Talk:Generations of Noah

message: I removed as frivolous cite requests for the fact that "many" Christians, Jews and Muslims adhere to Biblical and/or Quranic outlines of history.  Whoever wrote that it was "only a few dozen" in the edit summary needs to get out more - he's obviously never been to a Middle Eastern country and probably never ventured beyond his own little world, if he seriously thinks it's "a few dozen"! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frivolous cite requests 

message: To my understanding Japheth = white. Shem = semitic. Ham = black. Where do Asians and Native Americans fit in? 97.118.63.76 (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great question, and I have started a mini-section below with possible answers...--Gniniv (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Good points, the reality is probably that complex due to ancient intermarriage...--Gniniv (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Japheth = Indo-European languages. Shem = Semitic languages. Ham = All other Afro-Asiatic languages. So if you're not descended from a group that historically speaks an Indo-European or an Afro-Asiatic language you're not descended from Noah according to some "Biblical scholars".184.96.242.187 (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I have been researching the genealogies covered in the Sons of noah article.  Has anyone considered seeing if any sources have been devoted to which of the Sons of Noah was the father of the Far-eastern (Oriental) peoples?  I find it intriguing to consider some of Shem's descendants like  Joktan as possible candidates.  We may want to establish consensus with the editors of articles like Ancient China, Records of the Grand Historian, History of China, and the Yellow Emperor--Gniniv (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source from a researcher who is supposedly looking in to this (See Origin of Sinitic Peoples from the Sons of Noah?.--Gniniv (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I am interested in pursuing this further, any comments?--Gniniv (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe most researchers consider Native Americans to be Asian in heritage, so they could possibly have come from Joktan's lines as well...--Gniniv (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you know already about the prohibition against conducting Original research.  That pretty much limits us to quoting from published sources that may have already addressed these questions.  Around 100 years ago, it was popular to connect the Chinese with the Assyrians (Asshur), but that line of thinking was "discouraged" after World War 2, and so is rarely found any more.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this topic merely hasn't been covered in the article, and I was curious if there are any sources that have researched this.  The source I gave seems to be from a Chinese website, so it could possibly offer a fresh perspective on the topic, considering that most of the sources in the article come from Western thinktanks...--Gniniv (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The source I gave seems to offer an explanation that refutes the typical classification of Joktan as the father of Assyria...--Gniniv (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just gleaned some info from the Talk:Records of the Grand Historian--Gniniv (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Til is correct, and Gniniv shouldn't be asking on other talk pages for help with original research. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha!  I won't won't ask for any original research, only prior sources....--Gniniv (talk)  06:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's of any assistance, the "Mormons" have their own view on the origin of Native Americans. I'm not sure specifically what they attribute to which son of Noah but they consider the Native Americans to be "Jacobites" I believe which would probably make them descendants of Shem. 184.96.228.177 (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did Asians/Orientals come from? 

message: ::I have been researching the genealogies covered in the Sons of noah article.  Has anyone considered seeing if any sources have been devoted to which of the Sons of Noah was the father of the Far-eastern (Oriental) peoples?  I find it intriguing to consider some of Shem's descendants like  Joktan as possible candidates.  We may want to establish consensus with the editors of articles like Ancient China, Records of the Grand Historian, History of China, and the Yellow Emperor--Gniniv (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source from a researcher who is supposedly looking in to this (See Origin of Sinitic Peoples from the Sons of Noah?.--Gniniv (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am interested in pursuing this further, any comments?--Gniniv (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe most researchers consider Native Americans to be Asian in heritage, so they could possibly have come from Joktan's lines as well...--Gniniv (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you know already about the prohibition against conducting Original research.  That pretty much limits us to quoting from published sources that may have already addressed these questions.  Around 100 years ago, it was popular to connect the Chinese with the Assyrians (Asshur), but that line of thinking was "discouraged" after World War 2, and so is rarely found any more.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this topic merely hasn't been covered in the article, and I was curious if there are any sources that have researched this.  The source I gave seems to be from a Chinese website, so it could possibly offer a fresh perspective on the topic, considering that most of the sources in the article come from Western thinktanks...--Gniniv (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The source I gave seems to offer an explanation that refutes the typical classification of Joktan as the father of Assyria...--Gniniv (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just gleaned some info from the Talk:Records of the Grand Historian--Gniniv (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Til is correct, and Gniniv shouldn't be asking on other talk pages for help with original research. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha!  I won't won't ask for any original research, only prior sources....--Gniniv (talk)  06:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's of any assistance, the "Mormons" have their own view on the origin of Native Americans. I'm not sure specifically what they attribute to which son of Noah but they consider the Native Americans to be "Jacobites" I believe which would probably make them descendants of Shem. 184.96.228.177 (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible answers, Shem as the Father of Eastern (through [[Joktan]]) and Western (through [[Peleg]]) Asia

message: I removed one as I think it is clearly not a reliable source. It was restored, so I've brought it up at WP:RSN, although once removed, I believe it was the editor who wanted it replaced who should have done that, reliability is not the default position for a source. I also removed another unreliable source, and if the other editor who added that wants it restored they should go to RSN. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: There are numerous books by Christian theologists that mentions that Shem = Caucasians, Japheth = Mongloids (Turks etc) & Ham = Africans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.205.27 (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether they have actual evidence for it is another story...--Novus Orator  06:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many credible theologians and archaeologists don't even consider Mongoloid and Negroid people to be Adamic. 184.96.247.138 (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Riiiiiight... and which sect are these "credible theologians" repping? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Japheth = Indo-European languages. Shem = Semitic languages. Ham = All other Afro-Asiatic languages. So if you're not descended from a group that historically speaks an Indo-European or an Afro-Asiatic language you're not descended from Noah according to some "Biblical scholars". 184.96.236.163 (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then, can you name any scholars or theologians who actually teach that?  If so, we could look at attributing that POV to them in the article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't mean they weren't from Adam. Adam means humanity also. 80.187.103.242 (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  East asians = Japheth 

message: This important map http://restorationlibrary.org/library_restoration/AOBH/AOBH_016_A.jpg can explain track the Sons of Noah and this map http://www.jesus-kashmir-tomb.com/sitebuilder/images/Map_to_Graves-691x418.jpg also support the future research. Bocah anon (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any peer-reviewed material by modern, accredited scientists who actually have kept track of the past century of anthropological and genetic studies, and who have given up on nationalistic biases?  Because the material you're presenting doesn't look like that. You have a map from a Sunday school in 1880 (before any real study of genetics had begun, and at a time when all anthropological study had nationalistic, even racist, biases).  That doesn't amount to any sort of evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing this same conversation on several different talkpages, but I'll answer here.  True, the 1880 map may not accurately reflect current thought in Biblical studies, on the geographic interpretations of Biblical names like Gomer, Magog and all the rest (the Sons of Noah), but since most of these topics are primarily concerned with historiography (not so much genetics), the map obviously could be of some historiographic interest.   By the way, as late as the 1970s or so I saw Bibles with a map in the back that wasn't that much updated from the 1880 version! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

text: If you're trying to "prove" the evidence for your theories on the Sons of Noah, Wikipedia is the wrong place for you.  Please read our policy on Original research.  We only can describe hypotheses that have already been published and peer reviewed, and citations are a crucial way to verify this.  The map may be on topic, but we need an acceptable source for any conjecture about Javanese or Kashmiri folklore connecting with Shem. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one Wikimedia project that does allow Original research to be published, called  :v: Wikiversity... I haven't looked at it lately, but it may be something you could try. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Map from Restoration Library 

message: Most of the contents of this section is unsourced extra-Biblical 'identifications' and the like, and has been tagged as needing sourcing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is like a nuisance over-use of tagging, since all of the Sons of Noah already have their own main articles dealing with the sources for their identification, and this page is only like a summary of them all. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not when the majority of these "own main articles" appear to be un/poorly/unreliably-sourced, and/or not support the claims made here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it really is a nuisance, and clearly you are using an overabundance of cite request tags. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To compensate for an under-abundance of citations to reliable sources confirming the information. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of nations 

message: A lot of material on this page is fruity and derived from very biased religious sources.  The ethnic schema of Genesis 10 has been seriously attempted from the Semitic and Egyptian languages.  The Egyptian derivation is not exactly controversial.  Please stop vandalizing the edits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.240.28 (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful, if the Egyptian derivations are not controversial, you should have no problem finding reliable sources to attribute them to. Otherwise, I'm afraid they'll have to be removed as original research. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given you some links on your talk page. It isn't vandalising removing unsourced or incorrectly sourced material. Sources have to specifically discuss the subject or else it is what we refer to as synthesis -- WP:SYN. I'm sure this article could use your help in removing bias and reaching what we call a neutral point of view, WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fruitiness 

message: Sons of Noah is not accurate per title, as the page deals with not his sons but grandchildren etc., as the article opens, Noah had but Eight family members.  I propose a name change to The Seventy nations that more accurately summarizes the current article's content--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Descendants of Noah (which currently redirects here) would be more descriptive to a general audience. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: This topic is called the Table of Nations, not the Sons of Noah. PiCo (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: today Gürün in Sivas Province, Turkey Böri (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Togarmah < Tilgarimmu 

message: Just curious, or do you pretend they don't exist? 184.96.242.187 (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understand the purpose of this page.  You should read WP:TALK, but in a nutshell, it is mostly just for discussing sources, or potential improvements to the article text. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

text: The ancient Judeans had no knowledge of Oceania, so wouldn't have developed any traditions of them. At best you could link them to one of the fanciful "nations" that seem to have no clear relation to actual nations on Earth they would've had knowledge of, and seem to have been included just to flesh the list out.2601:140:8900:61D0:B874:B504:BBA1:76FC (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do Aboriginal Australians and Papuans fit in? 

message: (1)  The Byzantine Greek historian George Syncellus (8th century) in his Chronography provided a fairly complete listing of tribes and ethnic groups which he believed were descended from the individuals named in the Table of Nations.  It could be an interesting exercise to compare his list to those found in Josephus, Hippolytus, Jerome and Isidore of Seville and note any important differences found.  Although Syncellus wrote somewhat later than the other authors mentioned here, he did have access to numerous earlier sources, so his works remain an important source on early eastern Christian biblical interpretations concerning these names.  Unfortunately his work is only freely available on the Web in Byzantine Greek and in Latin translation:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=VNUFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA91
(2) If anyone has a fair bit of time on their hands and access to the book On the Reliability of the Old Testament by K.A. Kitchen (Eerdmans 2003), a lot of information on the relationship of the names of the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth named in the Table of Nations and the tribes and ethnic groups associated with them can be found in the footnotes on pages 592-595.  These footnotes cite numerous references to peer-reviewed historical/archaeological papers and other academic sources.  Citing these references in the main article (and thereby replacing several dozen "citation needed" tags with actual references) would certainly do much to improve its quality.  Kitchen's book is available in Google Books "preview" mode, although most of the pertinent pages are not part of the preview.  However, I did manage to access pg. 594 (albeit which pages are accessible may vary from one Google Books user to another).  Here's a Google Books link for anyone who may wish to use this resource to further improve the article:  http://books.google.ca/books?id=Kw6U05qBiXcC&pg=PA594
Mike Agricola (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Couple Suggestions for Improvements 

message: There are two topics in this article: (1) the Table of Nations (as two other editors have pointed out above, this is a more appropriate name for this article), and (2) the "Noachic" or "Mosaic" Ethnography which derived from this table. I propose to split this out into separate articles, unless any objections. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say leave it as is with no fork.  What you mention is so intertwined as to form one obvious topic, we don't need one article for the passage itself and a separate article for the interpretations of the first article. Mr. Lunt (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I explained my proposal poorly, as the topics are very different. It requires addition to the information here, hence it is difficult to explain in abstract. I'll find a way to illustrate and then we can discuss. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topics 

message: , can we discuss your edits here? My view is that we should not be mixing (1) a description of what the bible says, with (2) the modern interpretation of that. Some of the interpretations that you added are highly subjective and should not be written using wikipedia's neutral voice. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. My feeling is that there's two things being combined in this article because of the rather unusual title. "Sons of Noah" isn't a phrase you'll find in most scholarship - the object of study is the "Table of nations". But I'm happy to combine them. So I put a section for the Table of Nations, and kept the rest for the names. The Table of Nations section won't say much - just the boundaries of the TN (i.e. where it is in Genesis), its function (fulfillment of the injunction in Genesis 1 to "go forth and multiply"), and a few other matters - all these are covered in reliable sources. None of the interpretations are subjective, they're all reliably sourced. At the moment the article is entirely without reliable sources (I've looked at the list of sources, none are reliable in Wiki terms), and reifies the subject from an extreme literalist pov.PiCo (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be aware that a vast number of Christians, Jews and Muslims not only throughout history but still today continue to take this topic quite seriously, as it has been called one of the keys to the entire Bible.  In the interests of neutrality, the vast amount of propaganda thrown at it by dry and skeptical 'scholars' endeavouring to show it dates from 300 BC might be mentioned, cited and attributed but not given undue weight in wikipedia voice since this opinion is controverted by many. Mr. Lunt (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get too focused on the date issue. The article itself is a problem. "Table of Nations" is an academic study area, "Sons of Noah" isn't. There are no sources to be used for a Sons of Noah article, although it would be possible to have a simple list based on the genealogies. The article, however, needs to be directed at the Table of Nations.PiCo (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to the title being changed to Table of Nations. , is that ok with you? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That title works, but the information should continue to be explained in the prose Mr. Lunt (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're in agreement on a title change for the article, could one of you gentlemen do it for us, or get an admin to do it if that's required? I'm still in favour of two articles, one on the ins and outs of the TN, the other simply a list of the names set out in a genealogical table. Mr. Lunt, I don't understand what you mean by "the information should continue to be explained in the prose" - what information? PiCo (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mean there should be only one article for this information, not two, and it should remain in prose and NOT a "table" format, despite the topic being referred to in literature as a "Table". Mr. Lunt (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I did my best to find the earliest usage in literature of the phrase "Table of Nations" for this ancient subject and the earliest I could find was the 1836 English edition of Ernst Friedrich Karl Rosenmüller's Biblical Geography of Central Asia. Other books were picking up the phrase by 1840 after which it has been increasingly popular since. We may be able to find more material on the spread of the term that could be explained in the article.  There is a wealth of material for every kind of pov and never any agreement on anything, so I feel this is one article if any where we should studiously refrain from endorsing any, but rather lay them all out impartially. Mr. Lunt (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of phrase "Table of Nations

message: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Til Eulenspiegel. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet "Mr Lunt" 

message: It is a complete failure of research to claim that becasue there is no mention of this subject in the Quran it is not important in Islam. There are literally thousands of written Muslim histories that include genealogies linking Muslims to sons of Noah. Most of the concepts about who descends from which son were debated back and forth among Christians, Jews, and Muslims for most of the Medieval period. I do not know where to begin with creating a discussion of this huge topic. The articles on Japheth and Gog and Magog at least cite a few basic sources, such as the Encyclopedia of Islam.
A further source for one small fraction of this is the page: https://rsela.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/revisiting-the-origin-myths-of-the-turks/
Nlight2 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Generations of Noah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613002652/http://etext.virginia.edu/frames/bibleframe.html to http://etext.virginia.edu/frames/bibleframe.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, I'm not an Aramaic scholar, but I can see the quotes in the article from the Targum Yerushalmi uses more than one romanization scheme:
We see: Ḥam and Kūš with diacritics. But Shem, 'Meshech,' and other names are without diacritics. Wouldn't it look better to use a single scholarly Aramaic transcription system for these quotes?
"The sons of Japheth are Gomer,[33] and Magog,[34] and Madai,[35] and Javan,[36] and Tuval,[37] and Meshech[38] and Tiras,[39] while the names of their diocese are Africa proper,[40] and Germania,[41] and Media, and Macedonia, and Bithynia, and Moesia (var. Mysia) and Thrace. Now, the sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz,[42] and Rifath[43] and Togarmah,[44] while the names of their diocese are Asia,[45] and Parthia and the ‘land of the barbarians.’ The sons of Javan were Elisha,[46] and Tarshish,[47] Kitim[48] and Dodanim,[49] while the names of their diocese are Elis,[50] and Tarsus, Achaia[51] and Dardania." ---Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis 10:2–5
"The sons of Ḥam are Kūš, and Miṣrayim,[52] and Fūṭ (Phut),[53] and Kenaʻan,[54] while the names of their diocese are Arabia, and Egypt, and Elīḥerūq[55] and Canaan. The sons of Kūš are Sebā[56] and Ḥawīlah[57] and Savtah[58] and Raʻamah and Savteḫā,[59] [while the sons of Raʻamah are Ševā and Dedan].[60] The names of their diocese are called Sīnīrae,[61] and Hīndīqī,[62] Samarae,[63] Lūbae,[64] Zinğae,[65] while the sons of Mauretinos[66] are [the inhabitants of] Zemarğad and [the inhabitants of] Mezağ."[67] ---Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis 10:6–7
"The sons of Shem are Elam,[68] and Ashur,[69] and Arphaxad,[70] and Lud,[71] and Aram.[72] [And the children of Aram are these: Uz,[73] and Hul,[74] and Gether,[75] and Mash.[76]] Now, Arphaxad begat Shelah (Salah), and Shelah begat Eber.[77] Unto Eber were born two sons, the one named Peleg,[78] since in his days the [nations of the] earth were divided, while the name of his brother is Joktan.[79] Joktan begat Almodad, who measured the earth with ropes;[80] Sheleph, who drew out the waters of rivers;[81] and Hazarmaveth,[82] and Jerah,[83] and Hadoram,[84] and Uzal,[85] and Diklah,[86] and Obal,[87] and Abimael,[88] and Sheba,[84][89] and Ophir,[90] and Havilah,[91] and Jobab,[92] all of whom are the sons of Joktan.”[93] ---Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis 10: 22–28  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traversetravis (talk • contribs) 19:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent transcription of Aramaic names from the Targum Yerushalmi 

message: A page about the "Table of Nations" / "Generations of Noah" is the place to put info about, well, the Table of Nations! Instead, all this relevant info got shunted off to a page about early modern attempts to equate Shem, Ham, and Japheth with cosmetic phenotypes ("race"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_terminology_for_race
That stuff (Josephus, Hippolytus, etc) ought to be moved back here, as those correlations are the historiographical 'meat' of the Table of Nations. The details of those 70 or 72 national correlations have little to do with later, modern equations with a threefold "racial" scheme. Traversetravis (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did someone remove the various correlations of the nations (by Josephus, Isidore, etc.) to a "race in the Bible" page? 

message: :File:Genealogy noah.jpg
What's the source for Noah having more children in China? Found this too on the author's website:
https://truthinlove.com/Pictures/dispersal.jpg
2407:7000:A2AB:D00:9CB6:ADE7:3CE4:11DB (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: There is no way for someone looking for Frankish Table of Nations to find their way over from here, and the names are so similar I'm not sure if a {distinguish} would be justified in place of a disambiguation page. Thoughts? Orchastrattor (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand [[Table of Nations]] redirect into a disambig, yay or nay? 

message: "The etymology of his name is uncertain; some scholars have linked it to terms connected with divinity, but a divine or semi-divine status for Ham is unlikely.[29]""
Actually Ham means black. It certainly did to anyone who argued that the Hamites where blackened whites. According to the Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, the Egyptian equivalent Khem or Cham also means black, and... 
"lists no less than 24 different terms of km indicating 'black' such as black stone, metal, wood, hair, eyes, and animals, and in one instance applied to a person's name.[1]". Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Km_(hieroglyph)
Hebrew, like Ancient Egyptian, was an Afro-Asiatic language. 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:2154:4208:7E97:FDB7 (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of Ham