|
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
I also set several further objectives which had to be achieved by the proposed chronology.
First, it must reconcile with the Biblical time scale from Adam to Noah. Secondly, it must reconcile to the Sumerian and Babylonian Kings Lists. And thirdly, it should dovetail with the pre-Flood Gods of Egypt, as recorded by Manetho.
This chapter will offer a complete reconciliation of all these dates based on a sar of 2,160 years.
I will also use Sumerian mathematics to reconcile exactly the Biblical ages of the patriarchs after the Flood, from Noah to Abraham, with a Flood date of 10983 BC. And finally, I will reconcile Manetho’s dates of Egyptian God-kings after the Flood to a date of 3113 BC, and thus reveal the long sought-after origin of the mysterious date which was so sacred to the Maya.
The most challenging aspect of these proofs is the implicit acceptance that the patriarchs possessed a longevity which has subsequently been lost. In the previous chapter, I provided the scientific basis for my claim that the first patriarch, Adam, lived for 93,000 years. That longevity was directly due to the genes inherited from The Adam (the LU.LU), whose genes had in turn been inherited from the Gods. In this chapter, I will explain exactly how those genes were lost, and why mankind ended up with “three score years and ten”.
Skeptics may try to argue that no human skeleton aged to 100,000 years has ever been found. This would be a ridiculous argument, since the age of death can only be estimated by comparing to a yardstick based on the modern life span. To illustrate my point, there is in Mexico a tomb which contains the skeleton of a Mayan king named Pacal.
Inscriptions state that the king died at the age of 80 but archaeologists have concluded that he could not have been more than 40. Their conclusion is based on the observation that his skeleton showed the signs of midlife wear and tear. Thus, if 50 per cent of his years had expired, he must have been only 40. Wrong! What if his life span was all set to reach 160? This is a classic example of preconceptions getting in the way of good science.
In this chapter, I will show how the Biblical editors divided the pre-Flood life spans by a factor of 100. Nevertheless, they were able to cast off at least some of their preconceptions by recording ages in excess of 900 years for the early patriarchs!
As
tempting as it is for us to compound the problem by reducing these
figures again, we must instead go back to the beginning, to Adam’s
“designer genes”, and start from a completely fresh paradigm.
Whether it is a question of Gods living 300,000 years or man living 100,000 years, the same point of principle is at issue. Was it possible for a human body, made in the genetic image of the Gods, to live beyond our current average life spans?
Given sufficient scientific advancement, which the Gods certainly possessed, the answer has to be yes, and significantly so. We are thus not dealing in speculations but in soundly-based scientific theory. As a starting point, let us examine the ten patriarchs before the Flood, as recorded in Genesis 5.
Table A shows the age at which each patriarch beget the other, allowing us to date precisely the elapsed time from Adam to the Flood as 1,656 years.
Today, the sciences of anthropology and genetics tell us that the ancestry of Homo sapiens is a lot more ancient than this time scale suggests, but when the Bible was compiled this knowledge was not known.
The Biblical editors would thus have had no qualms at all about drastically reducing the Biblical time scales, which ran through the ages of the patriarchs, to match their own preconceptions. In so doing, they would assume that the higher dates recorded by their ancestors were somehow in error.
They would not have divided the figures by a random number, but by a convenient factor which was a credible explanation of the perceived discrepancy. A factor of 100, for instance, springs readily to mind. If we multiply 1,656 years by 100 we arrive at a date 165,600 years before the Flood, as shown in Table A. In chapter 2, I suggested a chronology that dated the rebellion of the Gods to 80 sars of 2,160 years before the Flood. This calculates to 172,800 years.
The difference between 172,800 and 165,600 is 7,200 years. The fact that this is exactly twice 3,600 - the orbital period of Nibiru - does not seem to be coincidental. According to the Sumerian texts, the rank-and-file Gods rebelled 80 sar before the Flood, coinciding with the visit of Anu and hence the orbit of Nibiru.
Enki then created the LU.LU in the Lower World (Africa), a genetic feat that in its final stages may well have required some further equipment from Nibiru. Thus one period of 3,600 years would have passed. Another orbital period of Nibiru then ensued, during which the LU.LU workers toiled only in the Lower World. It was then that Enlil grabbed a share of the Blackheaded Ones, as related in The Myth of the Pickaxe.
The reference in that text to Enlil breaking the DUR.AN.KT, the “Bond Heaven-Earth”, indicates the close proximity of Nibiru once again, for it would have been meaningless to break this link at any other point in Nibiru's orbit. Furthermore. the timing of Enlil's raid may have been deliberately timed to coincide with Anu’s visit, in order to gain support for the action he was about to undertake.
The Garden of Eden incident, which immediately followed Enlil’s raid, would thus have occurred two orbital periods (7,200 years) after the rebellion of the 2,160 years, where the pre-Flood Biblical time scales are multiplied by a factor of 100 to reverse the earlier editorial division by lood.
If Adam and Eve were born in 176,583 BC, with life spans c. 90,000 years, then Eve may indeed be one and the same as mtDNA Eve who has now been dated between 137-133,000 years ago.
However, in order to determine the date of the genetic separation of the family of mankind, we should instead look for a clue as :o when Adam and Eve’s clan began to leave their African homelands (to which they had emigrated after their ejection from Eden in the east).
That clue is provided by a key marker in the Bible:
Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.
At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord. Where did men “call on the name of the Lord”? A likely possibility is the pre-Flood cities of Mesopotamia. The Bible might thus be pinpointing the first time that some of Adam and Eve’s descendants left Africa to live a separate existence in Asia.
The fact that the Bible records the above event at all, indicates that it was important, and it is difficult to think of a more important milestone in the history of man. The geneticists would agree - this separation is exactly the type of event which would cause the female mtDNA to begin diverging. As mentioned in chapter 2, Mark Stoneking has dated mtDNA Eve to 137-133,000 years ago.
A parallel study by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza has estimated that the genetic separation of Africans and non-Africans occurred slightly later, just over 100,000 years ago. When, according to my chronology, was the time of Enosh, when the Biblical migration out of Africa occurred? If we reconstruct the era of Enosh by multiplying by a factor of 100, then he was born 23,500 years after Adam (see Table A).
He then lived for
90,500 years. Since Adam was born in 176,583 BC, Enosh’s lifetime
can be dated to precisely 153,083-62583 BC. The early part of
Enosh’s life thus tallies well with the genetic evidence from
Stoneking and Cavalli-Sforza.
Table C shows the sequence of patriarchs after the Flood, with the ages at which they continued the line through to Abram (Abraham). It is my contention that this data originally existed in Sumerian base 60 format, as shown in column b.
This is logical if, as concluded in chapter 10, Terah and Abraham were Sumerians.
In order to record the ages of Table C, column b, at an “acceptable” level, it was necessary to reduce them by a common factor, which I suggest was 50. Why was it decided to divide the Sumerian numbers by 50?
The answer is actually quite simple . The numbers in Table C, column b, can only be divided sensibly by 25, 50 or 100. No other divisor would produce whole numbers. It can be seen that a divisor of 50 results in Nahor becoming father to Terah when he was 29 years old.
If a factor of 100 had been used, Nahor would have fathered Terah at the age of 14! If, on the other hand, 25 had been used as the divisor, Terah would have fathered Abram at the age of 140! Fifty was thus the best compromise by far. In support of this conclusion, it should be noted that 50 was a sacred number for the Hebrew editors of the Bible; every 50th year was celebrated by the Hebrews as a Jubilee Year, in which slaves were freed and debts waived.
Now, in order to calculate the real elapsed time from the Flood to Abraham, all we have to do is to convert the Sumerian numbers in Table C from base 60 to base 10. The result, shown in column c, is a duration of 8,860 years.
If we use a date for
Abraham’s birth of 2123 BC (see Appendix A), the Flood can then be
dated precisely to 10,983 BC.
However, in order to prove my genetic longevity theory, we need to look at the trend in their total life spans. In the case of the pre-Flood patriarchs, the figures quoted in Genesis 5 show the number of years from father to first-named son, the number of years afterwards when the father had “other sons and daughters” and finally a total life span.
Having already concluded that the years from father to son were divided by 100 (Table A), there is no reason to doubt that their total life spans were also divided by 100. However, the lives of the post-Flood patriarchs from Shem to Abraham, are another matter entirely.
The data is summarized in Genesis 11 in a similar way to Genesis 5, but with one significant difference - the Biblical editors were reluctant to add together the ages to reach a total life span. Why should this be? It is nowadays widely accepted that the Old Testament drew its accounts from a number of different sources. I have already suggested that the years making up the family tree from Noah to Abraham were recorded in Sumerian base 60.
It is quite likely that the source of this data dealt solely with the ancestral links from Abraham back to Noah’s. It is a fact of life that records of births are much easier to maintain than the record of deaths. But did the details of the additional years come from a different source, in a different numerical format?
If there was indeed a different source that provided fuller details of the patriarchs’ lives, including their total life span, and if this data was not recorded in base 60, then the Biblical editors would have had great difficulties in reconciling the two sets of figures. Could this be the reason that they did not add the figures together to reach total life spans?
My line of reasoning assumes that the Hebrew compilers of the Bible had lost their knowledge of the “archaic” and unusual Sumerian base 60 system. How could this have happened. The Jewish people spent an extremely long exile in Egypt for 400 years prior to the Exodus. Later they spent around 60 years exiled in Babylon. And, even when they were freed by Cyrus in 539 BC, the vast majority of Jews stayed in Babylon rather than returning to Jerusalem.
Therefore, throughout their history they were subject to the influence of foreign cultures Egyptian, Babylonian and later the Persian culture. During this time, many traditions were abandoned or forgotten. It is known, for example, that after the Babylonian exile, the Jews had adopted the Babylonian names for the months of the year.
There is also evidence to suggest that the Jews were forbidden to record numbers during their exile in Babylon because, during this period. they evolved a code of accenting certain alphabetical letters in order to represent numerals - a practice which does not appear after the exile.
Significantly, the numbering system which they developed at this time was decimal with special symbols for figures such as 100, whilst their highest number was a “myriad”, which represented 10,000. The Jews were thus a long way from the Sumerian origin of their patriarch Abraham, and had lost the knowledge of the sexagesimal system in which their ancestry through to Abraham was recorded. The Biblical editors therefore had a problem.
They had three sets of numbers which did not reconcile, for reasons they could not understand. The easiest solution would have been to leave out the total lift: span, and this is exactly what we find in Genesis 11. Let us now try some alternative theories to reconstruct the life spans of the post Flood patriarchs. We have already established that the line of ancestry (from each father to first-named son) was a Sumerian source divided by 50 (Table C), that divisor being by far the best available compromise.
Let us now focus on the additional years which make up the remainder of each life span. First, let us confirm my hypothesis that the additional years were not derived from Sumerian numerals divided by 50. If this had been the case, then Eber, who was born in 8893 BC8 and who had Peleg in 7873 BC, would have lived an additional 8,100years (a further 430 years in the Bible x 50 = 2-1-5-0-0 in Sumerian = 8, 100).
This seems highly unlikely as he would still have been alive when the Bible was written! Thus we can discount a Sumerian source for the additional years. Should we take the additional years at face value? If so then Peleg, who was born in 7873 BC and who had Reu in 6973 BC, would have died 209 years later in 6764 BC.
That would mean fathering a child 81 per cent through his life (and similar results are found for all of the other patriarchs). Whilst not impossible, this is in sharp contrast to the pattern established before the Flood, where we find equivalent percentage ratios of 17 for Jared, 19 for Methuselah and 23 for Lamech. How else might the additional years have been derived?
The most acceptable solution turns out to be the neatest one. If we multiply the additional years by 10, this gives ratios of first-named son to total lifetime which are very similar to the early patriarchs cited above. It is highly feasible that the Biblical editors did indeed divide the original figures for additional years very neatly by 10 in order to fit the picture which they were trying to present.
The only remaining problem is to decipher the true life span for Noah, whose recorded life span of 950 years included 600 before the Flood and 350 after the Flood. In contrast to most of the other later patriarchs, the Bible does add together his years to arrive at a total of 950. Whilst the 600 before the Flood would represent 60,000, can we apply the same method as the elder patriarchs and multiply his post-Flood 350 also by 100? If we did, then Noah would live 35,000 years after the Flood, which according to my chronology is impossible, since the Flood occurred only 131,000 years ago.
One possibility is to multiply Noah’s 350 post-Flood years by 10, as with the younger patriarchs. That would give Noah a true life span of 63,500. My best guess, however, is that the Biblical editors were in possession of Noah’s total life span written in Sumerian as 1-9-0-0-0-0, which is 6X,400 in the decimal system.
Dividing this figure by 50 or 100 would have produced a life span inconsistent with the other patriarchs, and would have meant Noah living alongside Moses and David. Therefore, Noah’s age was fudged to 950 by dividing 1-9-0-0-0-0 by 200. If I am correct, then the claim of the Sumerian king Gilgamesh to have met Noah (of which I have previously been cynical) may have indeed been true, for Noah would not have died until 2600 BC.
In my view, the whole approach of the Biblical editors was based on smoothing the age reduction all the way from Adam through to Abraham, much as a good accountant will smooth the trend in his profit figures, in order to please his boss by giving added credibility to the numbers.
They would have worked backwards from Abraham, whose life span they were fairly certain of and, due to the constraints mentioned earlier, they would have agreed upon 50 as a necessary divisor after the Flood. Then, respectful of tradition that lives had been longer before the Flood, they would have got pre-Flood and post-Flood life spans to meet in the middle by using a divisor of 100 for the former and combining 10 with the existing 50 for the latter.
A classic piece of book-keeping. Table D shows, in my view, how the figures would have appeared to the Biblical editors and how the smoothing exercise was undertaken. A good example of the fancy accounting footwork performed by the Biblical editors occurs in Genesis 11:28.
The Bible, which is usually so accurate in recording the ages when events take place, suddenly becomes rather woolly. While his father Terah was still alive, Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, in the land of his birth.
According to my chronology, Terah had Haran when he was 2,100 years old, but he only lived to 2,235 in total (a very late child for good reasons - see later). The Sumerian dates would have been shown as: 3-5-0-0 and 3-7-1-5 respectively. These figures, divided by 50, produced ages of 70 and 74.
Thus, it would have appeared to the Biblical editors that for Haran to have died whilst his father was alive, Haran could not have been more than 4 years old at the time. Why is this a problem? Because Haran had already fathered Lot ! Thus the age of Terah when Haran died has been removed in a classic fudge. This corroborates my theory that the ages shown in the Bible have been drastically reduced and were based on original Sumerian data.
The River of Pure Genes according to my chronology, Adam and Eve’s designer genes were successfully passed undiluted through the nine pre-Flood generations of patriarchs from Adam to Noah’s father Lamech.
Table D shows seven of these first nine patriarchs living for an average of 93,000 years. How was this longevity maintained?
Since all human life flowed from Adam and Eve, the earliest humans had little alternative but to marry their close relatives. Initially, the longevity genes would have remained intact. Inevitably, however, these genes were susceptible to gradual damage from free radicals (minute amounts of surplus oxygen inside the cells).
This process of deterioration would have led to genetic copying errors in the sex cells (particularly of the male, whose sperm is constantly renewed). The genetic risk was particularly great for children who were fathered in later life. The enormous orgy of human reproduction which followed the granting of sexual knowledge to Adam and Eve would have gradually led to genetic mutations which spread through the population and decreased life spans.
In contrast, the evidence suggests that the line of patriarchs from Adam to Lamech was a priestly line who carefully isolated their pool of genes from the rest of mankind. Although the Bible gives little information on the marital practices of the patriarchs, we can surmise from the case of Abraham and Sarah that the tradition of marrying a half-sister was maintained.
Ex-biblical sources support this assumption.
The Book of Jubilees, for example, states that:
In addition to the practice of marrying close relations, my chronology indicates that all of the early patriarchs were born to a relatively youthful father (compared to modern customs). This would be a key requirement in minimizing the mutational effects arising in the sex cells.
Elsewhere, in contrast, 165,600 years would have allowed the human genes to have divided and recombined through more than 6,000 generations. The river of human genes (to borrow a Richard Dawkins expression) was thus split in two - one a narrow channel that carefully preserved the genes, the other a swirling rapids where sexual pleasures were the foremost consideration. It would seem that, at least for a while, a new branch of genes joined those of the humans.
The Bible records a time when the “sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful” and “had children by them”. The Biblical tale is closely echoed by the non-biblical Book of Enoch, which states that Enoch had "testified about the Watchers who had sinned with the daughters of men”.
The Bible does not record the death of Enoch but simply states that he was “taken away” by the Lord. According to my chronology, Enoch was born in 114,400 BC, “walked with God ” from 107,900 BC and was “taken away” in 77,900 BC. It appears to me that, by assisting the Lord with his testimony, Enoch became a spy long before Abraham, and moreover it sounds as if he was the first human to ever be given a witness protection programme!
As for the progeny of
the Watchers (the rank-and-file Gods) and the daughters of men, it seems highly likely that they
perished in the great Flood. The one apparent exception to the
average pre-Flood life span of 93,000 years is Noah’s father Lamech,
who seems to have had a somewhat premature death at the age of
77,700. His death occurred shortly before the Flood, and could have
been accidental. There is no other evidence to suggest that he was
genetically any weaker than his predecessors.
Lamech was so shocked that he asked his father Methuselah (meaning “Man of the Missile”) to make enquiries of Enoch who was staying among the sons of the Gods (the Watchers or Nefilim), because:
Enoch’s response was to assure Lamech that Noah was indeed his son, but his unusual disposition was part of a plan to save Noah and his family in a coming deluge. It would seem that Noah’s father may have become known as Lamech, meaning “He who was Humbled”, as a result of this rather embarrassing accusation against his wife.
Noah’s name, on the other hand, is generally accepted to mean “Respite” or “Comfort”, the origin of this name being explained by Genesis 5:29:
According to my chronology, Noah was born in 71,000 BC, and the Biblical reference to the ground which had been cursed by the Lord may well refer to the beginning of the last ice age. which scientists believe began 75,000 years ago. Once again, we find a corroboration of my chronology, based on a sar of 2,160 years.
Lamech’s hope for better times was not to come true, for mankind’s problems were only just beginning. According to the Atra-Hasis, some time before the Flood, the God Enlil decided to punished man with infectious diseases and a series of droughts. Why did Enlil do this? The text explains that mankind was fornicating loudly like wild cattle in the field. Enlil held a meeting.
He said to the Gods, his sons:
Man’s excessive fornication’s are also alluded to in the Biblical reference which precedes the great Flood:
Enlil’s pestilence, however, did nor achieve its ends. Following supplications by the “Exceedingly Wise” Atra-Hasis (Noah), Enki decided to come to mankind’s assistance.
Enlil then complained that:
According to the Atra Hasis, there then followed seven harsh periods of severe famine.
The tablets are badly damaged at this point, but by the sixth period the people had turned to cannibalism to survive. In the seventh period Enki angered Enlil once again, by releasing provisions to the starving people. It was only then that the Gods become aware that the next return of Nibiru would cause a great Flood in which mankind would perish anyway.
Scholars have translated these harsh “periods" of famine as “years", but in fact the proper meaning is “passings”, presumably of the Gods’ planet Nibiru. In total then, mankind suffered for approximately eight or more periods of 3,600 years before the Flood. This takes us back to a date of at least 30,000 BC - a highly significant date. According to the anthropologists, it was at this exact time that men migrated into Europe with new inventions (tailored clothes, improved shelters and so on).
The anthropologists have also found evidence of a similar, earlier leap in technology in the Near Fast. It all suggests a desperate migration away from the harsh conditions inflicted by Enlil in Mesopotamia. Indirectly, this migration helps to explain the mysterious demise of Neanderthal man at around the same time, 40,000 years ago.
In contrast to the neat explanation provided by the Atra-Hasis, scientists have made a desperate attempt to explain this mystery by suggesting that anatomically modern humans benefited from a sudden brain mutation!
Did these diseases, dating from around 40000 BC, have any effect on man’s genetic disposition?
Atra-Hasis/Noah claimed to have lived in the temple of Ea (Enki), and may thus have avoided exposure, but other members of Noah’s family may well have passed down the effects of the diseases even into modern times.
Geneticist Steve Jones, commenting on the mysteries of the human genome, notes that:
Origins of Racial Diversity
According to the Bible, the three sons of Noah - Shem, Ham and Japheth - took separate territories and fathered everyone in the world alive today. Did these three sons represent three distinct races? Modern studies of human racial diversity are unfortunately few and far between.
As Jared Diamond notes:
Genetic scientists, however, have projected backwards from all of the human racial diversity which exists today and found a common point, known as mtDNA Eve (Mitochondrial Eve) around 135,000 years ago. These findings suggest that racial diversity must have been preserved on Noah’s Ark if the Flood occurred only 13,000 years ago. Biblical scholars would with this conclusion.
A major clue lies in the names of Noah’s sons, particularly the name Ham which literally means “He who is Hot”, implying a dark coloured skin. Furthermore, the location of the Hamitic tribes in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10) has been clearly identified by Biblical scholars as the African lands.
The Koran, too, is explicit in referring to separate nations on board Noah’s Ark, when it states “blessings upon thee and on the nations with thee”. The scenario of preserving mankind’s racial diversity on Noah’s Ark is entirely consistent with the Biblical record that all living creatures were saved. Unfortunately, most people have regarded the tale of the Ark as a myth, due to the logistical problems of confining so many types of animals and birds in such close proximity, added to the practical difficulties of gathering together so many different species.
However, if we were to be forewarned of a Flood tomorrow, we would, with the benefit of modern scientific knowledge, not round up the animals themselves but their genes. And there are two clues which suggest that this is exactly what happened 13,000 years ago.
The Utnapishtim legend of Noah states that Utnapishtim loaded aboard whatever he had of “the seed of all living creatures”. And in the Atra-Hasis (Fragment III), the God Ea (Enki) tells Atra-Hasis “game of the field and beasts of the field, as many as eat herbs, I will send unto thee”. An echo of this is found in Genesis 6:20 which states that “two of every kind... will come to you”. If the seed or genes of all living animals were kept alive in the Ark, why not also the genes representing human diversity?
However, the problem of human races goes much further back in time, prior to Noah’s Ark, for no-one can explain how the races evolved. As Jared Diamond points out, all of the current theories on the origin of racial characteristics have fundamental weaknesses.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that we are all descended from a common Homo-Sapien ancestor around 200,000 years ago, the problem of racial diversity has forced many scientists to persist with the so-called “multi-regional model”, which proposes that Homo sapiens evolved from several geographically separate Homo erectus groups 1,000,000 years ago.
This contrived theory has appeared only because of sheer disbelief that our racial differences could have evolved over a mere 200,000 years.
In my view, the answer is yes, and the key to the mystery is genetic science.
Furthermore, it turns out that the answer to the mystery of our racial origins is closely connected to another mystery - the reducing longevity of the Biblical patriarchs following the Flood. In fact, my recalculations of these life spans (Table D) show that the reductions were even steeper before they were smoothed out by the Biblical editors. It has generally been assumed that this phenomenon was in some way connected to the physical event of the Flood itself.
On the contrary, we shall see that reduced longevity and racial differences were both caused by genetic engineering. By the time Noah was born, mankind had spent 105,600 years in a frenzied orgy of reproduction and genetic division. The resulting explosion in population was exponential (our twentieth century population growth gives us a good idea of the problem). One can possibly sympathize with Enlil’s attempts - recorded in Atra-Hasis - to reduce mankind’s numbers through starvation and disease.
In the face of Enlil’s hostility and the oath of the Gods to let man be destroyed by the Flood, what was Enki to do? How could he save the diversity of mankind, whom he had created, without risking his own neck in a flagrant breach of the Gods’ decision? If Enki simply placed three different families in the Ark, they would get little mercy from Enlil afterwards. His only chance was to genetically redesign the human species to remove the longevity which had largely caused the over-population problem.
At the same time, Enki decided to create three diverse races, perhaps to give the other Gods some sense of ownership in a distinct branch of mankind.
Here is my theory on how he did it.
Thousands of years before the Flood, Enki, as the scientific genius of the Gods, was able to predict the planetary alignments which were to cause it.
The unusual birth of Noah, discussed earlier, was the first step in his far-sighted strategy. Subsequently, ten thousand years before the Flood, Enki secretly brought Noah by then a trusted and high-ranking priest - to his medical facilities. At the same time, Enki selected and brought three women from three diverse races of mankind to the same location. There, the eggs of each of these women were fertilized by Noah’s sperm, and implanted into three surrogate mothers.
This genetic mixing was designed to cause a 50 per cent dilution of Noah’s longevity genes. Nine months later, Noah became the father of three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, as recorded in the Bible. Due to the 50 per cent dilution of the longevity genes, Shem lived only 15,120 years compared to 68,400 for Noah.
This disproportionate effect is not surprising, since Noah was very old when he fathered these sons and thus his sex cells were registering a high level of mutations. Furthermore, it is possible that the genes of the three ethnic women had been attacked by viruses. This life span, however, was still far too long for Enki’s purposes, and a further disintegration of the longevity genes was required. Accordingly, he gave instructions that the three ethnic mothers of Shem, Ham and Japheth were to marry their own sons. These, then, were the three women who accompanied Noah, his unnamed wife and his three sons onto the Ark (some texts allow also for a boatman or navigator).
Using this strategy, Enki caused a further significant dilution of Noah’s “pure” genes and a significant increase in the proportion of “ethnic” genes in the next generation. Whilst Shem, Ham and Japheth had retained 50 per cent of the pure seed. their sons and daughters became 25 per cent pure seed and 75 per cent ethnic. The effects on longevity were striking - as we would expect them to be. Arphaxad, for example, lived only 5,100 years.
Meanwhile, three separate races emerged with nearly 200.000 years of mitochondrial diversity - preserved through the matriarchal line - exactly in accordance with modern scientific findings. There are several further factors which tend to corroborate the above theory.
A Split in the Genes
According to my chronology, Peleg lived from 7873-4883 BC. He was thus the first of the patriarchs to be born after the war of the Gods which marked the beginning of the Age of Cancer c. 8700 BC. His name, “Peleg”, meant “Division”, which is usually thought to refer to a division of land. Genesis 10:25 indeed states that he was named Peleg because “in his time the earth was divided”.
According to my chronology, however, the division of the Earth between the Gods, or at least the decision to divide it, was taken around 800 years before Peleg was born. Could Peleg’s name have referred to a division in the priestly genes? The sons of Shem had been able to maintain their albeit reduced longevity by inter-marrying with their sisters or half-sisters.
If, however, someone was to marry outside the family - a risk as the number of eligible population rose - then the longevity genes would be further diluted. Could that “someone” have been Peleg’s father? In chapter 10, we discussed the origin of the term Hebrew/Ibri which meant native of Nippur and traced it to NI.IB.RU “The Crossing Place”.
It was a reference to the Gods’ planet Nibiru which was known as the “planet of Crossing”, due to its return to the Asteroid Belt where it had collided with Tiamat 4 billion years previously. Nippur was the location of the DUR.AN.KI, the Bond-Heaven Earth, which we have identified as the mission control centre of the Gods’ pre-Flood space facilities. After the Flood, the city which became the new mission control centre was Jerusalem, which I have concluded was built c. 8700 BC.
It is no coincidence that, according to my chronology, Peleg’s father lived from 8893-3573 BC. Nor that his father’s name was Eber, meaning “Crossing”. His name must surely commemorate his role in supervising the construction of the new mission control centre at Jerusalem - a project that would have taken him far away from the land of the Shemitic people (Mesopotamia) for an extended period.
According to my calculations, Eber fathered Peleg in 7,873 BC. Could it be that the division of the Earth took Eber away from his homeland and forced him to dilute the royal genes with a foreign wife?
This
scenario would explain both the naming of Eber’s son, Peleg
(“Division”) and the reduced life spans which followed.
His days were truly decimated and yet the Bible is adamant that he died “at a good old age, an old man and full of years”. We can thus attribute his relatively short life span only to a genetic factor.
However, the decline in Abraham’s age is so great that it cannot be dismissed as genetic drift; indeed the Bible confirms that he kept with tradition by marrying Sarai who was a half-sister. What exceptional circumstances might have affected Abraham’s genes? Amazingly, if we study the Old Testament, the clue is right there.
It is curious that no sons are listed to Terah prior to the age of 70. This is very old for fatherhood relative to the other patriarchs (see Table C). According to my recalculations, Terah was 2,100 years old when he had Abraham, and then he died at the age of 2,235 - a comparable life span to his predecessors.
Terah’s date of birth, 4223 BC, would probably have made him the first high-priest of Nippur after Sumerian civilization began c. 3800 BC. How did Terah become a father at such a mighty age?
The wording used in the Bible is exactly the same as that used to describe the anomalous birth of Shem, Ham and Japheth to Noah:
It is curious that the Old Testament uses this vague language in only two places the birth of three sons to Noah and the birth of three sons to Terah.
We have already seen that the circumstances of Noah’s unusual fatherhood were embarrassing to the Biblical editors, who tried to disguise the suggestion that he had three sons simultaneously. Surely it is more than a coincidence that this same vague expression is followed by another steep fall in longevity for Abraham?
The logical conclusion is that there was a genetic intervention in the birth of Abraham and his brothers. In the light of Abraham’s subsequent espionage exploits, and with the “writing on the wall” for the Third Dynasty of Ur, this conclusion takes on a powerful significance.
Whilst we should not rule out the former, the latter is
the scientifically more plausible solution. In summary, genetic
engineering allowed Terah to father three sons in the twilight of
his life, but natural genetic degradation determined their reduced
life spans.
These lists summarize the reigns of different “kings” and their cities from the beginning of time to the date of the Flood. They represent the most sacred Sumerian and Babylonian traditions, and yet modern scientists attach little value to them. Why is this? Because all of the scholars regard the dates on these kings lists as reconsider the evidence.
In the third century BC, the Babylonian historian-priest Berossus, in an attempt to impress the Greeks, painstakingly wrote down a complete list of the kings of Babylon. His original work has not survived, but we can study it today through the works of Greek historians such as Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus and Apollodorus.
Polyhistor, for example, wrote:
Other ancient historians also wrote of 120 saroi, sars or shars, which they believed to represent 3,600 years each. Consequently, it was claimed that ten kings had reigned for a total period of 432,000 years! But did these sars really represent 3,600 years each or are we, once again, dealing with a lost-Flood sar of 2,160 years? For the answer, we need to go back in rime to study the earlier Sumerian Kings Lists.
The following quote is from one of the earliest, well-preserved and thus most reliable Sumerian lists:
This Sumerian list makes it quite clear that there were 8 kings before the Flood, not 10, and 67 sar, not 120. Why are there such large discrepancies between this and the 10 Babylonian kings?
The simple answer is that the two lists recorded different lines of kings from two different geographic locations. Interestingly, the Chinese also claimed ten emperors before the Flood, but again the location could have been different. For this reason, any attempt to adjust the Sumerian 8 kings to match 10 kings recorded elsewhere is fundamentally incorrect.
Unfortunately, many scholars appear to have fallen into this trap, enticed no doubt by the similarity in legendary life spans between the 10 Babylonian kings and the 10 Biblical patriarchs. Once again such a comparison is invalid. Incidentally, the term “king” in this context is misleading, since kingship was only lowered from Heaven to man for the first time in Sumer c. 3800 BC.
It is thus more accurate to use the term “governorship” - an administrative role for junior Gods (the names of senior Gods such as Enlil and Enki do not appear in the lists). In addition to the preoccupation with ten kings, there has also been an obsession with the number 432,000. Many studies have shown that this number had a symbolic importance to our ancient ancestors.
By way of example, it is a remarkable fact that the Rigveda, the Sacred Book of Verses in the Sanskrit language, uses 432,000 syllables to record its tales of Gods and heroes. This obsession with 432,000, drawn from 120 sars of 3,600, has caused some scholars to fudge the Sumerian Kings Lists to bring them up from 241,200 years to the required 432,000 years.
This is despite the fact that to get from 8 kings and 67 sar to 10 kings and 120 sar requires some extraordinary reigns for the two extra kings! Such an approach is unfortunately encouraged by a number of discrepancies between Kings Lists recorded in different Sumerian cities. One list, for example, made in the city of Larsa by Nur-Ninsubur, inserts a king from Larsa itself between the three kings at Bad-Tibira. Our suspicions should be alerted.
This Kings List was prepared around 2200-2100 BC - the time when the Sumerian empire sought the assistance of Elamite mercenaries to subdue instability in the outer provinces. We know from ancient texts that the price of this military support was the city of Larsa. It is not at all surprising that the Elamites should have sought some prestige by adding their own legends into the Sumerian records. In chapter 11, I pointed out that the number 2,160, written in Sumerian, appears as 3-6-0-0, and suggested that a sar could be based on either 2,160 or 3,600 years, with the 2,160-year sar coming into favour after the Flood (which caused the Earth’s wobble).
How might this explain the difference between the Sumerian list of 67 sar, and the Babylonian list of 120 sar?
The chronology of Gods and man which I have put forward in this chapter (Table B), allows a period of 259,200 years between the arrival of the Gods and the Flood. This represents 120 sar of 2,160 years each. However, we would not expect the Kings Lists to have begun immediately, since there were no cities to be governed. How long did it take for the Gods to construct their pre-Flood space facilities, from scratch, after their first arrival on Earth?
One Sumerian text gives us a rough idea, claiming that Enlil waited 6 sar whilst Nippur was under construction. In Table E below, I have broken down the first 259,200 years of the Gods on Earth into two periods - an initial period of 5 sar (18,000 years) before governorship began, and a second period of 241,200 years, which reconciles to the Sumerian list of 8 kings and 67 sar cited above.
Crucially, these figures are based on the pre-Flood sar of 3,600 years. The total period amounts to 72 sar.
The 72 sars would therefore have been translated by the Gods into 120 sars, still representing the same period of 259,200 years. Table E shows, in my opinion, what happened next.
The Sumerian historians ignored the years and simply remembered the pre-Flood period as “120 sars”. Then, along came Berossus (or perhaps one of the earlier Babylonian historians) and resurrected the idea of a sar being 3,600 years, hence calculating a totally mythical period of 432,000 years. Oops! It is time that the record was put straight.
I submit my chronology
as proof of the “impossible” Sumerian Kings Lists!
His claims are almost as astounding as the Sumerian Kings Lists. According to Manetho, there were four periods (which he called dynasties) before the pharaohs ruled in Egypt - two dynasties of Gods, one of demiGods and a transitional dynasty.
Manetho stated that, in the beginning, seven great Gods ruled Egypt for 12,300 years: Ptah for 9,000, Ra for 1,000, Shu for 700, Geb for 500, Osiris for 450, Seth for 350 and Horus for 300 years. The second dynasty of Gods comprised twelve divine rulers - Thoth, Maat and ten others, who ruled for 1,570 years.
The third dynasty consisted of thirty demi-Gods who reigned 3,650 years. The fourth period, lasting 350 years, was a period of chaos, when Egypt was disunited and had no ruler. It ended with a reunification under Menes, who is widely regarded as the first pharaoh of Egypt. As far as his more recent dynasties are concerned, Manetho has yet to be contradicted by archaeological evidence.
However, when it comes to the earlier, legendary reigns of the Gods, sometimes spanning thousands of years, scholars have found it difficult to accept that his list has any historical value. Manetho, however, was not alone in his views of Egyptian prehistory.
The Greek historian Herodotus visited Egypt and also recorded the rule of Gods in an era before the pharaohs. In view of the scientific basis which I have put forward for longevity, it is time to suspend our disbelief and take a closer look at Manetho’s histories. First, it is necessary to anchor Manetho’s chronology at a point in time. Typically this is done by working backwards from Menes, who is generally held to have ruled from c. 3100 BC. Instead, let us start by dating the reign of Thoth.
Numerous references in Mesopotamian texts
suggest that Thoth was appointed in charge of Egypt
following the war of the Gods. In chapter 11, I dated this event to
the end of the first precessional period in approximately 8700 BC.
So far Manetho’s chronology seems reliable, but what kind of records could he have used to cross the threshold into the days before the Flood? Can we rely on his suspiciously round numbers of 9,000 years for Ptah and 1,000 years for Ra? These two Gods can be identified with certainty as Enki/Ea and his son Marduk, but according to the ancient Mesopotamian texts, the Lower World, including Egypt, was assigned to Enki shortly after the Gods arrived on Earth.
In my chronology that would be hundreds of thousands of years. Once again it would appear that the original time scales have been subjected to editorial reductions. The alleged reigns before the Flood total 10,000 years or 100 centuries. What happens if we replace the centuries by sars of 2,160 years?
The rule of Ptah (Enki) in Egypt would then stretch back 216,000 years before the Flood to a date of 226,983 BC. This date represents an exact mid-point between the arrival of the Gods on Earth in 270,183 BC and the rebellion of the Gods in 183,783 BC. Could it be that this was the time when Enki was controversially relegated to his duties in the Lower World? Once again, the 2,160-year sar offers a very plausible scenario.
When we use Manetho’s histories to roll the date of the Flood forward to the time of Menes we find something even more remarkable.
Using my Flood date of 10983 BC, derived from the patriarchs, the beginning of the reign of Menes and hence of Egyptian “civilisation” can be pinpointed as follows:
Many scholars have been intrigued by the date 3113 BC, which represents the mysterious starting point of the Mayan calendar in Mesoamerica.
Those scholars have also been fascinated by the
numerous cultural similarities between the Egyptians and the Maya.
Now - according to my chronology - even the Mayan calendar can be
tied in to the Egyptians.
My chronology of Gods and mankind, based on a sar of 2,160 years, reconciles with:
|
