Lonang Commentary on Genesis 10

Gen. 10:1 These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Sons were born to them after the flood.

Gen. 10:32 These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, in their nations, and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood.

The Table of Nations

These before and after statements frame the Table of Nations in verses 2 through 31. Reminiscent of the creation account in chapters 1 and 2, we first have a listing of the family groups – what will become separate nations – flowing from the dispersion from Babel, followed by a look back to the circumstances giving rise to the dispersion. In other words, chronologically, the first 9 verses of chapter 11 happened before the families were dispersed in chapter 10. But we will take them in the order presented, with that background knowledge in mind.

The first thing to notice is that the dispersion from Babel, even though the word Babel means confusion, was itself done in a very orderly manner. Even if we assume that each family group was fairly large, consisting of a husband, wife, and twelve kids, that would still only yield a total population of about 1,000 people. Adding up the generations in chapter 11, it was only 101 years from the end of the flood until the birth of Peleg (in whose days the earth was divided, Gen. 10:25), and it was only 30 years until Peleg fathered a son. So, in all likelihood, there had only been at most 131 years of population growth from the flood until Babel. So, maybe less than 1,000 people in total.

But my point is, when God scattered the people from Babel, He did not send them in a thousand different directions, or give them a thousand different languages. He gave them only as many languages as there were named family groups, and each member of each family group would have spoken the same language after the dispersion. That is the only way they could have continued to communicate with each other afterwards, to marry within their group, and raise children who would speak the same language. In other words, God respected family group integrity, facilitating family unity and growth. After all, God had generated the entire world population from a single family twice before – with Adam and Eve, and with Noah and his sons. So to use the same methodology here would not have been a stretch.

And of course, of necessity, each family group would have had to separate from all the others, find a place to settle down that did not interfere with others, and undoubtedly some would have settled quite far away from where they started. The development of the ability to understand other languages, to begin to engage in commerce between groups, and the separate development of governments and governing structures all would have followed some years after the dispersion. In addition, each family group would have begun to develop unique physical characteristics, including skin color, following the dispersion.

If you’re wondering, according to the Genesis genealogies it was only about 200 years from the birth of Peleg until the birth of Abram, and another 75 years from then until Abram was called by God.

The second thing to notice is the number of family groups, or nations, counted in the dispersion. There were a total of 70 nations: 14 from the lineage of Japheth, 30 from the lineage of Ham, and 26 from the lineage of Shem. Thus, the apostle Paul could rightly say that the Lord “made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.” Acts 17:26. And yes, true enough, the historic places where each of those nascent nations chose to settle is pretty much exactly where their descendants still live today.

However, that number of nations is neither random nor accidental. For Deu. 32:8 tells us that “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.” (NASB). About this, the scripture is quite clear. Exo. 1:5 “All the descendants of Jacob were seventy persons.” Exo. 1:5. “Your fathers went down to Egypt seventy persons.” Deu. 10:22. So once again, the Lord had a plan, and that plan was organized and orderly. There was nothing random or haphazard about it.

Now that we are going to spend the rest of the chapter considering the nations of the world dispersed from Babel, it is perhaps appropriate to consider them in their national capacities, and how God intended for civil government to fit into this picture.

Gen. 10:2-5 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. From these the coastland peoples spread in their lands, each with his own language, by their clans, in their nations.

God Is the Creator of Nations

When the world and mankind were created, there were no nations. The people who lived before the flood essentially governed themselves – since no one had any law enforcement authority – under the authority of their separate and independent families. Adam, and perhaps others, would have been regarded as a patriarch – the father of all, or the father of many – but he was not a king or monarch of the world, as some have speculated. Each family, consisting of a husband and wife who had left their parents and held fast to each other (Gen. 2:24) would have been an independent self-governing unit. Merely being born in an earlier generation gave no one ruling authority over any later generation, because no one had any ruling authority beyond their own immediate family.

Standard evolutionary thinking regards not only families, but nations and governments as things which developed slowly over time as people found it convenient or useful to do so. This assumes in essence, that all nations and governments, and even the family unit itself, have been invented or instituted by men. One of the consequences of this mode of thinking is that families, nations and governments can be either retained or disposed of according to the unfettered discretion of the people. We have certainly seen this manifested, especially since the close of World War II, in constant attempts to attack and redefine families, nations and governments.

Setting aside consideration of families and focusing on nations (in keeping with the text), in recent decades this has manifested in two distinct ways: 1) multiculturalism, or the promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a nation; and 2) globalization, or the process of international integration across national borders. The first assumes that all national cultures and traditions are inherently equal in value and beneficial to mankind. The second assumes that whatever mankind constructed in the past can be deconstructed in the future, leading to a disdain and disregard for nations and most especially for national borders.

However, the Table of Nations genealogy thoroughly explains the origin of nations among men. The development of distinct national and/or ethnic cultures was a direct result of families being separated from each other by language barriers which took many generations to overcome. The main upshot of which is this: nations are not the product of a diverse evolutionary development of the human species. Rather, nations are the special and deliberate creation of God. Cultures and governing structures, on the other hand, are the creation of men, the value and benefit of which largely depend on the extent to which they conform to the will of God (meaning, cultural traditions and forms of government are not all equal).

To emphasize, this separation of mankind into nations by language and ethnicity was not the invention of any man or group of men. The division of the world into nations was not founded on the directives of any human leader, the consent of any committee, nor was it the result of a natural evolutionary process. Rather, it was entirely God’s idea – an idea imposed on mankind without its consent as a form of divine judgment. God is the maker of the nations of the world, not men.

Even, I daresay, in the case of nations formed subsequent to Babel. For Israel, most certainly, was a nation called out from among the descendants of Abraham by God for a national purpose. “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Hos. 11:1. Modernly, the United States was formed by people who believed they had been called out for a mighty purpose, to be a city on a hill, a new Israel, and a light to the nations, for at that time national Israel did not exist. We can argue about whether those beliefs were well-founded, but it isn’t difficult to argue that God called out America to have a unique place among the nations of the world, including carrying the torch of Christianity as a light to other nations.

That was the view of the apostle Paul (as to Israel) as mentioned in the prior section. “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” Deut. 32:8. “And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.” Acts 17:26. Who made the nations? God did. Who fixed the borders of the nations? God did.

One can reasonably infer from this that God did not intend for men to ever undo what God had done, for He never gave mankind the authority to undo, or redo, the things God has made. This strongly suggests there is a “sanctity” of nations, and to some extent national borders, and it is not the lawful business of mankind to unify the nations under a single government or economy. It is no wonder that evolutionary thinking denigrates the thing God has created (nations) and worships the thing man has created (governments and cultures).

However, when God made the nations, He gave not one of them a form of government. Notice that there are no kings or rulers denominated among the Table of Nations. How they governed themselves was up to each of them to determine in their own way and in their own time. Even back in Gen. 9:6, when God instructed the descendants of Noah to implement capital punishment – commonly regarded as the first delegation of civil power (the power of the sword) – there was no civil government yet instituted to wield this new power. In fact, at that time there were not yet even any nations – all of mankind was one community.

So we may say that biblically and historically, both civil power (Gen. 9:6) and nationality (Gen. 10:32) preceded the formation of any civil government. Private civil power came first, then nations, and civil governments only followed later.

1) If nations and civil governments arose at different times, they likely arose by different means and were instigated by different persons. Sure enough, though scripture has abundant evidence of the hand of God in creating the nations, there is a conspicuous absence of similar evidence (except for the limited instance of Israel) that He had a hand in creating any civil government.

2) Civil government was not (and is not) necessary for either the existence of nations, or the existence of the valid use of civil power. At this point we come to an inconvenient truth: civil government may be useful, but in the plan of the God who made man, it is not indispensable. Which means that in a certain sense, not to be exercised for light and transient reasons, governments being the creation of men and not God, are disposable.

We’ll consider this in more detail in the next section.

Gen. 10:6-20 The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan. The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD. Therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.” The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went into Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city. Egypt fathered Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, Casluhim (from whom the Philistines came), and Caphtorim. Canaan fathered Sidon his firstborn and Heth, and the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites. Afterward the clans of the Canaanites dispersed. And the territory of the Canaanites extended from Sidon in the direction of Gerar as far as Gaza, and in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha. These are the sons of Ham, by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations.

Governments Are Instituted Among Men

What we have as between God and men is a division of labor. God makes nations and He grants and defines the nature of civil power. God establishes rules and parameters (i.e., laws) by which all civil governments are constrained, but He does not actually form (that is, create or structure) civil governments. What man does is to determine the form of government, what documents (if any) will establish and/or define that government, what powers may be exercised in what ways, and the manner of succession. God does not interfere in such matters.

The one exception, of a sort, was ancient Israel, which was a unique situation in the history of the world. What made it unique is that ancient Israel is the only nation in which God was actually: 1) a party to the national covenant (i.e., constitution); and 2) king of the nation. These two things are what make for the existence of a true theocracy. No other nation in the history of the world can make the claim to be a theocracy in the sense that Israel was. The case of ancient Israel is unique.

Now the nation of Israel was not formed at Babel as were other nations, but was made from the descendants of Jacob (renamed Israel) – an act of God, not men. But Israel was not an independent nation until centuries later when they were delivered from bondage in Egypt and crossed the Red Sea. It was at this point that the people of Israel first began the task of organizing a government.

In Exo. 19:5-6 God first announced His intention with respect to the nation. “If you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” The response of the people is recorded in Exo. 19:8: “All the people answered together and said, All that the Lord has spoken we will do.'”

In other words, before any form of government was instituted, the first act of the people was to agree to make a national covenant with the Creator, who had called them to be a special people and a holy nation. This agreement was made by the people of their own free choice, and not by coercion. Then, after the Ten Commandments had been delivered and various laws and rules had been spoken in the hearing of all the people (i.e., when the people actually heard the terms of the covenant), they gave their consent again.

Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” Exo. 24:7-8.

The first system of government adopted in ancient Israel was a system of judges, whereby the judge would be the court of last resort in a judicial sense and also wield some limited executive power (i.e., leader of the army, a commander-in-chief function). But even this system was largely self-directed by the people. Moses, at the urging of his father-in-law Jethro (not God) was advised to:

“look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. And let them judge the people at all times. Every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves.” Exo. 18:21-22.

Israel’s government during the time of the judges was one of the most de-centralized national governments in the history of the world. Most all government matters such as disputes and law enforcement were carried out in this multi-tiered fashion whereby the bulk of government functions occurred at the local level, not the national level.

Which brings us to the last verse in the book of Judges: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Jdg. 21:25.) This verse is often taken by commentators as an implicit indictment against the Jewish people, but I read it differently.

If nothing else, it indicates that the system of judges was highly de-centralized, had very limited powers, and essentially left the people to govern themselves as they saw fit. In other words, both God and man placed a high value on self-government. Which was a good thing, because that’s what God intended. It’s not exactly the first thing that comes to mind when you envision a theocracy, is it?

What happens next in the history of Israel is even more instructive. The transition from a system of judges to a monarchy wasn’t God’s idea either. It was driven by popular demand.

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, … “Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.” And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. … Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.” 1 Sam. 8:4-5, 7, 9.

So when it came to governing the theocracy, God (the Creator, the Almighty, and the king of Israel) deferred to the wishes of the people. He neither forced a monarchy upon them, nor did He veto a change in the form of government when the people asked for it. He merely warned them what a more centralized government with a strong executive power would look like. Then He let the people decide what to do. And they decided to go for it, despite the warnings. 1 Sam. 8:19-20.

Ah, but you may say, “Didn’t God anoint the kings over Israel, thus proving that He instituted the monarchy?” Yes, God did anoint the kings over Israel. But this made none of them actually king.

Saul was anointed by Samuel in 1 Sam. 10:1, but he was not actually made king until he was presented to the people and the people shouted, “Long live the king!” in 1 Sam. 10:24. Similarly, David was anointed Israel’s next king in 1 Sam. 16:13. But Saul was still king at the time, and David was probably only a teenager. In any event, it was several years before David actually became king, and then only when accepted as king by the people.

It is precisely this situation which Samuel Rutherford used to argue that it is the people who make a king, not God. “If the Lord’s immediate designation of David, and his anointing by the divine authority of Samuel, had been that which alone, without the election of the people, made David formally king of Israel, then there were two kings in Israel at one time,” a situation which Rutherford called “most repugnant to God’s truth and sound reason.” Rutherford, Lex Rex, Question 4 (1644).

In fact, David ruled over only the tribe of Judah for 7½ years. 2 Sam. 2:11. He was not installed as king over the entire nation until the elders of all the tribes of Israel came to David and made a covenant with him, i.e., until David had the consent of the people. 2 Sam. 5:1-4. Although God had a hand in conferring succession to the throne of Israel with David’s descendants (2 Sam. 7:16), this did not put God in the business of instituting Israel’s form of government, which by that point had already been established by the people.

Besides, God retains the authority and discretion to raise up and remove leaders in any nation, not just ancient Israel, none of which puts Him in the government formation business.

So even though ancient Israel was an exceptional case – a theocracy – the form of its government was driven by the consent of the people, not by divine imposition. In a way, ancient Israel is our hardest case. If God let the people choose their form of government in a theocracy, then why on earth would He intervene by imposing a form of government in any other non-theocratic nation? And if He had ever imposed a civil government elsewhere, what nation would it be and where is the evidence for it?

It would seem the general rule in Gentile nations is that civil governments are instituted among men via the consent of the governed. At least, that is what the American founders believed: governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (Declaration of Independence). The founders were also familiar with what the scriptures said about ancient Israel: “Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction.” 1 Co. 10:11.

Gen. 10:21-31 To Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, children were born. The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. The sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash. Arpachshad fathered Shelah; and Shelah fathered Eber. To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother’s name was Joktan. Joktan fathered Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab; all these were the sons of Joktan. The territory in which they lived extended from Mesha in the direction of Sephar to the hill country of the east. These are the sons of Shem, by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations.

A Nation and its Government Are Not the Same

The next thing to consider is whether a nation and its government are two different things, or one and the same. If they are the same, then to destroy a government is to destroy a nation which God has created. If they are not the same, then to destroy a government has the potential to leave a nation intact and leave God’s creation untouched. Obviously the preceding discussion heavily leans toward a nation and its government being two separate things. But let us examine the matter more closely by comparing the case examples of ancient Israel and the United States of America.

As discussed above, after Israel had existed for about 400 years, it radically changed its form of government. From the time of Moses up through Samuel, Israel was governed by a series of judges which was highly decentralized and had a tribal and familial organization. Similarly, the national army was really a militia-based system which was also organized along tribal and familial lines.

Nobody’s going to argue the ancient Israelites did a terrific job at governing themselves under the judges, but that’s not the point. That’s the way God intended for them to be governed, like it or not, and He had no intention of changing it. But the Israelites had other ideas, which is what eventually brought about the monarchy.

And there is another lesson to be learned besides consent of the governed. When ancient Israel abolished its form of civil government (the system of judges) and adopted a new form of government (a monarchy), the nation as an entity – its people, language, culture, territory and for the most part, its laws – were unchanged. Abolishing the prior form of government did not destroy the nation. The nation itself remained intact. Why? Because a nation and its government are not the same thing.

The writers of the Declaration of Independence were familiar with the Old Testament scriptures and adopted a legal framework consistent with that model. Thus, the Declaration states that although rights are endowed by the Creator, “governments are instituted among men.” Meaning, governments are not created by God, and rights are not created by men. God and men are not opposed to each other, but they play different roles and are involved in separate aspects of national formation and governance.

The plain fact is that the Declaration made no pretense to form a government of the United States. Its sole purpose was to create the nation of the United States. The formation of its government would have to come later, and be done separately. And we know from history that this is exactly how things played out – the Declaration was made in 1776, and the first national government didn’t come along until 1781 in the form of the Articles of Confederation. But we are no longer governed by the Articles of Confederation. So what happened?

The Articles were replaced by the U.S. Constitution (drafted in 1787, implemented in 1789). Which is a polite way of saying the government instituted by the Articles of Confederation was abolished. The mission of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was merely to alter or amend the Articles of Confederation, but instead the delegates decided to discard the Articles altogether. And far from destroying the United States as a nation, the nation was strengthened as a result. One might even say that changing the form of government was a good thing.

When you think about it, the national histories of ancient Israel and the U.S.A. have some remarkable parallels. Both were created and existed for some time before any form of government was established. When created, the initial form of government in each nation was fully consented to by the people, but in each case the people grew dissatisfied with that form of government and decided to reformulate it in significant ways.

At that point in each nation’s history, duly appointed representatives of the people met and decided to adopt a new form of government, which actions were ratified by the people. When the old form of government was discarded, no thought was ever given to the possibility that the nation itself ceased to exist, or was in jeopardy. The people continued as one nation through the transition to a new form of government.

In each case the initial form of government was, in a real sense, disposable, i.e., not critical to the existence of the nation. And in the case of America, the initial form of government was not merely disposable, but in fact was commonly viewed as defective and/or injurious to the well being of the nation. Which is a polite way of saying the national government was more harmful than good. Its presence was not sacrosanct, but onerous.

In both ancient Israel and America the transition from one form of government to another was accomplished peacefully, without violence. No one thought that because people were proposing the adoption of a new form of government and a discarding of the old form, the proponents of change (i.e., delegates to the Constitutional Convention) were traitors, rebellious, or insurrectionist. No one viewed the proposal to change governments as a threat, a crime, an act of terror, or an act of war.

So let me ask you – If a similar thing were to happen today, who would be standing in line with our own history, with the laws of nature and nature’s God, and with natural right? The peaceful proponents of change who would dare to attempt to curtail tyranny, or those who would crush any such attempt with force and violence to preserve the status quo? When a law enforcement officer or a military person take an oath the protect and defend the nation, who and what are they protecting against whom?

Why should the abolition of any government – even the U.S. government – be feared? Frankly, I don’t see the problem. It is not only theoretically possible to alter or abolish a nation’s form of government without being destructive to the nation or its people, but it has actually happened both in ancient and in modern times. So what is there to fear?

Which brings me to a final point. Every nation of course has a right to preserve its government against foreign threats and from the lawless actions of persons within its borders. However, no government has the right of self-preservation as against the will of its own people. The people who have the right to form a government have the inherent right to re-form it (alter) or un-form it (abolish). This right is an inalienable (God-given) right which can never under any circumstances be denied.

The creature (civil government) cannot ever say to the creator (the people), “You cannot unmake me.” This is the lesson from the potter and the clay, is it not? (Jer. 18:1-11.) The creator always has complete authority over anything it creates. Self-preservation only applies to those persons and institutions which God has created, ordained and established (individual, family and Church), not to other associations and institutions created and established by men. Civil governments fall into this second category, not the first. A civil government has no inalienable right to life.

Of course, there’s always the problem of coming up with a suitable replacement government that will hopefully be better. But if that one doesn’t work well, it can be replaced, too. Although, I have to admit there is no such thing as a perfect system of government. All government systems will eventually become corrupted and fail, because that is man’s unavoidable nature. Until we have perfect men, there will never be a perfect government system. And that will never happen – short of the Second Coming of Christ and His establishment of a perfect and incorruptible world government. Which will only be made possible because the resurrected saints, who are foretold to “rule and reign” with Christ, are likely (in my opinion) to be serving as incorruptible officials in the kingdom of Christ.

The American founders had a fairly good appreciation of man’s fallen nature. They tried to build in checks and balances to avoid concentrating too much power in any one place so as to prevent corruption and tyranny. Today, I’m not sure that mentality prevails anywhere. If anything, people in government positions today are pursuing a civil utopia with a zeal that tells me they either think man is perfectible, or government is. In either case, they are dead wrong.

I also don’t fear people wanting to re-form the government so much as I fear people will want to un-make our nation. In the case of America, that would mean not merely throwing out the Constitution, but actually undoing the Declaration of Independence and forming an entirely new nation. The main problem with that – and the usual motivation for anyone having that goal – is in getting rid of the laws of nature and of nature’s God as the basis for our nation’s laws. Now that I have a problem with, because there simply isn’t any better legal context for establishing a nation, regardless of its form of government.

Postscript

As you consider the nations listed in the Table of Nations, remember that at the time of dispersion, each “nation” consisted of only a small group of persons – perhaps a dozen people – related to the person named in Genesis. There were no “governments” or governmental structures instituted in any of them – certainly not by God, nor by men. The person named in the Table of Nations was most probably the head of his clan, and functioned as its leader in all the ways you would expect. But there were, initially, no organs or departments of government, no constitutions or founding documents, and no hierarchies of officials wielding specified powers.

All those things came along eventually, of course, as each family clan expanded, got more organized, and established their own sets of laws and regulations for their own internal governance. But the dispersion at Babel was not based on anyone’s consent. No one agreed to being unable to communicate with people from other clans, or to being dispersed far and wide over all the face of the earth.

No one planned out in advance where they would migrate to, but were driven by circumstances to settle in parts unknown. No one set out to claim a certain territory for their people, but were at the mercy of how fast their populations multiplied, and to what extent they could defend or attack their neighbors. No one decided whom to pick to be included or excluded as members of their clan. And most importantly, no one decided what skills or special knowledge the people in their clan would possess, discover, or develop. All these things would be directed in the sole and exclusive discretion of God.

I’m sure none of these early nations just sat on their hands waiting for things to happen, but were very proactive in improving themselves, getting organized, bolstering their defenses, and even developing a unique culture. By the time of Abraham, perhaps 250 years later, many of these clans had built cities, made people kings, and had already gone to war. Some, perhaps, had adopted rudimentary laws for their internal conduct. But that would have been about as far as any of them would get in that amount of time. We know from history, of course, that the progress of societies and cultures continued to develop from there. But none of them, through the application of long periods of time and random chance, “evolved.” As if the creation of families and nations were the invention of men – the very idea!