After the Flood: Biblical Accuracy Demonstrated in Cultural Ancestry

Read More

Noah's Flood Proven! Book Review: After the Flood

Read More

The Knowledge of God among the early Cultures

Summary of 1st chapter of Bill Cooper«'s After the Flood by Dennis Edwards

Was there a knowledge of God among the very early cultures of mankind, cultures that we are taught were totally pagan and polytheistic in nature? If the Genesis Flood was a real event we would expect to find within the early cultures spreading out from the Middle East a knowledge of the One True God. Let us look at some of the early thinkers and see if we can capture a belief in an Almighty God among the so-called pagan peoples.

Taoist Lao-tzu from 6th century BC in China wrote,

Before time, and throughout time, there has been a self-existing being, eternal, infinite, complete, omnipresent...Outside this being, before the beginning, there was nothing![1]

Lao-tzu was obviously a believer in a Creator, But it wasn't until the beginning of the 20th century that scientific observations confirmed that the universe had a beginning. The effects of the sun's gravitational pull on light during a 1911 solar eclipse forced the then divided scientific community to agree wholeheartedly in Einstein's theory of relativity which predicted that the universe had a beginning. Sir Fred Hoyle's Steady State Theory, that the universe was eternal, fell into oblivion. Nevertheless, Lao-tzu some 550 years before Christ was already teaching that the universe had a beginning. But as today there are always those opposed to the idea of God the Creator. In Lao-tzu's day, we find another China-man named Kuo-Hsiang, who said,

I venture to ask whether the creator is or is not. If he is not, how can he create things?...The creating of things has no Lord; everything creates itself![2]

Sounds familiar, doesn't it, the creation creating itself. Isn't that what the "Big Bang" tells us, that nothing exploded and created everything? We see here already in the 6th century BC that there were those who didn't believe in a Creator and tried to convince others of the same.

Obviously, Lao-tzu didn't have the book of Genesis to consult with, but his conclusions were very much in keeping with God's revealed Word in Scripture, and with the Creationist point of view. Apostle Paul tells us that contrary to modern psychological opinion the knowledge of God is innate. Man has a built-in-awareness. Paul writes,

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,  since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.[3] (NIV)

Paul is saying that because some people do not want to believe in God, whatever the reason may be, they suppress the truth that God has put within them. Like the famous atheist and intellectual of the 20th century Aldous Huxley so openly confessed.

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.[4]

Paul goes on to explain a bit more.

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. [5] (NIV)

Paul is explaining here how God has put His law within our hearts, within our conscience. If we will truly follow our conscience, His law within our hearts, we can actually be obedient to God. We can do this even without the divine revelation of His Word from the Bible, even without actually believing in Him. That's how we can get good atheists. They can follow their conscience to a certain degree, even if they are in a mental or emotional battle with God.

Even though early culture's ritualistic beliefs may have glorified lesser deities, they nevertheless had a concept, though imperfect, of the One True God. How do we know this? Because He is mentioned in their writings. The fact that His mention, and the mention of the Creation, along with the mention of the  Flood are concurrently found in the ancient traditions of many cultures worldwide, highly suggests that these "legends or myths," as they are called by modern academics, were founded upon "a body of knowledge that had been preserved among the early races from a particular point in history."[6]

For example, an ancient text from Heliopolis in Egypt where the Egyptian High Priest lived and worked states the following about the Most High God,

I am the creator of all things that exist...that came forth from my mouth. Heaven and earth did not exist, nor had been created the herbs of the ground, nor the creeping things. I raised them out of the primeval abyss from a sate of non-being.[7]

Sounds like He's quoting from the book of Genesis where God spoke the universe and all things into existence.. Author Bill Cooper notes in his book After the Flood the following:

Indeed, in every major culture throughout the ancient world of which we have any record, the overwhelming consensus was that the universe had been created by often a single and usually supreme divine being, even in notoriously polytheistic cultures...Each culture was capable of expressing a view of the Creator that was not always perverse even though it flourished in the midst of an aggressive and thoroughly perverse paganism.[8]

Among the early Greeks around 800 BC we find in the Theogony of Hesiod another account of the creation of the world that bears similarities to the Genesis account.

First of all the Void came into being...next Earth...Out of the Void came darkness...and out of the Night came Light and Day.[9]

In Genesis we read and see the similarities,

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.[10] 

In 600 BC Xenophanes even in the midst of a thoroughly pagan polytheistic Greek society held an even loftier view of the Creator.

Homer and Hesiod attributed to the gods all the things which among men are shameful and blameworthy - theft and adultery and mutual deception...[but] there is one God, greatest among gods and men, similar to mortals neither in shape nor in thought,...he sees as a whole, he thinks as a whole, he hears as a whole...Always he remains in the same state, changing not at all...But far from toil he governs everything with his mind. [11]

Note that Xenophanes did not try to name the God. He was not talking about Zeus or Hermes who had mortal attributes. This God was too great to be described in words. Later in Greek history, we find this idea of a God, much beyond man, particularly in the thoughts of Plato.[12]

Let us therefore state the reason why the framer of this universe of change framed it at all. He was good, and what is good has no particle of envy in it; being therefore without envy, He wished all things to be like Himself as possible. This is as valid a principle for the origin of the world of change as we shall discover from the wisdom of men.[13]

Again, in Genesis we read similar sounding words,

and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:[14] 

Plato said he had discovered these principles from the wisdom of the ancient philosophers.Under Plato's influence the creationist concept of the ancient world was to become more "scientific and logic based" with a firm belief in a singular and almighty God. 

However, at the same time in Greece the idea of atheism was beginning to spawn and take root in the mind's of other men. It was when Plato refined the idea of a omnipotent God Creator that atheism began to spring forth against it. While the false ideas of polytheism held men's minds, atheism wasn't necessary.[15]

Thales of Miletus who lived from 625-545 BC is credited to have been the first materialist philosopher. Aristotle described him as the 'founder of natural philosophy.' But Thales was by no means an atheist. Though we have no original writings of Thales, we have quotations from him within the writings of Aristotle and others.[16] One such comment attributed to Thales says,

Of existing things, God is the oldest - for He is ungenerated. The world is most beautiful, for it's God's creation...Mind is the swiftest, for it runs through everything.[17]

Here we see Thales expressing classic creationist sentiment. The cause of the universe must be greater than the universe. Since that cause is outside of time and material, it has no beginning, or is "ungenerated." The fact the we indeed live in a world full of beauty, even in its present "fallen-state,"makes better sense if a "beautiful God" created it, than if it came into being without cause or reason. The information found in the DNA of every living creature testifies to a "Mind," dwelling and creating all of life, and "running through everything."

In today's creation verses evolution debate we hear similar arguments. Dr. Stephen Meyer in his book Signature in the Cell explains it like this.

Our uniform experience affirms that specific information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment—always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not strictly material process. So the discovery of the specified digital information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA. Indeed, whenever we find specified information and we know the causal story of how that information arose, we always find that it arose from an intelligent source. It follows that the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified, digitally encoded information in DNA is that it too had an intelligent source. Intelligent design best explains the DNA enigma. [18]

However, though Thales presents very creationist ideas, his pupil Anaximander takes natural philosophy to a fully developed theory of evolution. No doubt, the ideas of atheism and evolution were developing before hand, nevertheless, it was Anaximander who gave them voice,[19] Plutarch writes that Anaximander said that

...originally, humans were born from animals of a different kind...[20]

So we see natural philosophy needing no Creator. This idea was no doubt brewing underneath ancient Greek society in defiance to a very strict Greek  laws of blasphemy and impiety. These laws obligated everyone to think and believe the same and not teach anything that was not "state doctrine." Socrates had  himself gone to his death because of these very laws.[21]

Plato speaks of the materialists as if they were a new movement in thinking. To Plato's lofty Creator orientated mind, these new ideas were perverse and dangerous, especially to the younger generation. He writes,

Some people, I believe, account for all things which have come to exist, all things which are coming into existence now, and all things which will do so in the future, by attributing them either to nature, art, or chance.[22]

Plato continues and says these thinkers define the 'gods' as 'artificial concepts' and 'legal fictions.' He considers these ideas a 'pernicious doctrine' that 'must be the ruin of the younger generation, both in the state at large and in private families.'[23] It seems, therefore, that the idea of atheism was already growing in Plato's time. He was so concerned with its growth, that he made the above comments, and spent a large part of his philosophical work trying to defend the Creator and an orderly universe.[24] 

To Plato the Creator turned chaos into order simply because His nature is good, and it was therefore His good pleasure. The Creator loved order rather than chaos and to ensure the continuance of that order, everything was made according to an eternal and flawless pattern. Plato's Theory of Forms silenced the atheistic camp for nearly fifty years until the time of Epicurus in the 4th century BC. [25]

Aristotle tried to combine the ideas of the materialists and the creationists, similar to today's Christians who believe in evolution with God at the steering wheel. That idea would be fine, if  that were how God said He did it. That idea would be fine, if there was a mechanism for adding new genetic information to the genome. But there isn't, and therefore, evolution doesn't even have a mechanism to make it work. Both natural selection and mutations conserve genetic information, or delete genetic information, or damage genetic information. These scientific facts make neither one, nor the other, nor the two working together, capable of making the changes necessary for molecules to develop into men. Horizontal variation in kinds of animals does occur, but not vertical changing from one kind of an animal to another. Besides that, God didn't say He did it that way.

In any case, like many modern atheists and agnostics, Epicurus argued that it was insufficient to suppose a Creator God from the evidence of a well-order cosmos, because to Epicurus' eyes, the cosmos was not well ordered.[26] To Epicurus the universe was the results of a long, perhaps infinite, series of accidents resulting from the random jostling of atoms. But in order not to offend the general public and their beliefs, Epicurus was careful to acknowledge the existence of the 'gods', but relegated them to having little interest in the cosmos. In this way he was making a side-attack and not a frontal one which would have caused more resistance and gotten him in trouble with the authorities. 

Later in the late 18th and early 19th centuries James Hutton and Charles Lyell would make a similar side-attack against Christianity. Lyell, who was a trained lawyer, decided not to attack the divinity of Christ, as he knew the Church would whole-heartedly defend that point. Instead he promoted Hutton's idea of uniformitarianism which states that current geologic processes, occurring at the same rates observed today, and in the same manner, are what account for all of Earth's geological features.[27] Lyell would promote a long time scale of  "millions of years" in his plan to remove Moses' influence from science. At that point in history, in the 1830s, the geological record was assumed to be the result of the Genesis Flood and not the result of slow processes over "millions of years." If he could get people to doubt the reliability of Moses' record in Genesis, he could bring down all of Christianity.

And it worked. Lyell's persuasive Principles of Geology published first in 1830,  ran for 6 editions, and became the most popular scientific book of the era. As a result, many Christian leaders accepted and absorbed the idea of millions of years into their Christian theology. Charles Spurgeon (seen above), the famous British Christian leader, had already acknowledged "millions of years" as early as 1855, four years before Darwin was to publish his famous book. He said,

Can any man tell me when the beginning was? Years ago we thought the beginning of the world was when Adam came upon it. But we have discovered that thousands of years before that God was preparing chaotic matter to make it a fit abode for man, putting races of creatures upon it, who might die and leave behind the marks of his handiwork and marvelous skill, before he tried his hand on man.[28]

With the acceptance of  Lyell's ideas, when Darwin later published his work in 1859, the ground work had already been done. Many Christian leaders then accepted evolution and incorporated it into their Christian ideas on origins. But even Darwin's favorite advocate, Thomas Huxley, nicknamed Darwin's bulldog for his aggressive debating skills, knew Christianity could not absorb evolution into its doctrine, like a more recent atheistic scientist has confessed.

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus´ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. [29] 

Epicurus was able to present his materialistic ideas because he acknowledged the 'gods.' The success of his ideas caused the Stoics, founded by Zeno in 308 BC, to make a counter attack. Under the Stoic's a far more profound concept of the Creator was developed.[30] Stoic Chrysippus said the following:

If there is anything in nature which the human mind, which human intelligence, energy, and power could not create, then the creator of such things must be a being superior to man. But the heavenly bodies in their eternal orbits could not be created by man. They must therefore be created by a being greater than man...Only an arrogant fool would imagine that there was nothing in the whole world greater than himself. Therefore there must be something greater than man. And that something must be God. [31]

Reminds me of the verse from the Psalm of David which says,

The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.[32]

But where in the world could the Stoics come up with the idea of a supreme and omnipotent God? The Greeks had had contact with the Jewish people as far back as 587 BC, when the Greek mercenaries assisted the armies of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon in the destruction of Jerusalem. However, the Jewish people were held in contempt by the Greeks. Therefore, for survival purposes, many Jews hid their nationality and Hellenized their names and their ways just as they have done since then in Christian countries during the Middle Ages and even recently after WWII.[33]

The Jewish Torah which included the book of Genesis had been translated into Greek in 250 BC, seventeen years before Chrysippus became leader of the Stoic school in 233 BC. But Zeno had founded the Stoic school of thought some fifty-eight years before that translation. So whether or not it was the book of Genesis that had influenced Stoic thinking, we cannot be sure. But under Chrysippus we see the concept of 'evidence from design,' [34]

an argument for that divinely inspired intent and purpose which was observable throughout the universe and which convinced the Stoic, as it convinces the creationist of today, of the scientific and philosophical correctness of his model. [35]

Later the Roman Stoic Cicero was to give this idea its highest expression in the pre-Christian era with his words.

When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers? Our friend Posidonius as you know has recently made a globe which in its revolution shows the movements of the sun and stars and planets, by day and by night, just as they appear in the sky. Now if someone were to take this globe and show it to the people of Britain or Scythia would a single one of those barbarians fail to see that it was the product of a conscious intelligence?[36]

Cicero is obviously giving voice to the idea of "intelligent design." The design in the universe and in our solar system that makes life on earth possible cries out that there is a designer. Scientists now know that many factors like the force of gravity, the speed of light, the electromagnetic field, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, to just name a few, need to have a certain strength for life to be possible on earth. It just so happens that these many physical factors are all fine-tuned to the exact frequency or force to make life possible. Just a small variation in any one of their strengths or speeds and the universe, as we know it, would cease to exist, or life would be impossible.

Like Sir Isaac Newton so wisely put it many years later.

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.[37]

Cicero was actually trying to refute the Epicurean Lucretius who was a Roman materialistic poet and contemporary of his. Lucretius said our minds cannot perceive things correctly, but the universe was purely materialistic in nature. Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods was written in 44 BC as a rebuttal to Lucretius' ideas. [38] Cicero wrote.

In the heavens there is nothing accidental, nothing arbitrary, nothing out of order, nothing erratic. Everywhere is order, truth, reason, constancy...I cannot understand this regularity in the stars, this harmony of time and motion in their various orbits through all eternity, except as the expression of reason, mind and purpose... Their constant and eternal motion, wonderful and mysterious in its regularity, declares the indwelling power of a divine intelligence. If any man cannot feel the power of God when he looks upon the stars, then I doubt whether he is capable of any feeling at all.[39]

Lucretius had said that there was an innate power in matter to create itself and arrange itself into meaningful and purposeful order without any outside aid or influence. Yet he found himself unable to trust that same matter when it came to perceiving or even explaining this fact! David Hume in the 18th century would echo these sentiments. Hume said it was only reasonable to believe in God, but since we know that God does not exist, then we cannot trust our reasoning powers. That is, he couldn't and wouldn't trust anyone's reasoning powers, but his own.[40]

The Greek materialists had taken the argument down to the atomic level, but found only greater and more mind-boggling complexity. This made it more difficult in their attempt to explain the allegedly accidental creation and mindless existence of the universe.[41] Evolutionists have the same problem today of explaining how a directionless cause could produce such a complex molecule as the DNA. In response to the materialists accidental and mindless force of nature, Cicero replied,

Is it not a wonder that anyone can bring himself to believe that a number of solid and separate particles by their chance collisions and moved only by the force of their own weight could bring into being so marvelous and beautiful a world? If anybody thinks that this is possible, I do not see why he should not think that if an infinite number of examples of the twenty-one letters of the alphabet, made of gold or what you will, were shaken together and poured out on the ground it would be possible for them to fall so as to spell out, say, the whole text of the Annals of Ennius. In fact I doubt whether chance would permit them to spell out a single verse![42]

Sounds a lot like the idea of monkeys tapping out the work of Shakespeare on a typewriter, doesn't it?[43]

Lucretius, attacking the classical creationist view of that time, proposed the idea that the earth was not fixed, as the earlier Greek philosophers had taught. He believed that the earth moved in an infinite space that possessed no center. Sounds like Edwin Hubble's, Stephen Hawking's, and Carl Sagan's center-less universe. If the earth is not near to the center of the universe, then we do not appear to be anything special. Lucretius idea was to counter the Stoic idea that the universe was finite and its edge was equidistant from the earth.[44]Lucretius explained,

It is a matter of observation that one thing is limited by another. The hills are demarcated by air, and air by the hills. Land sets bound to sea, and sea to every land. But the universe has nothing outside to limit it.[45] There can be no center in infinity.[46]

Lucretius had introduced the idea of randomness, aimlessness and sheer relativism of Carl Sagan's "pale blue dot." He moved away from the idea of the earth being fixed in space which the Greek and Roman classical science accepted. It wasn't until Copernicus' mathematical equations and Galileo's observations that this false idea of the earth being fixed at the center of the solar system was overthrown. Nevertheless the need for a Creator of the universe was not overthrown.[47]

The fact that earth is not the center of the universe, in that everything is not revolving around it, does not mean that our galaxy cannot be at the center, or near the center of the universe. Edwin Hubble, observing a red shift in distance starlight in every direction he looked, was annoyed with this apparent reality. He believed the red shift indicated that the star emanating the light was moving away from us. He said,

Such a condition (these red shifts) would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe analogous, in a sense, to the ancient Conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcomed…. But the unwelcomed supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs. Such a favored position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity, i.e. smoothness or evenness.[48]

What Hubble really meant by this was that although the evidence seems to indicate that our galaxy is near the center of the universe, it was unacceptable to him because of its philosophical implications. Like George Ellis , who worked with Stephen Hawking on the Big Bang cosmology, has said,

You cannot do physics or cosmology without an assumed philosophical basis... People need to be aware that there is a range of models that can explain the observations .... For instance, I can construct a spherically symmetric universe for you with Earth at its center, and you cannot prove otherwise based on observations, (that it is wrong) ....you can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide it.[49]

What most people don't realize is that cosmologists choose a model that agrees with  their core belief system, or initial assumptions, that are not necessarily supported by evidence, but believed none the less. Edwin Hubble, Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking do not want to confirm God in their cosmology. Therefore, they start with assumptions that the universe has no center and no edge in order to avoid a conclusion confirming the Biblical model.

But the question of who created the universe has been from the dawn of time one of man's most fundamental concerns. How did the universe come into existence? Where did its astonishing degree of order and complexity come from?[50] These questions lead to the next ones. Is there a Creator God? How can I know Him? Does He want me to live my life in a certain way to please Him? Cicero tells of man named Lucilius who said that the Creator

is, as Ennius says, "the father both of gods and men," a present and mighty God. If anyone doubts this, then so far as I can see he might just as well doubt the existence of the sun. For the one is as plain as the other. And if this were not clearly known and manifest to our intelligence, the faith of men would not have remained so constant, would not have deepened with the lapse of time, and taken ever firmer root throughout the ages and the generations of mankind.[51]

The Apostle Paul explains it in this manner,

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (all mankind)are without excuse. [52]

So ends our limited study on the knowledge of God among the early cultures. In his book  Eternity in their Hearts, Don Richardson also has done research on this topic. He has found many other cultures in South America and Asia with a similar knowledge of the Mighty God in their written and oral traditions.[53] Another interesting study which looks at the many similar Flood "myths" around the world is Charles Martin's Flood Legends: Global Clues of a Common Event which presents more collaborating information about mankind's common heritage.[54]

This ends my summary, paraphrasing, and commentary on the first chapter from British Bill Cooper's After the Flood: The early post-flood history of Europe traced back to Noah. Please read the book!

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/433064.After_The_Flood

The author lays out astonishing evidence showing how the earliest Europeans recorded their descent from Noah through Japheth in meticulously kept records, knew all about Creation and the Flood, and had encounters with creatures we would call dinosaurs. These records of other nations lend chapters 10 and 11 of Genesis a degree of accuracy that sets them apart from all other historical documents of the ancient world. In a book which is the fruit of more than 25 years of research, he traces the development of the creation / evolution controversy that raged in the ancient world, and explodes many of the myths and errors of 'modernist' biblical critics. This book shows how European history can be traced right back to the flood and the descendants of Japheth, through contemporary accounts and a table of nations.[55]

Footnotes

[1] Lao-tzu, Tao-te-ching, (tr.Leon Wieger, English version Derek Bryce) Llanerch Publishers, p.13. Cited by Bill Cooper in After the Flood, New Wine Press, England, 1995, p.16.
[2] Clarke, John; Nature in Questions, Earthscan, 1993, p.24. Cited by Cooper, p.17.
[3] Romans 1:18-20 (NIV) Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® All rights reserved worldwide.
[4] Huxley, Aldous, Ends and Means (New York, NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1937), 270. Cited in https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/aldous-huxley-admits-motive-for-anti-theistic-bias/
[5] Romans 2:13-15. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A13-15&version=NIV
[6] Cooper Bill; After the Flood,  p.17.
[7] Wallace Budge, The Gods of the Egyptians, Vol. 1, New York, 1969, p.308-313. As paraphrased by Bill Cooper, p.17.
[8] Cooper, Bill; p.18-19.
[9] Hesiod, Theogony, (tr. Norman Brown 1953), Bobbs-Merrill Co., New York, p.15. Cited by Cooper, p.19.
[10] Genesis 1:1-5 (KJV) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A1-5&version=KJV
[11] Barnes, Jonathan; Early Greek Philosophy, Penguin Classics, UK, p.95-97. Cited by Cooper, p.19.
[12] Cooper, Bill; p.19-20.
[13] Plato, Timaeus and Criteas, (tr. Trevor Saunders, 1970), Penguin Classics, UK, p.42. Cited by Cooper, p.20.
[14] Genesis 1:25b-26a (KJV) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A25b-26a&version=KJV
[15] Cooper, Bill, p.22.
[16] Cooper, Bill, p.21.
[17] Barnes, Jonathan; Early Greek Philosophy, Penguin Classics, UK, p.68. Cited by Cooper, p.21.
[18] Meyer, Stephen;  Signature in the Cell; Harper Collins, 2009, p.347
[19] Cooper, Bill, p.21.
[20] Barnes, Jonathan; Early Greek Philosophy, p.73. Cited by Cooper, p.21.
[21] Cooper, Bill, p.22.
[22] Plato, The Laws, (tr. Desmond Lee, 1965), Penguin Classics, UK, p.416. Cited by Cooper, p.22.
[23] ibid, p.417.
[24] Cooper, Bill, p.23.
[25] ibid
[26] ibid
[27] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism
[28] C.H. Spurgeon, “Election,” The New Park Street Pulpit 1 (1990): 318.Cited in https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/millions-of-years/where-did-the-idea-of-millions-of-years-come-from/
[29] G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979. Cited in https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/quotes/the-atheists-know-why-christianity-has-to-fight-evolution/
[30] Cooper, Bill; p.24-25.
[31] Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, (tr. Horace McGregor 1988),Penguin Classics,UK, p.130. Cited by Cooper, p.25.
[32] King David, Psalm 14:1
[33] Cooper, Bill; p.26.
[34] ibid, p.27
[35] ibid
[36] Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, p.159. Cited by Cooper, p.27.
[37]  Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
[38] Cooper, Bill; p.27-28
[39] Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, p.144-145. Cited by Cooper, p.29.
[40] Cooper, Bill; p.29
[41] ibid, p.30
[42]Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, p.161. Cited by Cooper, p.30-31.
[43] Cooper, Bill; p.31
[44] ibid
[45] Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, (tr. Ronald Latham, 1951) Penguin Classics, UK, p.56. Cited by Cooper, p.32.
[46] ibid
[47] Cooper, Bill; p.32.
[48] Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p.40. Cited by Gary Bates in Alien Intrusion, p.90.
[49] http://creation.com/galactocentric-cosmology
[50] Cooper, Bill; p.33.
[51] Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, p. 124. Cited by Cooper, p.33.
[52] Romans 1:20 KJV
[53] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/904375.Eternity_in_Their_Hearts
[54] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6568803-flood-legends
[55] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/433064.After_The_Flood

Read More

History of the Early British Kings by Bill Cooper

from chapter five of After the Flood, by Bill Cooper
http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/contents.html

What follows is a summary of the history of the early kings of the early Britons as it is given in both Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Welsh chronicles. It is a recorded history that was consigned to oblivion after the massacre, at the instigation of Augustine, of the British monks at Bangor in AD 604 and was thus entirely unknown or ignored by the later Saxon and Norman chroniclers of England. Consequently, it came to be generally and unquestioningly assumed amongst English scholars by the 16th and 17th centuries that no such record had ever existed, and that works such as Geoffrey of Monmouth's or the Welsh chronicle were forgeries and fairy tales. That opinion persists today. We have seen, however, in the previous chapter how these records enjoy a great deal of historical vindication in spite of modernism's cursory and fashionable dismissal of them. But here, plain and unadorned, is the story that the chronicles themselves tell, a story that no child will have learnt at his desk in any school of this land. It spans over two thousand years, and its survival to the present day, being little short of a miracle, is a tribute to those Welsh scholars of old who recognised its importance and preserved it entire for our reading.

Amongst the ancient records that the Britons themselves left behind, there is preserved (in Nennius at least) a list of the ancestors of the early British kings as they were counted generation by generation back to Japheth, the son of Noah. But the history of the Britons as a distinct nation had its beginnings with the fall of Troy, and it is at this point that Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Welsh chronicles take up the story.

Anchises, known to us from other histories, fled with his son, Aeneas, from the burning ruins of Troy, and they made their way to the land that is nowadays called Italy, settling with their people on the banks of the river Tiber around what was later to become Rome. The indigenous population was ruled over by Latinus who received Aeneas and his people with kindness and hospitality, in return for which Aeneas defeated Latinus' foe, Turnus, king of the Rutuli. He then married the daughter of Latinus, Lavinia, from which union came Aeneas Silvius who later rose to rule over all the tribes of Italy. But it was through the line of his brother Ascanius that the royal lineage was presently to be perpetuated, and of this line was born Ascanius' son Silvius. Silvius seduced an unnamed niece of his grandfather's wife, Lavinia, and it was from their union that his son Brutus was born. The mother of Brutus died whilst giving birth to him, and when he was a lad of fifteen years, Brutus accidentally shot his father dead with an arrow whilst out hunting. For having caused the deaths of both his parents, thus fulfilling a prophecy concerning him, Brutus was exiled out of Italy, the royal line of Aeneas passing into the hands of another. And it is at this point that the history of the Britons as a distinct nation begins.

Brutus journeyed from Italy to Greece, and there he came into contact with certain slaves. These were the descendants of the soldiers who had fought against Greece in the Trojan Wars of the 13th century BC. They had been enslaved by Priam, son of Achilles, 'in vengeance for his father's death', and were subsequently to continue their slavery under Pandrasus, king of the Dorian Greeks. Learning that he was descended from their own ancient kings, the Trojans accepted Brutus into their fellowship and elected him as their leader, and under him they successfully rose against their captors. Defeating Pandrasus in battle, they set sail to look for a land in which to settle. Sailing their fleet out of the Mediterranean between the Pillars of Hercules (the Straits of Gibraltar), they came across another group of Trojans led by Corineus, who were likewise escaping abroad from their captors. They combined forces and landed in Gaul with Brutus being acclaimed as their overall king. There they fought and defeated the Picts under king Goffar (Koffarffichti--Goffar the Pict--in the Welsh). The Trojans again set sail, and came ashore at Totnes in Devon at some time in the 12th century BC. The land and its people were subsequently to derive their names from Brutus. Then Brutus founded the city of Trinovantum, or New Troy, which was later to become the city of London. Brutus, the first king of the Britons, reigned over his people in this island for twenty three years, i.e. from ca 1104-1081 BC.

Amongst the spoils that Brutus had taken from Greece was Ignoge, the daughter of Pandrasus, whom he wedded and who was to bear him three sons, Locrinus, Kamber and Albanactus. Upon the death of Brutus, Kamber and Albanactus inherited Wales (Cambria) and Scotland (Albany) respectively, and Locrinus became king of Loegria, the land named after him, which consisted of present-day England minus Cornwall. (The modern Welsh still know England as Loegria). Cornwall was ruled over by Corineus whose daughter, Gwendolen, Locrinus had married. Locrinus, however, had also taken another wife, Estrildis, whom he hid for fear of Corineus. But as soon as Corineus was dead, he made Estrildis his queen and put away Gwendolen, his lawful wife. In vengeance, Gwendolen raised an army in her father's kingdom of Cornwall, killing Locrinus in the ensuing battle. Estrildis and her daughter Habren were drowned on Gwendolen's orders, and Gwendolen herself went on to rule Loegria for the next fifteen years. Then, in ca 1056 BC, she abdicated in favour of her son Maddan and retired to her native Cornwall where she died.

Little is said of Maddan other than that he ruled the land for forty years, i.e. from ca 1056-1016 BC. His sons, on his death, contended for the throne, Main his younger son being murdered by Mempricius, the elder. Mempricius (Meinbyr in the Welsh chronicle) became a noted tyrant who abandoned his wife in pursuit of unnatural vices, and he generally misruled the kingdom. Then, in the twentieth year of his reign, in about 996 BC, he was separated from his companions in a hunting party and was eaten by wolves.

He was succeeded by Ebraucus (Welsh Efrawc) who reigned for the next thirty-nine years from ca 996-957 BC. In an eventful and fondly remembered reign, Ebraucus sacked Gaul and founded the city named after him, Kaerbrauc, which the later Romans were to Latinize as Eboracum, present-day York. On his death, he was succeeded by Brutus Greenshield (Bryttys darian las in the Welsh chronicle) who reigned for the next twelve years until ca 945 BC. Then Leil succeeded to the throne. He founded the city of Kaerleil which still bears his name (Carlisle), but he was a weak and vacillating king whose twenty-five year reign ended in ruin and civil-war.

His son Hudibras, (Run baladr bras in the Welsh), who came to the throne in ca 920 BC, re-established peace in the realm and went on to rule Loegria for the next thirty-nine years. A great builder, he founded the cities of Kaerreint (Canterbury), Kaerguenit (Winchester), and Paladur (Shaftesbury). He was succeeded by his son, Bladud, in ca 881 BC, who ruled the land for twenty years. During that time, he founded the city of Kaerbadum (Bath), the hot springs of which were thought to cure leprosy. At his commandment, necromancy, communicating with the dead, was practised throughout the kingdom, and he was eventually killed in a misguided attempt to fly. At his death, Leir his son took the crown, and he was to enjoy a reign of sixty years, which lasted from ca 861-801 BC. He founded the city of Kaerleir (Leicester) and lost his kingdom when he attempted to divide it amongst his three daughters. Shakespeare tells the story in his celebrated play, King Lear.

Leir's youngest daughter, Cordelia, inherited the crown on her father's death and ruled the land in peace for five years. She was then deposed by her sisters and committed suicide in prison. Marganus I (Morgan in the Welsh) then took the kingdom in the year 796 BC, sharing the kingdom with his cousin Cunedagius (Kynedda). Marganus ruled the land north of the Humber, and Cunedagius ruled the south. Marganus, during the fighting that arose between them, was pursued into Wales by Cunedagius and slain at the place named after him, Margam near present-day Port Talbot. Cunedagius then ruled the whole kingdom for the next thirty-three years. He was succeeded in 761 BC by Rivallo (Rriallon), who reigned wisely and frugally. His reign was particularly remembered for a rain of blood, a great swarm of flies and a plague that took a heavy toll of the population. At his death in 743 BC, there followed the reigns of four kings of whom little is said save their names and their order of succession. And then, in the year 663 BC, Gorboduc (Gwrvyw in the Welsh) came to the throne. In old age he became senile, his dotage giving rise to much quarrelling over the succession between his two sons, Ferrex and Porrex. In the event, Gorboduc was to become the last king of the royal line of Brutus to reign over the Britons.

Gorboduc's queen, Judon was caused much grief over her quarrelling sons. On learning that Porrex had killed Ferrex, her favourite of the two, she became insane and later murdered Porrex in his sleep by hacking him to pieces. (Other accounts tell how she was tied in a sack and thrown into the Thames for the murder of her son). The land was then plunged into the political chaos of a two hundred year civil war. The outcome of the civil war was decided by a final conflict between five kings altogether, and from it all, in ca 440 BC, emerged Pinner, the king of Loegria. He was later slain in a battle by his successor but one, Dunvallo, in about the year 430 BC. Dunvallo's father, Cloten (Klydno in the Welsh), who was the king of Cornwall, ruled for ten years and was finally succeeded by his son, Dunvallo Molmutius (Dyfual moel myd). During a forty-year reign, he codified the Molmutine Laws, a law-code which Geoffrey of Monmouth tells us was still famed and revered in his own day, and which, surprisingly, still survives. (See Probert's Ancient Laws of Cambria. 1823). Crimes of violence were virtually unheard of in his kingdom, such was the severity of punishment meted out to such criminals while he was on the throne. Dunvallo's eldest son, Belinus (the Great), then ruled the kingdom from ca 380-374 BC. He ruled Loegria, Cambria and Cornwall. His brother Brennius held Northumbria and Albany, and eventually led the Celtic sack of Rome in ca 390 BC. Belinus eventually defeated Brennius in battle, and so came to rule all Britain. Geoffrey tells us that Belinus was a great road-builder, and that Billingsgate in London was built by and named after him. In an eventful reign, Belinus subdued the then king of Denmark, exacting from him a great tribute.

He was succeeded by Gurguit (Gwrgant Varf Drwch), whose reign lasted from ca 374-369 BC. The son and successor of Belinus, Gurguit was renowned as a man of peace and justice. During Gurguit's reign, the king of Denmark withdrew the tribute that Belinus had exacted of him, and Gurguit promptly invaded Denmark to assert his authority there. It was during his return from Denmark that Gurguit is said to have intercepted the ships of Partholan and his fellow exiles. He is then stated to have assigned to Partholan the otherwise uninhabited land of Ireland. (This, however, leads us to a problem in chronology. A suggested solution to this is offered in a later chapter.) Gurguit died peacefully and he lies buried in the city of Caerleon-on-Usk. His son Guithelin (Kyhylyn) then held the crown from ca 369-363 BC. Guithelin was a noted and benevolent ruler. He married Marcia, a learned woman who codified the Marcian Laws, the Lex Martiana. Alfred the Great was later to translate the code as the Mercian Laws, believing them to have been named after the much later Saxon kingdom of Mercia.

Queen Marcia ruled Britain for about five years after Guithelin's death because of their son's minority. But he, Sisillius (Saessyllt), came to the throne in ca 358 BC on her death, ruling for the next six years. His reign was followed by those of his sons Kinarius and Danius, and then Morvidus, his great nephew, inherited the crown. Morvidus (Morydd), who ruled from ca 341-336 BC, was the illegitimate son of Danius and Tanguesteaia, but he became king on his father's death. An otherwise heroic ruler, he was noted and feared due to the merciless cruelty that he showed towards those whom he defeated in battle. After one particular attempted invasion of his kingdom, Morvidus, against all the laws of the Celtic Britons regarding warfare, personally put to death many prisoners of war. 'When he became so exhausted that he had to give up for a time, he ordered the remainder to be skinned alive, and in this state he had them burnt'. During his reign, reports of a monstrous animal wreaking havoc in the west reached the king. (In Geoffrey of Monmouth's original Latin, the creature is called a Belua.) With typical, if hasty, bravado Morvidus fought the beast alone, but the monster killed him, and devoured his corpse 'as if he had been a tiny fish.'

Gorbonianus (Gwrviniaw) followed Morvidus in ca 336 BC. He was much renowned for his goodness as a ruler, and was succeeded by Archgallo (Arthal) who reigned from ca 330 -326 BC. He was the very opposite of his elder brother Gorbonianus, and such was his tyranny that he was eventually deposed by the nobility of the realm. His younger brother, Elidurus, was elected king in his place. He was surnamed The Dutiful because of the compassion that he showed towards his deposed elder brother. Elidurus exercised this compassion to the point of abdicating after about five years in favour of a now reformed Archgallo, whose subsequent behaviour as king was a complete reversal of his former reign. Archgallo died after about ten years, at which point Elidurus resumed the crown. However, his reign was to be interrupted once again.

His two younger brothers, Ingenius and Peredurus, rebelled and incarcerated Elidurus in a tower. Dividing the land between them, Ingenius ruled the south whilst Peredurus ruled north of the Humber. Ingenius died seven years later, and Peredurus went on to reign over the whole island for a further three years, being known as a wise and beneficent king. He died in ca 296 BC, and Elidurus came to the throne for a third time. At this point, the order of succession becomes rather complicated, with cousin succeeding cousin. Finally the succession seems to settle down to a father-son order, at least for the next thirty-one reigns, the short length of the average reign (5-6 years) indicating political turmoil for that period of one hundred and seventy years or so, until the accession of Heli (Beli Mawr in the Welsh) in about the year 113 BC. He ruled for forty years until 73 BC when his son Lud became king. Lud rebuilt the city that Brutus had founded and had named New Troy, and renamed it Kaerlud, the city of Lud, after his own name. The name of the city was later corrupted to Kaerlundein, which the Romans took up as Londinium, hence London. At his death, Lud was buried in an entrance to the city that still bears his name, Ludgate. His youngest brother, Nennius (Nynnyaw), fought hand to hand with Julius Caesar on the latter's invasion of Britain in the year 55 BC. The Romans had been trying to set up camp in the Thames estuary when the Britons fell upon them by surprise. Although Nennius was forced away from Caesar by other soldiers, he did manage to capture the emperor's sword. Escaping, Nennius died of his wounds fifteen days later and was buried beside the northern entrance to Trinovantum (modern Bishopsgate in London?). The sword that he took as spoils, and which he had named Yellow Death, was buried with him. But the man who was actually king of the Britons when Caesar landed, was Cassivelaunus (Kasswallawn) who reigned from ca 58-38 BC. Betrayed by Androgeus, his brother Lud's eldest son, Cassivelaunus was eventually starved into submission when the Romans laid siege to his fort.

He was succeeded by Tenvantius, known in other histories as Tasciovanus, who reigned from ca 38-18 BC. And then he was followed by Cymbeline (Kynvelyn who reigned ca 18 BC-AD 12). Known to the Romans asCunobelinus, he was the son and heir of Tenvantius. Cymbeline had received a Roman upbringing in the Imperial household, and on his succession to the British crown, he reigned for ten years. (His reign was. immortalised in Shakespeare's play, Cymbeline.) The man who succeeded him was Guiderius (Gwydr) who reigned from ca AD 12 - 43. On inheriting the crown, he promptly refused toamp; pay tribute to Rome. The emperor Claudius, on his invasion of Britain in the year AD 43, was attacked by Guiderius' forces at Portchester. During the attack, Guiderius was betrayed and killed. Arvirargus next took the crown reigning from ca AD 43-57. Taking command of the British forces on the death of his brother Guiderius, Arvira emerged as victor from a major skirmish with Claudius' troops. He eventually ruled Britain as the emperor's puppet-king. At his death, he was interred at Gloucester. Marius (Mayric) came next, and ruled from ca AD 57-97. Inheriting the crown from his father, Marius enjoyed friendly relations with Rome. During his reign, he defeated and killed Soderic, king of the Picts, in a great battle. The present county of Westmorland was so named in Marius' honour because of the battle, and Marius accordingly had an inscribed stone set up in the county commemorating his victory.

Coilus, his son, then ruled. He had been raised and educated as a Roman. Coilus was to rule his kingdom in peace and prosperity, being succeeded by his son Lucius. Taking up the crown on his father Coilus' death, Lucius was to send to Rome for teachers of the Christian faith. He in turn passed on the crown to Geta, a son of the Roman Severus. He was elected king of the Britons by the Roman Senate. He was eventually killed by his half-brother Bassianus who reigned from ca AD 221-256. Like Geta, he was a son of Severus, but by a British noblewoman. The Britons elected Bassianus king after he had killed his half-brother. Carausius then took the crown. After raising a fleet of ships with the blessing of the Roman Senate, Carausius invaded Britain. He compelled the Britons to proclaim him king, and killed Bassianus in the ensuing battle. He was eventually murdered by the Roman legate, Allectus, and it was during Allectus' time that a Briton once more held the throne.

Asclepiodotus (Alyssglapitwlws) reigned from ca AD 296-306. He had held the kingdom of Cornwall when he was elected overall king by the Britons. His election to the throne an attempt by the Britons to break the tyranny of the Allectus. Under Allectus, Livius Gallus held the city of London. In the ensuing siege, after he had killed Allectus outside the city, Asclepiodotus promised the Romans that all the garrison would be spared if they surrendered without further resistance. This was agreed to, although the Venedoti men of Gwynedd in Wales decided to put the Romans to by beheading them all. The heads were thrown into the stream calledNantgallum in the British tongue after the name of Livius Gallus. The later Saxons, still perpetuating the Roman leader's name, knew it as Galabroc, and today this name has been further corrupted to Waibrook. As an aside, in the 1860s a large number of skulls were excavated from the bed of the Waibrook before it was built over, being the remnants no doubt of this massacre. It was during the reign of Asclepiodotus that the Diocletian Persecution began in AD 303.

Asclepiodotus was finally defeated and killed by the king whose name has been immortalised in the nursery rhyme, Coel (Old King Cole), who reigned from ca AD 306-309. Known in other histories as Coel Hen Godhebog, Coel founded the city of Colchester that still bears his name (Kaercolim). His daughter, Helen, was married to Constantius, a Roman Senator, who was sent to Britain as legate. He became king on Coel's death. He in turn was succeeded by his son Constantine (I), who ruled Britain from ca AD 312-37. He went on to become the famous emperor of Rome who legalised the Christian religion. Octavius (Eydaf) took the crown in Constantine's absence at Rome, ruling during the periods of ca AD 330-335 and 335-348. He revolted whilst Constantine was in Rome, and assumed the British crown. In AD 348, he was succeeded by Maximianus (Maxen Wledic), the nephew of Coel, who held the crown by virtue of that descent. He eventually left Britain to rule in Gaul and Germany, making Caradocus (Kradawc) king of the Britons in his stead in about the year AD 362. He was later assassinated in Rome (AD 375) by one of the friends of his successor but one, Gracianus. Dionotus (unnamed in the Welsh chronicle) of the kingdom of Cornwall took the crown of Britain and ruled from ca AD 375-389. Then Gracianus reigned from ca AD 389-402. He was originally sent to Britain by Maximianus to fight off an invasion of the Picts and Huns. However, upon successfully repelling the invaders he assumed the crown and ordered the murder of Maximianus. He was later himself to suffer death at the hands of an assassin.

Constanine (II) (Kystennin) then ruled from ca AD 402 -420, having invaded Britain at the request of Guithelinus, the Archbishop of London, and was crowned king at Silchester. He was murdered by an unknown Pict. He was then succeeded by Constans (Konstant Vynarch), ca AD 420-437, Constantine II's eldest son, who had tried to avoid the perils of the crown by becoming a monk at Winchester. He was forcibly removed from the monastery and crowned by Vortigern who, however, later ordered his murder. Vortigern himself (Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenav) ruled for two periods, ca AD 437-455 and 460-480. It was Vortigern who invited the Saxon adventurers, Hengist and Horsa, to Britain to help fight the Picts. At this point, his son Vortimer took over the kingdom, expelling the Saxons after four notable battles, one of them being the battle of Aylesford in Kent where his brother Katigern was slain. Vortimer was eventually poisoned on the orders of his father's new wife, the daughter of Hengist, and Vortigern once again resumed the crown. After a disastrous reign during which the Britons began to lose their land irretrievably to the Saxons, Vortigern was burned alive in a tower by Aurelius Ambrosius. This king (Emrys Wledic in the Welsh) reigned from ca AD 480-501. Surnamed Ainbrosius, he was too young at the death of Constans in AD 437 to take up the crown. He was therefore smuggled abroad, and was raised in the household of king Budicius of Britanny. Eventually declared king of Britain, Ambrosius killed Vortigern and forced the Saxons to retreat to Albany (Scotland), at the same time capturing and executing Hengist at Kaerconan, present-day Conisborough. He was eventually poisoned by Eoppa the Saxon on the orders of Paschent, the youngest son of Vortigern.

Aurelius Ambrosius was succeeded in ca AD 501 by his brother, Uther Pendragon. Named Uther at birth, he was king of the Silures. He assumed the surname pen-Dragon (son of the dragon) after the appearance of a dragon-like comet in the sky. Like his brother Aurelius, he had been smuggled abroad on the murder of Constans. Once king, however, he consorted adulterously with Ygerna (Eigr) the wife of Gorlois, duke of Cornwall. Gorlois was killed by Uther Pendragon's soldiers at Dimiioc (Tinblot in the Welsh chronicle) as Uther Pendragon was seducing Ygerna. But of their union was born the most famous of the British kings, Arthur, who reigned over the Britons from ca AD 521-542. Arthur succeeded his father as. king at only fifteen years of age. His sister Anna married Budicius II of Britanny. The narrative is somewhat confused,. but she seems later to have married Loth of Lodonesia who was later to become king of Norway.

At his death, Arthur passed the crown to Constantine (III), the son of the 'duke' of Cornwall. Constantine, whose reign lasted four years, crushed a revolt of the Saxons, but was later struck down 'by God's vengeance'. He was succeeded in AD 546 by his nephew, Aurelius Conanus (Kynan Wledic in the Welsh), who, however, only came to the throne by imprisoning his unnamed uncle, the son of Constantine, the true heir. His reign was followed in ca 549 very briefly by that of Vortiporius, who repelled an invasion from Germany. His subsequent fate is unrecorded, although he can have reigned for only a year or less. But he was followed by Malgo, whose reign lasted from ca AD 550-555. According to a speech recorded for us by Geoffrey of Monmouth, Malgo had two sons, Ennianus and Run, neither of whom succeeded him. Malgo is elsewhere known as Maelgwn Gwynedd, the king of Gwynedd who died from the Yellow Plague that was ravaging Europe during the 550s. He was succeeded by Keredic, whose origin is unrecorded, who retired into Wales after a battle, and whose reign was followed by those of three unnamed 'tyrants'.

Then, shortly after the year AD 600, came Cadvan. Known in the Welsh chronicles as Cadfan ab lago, king of Gwynedd, he was of north Welsh descent. He began as king of the Venedoti (men of Gwynedd) and succeeded to the kingship of all the Britons by engaging in battle Ethelfrith, the Saxon king of Northumbria, who, with Ethelbert of Kent, carried out the massacre of the British monks at Bangor in AD 604. Ethelfrith and Cadvan divided the country between them, Cadvan ruling over the southern half. His reign lasted until ca AD 625. He married a Saxon noblewoman of the Gewissae. He was followed by Cadwallo who died of old age in the year AD 633. But he was succeeded by Cadwallader (Kydwaladr vendigaid) whose reign was divided into two periods from ca AD 633-643 and 654-664. Twelve years after he inherited the crown, Cadwallader was struck down with an unspecified illness, and during his incapacity the Britons fell to warring amongst themselves. Due to the civil war and due no doubt to the consequent neglect and destruction of the crops, the country was ravaged by a long-remembered famine that was followed by the plague. For safety's sake, Cadwallader sought refuge on the continent, entering Brittany where he was received with much kindness by king Alan II. Eleven years later, Alan persuaded Cadwallader to return to Britain and resume his reign. His stay in Brittany would thus have fallen between the years AD 643-654. He was then followed by Yvor, who, with his cousin Yni, ruled over the remaining Britons who had finally been driven into Wales. It was, indeed, during Yvor's reign that the British came to be known disparagingly as the Welsh, from an ancient Saxon word meaning a barbaric foreigner. Between them, Yvor and Yni became a persistent nuisance to the Saxons, harassing them for many years, ...but little good did it do them!



And that, in a nutshell, is what the early chronicles tell us about the kings of the Britons. The chronicles themselves, of course, tell a much fuller story, but there is little extraordinary in any of it. Indeed, as we saw in the previous chapter, there is much of it that can be historically verified. So we are presented with the simple question as to why a two thousand year recorded history has been so pointedly ignored by modern scholars. Why is it that the history of Britain is an entirely blank page before the year 55 BC in any conventional modern history book when such an easily accessible and informative record is at hand? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the Britons traced their ancestry in these pre-Christian records back to patriarchs that are known to us from the Genesis record but of whom the Britons should have known nothing in their pre-Christian culture if what the modernists have always told us was true? This genealogy is laid out in Appendix 7 of this present book. But this is only part of the great matter that is omitted from modern reckoning and of which the public is unaware. We shall see that there is much else besides regarding the histories and genealogies of other European peoples that is also ignored but which likewise verifies the Genesis account.

Read More