100] He tried, at first, to be like his brothers were; but there
seemed something inside him - from the "get-go" – that wasn't quite “right.” This “something” seemed to
shadow him throughout his days. A lot of times, Ham wouldn't take “the high road” in his decision-making
(unlike Abel, for example, who, almost continually
did). Ham slowly began to lean towards the opposite
direction – not following the example of Abel, but his
brother.

Ham subtly began to take an interest in the knowledge the
Serpent and other terrestrial angels brought to
civilization: magic, spells, and other of their occult arts. To preserve these, Ham also “began to inscribe
these secrets on metal and stone plates that would survive the flood.”[101] Soon, there would be major
problems on the horizon, because of this.

Regional or Global?















The flood began. It would truly be a devastating event. This brings us into another intriguing thought: was it
a local, regional, flood; or a truly
global event?

The evidence from the early church… is fairly conclusive. It was the unanimous opinion of the Jewish and
early Christian writers who wrote on the subject that Noah’s Flood was a global event.
                                                  ("Chapter 6: Noah’s Flood & the Tower of Babel", n. d., p. 1)[102]

The purpose of the flood was to devastate everything that lived outside of Noah’s ark – leaving only those
on board (including those eight from the direct bloodline of Adam). Why does there seem to be so much
ingrained tradition regarding the magnitude of this flood in Christian thought (often, with little or no room for
speculation)? There seems to be some
force out there, desperately trying to assure that most of these
age-old Biblical assumptions are kept in place! Why? Did it really need to be a
world-wide flood to do the
job? Is that what the Bible truly said?

What’s so wrong about creationists taking a cold, hard look at other theories, such as
the Gap Theory, for
example? Why are they so adamant about the earth being only six to twelve thousand years old? What
about the possibility of pre-Adamites; the Serpent being more than just a slithering, winding animal; the
terrestrial angels being able to copulate with women, etc.? There seems to be another age-old assumption,
related to Noah and his flood, which, again, seems to be vehemently protected by a lot of conservative
Christians: the flood was a
world-wide flood. What, if anything, could be behind the strict boundaries of so
many of these standard theories?

If one suggests anything but the apparent meaning is practically viewed as heresy. It is this type of blind
piety that has generated so many misconceptions and erroneous doctrines regarding the Bible. Instead of
employing independent study and thought they blindly follow the party line… a universal flood becomes
accepted and defended as a fact.
                                        (Weisman, 1992, p. 48)[103]

Could there be the need, by some, to defend the accuracy of our modern English translations, maybe? If the
translated words weren’t quite right, the authority of those presiding over our present Bible might actually
begin to be
in question – and, hence, there arises the possibility of some loss in "divine power." Why
couldn’t the flood, also, have been a terrible,
localized flood? Couldn’t the area where Noah lived have
been continually dumped on, pelted, or saturated with water - enough to keep the ark afloat for an extended
period of time?
Let’s look at what the Bible had to say about it – the
original Hebrew word used to describe Noah’s flood,
here.

"Land" or "Earth"?

As we look at Genesis (the English versions), it seems to provide assurance to those Christian creationists
who believe the flood was world-wide; the wording of the English Bible seems to add "fuel to their fire." As
we look at these versions (using the
King James Version, for example), we do see something a little out of
the ordinary (compared to the rest of the bible). The original Hebrew
eretz is a key to help diagnose
whether the flood may have been local or global. This word describes what
kind of flood that Noah's flood
was; and the world, clearly, could either be translated as "earth" or "land."
When translated as “earth,” it seems logical to assume that the flood waters actually would have covered
the entire planet; when translated into English as “land,” it seems logical to assume the flood would not be
of such a magnitude. A flood which covered the entire
land of Egypt, for example, may have really been a
devastating flood to the area. It could have wiped out the entire country, and everything around it; but it
would be
nothing in comparison to a flood which covered the entire earth!

The Hebrew
eretz is used a good number of times in the Old Testament. In actuality, it was translated 1543
times as “land;” and only 712 times as “earth” - over
twice as many times; yet, this ratio does not even hold
close to the same in the first eight chapters of Genesis!

Eretz was translated into English 79 times during these eight chapters. How many would it be translated as
“land” (out of these 79)? Only 3! Again, it is worth repeating: the English word “land” was inserted only
3 times out of 79 times it could have, and only when it was so blatant that it really had to be (such as the
naming of
the land of Havilah (in Gen. 2:11), the land of Ethiopia (in Gen 2:13), and the land of Nod (in
Gen. 4:16)). Why such a
vast reversal in the above 2:1 ratio, here?
Could these early translators have wanted to
make sure that there was no misunderstanding in what they
were trying to portray, in regards to the flood? If the English word “earth” was used 76, out of 79, times,
then one could easily assume that any reference to a flood
must be referring to the whole world!
Maybe translating it as “earth” so many times could, at least according to them, eliminate any thought of
this flood being anything but world-wide; but, just because it was
translated that way, doesn't make it so! It
almost seems like a
political move, here; doesn’t it?

Instead of translating the original Hebrew into what it might actually be saying, or keeping an eye out for
any other rational explanation, or meanings, this word
eretz might have been translated with an agenda: to
make sure this commonly-held tradition would remain intact!
Again, we must realize that no matter how “learned” some people might have been, they were
human; and
politics often dominate human thought! We all have our traditions, feel the need to succumb to pressures,
or desire certain end-results out of life.

We’ll soon see that there seemed to be other “problems” in the translation of these words – either un-
intentional or intentional – which could be related to this “land-earth” argument, here. In Gen. 19:31, for
example,
eretz seems to have been translated a little unconventionally: Lot’s daughters had to hide out in a
cave, with their father, and away from other people, for a fairly long-period of time. They eventually felt the
need to find a man to propagate their family. Their conversation was as follows:

            And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth
                                           to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
                                                                                      - Gen. 19:31 (KJV)

Interesting. Now, does this mean that there were no men
on the entire planet at this time; or, should it mean
there were no men
in the land around them?[104] As we see:

                   Thus saith the LORD; Behold, waters rise up out of the north, and shall be an
                                               overflowing flood, and shall overflow the land
                                                                                               - Jer. 47:1-2 (KJV)

Again,
eretz is part of the above verse. A number of verses, as we see in the above, could, just as easily,
have been translated as “land” or “earth.”[105] What’s so “heretical” about the possibility of Noah's flood
being a local, but terrible, flood? What, besides an “upstart” with commonly-held tradition, would it hurt to
suggest that the land of Noah's time was utterly and completely flooded - not necessarily the entire planet?
It would not be “compromising” what the Bible meant, or was trying to say! It would not be “collaborating”
with the evolution theory, either. It still could have happened; just as devastating as ever; destroying the
whole of the known world at the time; and doing what it was
supposed to do - just as the Bible stated!
                                                      Copyright 2015, Brett T., All Rights Reserved.
       
    No content of this article or of mysterybabylon.com may be reproduced, duplicated, given away,
        
             transmitted or resold in any form without prior written permission from the author.
                                                                                                      Footnotes
[1]  Louis Ginzberg,
The Legends of the Jews Volume I: From the Creation to Jacob, trans. Henrietta Szold (Baltimore, Maryland: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1909), 145.
[2]  
The Qur’an, Surah 11:43, http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/ (accessed , 20).
[3]  James L. Kugel,
Traditions of the Bible (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998), 166; Book of Wisd. 10:3-4.
[4]  Howard Schwartz,
Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism (Oxford: University Press, 2004), 456.
[5]  David Max Eichhorn,
Cain: Son of the Serpent (New York: Whittier Books, Inc., 1957), 69.
[6]  David Max Eichhorn,
Cain: Son of the Serpent (New York: Whittier Books, Inc., 1957), 70.
(7)  
Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch Volume One, Genesis 4:23, trans. Michael L. Klein (Cincinnati:
Hebrew Union College Press, 1986), ;
The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature, This is the History of Abel and Cain the Sons of Adam
58, trans. William Lowndes Lipscomb (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International, 1983), 170-171.
[8]  Mrs. Sydney Bristowe,
Sargon the Magnificent (London: The Covenant Publishing Co., 1927), 89.
[9]  E. Basil Redlich,
The Early Traditions of Genesis (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 1950), 78.
[10]  E. Basil Redlich,
The Early Traditions of Genesis (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 1950), 77.
[11]  Mrs. Sydney Bristowe,
Sargon the Magnificent (London: The Covenant Publishing Co., 1927), 87.
[12]  Mrs. Sydney Bristowe,
Sargon the Magnificent (London: The Covenant Publishing Co., 1927), 95.
[13]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 68.
[14]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 100.
[15]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 90.
[16]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 89-90.
[17]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 149.
[18]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 71.
[19]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 82.
[20]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 149.
[21]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 149.
[22]  Bertrand L. Comparet,
What Happened to Cain, 16-17, http://www.posse-comitatus.org/Bible_Studies/what_happened_to_cain.htm
(accessed Aug. 21, 2000 334).
[23]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 94.
[24]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 91; Theophilus G.
Pinches, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (), 37.
[25]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 91
[26]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 87, 91.
[27]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 71.
[28]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 84.
[29]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 149.
[30]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 75.
[31]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 74.
[32]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 74.
[33]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien, The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 100.
[34]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 101.
[35]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 99.
[36]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 100.
[37]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 186.
[38]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 76.
[39]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 77.
[40]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 76.
[41]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 77.
[42]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 77.
[43]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien, The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 77.
[44]  Bertrand L. Comparet, What Happened to Cain, 17, http://www.posse-comitatus.org/Bible_Studies/what_happened_to_cain.htm
(accessed Aug. 21, 2000 334).
[45]  156  1.
[46]  Christian and Barbara Joy O’Brien,
The Shining Ones (Cirencester, England: Dianthus Publishing Limited, 1988), 184, 186.
[47]  Dan Gayman,
The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15 (Daniel Lee Gayman, 1977), 23.
[48]  Alan Unterman,
Dictionary of Jewish Lore and Legend (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1991), 138.
[49]  James L. Kugel,
Traditions of the Bible (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998), 216; 156 1.
[50]  
The Chronography of George Synkellos (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2002),.
[51]
 The Book of the Cave of Treasures, The Rule of Noah, The 2nd Thousand Years.
[52]
 The Book of the Generations of Adam,  Chap. 8.6, http://www.earth-history.com/Pseudepigrapha/generations-adam.htm (accessed
May 5, 2007).
[53]
 The Golden Legend or Lives of the Saints: Volume I, 64, trans. William Caxton (1483), http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/
goldenlegend/GoldenLegend-Volume1.htm (accessed Jan. 13, 2011).
[54]  Samuel A. Berman,
Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu: An English Translation of Genesis and Exodus from the Printed Version of
Tanhuma-Yelammedenu with an Introduction, Notes, and Indexes
,  (Hoboken, New Jersey: KTAV Publishing House, 1996), 34.
[55]  
Lechery, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lechery (accessed).
[56]  Robert William Rogers,
Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament (New York: Jennings & Graham, 1912), 96.
[57]  Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin,
Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East (New York: Paulist
Press, 1991), 16, 21.
[58]  Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin,
Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East (New York: Paulist
Press, 1991), 23.
[59]
 Ancient Near East (Babylonia) Glossary and Texts, 23, http://www.piney.com/BabGloss.html (accessed  ).
[60]
 Adam, the Flood & The Tower of Babel, 8, http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/tower_of_babel.htm (accessed May 10, 2011).
[61]
 Adam, the Flood & The Tower of Babel, 8, http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/tower_of_babel.htm (accessed May 10, 2011).
[62]  Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin,
Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East (New York: Paulist
Press, 1991), 22; Robert William Rogers,
Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament (New York: Jennings & Graham, 1912), 114.
[63]  Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin,
Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East (New York: Paulist
Press, 1991), 22.
[64]  Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin,
Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East (New York: Paulist
Press, 1991), 23.
[65]  C. A. Phifer,
Annals of the Earth (Chicago, Illinois: American Publishers Association, 1890), 287.
[66]  C. A. Phifer,
Annals of the Earth (Chicago, Illinois: American Publishers Association, 1890), 206.
[67]  C. A. Phifer,
Annals of the Earth (Chicago, Illinois: American Publishers Association, 1890), 285.
[68]  C. A. Phifer,
Annals of the Earth, 203 (Chicago, Illinois: American Publishers Association, 1890), 160.
[69]  C. A. Phifer,
Annals of the Earth, 202-203 (Chicago, Illinois: American Publishers Association, 1890), 140.
[70]  C. A. Phifer,
Annals of the Earth (Chicago, Illinois: American Publishers Association, 1890), .
[71]
 Enoch & the Nephilim: Liber VII, 53, http://www.adamqadmon.com/nephilim/bbcwatchers.html (accessed Feb. 6, 2001).
[72]  C. A. Phifer,
Annals of the Earth, 211 (Chicago, Illinois: American Publishers Association, 1890), .
[73]  Kiddushin 35a Ibn Ezra,
Commentary on the Pentateuch: Genesis (Bereshit) (New York: Menorah Publishing Company, Inc., 1988),
46-47 (notes).
[74]  
Noach Rabbah 34:1; Mendel G. Glenn, Jewish Tales and Legends (New York: Star Hebrew Book Co., 1929), 26.
[75]
 The Book of the Generations of Adam, Chap. 8.6, http://www.earth-history.com/Pseudepigrapha/generations-adam.htm (accessed
May 5, 2007).
[76]  
the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108a.
[77]
 The Book of the Mysteries of the Heavens and the Earth and Other Works of Bakhayla Mikael (Zosimas), 29 (and notes) trans.
E. A. Wallis Budge (London: Oxford University Press, 1935), .
[78]
 The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature, Concerning the Good Tiding of Seth Which God Gave to Adam on Account of Abel,
Whom Cain Killed, in Order to Console Adam and Eve 59, trans. William Lowndes Lipscomb (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms
International, 1983), 282.
[79]
 Rashi, (Bereishit) Genesis 6:17, http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8168/showrashi/true (accessed Oct. 27, 2010).
[80]
 Strongs.
[81]
 St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works, , trans. Edward G. Mathews, Jr. and Joseph P. Amar (Washington, D. C.: The
Catholic University of America Press, 1994), 142.
[82]
 The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature, Concerning the Good Tidings of Seth Which God Gave to Adam on Account of Abel,
Whom Cain Killed, in Order to Console Adam and Eve 41, trans. William Lowndes Lipscomb (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms
International, 1983), 281.
[83]  
The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b.
[84]  
The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b.
[85]
 Enoch & the Nephilim: Liber VII, 38, http://www.adamqadmon.com/nephilim/bbcwatchers.html (accessed Feb. 6, 2001 38).
[86]
 St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works, , trans. Edward G. Mathews, Jr. and Joseph P. Amar (Washington, D. C.: The
Catholic University of America Press, 1994), 142.
[87]  James L. Kugel,
Traditions of the Bible (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998), 216; Jack P. Lewis, Noah, 63.
[88]
 Pirke De Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 23:The Ark and the flood [26B. ii.], trans. Gerald Friedlander (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press,
1981), 166.
[89]
 The Works of Philo Judaeus, Questions and Answers II, 83, trans. C. D. Yonge (London: H. G. Bohn, 1854-5), .
[90]  
St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works, Section VI 9, trans. Edward G. Mathews, Jr. and Joseph P. Amar (Washington, D. C.:
The Catholic University of America Press, 1994), 142.
[91]
 The Works of Philo Judaeus, Questions and Answers II, 83, trans. C. D. Yonge (London: H. G. Bohn, 1854-5), .
[92]  S. Baring-Gould,
Legends of the Patriarchs and Prophets and Other Old Testament Characters (New York: American Book
Exchange, 1881), 105.
[93]
 Book of the Glory of Kings (Kerba Nagast), 8. Concerning the Flood, trans. Sir. E. A. Wallis Budge (London: Humphrey Milford,
1932).
[94]  Carleton S. Coon, 1962.
[95]  http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2416&t=KJV.
[96]  Alexander Heidel,
The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1946), 237.
[97]  
Cattle, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cattle. (accessed 05/15/14).
[98]  Alexander Heidel,
The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1946), 237; An
Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah Into Europe: Containing the First Inhabitation and Peopling Thereof
, trans. Richard Lynche
(1601), http://www.annomundi.com/history/travels_of_noah.htm (accessed Dec. 7, 2007); Louis Ginzberg,
The Legends of the Jews
Volume I: From the Creation to Jacob
, trans. Henrietta Szold (Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1909), 145.
[99]  Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 38.
[100]  Louis Ginzberg,
The Legends of the Jews Volume V: Notes for Volume One and Two, , trans. Henrietta Szold (Baltimore,
Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1909), 179.
[101]  Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 30; Andy
Orchard,
Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf-Manuscript (Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated,
2003), 67-68, 73.
[102]  
Chapter 6: Noah’s Flood & the Tower of Babel, , http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter6.htm (accessed June 3, 2000).
[103]  Charles A. Weisman,
Facts and Fictions Regarding Noah’s Flood (Apple Valley, Minnesota: Weisman Publications, 1992), 48.
[104]  Charles A. Weisman,
Facts and Fictions Regarding Noah’s Flood (Apple Valley, Minnesota: Weisman Publications, 1992), 6.
[105]  Charles A. Weisman,
Facts and Fictions Regarding Noah’s Flood (Apple Valley, Minnesota: Weisman Publications, 1992), 9.
[106]  Andy Orchard,
Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf-Manuscript (Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Incorporated, 2003), 67.
[107]  Charles A. Weisman,
Facts and Fictions Regarding Noah’s Flood (Apple Valley, Minnesota: Weisman Publications, 1992), 5.
[108]  Stephen Charles Bandy,
Caines Cynn: A Study of Beuwolf and the Legends of Cain (Stephen Charles Bandy, 1967), 34.
[109]  Robert Graves and Raphael Patai,
Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1964),
114;
Rashi, (Bereishit) Genesis 7:7, http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8168/showrashi/true (accessed Oct. 27, 2010).
[110]  Louis Ginzberg,
The Legends of the Jews Volume V: Notes for Volume One and Two, IV Noah, 54, trans. Henrietta Szold
(Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1909), 188.
[111]  
The Works of Philo Judaeus, Questions and Answers II, 83, trans. C. D. Yonge (London: H. G. Bohn, 1854-5), .
[112]  Robert Graves and Raphael Patai,
Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1964),
112.
[113]  Louis Ginzberg,
The Legends of the Jews Volume V: Notes for Volume One and Two, IV Noah, 54, trans. Henrietta Szold
(Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1909), 188.
[114]  Robert Graves and Raphael Patai,
Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1964),
114.
[115]  Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 31.
[116]  S. Baring-Gould,
Legends of the Patriarchs and Prophets and Other Old Testament Characters (New York: American Book
Exchange, 1881), 124; Louis Ginzberg,
The Legends of the Jews Volume V: Notes for Volume One and Two, , , trans. Henrietta Szold
(Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1909), 156.
[117]  Louis Ginzberg,
The Legends of the Jews Volume I: From the Creation to Jacob, trans. Henrietta Szold (Baltimore, Maryland: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1909), 167.
[118]  
The Zohar, 4 Noach 36.
[119]  
The Midrash Rabbah 12:10, 96.
[120]  David Padfield,
Interracial Marriage, 3, http://padfield.com/1996/racial.html (accessed April 22, 2001).
[121]  Eustace Mullins,
The Curse of Canaan (Staunton, Virginia: Revelation Books, 1987), 6.
[122]  Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 31.
[123]  
An Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah Into Europe: Containing the First Inhabitation and Peopling Thereof, trans. Richard
Lynche (1601), http://www.annomundi.com/history/travels_of_noah.htm (accessed Dec. 7, 2007).
[124]  Eustace Mullins,
The Curse of Canaan (Staunton, Virginia: Revelation Books, 1987), 6.
[125]  David Allen Deal,
Noah’s Ark: The Evidence (Muskogee, Oklahoma: Artisan Publishers, 2007), 126.
[126]  http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8168/showrashi/true (accessed Oct. 27, 2010).
[127]  
Shabbat 146a; Yebamot 103b.
[128]  Louis Ginzberg,
The Legends of The Jews: Volume I, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998, p. 165-166; Louis
Ginzberg,
The Legends of The Jews: Volume V: Notes for Volume One and Two, , (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998),
187.
[129]  Louis Ginzberg,
The Legends of the Jews Volume I: From the Creation to Jacob, trans. Henrietta Szold (Baltimore, Maryland: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1909), 165.
[130]  Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas,
Uriel’s Machine (Boston, Massachusetts: Element Books, 1999), 86.
[131]  
An Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah Into Europe: Containing the First Inhabitation and Peopling Thereof, trans. Richard
Lynche (1601), http://www.annomundi.com/history/travels_of_noah.htm (accessed Dec. 7, 2007).
[132]  
The Second Book of Adam and Eve (The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan), 11:4, trans. S. C. Malan (London: Williams and
Norgate, 1882), 68.
[133]  Charles DeLoach,
Giants: A Reference Guide from History, the Bible, and Recorded Legend (Metuchen, N. J.: The Scarecrow
Press, Inc., 1995), 287.
[134]  
The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature, Concerning the Good Tidings of Seth, to Which We Ought to Give Ear 27, trans.
William Lowndes Lipscomb (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International, 1983), 196.
[135]  
Genesis 6:9-10 (KJV); Rev. Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship: Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and
His Wife
, Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1916, 244; Mrs. Sydney Bristowe, Sargon the Magnificent (London: The Covenant
Publishing Co., 1927), 17; Colin Kidd,
The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600-2000
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 116.
[136]  Robert William Rogers,
Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament (New York: Jennings & Graham, 1912), 100.
[137]  244  1.
[138]  Louis Ginzberg,
The Legends of The Jews: Volume I: From the Creation to Jacob, trans. Henrietta Szold (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1998), 168-169; Louis Ginzberg,
The Legends of The Jews: Volume V Notes for Volume One and Two
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 191.
[139]  Louis Ginzberg,
The Legends of the Jews Volume I: From the Creation to Jacob, trans. Henrietta Szold (Baltimore, Maryland: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1909), 168
[140]  
The Midrash Rabbah, Noach Rabbah 36:5; 1C291.
[141]  Eustace Mullins,
The Curse of Canaan (Staunton, Virginia: Revelation Books, 1987), 7.
[142]  
The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 70a.
[143]  
Genesis 9:21 (KJV).
[144]  Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 33.
[145]  
the book of the Bee, 20; The Book of the Rolls (Kitab Al-Magall), trans. Margaret Dunlop Gibson, Apocrypha Arabica (London: C. J.
Clay and Sons, 1901), 31;
The History of al-Tabari – Volume II: Prophets and Patriarchs, 212, , trans. William M. Brinner (Albany: New
York Press, 1987), 11;
The Works of Philo Judaeus, On the Prayers and Curses, 7.32, trans. C. D. Yonge (London: H. G. Bohn,
1854-5).
[146]  
The Book of the Rolls (Kitab Al-Magall), trans. Margaret Dunlop Gibson, Apocrypha Arabica (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1901),
31;
the Book of the Cave of Treasures, Vineyard, 3rd 1000 years.
[147]  
St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works, Section VII 2, trans. Edward G. Mathews, Jr. and Joseph P. Amar (Washington,
D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1994), 144.
[148]  Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 37.
[149]  Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 31.
[150]  
Pirke De Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 23: The Ark and the Flood [26B. ii.], trans. Gerald Friedlander (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press,
1981), 170.
[151]  Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 34.
[152]  S. Baring-Gould,
Legends of the Patriarchs and Prophets and Other Old Testament Characters (New York: American Book
Exchange, 1881), 124.
[153]  
The History of al-Tabari – Volume II: Prophets and Patriarchs, 215, , trans. William M. Brinner (Albany: New York Press, 1987),
14;
The Bible, The Koran, and the Talmud (Biblical Legends of the Mussulmans), Noah, Hud and Salih, trans. Dr. G. Weil (New York,
1863) 55.
[154]  Louis Ginzberg,
The Legends of the Jews Volume I: From the Creation to Jacob, trans. Henrietta Szold (Baltimore, Maryland: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1909), 168.
[155]  Colin Kidd,
The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600-2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006), 74; Mrs. Sydney Bristowe,
Sargon the Magnificent (London: The Covenant Publishing Co., 1927), 83; Stephen
Quayle,
Genesis 6 Giants: The Master Builders of Prehistoric and Ancient Civilizations (Bozeman, Montana: End Time Thunder
Publishers, 2005), 65; Robert Graves and Raphael Patai,
Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis (Garden City, New York: Doubleday &
Company, 1964), 122; Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002),
38.
[156]  
An Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah Into Europe: Containing the First Inhabitation and Peopling Thereof, trans. Richard
Lynche (1601), http://www.annomundi.com/history/travels_of_noah.htm (accessed Dec. 7, 2007).
[157]  E. S. G. Bristowe,
Cain - An Argument (Leicester: Edgar Backus, 1950), 36.
[158]  
The Book of the Cave of Treasures, Vineyard, The Third 1000 Years, trans. Sir E. A. Wallis Budge (London: The Religious Tract
Society, 1927), 120.
[159]  C. J. Verduin,
Looking for Jonitus, 13, http://leidenuniv.nl/fsw/verduin/jonitus/jonitus.htm (accessed Aug. 1, 2005 341).
[160]  
The Babylonian Talmud 4 meg 1; 4O.
[161]  Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 101.
[162]  David Allen Deal,
Noah’s Ark: The Evidence (Muskogee, Oklahoma: Artisan Publishers, 2007), 186.
[163]  Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 28.
[164]  S. Baring-Gould,
Legends of the Patriarchs and Prophets and Other Old Testament Characters (New York: American Book
Exchange, 1881), 110.
[165]  
An Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah Into Europe: Containing the First Inhabitation and Peopling Thereof, trans. Richard
Lynche (1601), http://www.annomundi.com/history/travels_of_noah.htm (accessed Dec. 7, 2007).
[166]  Andy Orchard,
Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf-Manuscript (Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Incorporated, 2003), 68.
[167]  Andy Orchard,
Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf-Manuscript (Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Incorporated, 2003), 69, 73.
[168]  Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.,
Athena and Eden: The Hidden Meaning of the Parthenon’s East Facade (Annapolis, Maryland: Solving
Light Books, 2002), 26.
[169]  Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.,
Athena and Eden: The Hidden Meaning of he Parthenon’s East Facade (Annapolis, Maryland: Solving
Light Books, 2002), 58.
[170]  Andy Orchard,
Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf-Manuscript (Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Incorporated, 2003), 70.
[171]  Mrs. Sydney Bristowe,
Sargon the Magnificent (London: The Covenant Publishing Co., 1927), 166.
[172]  Andy Orchard,
Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf-Manuscript (Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Incorporated, 2003), 69-70, 73, 79.
[173]  
Anglo Saxon England, 194.
[174]  
The Book of the Cave of Treasures, The Rule of Noah, The Second 1000 Years.
[175]  Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 27.
[176]  David Max Eichhorn,
Cain: Son of the Serpent (New York: Whittier Books, Inc., 1957), 133.
[177]  David Max Eichhorn,
Cain: Son of the Serpent (New York: Whittier Books, Inc., 1957), 133.
[178]  Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.,
Athena and Eden: The Hidden Meaning of he Parthenon’s East Facade (Annapolis, Maryland: Solving
Light Books, 2002), 20.
[179]  David Allen Deal,
Noah’s Ark: The Evidence (Muskogee, Oklahoma: Artisan Publishers, 2007), 62, 128.
[180]  Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.,
Athena and Eden: The Hidden Meaning of he Parthenon’s East Facade (Annapolis, Maryland: Solving
Light Books, 2002), 29; David Allen Deal,
Noah’s Ark: The Evidence (Muskogee, Oklahoma: Artisan Publishers, 2007), 62; Definitions /
God_Messiah_and_Angels, Who was Baal, who was Asherah?
, 1, http://www.jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr2417.htm (accessed
May 25, 2000);
Atargatis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atargatis (accessed 04/11/12); http://www.abufares.net/2010/02/atargatis.html
(accessed 04/11/12).
[181]  
The Midrash Rabbah, Bereshith (Genesis) 36:2, trans. Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon (London: The Soncino Press,
1961), .
[182]  
The Midrash Rabbah, Bereshith (Genesis) 36:2, trans. Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon (London: The Soncino Press,
1961), .
[183]  
Book of the Glory of Kings (Kerba Nagast), 9. Concerning the Covenant of Noah, trans. Sir. E. A. Wallis Budge (London:
Humphrey Milford, 1932) .
[184]  
The Book of the Cave of Treasures, The Death of Noah 125 (notes), trans. Sir E. A. Wallis Budge (London: The Religious Tract
Society, 1927), .
[185]  
An Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah Into Europe: Containing the First Inhabitation and Peopling Thereof, trans. Richard
Lynche (1601), http://www.annomundi.com/history/travels_of_noah.htm (accessed Dec. 7, 2007).
[186]  Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 32.
[187]  Alexander Hislop,
The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship: Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (Neptune, New
Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1916), 35.
[188]  Charles DeLoach,
Giants: A Reference Guide from History, the Bible, and Recorded Legend (Metuchen, N. J.: The Scarecrow
Press, Inc., 1995), 116.
[189]  S. Baring-Gould,
Legends of the Patriarchs and Prophets and Other Old Testament Characters (New York: American Book
Exchange, 1881), 124.
[190]  Stephen R. Haynes, Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 29.
[191]  Colin Kidd,
The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600-2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006), 75; Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press,
2002), 33.
[192]  Montague Rhodes James,
The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament: Their Titles and Fragments Collected, Translated and
Discussed
(London: Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920), 16; S. Baring-Gould, Legends of the Patriarchs and Prophets
and Other Old Testament Characters
(New York: American Book Exchange, 1881), 124.
[193]  
Chemistry, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry_(etymology.
[194]  Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 38.
[195]  C. J. Verduin,
Looking for Jonitus, 13, http://leidenuniv.nl/fsw/verduin/jonitus/jonitus.htm (accessed Aug. 1, 2005).
[196]  Mrs. Sydney Bristowe,
Sargon the Magnificent (London: The Covenant Publishing Co., 1927), 166.
[197]  S. Baring-Gould,
Legends of the Patriarchs and Prophets and Other Old Testament Characters (New York: American Book
Exchange, 1881), 124.
[198]  Louis Ginzberg,
The Legends of the Jews Volume V: Notes for Volume One and Two, , trans. Henrietta Szold (Baltimore,
Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1909), 200.
[199]  Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 29.
[200]  2F1; Charles DeLoach,
Giants: A Reference Guide from History, the Bible, and Recorded Legend (Metuchen, N. J.: The
Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1995), 116.
[201]  Alexander Hislop,
The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship: Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (Neptune, New
Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1916), 40.
[202]  Alexander Hislop,
The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship: Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (Neptune, New
Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1916), 134.
[203]  Alexander Hislop,
The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship: Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (Neptune, New
Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1916), 124.
[204]  C. J. Verduin,
Looking for Jonitus, 8, http://leidenuniv.nl/fsw/verduin/jonitus/jonitus.htm (accessed Aug. 1, 2005).
[205]  Charles DeLoach,
Giants: A Reference Guide from History, the Bible, and Recorded Legend (Metuchen, N. J.: The Scarecrow
Press, Inc., 1995), 116.
[206]  Alexander Hislop,
The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship: Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (Neptune, New
Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1916), 23.
[207]  Alexander Hislop,
The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship: Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (Neptune, New
Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1916), 250.
[208]  Alexander Hislop,
The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship: Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (Neptune, New
Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1916), 250.
[209]  Alexander Hislop,
The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship: Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (Neptune, New
Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1916), 250.
[210]  Louis Ginzberg,
The Legends of the Jews Volume V: Notes for Volume One and Two, III The Ten Generations 6, trans. Henrietta
Szold (Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1909), 135.
[211]  
Eusebius: Chronicle, 7, http://www.attalus.org/translate/eusebius.html (accessed May 5, 2011).

Saturn was, and is, probably one of the most important figures behind the development of Mystery Babylon.
Interestingly enough, he was known to be a "god of hidden counsels," a "concealer of secrets," and a “god
of ‘mysteries.’"[201] One of the major subtitles of this god was, however, "
The Hidden One." Now, what
was so
mysterious about this god; that he had to be hidden?

According to some ancient thought, Saturn might have originally been equated to
Noah - at least at first;
and the reason he was known as “The Hidden One” was simple: Noah was “hidden” in the ark for an
extended period of time![202] Because of this, Noah could have been considered "the first of the Hidden
Ones" - but, not the last!
As we’ll see, this
same title would be either transferred-to, or adopted by, the man who began to exalt
himself above all others:
Ham, of course.[203] We already know that Noah’s ways were on the
decline, and Ham’s new ways were on an “upswing,” in the ancient world. People were looking to Ham as
the “substitute” for the old Noah. Things were becoming twisted - in Ham's favor:

                       The exiled Saturn (i.e. Ham) is received most gladly by Janus (a.k.a. Noah)
                                                       for his wisdom and made co-ruler…
                                                                         ("Looking for Jonitus", n. d., p. 8)[204]

Obviously, public perception was that
Ham was taking over “divine” authority of the world from Noah - the
"new" Saturn he was known as.

                                Saturn now became sole master of all his father’s dominions.
                                                                          (DeLoach, 1995, p. 116)[205]

As already stated, the ways Ham began to think (i.e. the “ways” of Cain and the Serpent) were becoming
much more viable in this post-flood world; much more “politically correct” than Noah’s ways of following
some invisible God. As we see, there began to be some parallels of
Sammael/the Serpent and this
“hidden” meaning of the god Saturn:

…he (Sammael) was at once the Devil, the father of all sin and idolatry, who hid himself under the
disguise of the serpent… and Noah, who lay hid for a whole year in the ark…
                                                                                (Hislop, 1916, p. 23)[206]

We recall, the angel
Sammael (a.k.a. Satan) was allowed to possess the Serpent, and speak through him -
into seducing Eve. Now, the Serpent and Ham have something in common: they
both revealed information -
hidden knowledge - subtly to anyone who was interested.
But, where does the
Mystery of the Mystery system of Babylon come into play, here?

The name of the system is "Mystery" (Rev 17:5). Here, then, we have the key that at once unlocks the
enigma. We have now only to inquire what was the name… (of) the god of the Chaldean Mysteries. That
name… was Saturn…
Saturn and Mystery are both Chaldean words, and they are correlative terms. As
Mystery signifies the
Hidden system, so Saturn signifies the Hidden god.
                                                                                (Hislop, 1916, p. 250)[207]

                   To those who were initiated the god was revealed; to all else he was hidden.
                                                                                (Hislop, 1916, p. 250)[208]

This is very important: the
hidden knowledge (of the terrestrial angels) that Ham brought back from these
tablets (as well as the “ways” of Cain and the Serpent) would
subtly be introduced into one's daily life, yet
again. Not many knew, for sure, where it all
really came from in the post-flood world, or they didn't care;
nor would they care where it, eventually, would probably lead them. They just wanted the earthly, short-
term benefits they would get from participating!
This is the beginning of the identification of the
Mystery side of Mystery Babylon!

Often, the true
nature of what’s behind this knowledge, and these “ways” of life, will not be revealed to the
initiate – at least
up front; possibly, not until the participant could handle the truth of it; if at all! So many
people are taking part in this
Mystery system of Mystery Babylon and don't even know it! A lot of what
people thought, a lot of what they believed in, and a lot of the attitudes they held, would,
subtly, have the
“ways” of the Serpent ingrained into them, often unbeknown to the individuals themselves.

Hence, we have a big link to
Mystery Babylon - this god Saturn - the "god of hidden counsels," the
"concealer of secrets," and “god of ‘mysteries.’" Now, we know where all of it
truly comes from.
Interestingly enough, many of us have heard of the “beast” in the book of Revelation, and how he would be
released from his prison in the
Darkness of the Deep to, again, plague the world (in the end times).
Without going too deep into the Gematria behind it all: each man’s name could correspond to a “number,”
depending on it's spelling. Each letter could have a
number assigned to it – add up the numbers and we get
a descriptive
number, which "describes" the individual, if you will. Many of us know the number of the
"beast" in Revelation is “666.” Could the system that represents, or is signified by, this “666” number have
been with us, all the way back then? Interestingly enough, we see that:

…the name Saturn in Chaldee is pronounced Satur; but, as every Chaldee scholar knows, consists only
of four letters, thus--
Stur. This name contains exactly the Apocalyptic number 666:--
 
                                                     S = 060 T = 400 U = 006 R = 200
                                                                              (Hislop, 1916, p. 250)[209]

Are we on to something, here, with
Ham? There also appears to be a similarity between the names Cain
and Kewan – another name which, often, equates to none other than this same “Saturn.”[210]

These hidden
mysteries, from the “hidden one” (i.e. Sammael - in the guise of the Serpent), would, again,
come to the surface in our post-flood world! From
Ham, there, indeed, would be resurgence - a new system
of knowledge to those up-and-coming “ways” of life about to permeate these societies. They were still the
same, after the flood as before; the same as when Cain and the Serpent started to advance it all. Now, it
was only wrapped in a “new package” to the people of Ham’s day! This
mystery system of knowledge and
power was
subtly, and assuredly, being re-introduced back into the public mindset, to continue its venom
on society - and we know where their "headquarters" were, before the flood:

                    The voice told them to return to Babylon; they were destined to dig up the writings
                                        which had been hidden… and distribute them amongst men.
                                                                               - Eusebius Chronicle 7[211]

The
knowledge which formed these Mysteries - once practiced in places such as Babylon – had returned,
with a vengeance…

Next, we will look at more “reincarnations” of these earlier “gods” in Eden, and begin with one who was
very close to Saturn (i.e.
Ham), himself. This individual took what Ham, “The Hidden One,” subtly brought
back to our post-flood world, and launched it - “
full blown” - into a political and religious powerhouse!

We recall that father Noah would be the one who would dictate where the descendants of Shem should
settle, but the Canaanites took it over – that’s why the land of Israel was considered "the Promised Land.”
That’s also why it was known as the “Land of Canaan” for so long. This was also probably why God told
Abraham that his descendants would re-take the land – it was promised to him and his descendants, in
the first place!

Towards the "Other Side"

The Canaanites who lived there, of course, wouldn’t see it that way. They were already in the land, and
weren’t going to leave for anything. It was “all about them,” of course. Many of the ancients were beginning
to adopt these self-centered “ways” of Cain and the Serpent. They, as well, were not about to heed to
Shem as Noah’s replacement, or new “high priest” of the ways of God. In fact, to many of these ancient
peoples, the
opposite extremes were starting to become the new normal. Not surprisingly:

There is definitely a Babylonian history of the Flood, which corresponds to the Biblical history, but with a
different emphasis:
- The Biblical post-flood history begins with Noah… It then continues, in much more detail, with the family
 of Shem, until the coming of Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah.
- The Babylonian post-flood history also begins with Noah, but places more emphasis on the families of
 Cham (Ham) and Japheth.
                                            - An Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah Into Europe[185]

As we see, the
opposite views – from which would, again, develop into pagan myth and religion - seemed
to spend a greater effort on the
other sons of Noah: Japheth and especially Ham. The two, and their
descendants, were now the ones put into a “good light,” and Shem - into light which was "not-so-good!"
Indeed, their world was changing.

Ham, being deified as the second “incarnation” of Cain
himself, slowly begin to actually think of himself as
one who was, indeed, righteous; holier and more pious than "father" Noah (at least, in his own mind).[186]

Kronos - The "Crowned One"

Another ancient name for the new, “deified” Ham (in Greek mythology, at least) was Kronos. Kronos was
called "The Horned One," or one who “wore the horns.”[187] In ancient times, the wearing of
horns on one’s
head (or wearing a crown) signified one’s own position of personal power.

…he (Ham) proclaimed himself king and placed a crown on his head. It was from this… act that the
Greeks called him Cronos… from Kroone, which signifies Crowned.
           (DeLoach, 1995, p. 116)[188]

Magic & Idolatry

Ham would go on to be considered the “inventor” or “preserver” of magic, because he carried over the
magical and occult arts from their pre-flood world.[189] The ability to perform feats of
magic gave Ham
more and more popularity. As a result, he eventually began to think more and more highly of himself!

                 …Ham developed magic in order “to be esteemed a god” among his contemporaries…
                                                                                    (Haynes, 2002, p. 29)[190]

Introducing these black arts back in the world allowed him to establish himself a name (or,
many
names).[191]

Cham, Chem, or Khem

Ham’s name, in ancient times, would vary slightly; changing into names such as Cham, Chem, or even
Khem. Through these slight variations, we see, now, just how much influence he had on the developing
world, after the flood. Ancient
chemistry and alchemy could have, very well, originated with Chem, and the
knowledge he provided to the post-flood world.[192]

Ham, as well, became connected to up-and-coming areas of influence in the ancient world, such as:

                               …(chemistry was) ultimately derived from the name khem, Egypt.
                                                                              ("Chemistry", n. d., p. 1)[193]

Khem, another variant of the name Ham, played a major role in the development of great, post-flood empiric
state; one of many, actually:[194]

…Ham… discovered the magical act, and handed down the instruction of it to one of his sons, who
was called Mesraim, from whom the race of the Egyptians and Babylonians and Persians are descended.
                                                                     ("Looking for Jonitus", n. d., p. 13)[195]

Through this use of magic, and his over-all clout,
Ham may have been instrumental in the incorporation of
these early lands into the first political powers of the post-flood world.[196] As we see,
Ham seems to be
connected with the land of
Egypt, even in the Bible:

-
And smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham.
                                                                                - Psa. 78:51 (KJV)

-
Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.
                                                                                - Psa. 105:23 (KJV)

- They forgot God their savior, which had done great things in Egypt; Wondrous works in the land of Ham
                                                                                - Psa. 106:21-22 (KJV)

He Went "Too Far"

Ham began to go to “extremes,” in his exploitation of this occult magic. He would continue conjuring demonic
spirits to assist him (as he may have did, aboard the ark).[197] This, eventually, may have cost him his life:

…the first sorcerer was Ham, who was later called Zoroaster (equal “living star”, in Greek) by his
worshippers. He was called so because by magical manipulation of a demon he tried to draw sparks from a
star, and was burned. The foolish crowd, instead of discerning God’s punishment in Ham’s death, believed
to have perceived a particular significance in his death by fire, and began to worship him as a living star…
Zoroaster was worshipped by the Persians as the celestial fire.
                                                                                  (Ginzberg, 1909, p. 200)[198]

                                        …he was consumed by a fire of his own creation...
                                                                                  (Haynes, 2002, p. 29)[199]

The "Hidden One"

Before his untimely death, Ham apparently did a lot of traveling (to many lands around the Mediterranean
Sea). He also left a good deal of influence to these areas - a great deal towards he development of the
Mystery system of Mystery Babylon! Let’s take a look at another “god” Ham was “elevated” into, and what
this “god” contributed to the post-flood world.
We know that
Ham was equated to the god Kronos. Another ancient empire, however, would begin to call
this Kronos by another name:

                                            …the Romans continued to called him Saturn.
                                                                                   (DeLoach, 1995, p. 116)[200]

What Also Might Have Been Done to Noah

In the meantime, Ham may have also done something else, a lot worse than disrespecting a drunken Noah;
something horrible. Two different traditions surmise what might have happened to Noah: he could have
been castrated or, even, sodomized![154]
There seems to be more ancient written evidence pointing towards castration, however; so, we’ll
concentrate more on this possibility. Whatever happened, Noah must have felt truly
beguiled by Ham.

Castration

Interestingly enough, we’ve talked about how Noah would have been considered the “second incarnation”
of Adam. A number of ancient pagan gods were actually associated to this act of castration, or mutilation,
of the genitals; and many of them, not surprisingly, were associated with Noah, or a son of his, as well! The
gods
Jupiter, Uranus, and Kronos were either castrated, or had castrated his own father.[155]  
Jewish traditions also point towards the same:

By his magic he bewitched his father in the "places of generation," so that he disabled him forever to have
the use of women, or to get more children. For these and his other detestable impieties, he incurred the
wrath and displeasure of God, in a most grievous manner, and was afterwards banished from his father.
                                               - An Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah Into Europe [156]

Noah, now, was not able to have more children. At least for Ham, it helped keep his inheritance intact!

To "Uncover His Father's Nakedness"

To add insult to injury, Naamah (Noah’s wife, and mother of Ham) was, as we know, probably ovulating at
this time; waiting for Noah to impregnate her. How could Ham stop Noah - even further - from ever making
good on his desires… by impregnating his own mother, of course! That was, according to many, exactly
what happened![157]

Naamah may have been impregnated that night, but not by Noah. A son
was born to her, but by her own
son Ham; and this son's name was Canaan! Noah, in fact, cursed Canaan, as it states in the Bible; not
just to be mean, but for the manner of how he was born. Canaan was supposed to be
Noah’s son, not
Ham’s!
Interestingly enough, Noah also decrees that Canaan should be "a servant of servants shall he be unto his
brethren" (Gen. 9:25) - the "brethren," most probably, being Shem and Japheth. Now, if Ham
did have sex
with his own mother, then Canaan
could have easily been considered "brethren" (or, a "brother") to Shem
and Japheth - at least a "half-brother!"

After the Dastardly Deed

Because Ham had dared to make a mockery of Noah, he would be called “vile (or lascivious) all the days
of his life…”[158] While trying to understand all the things that were going on with Ham, the shift of our
focus needs to migrate towards him almost exclusively, at least till the end of this section. The reason is:
Ham, in many ways, would be responsible for the initiation of the Mystery systems of Mystery Babylon - at
least after the flood,
as we'll see.

Bringing Back Knowledge After the Flood

Noah wanted Ham to leave his presence. He was very upset; and rightfully so.
Now, it was time for Ham to leave; to go somewhere – anywhere - and do something with the remainder of
his existence. Where was he to go? What was he to do? He may have remembered that he
also buried
something before the flood, as Noah did: those tablets of forbidden, occult knowledge.

                                               …Ham, unhappily discovered the magical art…
                                                                            ("Looking for Jonitus," n. d., p. 13)[159]

Ham may, still, have been somewhat
torn about utilizing the knowledge that was a major reason God
destroyed their previous world in the first place! Bringing back this same knowledge could affect the world
in the same ways, as before the flood; but, Ham felt the need to gain
some advantage, to help him out. He
was in a situation, and still angry with Noah.

Ham was, seeming, beginning to live up to his name, now. From the very definition of the word
Ham, we
recall that it meant “warm,” “hot,” “heat,” or even “passion.”[160]

(The name Ham) … pointed out the very disposition of his mind. The word doubles, and has more
meanings than we are now acquainted with, two of which… we find are heat or violence of temper,
exceedingly prone to acts of ferocity and cruelty… including beastly lusts and lasciviousness in its worst
feature…
                                                          (Haynes, 2002, p. 101)[161]

Unlike Cain, Ham would often dance on the precipice of “crossing the line,” or showing this “wild side” of
him.[162] With incidents such as what he did to Noah, however, Ham began to make huge strides towards
“the other side.” As the ancient author Augustine suggested:

(Ham’s kind are)… The tribe of heretics, not with the spirit, not of patience, but of impatience, with which
the breast of heretics are wont to blaze… which they disturb the peace of the saints.
                                                                         (Haynes, 2002, p. 28)[163]

His darkened thoughts would eventually manifest themselves into
action.

When the waters abated, Ham went back, found the forbidden knowledge of these fallen, terrestrial angels,
and recovered them.[164] He steadfastly drifted more and more “inferior in worth;” and would also,
eventually, give himself to uncivil and rude behaviors - “following the abominations and vices of those
horrible giants before the flood…”[165]

When the Flood was over he sought them out with the same curiosity for sacrilegious things with which he
had hidden them, and transmitted the seeds of perpetual wickedness to later generations.
                                                                          (Orchard, 2003, p. 68)[166]

Not only did this Ham bring this other wisdom through the flood, he began to teach it to others![167] Ham
still, most probably, did not want to jump “both feet” into the “ways” of Cain and the Serpent. He did spend
years growing up in the family of Noah; he seemed to have retained
some sense of morality and decency.
Ultimately, it seemed that Ham “functioned as an enabler for the development of religion, but did not fully
embrace it himself.”[168]

Even though his adoption of this Serpent-knowledge was only half-hearted, the populous at large still
considered him as “turning his back” on the worship of Noah's God; and he began to be brought into high
esteem by a number of ancients because of it![169]

Cain and Cham

So high, in fact, that:

                                                ...he (Ham) is the heir of Cain after the Flood…
                                                                                                (Orchard, 2003, p. 70)[170]

Yes, these “reincarnations” would continue… now, with
Ham.

                               …for from all we gather about him from the Bible and ancient records,
                                                                 he "went in the way of Cain."
                                                                                         (Bristowe, 1927, p. 166)[171]

Soon, this knowledge of Cain and the Serpent would be on the rise,
again! Many would adopt the same
“ways” that were practiced before the flood. Ham would receive an even-greater “honor” (as was given to
Noah): the “second incarnation” of
Cain!
Yes, just as Adam and the Serpent were considered the first “fathers” of old, and
Noah the second; Cain
was the first “son” of old – and
Ham the second! It only seemed natural; especially when he was the one
who helped revive the “ways” of Cain![172]

There was, of course, considerable confusion between Cain and Ham, not only because of the similarity
of the names (Cain and Cham, or Cainus and Chamus) but also because Ham… was traditionally
regarded as Cain’s successor in the figurative sense. Ham and Canaan and all the members of their line
were thought to have continued the evil of Cain…
                         - Anglo Saxon England, p. 194[173]

As we're starting to see, a number of new “gods” were being established in the post-flood world, either
equated to Ham, or Noah, or
both. Interestingly enough: the first “father” (Adam) and the second father
(Noah) were both
shamed in a way, and the first “son” (Cain) and the second “son” (Ham) were both
blackened in some way – interesting.
Yes, the world would eventually become
dark again; because of Cain, and now Ham. Ham would pass on
this mental “blackness” to the multitudes, as well. Many were about to head into this same "perdition” as
before the flood.[174] Are we starting to see a
pattern, here?

                                                         Ham… the notorious world-darkener…
                                                                                         (Haynes, 2002, p. 27)[175]

Naamah - Now, the 2nd "Mother"

Along with Ham’s newly-established “honor,” Naamah, Noah’s wife (and, probably, mother of both Ham
and Canaan) may have been given an honorable status, as well – following in this same, reciprocal pattern
of ancestor worship. The followers of the “ways” of Cain and the Serpent elevated her to “mother” status –
the “mother” of all the earth after the flood! Naturally,
she should become a deity, as well.
Naamah was now thought of as the “second incarnation” of Eve. She was the mother of Ham; Eve the
mother of
Cain; who better to give this honor to?

Like Ham, the Cainite
Namaah was thought to have started out wholesome, at least at first. By today’s
standards, Naamah would have been thought of as “old fashioned” - thoughts of her “ancestry, education,
occupation, or life-philosophy were of no concern for her” - at first.[176] She, first, put her efforts towards
being a help-meet to her man, and replenishing the species.[177] She may have changed, for some reason,
into one who became a favorite of those who followed Ham, Cain, and the Serpent.

Among the descendants of Canaan, for example, their “mother” goddess was known as
Nammu – a name
often equated to
Naamah.[178] This deity was considered “earth-mother” or “goddess of the primordial
waters.”[179] Quite possibly, the
mountain where the survivors of the ark came down from was the new,
post-flood symbol of “earth.”
Naamah – this 2nd incarnation of Eve - could, also, have flowered into many other names after the flood:
such as
Athena, Astarte, Anat, or Atagatis, to name a few; even the goddess Ashtaroth (or Asherah) of the
Bible (see Judg. 2:3; I Sam. 7:3-4, 12:10).[180]  

That Child of Ham and Naamah

The (probable) child of Naamah and Ham - Canaan - would turn out much the same as his father.[181]
One of the meanings of
Canaan is “low;” probably because he acted so low in his moral code.[182]

His descendants weren't much better. They, for example, may have pulled a stunt which caused a huge
rift in the civilized world at the time (and still does, today)! When Noah, the grand "father," decided to
divide up the peoples of the world, and give the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth places to dwell,
Ham
was supposed to move to the southern portions of the world, including southern Arabia, northern Africa,
Egypt, etc. Shem would have his descendants spread out from the Middle East; and Japheth would move
his to the lands towards the north.
Shem was also destined to keep his descendants in the area that would
be known as the land of
Israel, today.
As a member of Ham’s family, Canaan's descendants were to re-locate to the north-western end of Africa,
near the Atlantic Ocean; but a number of Canaan’s descendants (or
Canaanites, as they were called)
wouldn’t listen to Noah. In fact, they thought they didn’t have to do anything of the kind. They decided to
live wherever they felt like; and guess where they ended up?

…again, after the Flood, the Devil… stirred up Canaan, the son of Ham, and he became the violent tyrant
(or usurper) who rent the kingdom from the children of Shem.
                         - Book of the Glory of Kings (Kerba Nagast) 9. Concerning the Covenant of Noah[183]

              Canaan seized seven the great cities of Shem, and he doubled the size of his own portion.
                            - The Book of the Cave of Treasures The Death of Noah (notes)[184]

The "2nd Incarnation"

We now see how the term "giant" could be used; sometimes in a good sense, sometimes in bad. The terms
"black" or "blackness," as we’ve seen, could also stand for one’s inner "darkness of soul." With all of these
metaphors, is it ever a wonder why ancient mythology, so often, seems so confusing? So many different
names; so many confusing, yet inter-related, gods and goddesses! Why, then, when so many of them were
“equated” to each other, is it so difficult to put all these pieces together, and figure out just “who was
whom?”
Beyond the possible “smoke screen” of people who want to divert the truth (ancient and modern), trying to
understand mythology may be a lot simpler than most of us think, once we accept a few likely scenarios.
First, most of these famous ancient mythological gods of the ancient Middle East and Mediterranean were
probably the “reincarnations” of earlier gods; these being “reincarnations” of, still earlier, gods. Second,
most of these ancient gods and goddesses had a common origin – "original" gods and goddesses.
Contingent on the time-period (and location), many famous pagan “gods” most probably were an
“incarnation” of earlier gods - and these “earlier gods” were probably individuals we already know a great
deal about!

In the case of Noah, people thought so highly of him and his position of authority that they actually turned
him into a god – a “reincarnation” of, yet, an even-earlier patriarch. Yes, many considered Noah to be the
“second Adam.”
We know the ancients made gods and goddesses out of
Adam, Eve, the Serpent, Cain, and even Abel.
Adam (and the Serpent), as we recall, were the grand “fathers” of ancient paganism. Now, after the flood,
Noah was turned into the new grand “father” over everyone who carried on these pagan thoughts. He
became the second "incarnation" of all the gods once equated to Adam. That is what is meant by a "second
incarnation.” Understanding this makes the identification of so many of ancient gods and goddesses
a lot easier. Many would be specific to different people, different empires, and different areas; but they still
were, most probably, these same “incarnations” of earlier gods and goddesses
- those that trace all the way
back to the Garden of Eden!

                                    …(the) angel said to Noah… "you will become a new Adam."
             - The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature Concerning the Good Tidings of Seth 27[134]

Biblical tradition also places him as this second “Adam,” or grand “father,” as well! Because of this position,
Noah was also considered the founder of the ways of human existence after the flood.[135]

Long Lives

On top of it, Noah’s long life (and long life of his wife, Naamah) would help solidify the perception of their
being turning into “gods.”[136] After the flood ravished the earth, the average life-span of people steadily
declined. Noah, and those who were born before the flood, were still able to finish out with a long life.
Noah lived to be 950 years old, in total. Noah’ son
Shem, for example, was only able to live a total of a little
over 500 years. Abraham, born approximately 200 years after the flood, lived only up to 175 years. The
people further attested his long life as another reason Noah should be considered a “god.”[137]

Not Only Noah

Just as Noah being the "new" Adam, these “reincarnations” would expand to other characters of the
Garden. During these ancient times, there would be those individuals who would, pompously, claim
themselves as “reincarnations” of these same gods. At other times, people would commandeer them into
"gods" (as was done with Noah). Some were made into “gods” or “goddesses,” posthumously.
Once we discover how many of these ancient gods and goddesses were probably second or third
“incarnations” of the same "Eden" individuals, the whole discipline of pagan mythology becomes clear.

Those with political and religious agendas, of course, would probably want to try to hide this. Why? Again,
how many want to openly worship, or revere,
the Serpent of the Garden of Eden? That wouldn't sit well
with many who follow the Christian faith, obviously. Also, it seems like, even more and more today, any
information that actually points
to the Bible as a reliable source of history needs to be “dumbed down,” or
“discredited” in a way. That’s just the "politically correct" world we have, today.

We’ll soon see
more ways that these "god" and "goddess" “incarnations” would begin to expand in other
areas of our ancient religious world.

The 4th Son

First, we need to look at this new “Adam,” and what happened to diminish the people’s devotion to his
“divine” authority. Time had passed since the flood. Noah began to get involved with husbandry – a cult-
ivation of plants and vines. He was already well-over 600 years old by this time. Noah was, obviously,
getting old, and starting to feel it. He already had, at least, three sons; but these, however, were all grown.
They had children and responsibilities of their own. Noah began to rationalize: if he could have just one
more son in his old age, he might be able to receive the help he felt he needed at this time; for his daily
tasks, for gardening, etc.[138]

Ham’s mind was getting even darker and darker. His envy and bitterness towards Noah were beginning to
get the better of him. He knew Noah desired a forth son, and the thoughts of sharing his up-and-coming
inheritance with another son of Noah seethed in his mind.[139] In complaint mode, he went to his brothers
and stated his mind:

            "…the first man (i.e. Adam) had two sons, this man had three sons, and desires another."
                                                                     - The Midrash Rabbah Noach Rabbah 36:5[140]

The possibility of having to share an inheritance “insulted” Ham. Greed began to fester, and, eventually,
bubble over. At his first chance, he was going to do something to stop Noah.

Of Heavy Heart

Within his husbandry, Noah would grow grapes. He, then, began to turn them into making wine. “Noah
continued to be distressed by Ham’s transgression. So vexed was he that he drank too much wine…”[141]
Long story short, Noah may have been continually sad and despondent about the ark, his former world, and
what his son was turning into; so he began to drink a little too much one night.

                     …Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish [i.e., the wicked], and wine
                                                        unto those that be of heavy hearts.
                                                                           - The Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 70a[142]

Obviously, the potency of wine may have also caught Noah by surprise. Within in his drunken state, he may
have remembered his wife was ovulating, and went over to take advantage of his chance for a fourth child.
As result of his lion attack, however, and, most probably, because of his drunken state, Noah could not
deliver on his sexual intention. He failed miserably, spilling his semen all over the ground.[143] Despondent,
Noah probably fell asleep, in a naked, drunken stupor; his private parts showing for all to see.
It was truly embarrassing, especially for this grand patriarch. While it was Noah’s choice to drink, he may
have also underestimated what he was consuming, and the true destructiveness of his drunken state. Again,
it wasn’t the wine that was at fault, but Noah’s lack of discretion. He was human, like the rest of us. He
would succumb to the sin
of wrong use, and had to pay the price (in his shame).

He Laughed at Him

                             (Ham) must have been of a wicked, perverse and crooked disposition.
                                                                                            (Haynes, 2002, p. 33)[144]

What did Ham do, as he came across Noah in this drunken state? Did he do the respectful thing, to a man
he called "father," or did he take advantage of the situation?

When Ham saw Noah lying like this, he laughed at him, mocked him, and despised him for “the drunk he
thought he was.”[145] He even fetched his brothers, and invited them to come over, to mock him, as
well.[146] Ham may have even went out into the street, looking everywhere for his brothers, to bring them
over and see what happened![147] All of what he did was intentional – nothing accidental about it. Once he
found them, he could have said something such as:

“Come, come brothers… run and see this controller who censured us wrongly, and so often, see how he
messes up his bed… governed by wine, and the brute – leaving his genitals uncovered for all to see!”
                                                                                           (Haynes, 2002, p. 37)[148]

What happened to Ham? How could he get this unsavory; and, have little, or no, pity? Maybe it was his
being “called out” while in the ark.[149] Assuredly, Ham no longer had honor for Noah, anymore.[150] Ham
even:

                          …rejoiced in his father’s fall, “as the ungodly rejoice at the fall of the godly.”
                                                                                            (Haynes, 2002, p. 34)[151]

Japheth Cursed, Too

Japheth may have even seen a little humor to it. Apparently, for having smiled, even a little, at his father’s
shame, Japheth may have lost some “rank and file” in the family, at least in Noah’s mind! Apparently, the
respect for one's elders was very important, back then! In Japheth’s case, the “gift of prophecy” was said to
be lost for him, and his family, for this incident.[152] This left Shem as the sole "prophet" of Noah’s family
line.[153]

After a period of time, the flood was over. It was time for them to disembark. To complicate matters, Jewish
tradition claims that Noah could no longer continue his duties as high priest – for a very good reason.[125]
Either inside the ark itself, or on the way out of the ark, Noah, via one of the animals, suffered a great
injustice:[126]

       The lion, also, was said to have maimed him because he did not give him food at the right time.
                                                                                - The Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 146a[127]

The lion’s paw mutilated, none other than, Noah’s genitals, which gave him copulation problems from then
on.[128] He could no longer perform well with his wife, and, as a priest of God. Apparently, one should not
be in a condition such as this to be allowed high priest over the people; that's just the way it was. Noah’s
son
Shem took over the priestly duties, after this.[129]

Getting Back the Books

Noah still merited a great deal of respect from people of the post-flood world, regardless of what happened
with the lion. As we recall, he buried a great deal of knowledge that God wanted for mankind after the flood.
After this flood, he went back to the spot where he buried it all, and retrieved it. With all of this information,
hopefully, he would have
something positive to give to the people, and help them to lead more productive
lives. In fact,

                                   Noah was given dominion over the whole Earth after the Flood.
                                                                              (Knight and Lomas, 1999, p. 86)[130]

In a way, Noah was considered a “giant” amongst his peers. We've know (from
Nephilim & Cainites) about
the giant offspring of terrestrial angels and mortal women, named the
Anakim and Refaim. No, Noah wasn’t
one of them. He was still considered a
giant, but not because he was very tall, or that was did evil; he,
instead, was a "good giant" – a “giant” of character.[131]
Beyond those who were truly tall, those who feared God would call famous, pagan people of their day
giants; a typical pagan (a follower of Cain or the Serpent) would look at the patriarchs of God in this same
way![132] Coming from either side, Noah was also considered a “giant” - the celebrity of this time.[133]

Those outside the ark, who had to pay the price (even though most of them were extremely sinful), still had
to be respected, according to God. Also, this prohibition of sex may have been set in place to allow one to
prove their stand on lust; a testimonial to the strengths of those brought aboard the ark. God wanted those
aboard show their devotion to Him, and refrain from going down these negative pathways in the future:

             "…while you are actually in the ark, to ascend up into the marriage bed with your wives
                                   would be a proof of your being devoted to lasciviousness."
                                       - The Works of Philo Judaeus Questions and Answers on Genesis, 2(49)[111]

Most of them could show their strength to God, here –
most of them.

Ham's Predicament

Ham, as we know, was on a slow, but sure, march towards “the other side.” This prohibition led him into a
dilemma. A lot of the following, some might say, seemed
honorable for a man to do; but, again, it was,
on the very surface, disobedient. Tradition tells us that, before the flood, Ham was to bring aboard his wife,
but she already may have had two children – twins. These twins may have come from her copulation with
either a terrestrial angel, or son of a terrestrial angel. Ham begged Noah to bring aboard giants named
Og
and, probably, his brother Sihon.[112] Although other giants might have been aboard Noah's ark, this
scenario probably wasn't part of God's original plan, but Noah reluctantly agreed.[113] All of this may sound
noble, but, again, it was disobedient! God still has His rules – and that’s what was supposed to be followed.
Man should feel so haughty to try and “top” God's rationality with his
own; as we see done, here.

To make things more difficult, his wife was pregnant
again; possibly by one of the same, right at the time
they were going to board the ark. No one really knew it – no one, of course, except
Ham. Pregnancies just
don’t go away, and God’s rules were already set in place: He only wanted
a certain number of individuals
aboard; specific individuals from certain groups. Ham, obviously, loved his wife
; and wanted her to board at
all costs, so he snuck her aboard; unborn and all.

Throughout their existence on the water, the men were supposed to stay on one side of the ark; and
women, the other. No one, even if they were married, was to spend
one night with their respective mates.
Ham was in a true predicament, here.

                           …had he not lain with her himself, Shem and Japheth would have known
                                                           she was already bearing a child…
                                                                          (Graves and Patai, 1964, p. 114)[114]

The clock was ticking. She would be showing soon, and Ham could no longer hide the fact that she was
bringing aboard an individual that was not allowed. Ham felt that, if everyone knew about it, it would
probably bring forth a lot of shame to her, and to
him. He had to make a decision: for the sake of his wife’s
reputation, and for the sake of his newly-established “extended” family, he set out to disobey God’s
commandment -
again. There is an interesting story about what might have occurred next:

To show evidence for their merit, Noah had strewn ashes between the men and the women. If anyone went
across to cohabit with their significant other, Noah could observe their footprints in the ashes. The others
remained continent with their father. Ham could not, for, possibly, the reasons stated above. He may have
even recalled and utilized some occult secrets that he hid before the flood. Apparently, calling up a demon by
magic art, brought Ham, somehow, “over” the ashes. He was able to cross over to where the women were
sleeping, and “rendered himself to his wife’s embraces.” Noah prayed for all of his sons to remain penitent,
and, apparently, there was great power in Noah’s prayers. Because of them, the demon was unable to bring
Ham back to his own side, without walking all over the ashes. It was getting close to daylight, and Ham
decided to give up trying to use his magic, and just walked over to where he was supposed to be. Because
of these scattered ashes, he could no longer hide his guilt![115]

Ham made the decision.
Again, he used man’s rationality and compassion over the commandments of God.
Again, he went down the wrong pathway. Much of it may sound noble - but this is
human rationality. Yes, he
wanted to protect his wife, as any man would. He may have even been “in the mood.” It seems he tried to
protect their honor, as well as save her unborn child from a life of, possible, ridicule and shame. All of these
intentions might sound like something worth pursuing; but, again, this was man's rationale, and not God's!
Who has better insight, here: the
creature or the Creator? This was the kind of man-centered rationale that
plagued the people back then - every man and woman did what was right in their
own eyes. Sadly enough,
this all-too-human rationale goes on a lot in the world we live in,
today.

Regardless of intent, Ham did a disrespectful thing to Noah, and, also, to God. He may never have under-
stood
why; his emotions were telling him what was right! He also allowed his flawed human rationality to
make it sound “justified,” or “all right,” in his mind; never fully understanding that: just because something
sounds like the
humanitarian thing to do, does not mean that it really should be the right thing to do!

The True "Blackness" of Ham

Why would Ham begin to follow these ways in the first place, and flat-out, disobey Noah, and, most import-
antly, disobey God, with such a fair amount of ease? According to numerous traditions, it was around this
incident that Ham was
also said to have been turned black – in his skin, after, unsuccessfully, trying to
return from forbidden coition with his wife.[116]

                                       These inmates of the ark… were blackened and dishonored…
                                                                                   (Ginzberg, 1909, p. 167)[117]

What was happening to Ham – the same thing that happened to Cain? As we recall:

…the Serpent… seduced Chavah (i.e. Eve) and brought curses on the world, and who was cursed himself
and darkened the faces of the creatures by bringing death upon them.
        - Zohar 4 Noach 36[118]

Does this mean that those who began to stray from God, and/or follow the “ways” of the Serpent, had their
physical features darkened
on the outside; or was it something more? Was this “darkening” something in
their
skin, for example, or was it something different; something deeper?

The above seems to be the same scenario as what, apparently, was thought to have happened to Cain. We
recall (from
Cain, Seed of the Serpent (Part 1)), that there were numerous ancient traditions which ration-
alized that Cain’s skin was darkened, or became black, right after his rejected sacrifice. We’ve also
discussed the strong possibility that his
blackness probably was symbolic of what went on inside his body,
not outside – in his state of mind.

           …so are the wicked: their erectness shall be bent and their faces blackened [with shame]…
                                                                        - The Midrash Rabbah Noach Rabbah 12:10[119]

This
darkness, again, might have really been symbolic for the change inside of Cain's soul. This same
scenario may have played out with Ham: it was at
this time that he had a strong rise of darkened, inner
emotions.[120]
As we've already rationalized, the “turning of a person black,” in ancient days, could also have been a
metaphor, or characterization, of one's mind becoming irrevocably
shamed, darkened, or dishonored.
Maybe this represented a tipping point - a turning point - for Ham, in his march towards “the other side!”

We know Ham was slowly heading towards a "darkness of soul." He became despondent with Noah,
because he was caught; and he knew Noah felt extremely
negative about him, and his actions. Whether
things happened exactly the same as the above story is under conjecture; but many traditions surely point to
it being the beginning of Ham’s
blackness at this time!
A lot of ancient Jewish tradition stated that Ham was, somehow,
divinely affected by his action. Could it
have given a number of those ancient "movers and shakers" in the community an opportunity to explain
away some difficult questions they may not have been able to answer, at the time?

Explaining Away the Races

We’ve already discussed the possibility of Adamites and pre-Adamites being part of the 8 groups that went
aboard Noah's ark. Understanding the origins and differences of racial characteristics may have proved a
conundrum for many religious leaders of our ancient institutions. If race did have something to do with the
differences between the Adamites and pre-Adamites, then we
know a number of each may have already
been aboard the ark - no need to “explain away” how they could have originated after the flood. Also, there
would be no need to try to explain the differences in races with theories of Patriarch
sinfulness and divine
darkening, but that still was what was done.
This was how the formulation of some of the different races came about, according to a number of
traditions: some people were “cursed” or “sentenced” to have dark skin; now destined worthy of shame,
even
slavery, because of their patriarch's actions. Beyond Cain, even beyond Ham, we'll see that Ham’s
son,
Canaan, would, as well, be often thought of as “divinely darkened” in his skin.

These 5 groups already had their place aboard the ark. The sins of these patriarchs might have, indeed,
been
entirely internal. Why, then, would ancient religious leaders, and other “movers and shakers” of the
day, continue to claim that the “blackness” of these patriarchs were on the outside? Good question. One of
the most logical arguments, as we’ve seen, could have been to still be able to show “divine” authority over
every person who walked the planet, regardless if pre-Adamite or no. If everyone descended from Adam,
they, theoretically, should still have the entire world under the sphere of their theological influence, or
divine authority.
The Bible does claim itself to be “The Book of the
Generations of Adam” (Gen 5:1). If some races, indeed,
did not come from Adam - and now
Noah - they could easily “opt out” of any supposed “divine jurisdiction”
levied against them by these religious leaders; that is, if they really
felt like it.

The Ramifications of Ham's Act

Either way, this event seemed to solidify the beginning of Ham’s blackness (of mind). Shame was coming
to his family, because of it:

Noah may have been very sad and dismayed when he found out his son had violated this commandment of
God on the ark. Maybe, also, it was because he knew that retribution would come to Ham, and, possibly,
the rest of the family.
                                                           (Mullins, 1987, p. 6)[121]

              From then on, Noah began to hate Ham for his disobedience. This may have sparked the
                                         same insubordination hatred of Ham back to his father…
                                                                                             (Haynes, 2002, p. 31)[122]

Thus began the revolving door of hatred, back and forth:

                      (Ham also)… hated his father, because he thought himself least loved by him.
                                            - An Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah Into Europe[123]

It grieved Noah, and made him afraid. He “continued to be haunted by his fears.”[124] He may have even
end up with a possible desire to
drink, to escape thinking about this event, and the flood in general.

Ham began to hold on to negative attitudes about the whole thing – mainly on account of his being “called
out” on his deception. Thoughts of resentment and revenge might have been brewing towards Noah, from
then on. As time passed in the ark, things were becoming more and more awkward between Noah and Ham;
Noah, in his attempt to stay within the pathways of God’s “light;” Ham, on his way towards completing his
march towards his "blackness of soul."

Noah's Roaring Complication

Local or global, the flood served a purpose. A massive, regional flood could have still wiped out practically
everything in their civilized areas; all that the Bible said were destroyed
were destroyed. Why could not
a flood with a great deal of treacherous, continually-flowing water – a “streaming ocean,” if you will – con-
tinually have battered Noah's ark
; continually flooding the land and keeping it afloat for long periods of
time?[106]

Could Noah, and everyone living during this ancient period, have (at least in this ancient time) been located
in a part of the planet which was
lower in sea-level - or a huge "valley," of sorts - which allowed water to
pounce the area, and submerge it, as if it was being submerged by an ocean?[107]

There's also another way of looking at this:

                                 …all flesh had not died from the earth but the face of the earth.
                                                                                    (Bandy, 1967, p. 34)[108]

...everyone and everything in Noah's
immediate area perished.

Maybe, the entire world wasn’t flooded, but just what
needed to be - only the civilized, organized world was!
The entire earth may not have been flooded; only
the face of the earth - the fragile ecosystem where human
existence was based at the time! This would sound a lot more logical, and less fantastic. For any new-
comers to the ark story, it would probably be a lot easier to swallow. Still, it could have been able to provide
us with the end-result God wanted all along - maximum death and destruction!

We must remember: perfect original; imperfect translation (and translators)!

Sex Aboard the Ark

Local or global, the flood still devastated the old world; and this, seemingly, worked as a factor, in the end,
which ended up to be "measure for measure." In other words, the massive flood of water was there to
“wash clean” the previous world’s “stains” of sexual impurities and moral depravity.
All the lustful activities, decadence, and indulgences that took place before the flood would merit one
more
ramification - this time aboard the ark: one important “law” was set up (by God) for all of those who were
to be saved:

…there would be, absolutely, no
sex!

It made sense, in a way. So much of it was indecently practiced before the flood; so many times that sex was
used improperly helped facilitate this destruction. Now, to dedicate the ark something different - a place of
solace and reflection - there would be absolutely
none of it on board! While the world was steeped in pain,
God dictated there was to be no enjoyment of this sexual act, as well as attempts taken for our world’s
replenishment.[109]

                                 The individual should participate in the suffering of the community.
                                                                                          (Ginzberg, 1909, p. 188)[110]