HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaterials Distributed at Meeting Materials Distributed
At City Council Meeting
02/ 16/2016
of ARc
4 4 r,:toor4.,aQ�Y
;y�.va a
''��Aue�ytt �„
.,1A
e"
unity of W3 MEMORANDUM
Development Services Department
DATE: February 16, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR ITEM 2c - ARCADIA LOGISTICS
CENTER
The attached email was received from CalTrans this afternoon regarding
mitigation of cumulative impacts to the freeway system; in particular, the 1-605
between the 1-210 and I-10. As suggested by CalTrans, and in consultation with
the City Attorney, it is recommended that the following be added as a condition
of approval to Exhibit "A-1" of Resolution No. 7116 and of Ordinance No. 2334:
6. The Developer shall be responsible for paying a fair share cost to prepare
a study of improvements to the 1-605 Corridor, initiated by Caltrans and the
City of Irwindale. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer
shall pay the fair share cost if by then determined. If prior to the first building
permit, the amount of the fair share cost to prepare such a study has not
been determined, the developer shall deposit with the City an amount
estimated by the City to cover such fair share cost.
Jim Kasama
From: Lin,Alan S @DOT<alan.lin @dot.ca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16,2016 3:28 PM
To: Jim Kasama
Cc: Watson, DiAnna @DOT; Kam, Lily L @DOT;Verma,Santosh C @DOT
Subject: Arcadia Logistic Center-Caltrans Comment on Response to Comment
Attachments: SKMBT_C36015030518080.pdf
Dear Mr. Kasama,
My pleasure talking to you and the City Engineer today. It is our intent to assist the City to disclose the traffic impact
properly and find feasible mitigation caused by the Arcadia Logistic Center. Here are Caltrans feedback on the Response
to Comment and our recommendation.
1. According to Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, December 2002, Caltrans endeavors
to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS"C" and LOS "D" or existing LOS(if an existing State
highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS) on the State highway facilities.
2. Cumulative traffic impact should be compared between the existing condition and the future condition with
project.
3. Threshold of fair share contribution should be based on the worse of AM/PM peak hour trips assigning to the
State facilities when making contribution.
4. Again, please be aware that CEQA does not require that a fee program be adopted for local jurisdictions to
require fee contributions as mitigation.
5. Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2 that involved with Caltrans' facilities should be discussed and consulted with
Caltrans.
And/Or here is our Recommendation:
We understand the project will contribute significant cumulative traffic impact to 1-10 and 1-605. Attached is a letter
from the City of Irwindale proposing regional traffic improvement for 1-605 corridor between 1-10 and 1-210. Caltrans
would like the City of Arcadia to include this study as part of the mitigation measure for cumulative traffic impact. We
will not ask any mitigation on 1-10 at this time.
To address Caltrans traffic concerns,we would strongly suggest the City to consider this recommendation and work with
Caltrans and neighboring Cities to mitigate cumulative traffic impact on the State facilities.
Thank you
Alan Lin, P.E.
Project Coordinator
State of California
Department of Transportation
District 7, Office of Transportation Planning
Mail Station 16
100 South Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 897-8391 Office
(213) 897-1337 Fax
i
IRWINNDALE
March 5, 2015
Ms. Dianna Watson, IGR/CEQA Branch Chief,
California Department of Transportation
District 7 —Office of Transportation Planning
100 Main Street, MS #16
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Ms. Watson:
RE: FUTURE IRWINDALE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AFFECTING
CALTRANS FACILITIES
Recently, Caltrans staff expressed concerns with the City's future development
projects' that might potentially impact State facilities. To be specific, Caltrans is
concerned with how the potential cumulative projects will impact existing State
facilities (i.e. 1-605, 1-210, and 1-10). Based on consultation with your staff Mr.
Alan Lin and Mr. Elmer Alvarez, the City has developed a course of action to
better address your department's concerns if any future development projects
cause impacts to State facilities. Below is what the City has agreed to based on
our various discussions with your staff.
1) City to consider a resolution to adopt a Development Impact Fee Program
to ensure that future development projects will be responsible for its fair
share cost to fund and pay for the construction or needed expansion of
offsite capital improvements, including affected State facilities.
2) City to incorporate comments from Caltrans when considering future
General Plan Updates, and/or updates to the City's Circulation Element in
relation to future projects that might be affecting State facilities.
3) City to work closely with Caltrans in identifying potential cumulative traffic
impacts and mitigation measures on State facilities for any future
development projects that might potentially impact State facilities.
4) City to assure that all future development traffic studies will follow Caltrans
Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002) and
Caltrans consultation.
oY 7 rvv,
5050 NORTH IRWINDALE AVE., IRWINDALE,CA 91706 i } PHONE:(626)430-2200 FACSIMILE:(626)9624209
�allr re
t
I
Caltrans Letter-Future Development Projects
Page 2
5) City to work closely with Caltrans to conduct a Feasibility Study and/or
PSR to evaluate potential traffic impacts and improvements on 1-605
between 1-10 and 1-210. This will address Caltrans' traffic concerns on the
cumulative traffic impacts on State facilities at the regional level. This
Feasibility Study includes, but is not limited to, studying the current on/off-
ramps with a possibility of adding another off-ramp on S/B 1-605 to Live
Oak Avenue and/or Arrow Highway. In addition, City is to work with
Caltrans to develop the design plans and specifications for the
construction of this project. The City will secure sufficient funding to
conduct this study, which will also include requiring prospective projects to
pay its project fair share cost.
In closing, the City wants to express our sincere appreciation for the
department's guidance and support of our development projects and aspires to
continue with this positive collaborative relationship. Please be assured that the
City is fully committed to complete the Feasibility Study as stated above. If you
have any additional questions, please contact me at (626) 430-2212.
Best Regar•s,
r►
Wi AP.E., T.E.
P . ► orks Director/City Engineer
cc: Eva Carreon, Acting City Manager
Fred Galante, City Attorney
Gus Roma, Community Development Director
of EL Jesus M. Gomez
: ,c NE M0" CITY OF EL MONTE City Manager
* CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
d
9«' 1!1`
.4011 w
TRA%
February 16, 2016
(DELIVERED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING)
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Arcadia
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
Subject: Comment Letter of the City of El Monte for the Arcadia Logistics Project at
12321 Lower Azusa Road
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
On May 11, 2015, the City of El Monte submitted a comment letter in response to the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) issued with an accompanying Initial Study for the Arcadia Logistics Project
(the "Project"), which is located immediately east and north of the City of El Monte. On
December 22, 2015, the City of El Monte submitted a second comment letter in response to the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being circulated. Also, two community meetings were
held in 2015 for El Monte residents to ask questions and voice concerns regarding potential
project impacts.
Throughout the process the City of El Monte has asked that impacts to residents who live outside
the City of Arcadia be fairly and fully evaluated as the City of Arcadia considers the balance of
potential benefits of the Project to the City of Arcadia in light of the adverse and unavoidable
impacts of the Arcadia Logistics Center Project upon persons who reside outside the City of
Arcadia. This includes potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils,
hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, traffic and circulation, noise, and public
services.
The City of El Monte acknowledges that various changes are now proposed to be incorporated
into the text of the final Specific Plan document and the Final EIR, including the revised
Mitigation Measures based upon community input from El Monte and others.
However at this time, the City of El Monte has not been able to resolve a number of issues
related to a proposed agreement between the Applicant, Yellow Iron Investments, LLC and the
City of El Monte regarding issues of particular concern to the City of El Monte. While the City
of El Monte believes that an agreement with the applicant maybe close at hand, such agreement
has not yet been finalized and accordingly on behalf of the City of El Monte I request that the
11333 VALLEY BOULEVARD,EL MONTE,CALIFORNIA 91731-3293((626)580-2001!FAx(626)453-3612
WEBSITE:www.ci.el-monte.ca.us
February 16, 2016
Page 2
RE: Comment Letter of the City of El Monte for the Arcadia Logistics Project at 12321 Lower
Azusa Road
public hearing for the certification of the Final EIR and approval of the other development
entitlements for the Arcadia Logistics Center Project be continued to a future date. I believe that
a continuance until March 2, 2016, would be sufficient for purposes of the City of El Monte.
Should you have any question or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
ely,
Ifit
Jes 1M. Gomez
City Manager
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of El Monte
John Edwards, Yellow Iron
Jason Krukeberg, City of Arcadia, Assistant City Manager/Community Development
Director
Jim Kasama, City of Arcadia, Community Development Administrator
Jason C. Mikaelian, AICP
Minh Thai, Economic Development Director
11333 VALLEY BOULEVARD,EL MONTE,CALIFORNIA 91731-3293/(626)580-2001/FAX(626)453-3612
WEBSITE:www.ci.el-monte.ca.us
. .
TRANS-WORLD EXPOSITOR
Vol. 2. No 18. wings797 @yahoo.com July 1, 2012
130 W. Huntington Dr, # 120 Romans 12:2 Arcadia, CA 91007
Chinese History!
Re-Visited —And Then,
Re-Calculated !
This article reviews the origin of the
•1St dynasty of the Chinese Nation and
lists the succeeding dynasties, one by
one, until the surfacing of the Roman
Empire in 256 B.C. The article goes
on to illustrate the laughable fable of
Pre-Historic time corrupting History
long before the Tower of Babel epic!
Edited by
Bernard H. Kelly
Everyone owes a great deal of respect to the Chinese nation for being the only people
whose chronological records have been preserved without of restoration from the time of the
Tower of Babel until now! Generally speaking, and in overall accuracy, the history of the
Chinese nation is found in the Shoo King which means, literally, the "Canon of History".
Chinese History & Civilization Begins!
The most spectacular confirmation of the beginning of man's civilization may also be
found in the history of China. For the Chinese also begin their authentic history exactly 2254
years B.C., coinciding exactly with Julius Africanus' date. This is no coincidence. China's
first king was "black." In Chinese verbal-oral traditions, his eyes shown with "double
brightness". They called him Shun, and his father's name is spelled Chusou or Kusou or
"Cush". In the days of Cush, lived a very famous woman whose name may be translated as
either "the mother of the king of the west," or the "queen mother of the west." (Annels of the
Bamboo Books — The Chinese Classics, by James Legge, vol. III, part I, pages 114-115).
Of course China has had her literary critics who have sought to reinterpret the ancient
records. But their attempts have been consistently rejected as unwarranted opposition to the
traditional history of the Shoo King. Only China's unusual reverence for tradition — and
superstition — could have preserved their framework of history for more than 4,200 years!
It is true that some of the events in China's history are legendary. Nevertheless, no other
people's secular history is more accurate than China's. The Chinese recorded their history in
a form similar to the Hebrews' accounts in the books of the Christian Old Testament Bible.
Each ruler is evaluated for his "moral conduct." His special contributions, good or bad, are
simply and thoroughly evaluated. Such evaluations are, of course, subjective and may reflect
later political thinking. But politics, in the modern western sense, was unknown in China.
The Chinese reckon the reigns of their rulers in calendar years beginning at
approximately the winter solstice. In the earliest period it fell in what would have been the
later weeks of January ( Ibid. p. 99, vol. 3, part 1). As centuries went by, the Chinese regnal
year came to approximate a January-to January year. Later still, the solstice dropped back
into December.
Late in Chinese historiography it became the practice to add to the list of early rulers the
legendary names of heroes from before the flood known as, "The Great Noachian Deluge"!
Most of these late additions are manifestly invalid for no nation without the Hebrew record
had access to the information after the Noachian Deluge and after the Tower of Babel record.
The 14 Chinese King!
The first man of whom Chinese sources speak is Yao, or Yaou. The traditional
information on Yao is nebulous. When referring to the Mongols, the Arabian historians
speak of Magog and Yagog. It is likely that the Yagog of Arabic tradition is the personage
whom the Chinese tradition knows as Yao because the results of a great universal flood were
still apparent in Yao's day: "The deluge assailed the heavens, and in its vast expanse
encompassed the mountains, and overtopped the hills" — as read in the Canon of Yao.
In the lifetime of Yao a stranger named Shun came to power. The meaning of his name is
obscure. Later legends found in the Shoo King attempt to create Shun a native Chinese hero.
But the earliest records (as in the Bamboo Annals) make it clear he was a black foreigner.
His mother was "Queen of the West land; his father was Kusou, or Chusou — Cush. From
Babylonian traditions we learn that Cush and his son Nimrod shared jointly in the
government together until Nimrod displaced his father. In Chinese records as in Genesis,
only Nimrod (apparently Shun) appears — for he was certainly the mainspring of the
rebellion. After Babel Nimrod reigned but 50 years over the Chinese people — 2254-2204
B.C. Thereafter, through migration, the Chinese appear to have gained independence.
The following list of Chinese rulers is derived from Shoo King, translated by James
Legge in Chinese Classics, vol. III, ch. 1, pp.184-188. Later history of China is recognized
by all reputable scholars as valid; but only the early disputed portion is included in this essay.
2
A native Chinese family came to power in 2204 B.C. known as the Hsia Dynasty. It
governed 439 years —2204-1765 B.C. (some historians date these years one year earlier).
Kings—Hsia Dynasty Lengths of Reign Dates —B.C.
Hsia— The first Chinese
Dynasty - probably when
the term `Asia' emerged! 439 2204-1765
Yu 8 2204-2196
Ch'I 9 2196-2187
T'ai K'ang 29 2187-2158
Chung K'ang 13 2158-2145
Hsiang 27 2145-2118
Hong-Yi, a usurper 0 2118
Han Cho - a 2nd usurper; 40 2118-2078
assassinates Hong-Yi
Shao K'ang 22 2078-2056
Ch'u 17 2056-2039
Huai 26 2039-2013
Mang 18 2013-1995
Hsieh 16 1995-1979
Pu Chiung 59 1979-1920
Chiung 21 1920-1899
Chin 21 1899-1878
K'ung Chia 31 1878-1847
Kao 11 1847-1836
Fa 19 1836-1817
Chieh Kuei 52 1817-1765
3
At this point, the Shang (or Yin) Dynasty replaces Hisa Dynasty. The Shang Dynasty is
where most contemporary historians `incorrectly' claim Chinese history actually begins.
Kings— Shang (or Yin) Dynasty Reign Dates- B.C.
Ch'en T'ang 13 1765-1752
In this reign, China suffered from seven years of famine, shortly before
that of Egypt (Jackson's Chronology of Most Ancient Nations, vol. II, p. 455).
Tai Chia 33 1752-1719
Wu Ting 29 1719-1690
T'ai Keng 25 1690-1665
Hsiao Chia 17 1665-1648
Yung Chi 12 1648-1636
T'ai Mou 75 1636-1561
Chung Ting 13 1561-1548
Wai Jen 15 1548-1533
Ho Tan Chia 9 1533-1524
Tsu Yi 19 1524-1505
Tsu Hison 16 1505-1489
Wu Chia 25 1489-1464
Tsu Ting 32 1464-1432
Nan Keng 25 1432-1407
Yang Chia 7 1407-1400
P' Keng 28 1400-1372
4
Kings— Shang (or Yin) Dynasty Reign Dates —B.0
Hsaio Hsin 21 13 72-13 51
Hsiao Yi 28 1351-1323
Wu Ting 59 1323-1264
Tsu Keng 7 1264-1257
Tsu Chia 33 1257-1224
Lin Hsin 6 1224-1218
Keng Ting 21 1218-1197
Wu Yi 4 1197-1193
T'ai Ting 3 1193-1190
Ti Yi 37 1190-1153
Ti Hsin (Chou) 32 1153-1121
At this point in Chinese history, the Chou Dynasty replaces the Shang (or Yin) Dynasty
Kings — Chou Dynasty Reign Dates —B.C.
Wu Fa 7 1121-1114
Ch'eng 37 1114-1007
Kang Chao 26 1077-1051
Chou H'ia 51 1051-1000
Mu Man 55 1000-945
The above King (Mu Man) was unusually fond of horses and chariots. He lived during
the time of King Solomon who exported horses and chariots throughout the world.
5
Kings — Chou Dynasty Reign Dates — B.C.
Kung I Hu 12 945-933
I His 25 933-908
Hsiao P'ih 15 908-893
I Sieh 16 893-877
Li Hu 51 877-826
Husan Tsing 46 826-780
Yu Kung Nieh 11 780-769
P'ing Hsuang Chiu 51 769-718
Huan Lin 23 718-695
Chuang T'o 15 695-680
Hsi Hu Ch'I 5 680-675
Hui Lang 25 675-650
Hsiang Ching 33 650-618
At this point in Chinese history (still the Chou Dynasty), the reign of the Kings on this
chart are reckoned as corresponding to Roman years — January through December.
Ch'ing Jen K'uang 6 617-612
K'uang Pan 6 611-606
Ting Yu 21 605-585
Chien I 14 584-571
Ling Hsiel Sin 27 570-544
Ching Kewi 25 543-519
6
•
Kings — Chou Dynasty Reign Dates —B.C.
Ching Ch'ih 44 518-475
Yuan Jen 7 474-468
Chen Ting Chiai 28 467-440
K'ao Wei 15 439-425
Wei Lieh Wu 24 424-401
An Chiao 26 400-375
Lieh His 7 374-368
Hsien Pien 48 367-320
Shen Ching Ting 6 319-314
Nan Yen 58 313-256
At this point in Chinese history, there is little disputation regarding the accuracy of dates
regarding the contemporary ruling dynasties of Kings as they came, ruled, and went, right up
to modern times. A list of succeeding dynasties may be found summarized in, "The Year
Names of China and Japan", compiled by P.M. Susuki. A simple uncritical outline of each
emperor's reign is also preserved in John Jackson's, "Chronology of Most Ancient Nations".
But why is it that few modern writers cover the earliest period, except James Legge's
original translation of the Shoo King in the "Chinese Classics", as revealed in this essay? If
described at all by any of the early historians to outline China's beginnings, the information
is regrettably limited to studies of potsherds and bronze statuary! But why would otherwise
intelligent scholars not only reject the obvious `simple truth' of Legge's Chinese Classics,
but also reject the `revealed truth' of Chinese origins found in the Christian Bible?
Ancient History in Disarray'!
The reason is that modern scholarship and world-view of history is in disarray — dignified
by the phrase, "learned controversy." The disagreement over the meaning of practically
everything is so wide range, so acute, that the famous archaeologist George E. Mendenhall
wrote, "that it may, with perhaps less courtesy but more accuracy, be called chaos!
"Biblical History in Transition" (The Bible & The Ancient Near East; —Edited by G. Ernest
Wright, pp. 33, 38).
7
Sadly, in today's academia and educational institutions, there is little respect for the
history of China and even more disrespect for Biblical Chronologies! As an example, one
modern author of ancient history claims: "Chinese recorded history begins with the Shang
Dynasty which covered the period from the sixteenth to the eleventh centuries B.C." (World
Religions From Ancient History to the Present— Geoffrery Parrender — ch. 17, pp. 306).
Not only does secular annals confirm the Shang Dynasty was not the beginning of
Chinese history as proved earlier in this essay, but also the plain teachings as seen in the
Hebrew Bible outlined by Moses in Genesis, chapter 10, verses 1 through 5, also confirm it!
Thinking historians know that the `sons of Japheth, (Noah's first born son - Genesis 10, verse
21), was the father of the Asiatic peoples; such as in the nation of Jap-an! Why is this so?
Because the Bible account of Chinese history has been discounted and rejected because it
has not been understood — in the same way the learned intellects have also discounted the
authenticity of other known secular historical works like James Legge's Chinese Classics!
Legge's work is known and accepted by a relatively small group of historians — sad to say!
As in the case of the Bible, scripture tells us: "And even as they (modem intellectuals,
scholars, and contemporary historians) did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God
gave them over to a reprobate mind"; in many Bible margins it is rendered: "a mind void of
judgment" (Romans 1:28). Again, in the Lamsa Translation of the Bible we read in 1
Corinthians 2:14: "For the material man rejects spiritual things,for they are foolishness to
him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
A Radical New View!
The modern world-view of history without God and the Bible is a radically new concept
of human experience. Almost no one today, it seems, has ever considered whether this new
interpretation is right. It is merely assumed to be right. Students in particular, and the public
in general, have been led to believe that archaeologists, paleontologists, historians, scientists
and theologians live with full assurance and absolute conviction that this new interpretation
of history without God and the Bible is unblemished! Nothing could be farther from the truth:
On the contrary, all historical principles found in the Bible are absolute "Truth" (John 17:17)!
Candid Admissions!
One would be shocked to hear the candid admissions and private confessions of so called,
learned scholars. These men appear to write and speak with confidence. They are assumed
to know the answers to history's greatest questions: How did man originate? Why is man
here? Where is man going? But they do not know. They have no scientific way of
discovering the answers. They are only guessing— as in the case of Chinese chronology!
One famous historian, Hendrik Van Loon, dared to confess this in his book, Story of
Mankind. Here are his candid words: "We live under the shadow of a gigantic question
mark. What are we? Where did we come from? Whither are we bound"? And Van Loon's
8
answer: "We still know very little but we have reached the point where, with a fair degree of
accuracy, we can guess at many things. " Rather an astounding statement — but true! Yet
these "guesses" are masquerading today as authoritative interpretations of history — as seen
in the chronologies of many nations —including those relating to the Chinese nation.
A Living Example!
A living example of this "new interpretation" of history without God is the modern idea
that man existed upon the earth for thousands, even millions, of years long before the
creation story as recorded by Moses in Genesis 1. This concept is predicated on the
assumption that the term "prehistoric time", has been pre-established as truth due to fossil
remains of so called "ape-men" and other fossils and artifacts thought to have existed long
before Genesis 1: Some historians claim China began shortly after these `pre-historic' times!
Almost everyone takes "prehistoric time" for granted but few have ever questioned it.
As generally defined and used by historians, `prehistoric time" is said to refer to earliest
antiquity that is nowhere documented in written records". Did this kind of"prehistoric time"
ever actually exist in the world of reality? Any logical mind with only the basic knowledge
of astronomy knows that time, as observed and experienced on this earth by man, must be
coeval with that which measures time: Time cannot be measured until time exists!
Astronomers know that time is measured by the movements of the heavenly bodies which
were created for that purpose in the book of Genesis, chapter 1. Therefore, "prehistoric time"
is irreconcilable with the Biblical account of creation for there is no period of time that is not
documented in the Bible. How and why did the theory of "prehistoric time" originate and
most importantly, when was it invented? Stuart Piggott, noted British archaeologist,
summarized the development of this disputed theory in his book, Approach to Archaeology:
"The first step was the realization that non-documented antiquity could in fact exist at all;
that the whole creation and the sum of human history was not in fact contained within the
Biblical narrative: This was the repudiation of the theological model of the past". (p. 53).
The fallacy of"prehistory" is also clearly explained in the Encyclopedia Americana:
"...it is no longer accurate or logical to use the term `prehistoric' unless it is employed to des-
ignate that vague and hypothetical period in the beginnings of human development of which
there exists no positive and tangible record"...(Article—"History, its rise and development").
So then, discerning scholars are forced to admit that the term "prehistory" denotes nothing
more than a "vague and hypothetical period of which there exists no positive and tangible
record"! But what about the so called periods or "ages" designated the Paleolithic (Old
Stone), the Mesolithic (Intermediate Stone), the Neolithic (New Stone), the Chaliolithic
(Stone and Copper), and the so called Bronze and the Iron ages? Are these "ages" really
periods of time — or are they really a time when certain `cultures' were extant in the world?
Cultures, Not "Ages"!
9
These terms do not represent "Ages"! They are cultural appellations. It is a historical
deception to speak of the "Stone Age". There are only Stone Cultures. One noted historian
says: "These names are excellent to identify cultures, but their use to designate periods of
time (ages) has led to much inaccuracy and confusion, as the dates of the cultures differ
widely in different parts of the world" (Encyclopaedia of World History, William Langer,
page 2). Thus, Langer's words prove that China did not originate during `Pre-History' times!
Professor Langer also tells us, in no uncertain terms, that Civilized man did not descend
from degraded, "primitive" tribes! But degraded tribes did descend from civilized men of
low birth and degenerate habits. They were anciently driven out from the Middle East with
its rising civilization, only to be rediscovered in tropical forests and other remote areas during
these latter days. "Evolution is in the last analysis not a matter of evidence, but a matter of
inference", so says George Perrigo Conger in his book: (New Views of Evolution, pp. 91).
Human Experience Begins in Genesis!
All serious Bible students know that the beginning of human experience is recorded in the
Bible by Moses in Genesis, chapters 1 through 7; Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and all of
their progeny right up to the Noachian Deluge during which all with the breath of life
perished; except Noah, his wife, his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth — (ie. Jap-an), their
wives, and pairs of clean and unclean animals selected by God (Gen. 6:7-19).
Human Civilization Began at Babel!
But it is a fact of history that the beginning of human civilization of this world, including
those of the nation of Chinese people, began with the building of the city of Babel and the
Tower of Babel. It commenced as an act of rebellion against the Government of God. It
began with the establishment of the Government of man. And just as one might expect, all of
the ancient nations began to reckon their kings from this event as recorded in Genesis 11:1-9:
"And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And it came to pass, as
they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
and they said one to another: `Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, with its top in
heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the
whole earth.' And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the child-
ren of men builded. And the LORD said: `Behold, they are one people, and they have
all one language; and this is what they begin to do; and now nothing will be withholden
from them, which they purpose to do. Come, let us go down, and there confound their
language, that they may not understand on another's speech.' So the LORD scattered
them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth; and they left off to build the city.
Therefore was the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the
language of all the earth; and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the
face of the earth. (Jewish Publication Society Translation).
Secular History Agrees!
10
, The.most complete secular record of the building of the Tower of Babel is found in the
Akkadian Creation Epic reproduced in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, by James B. Pritchard,
pages 68-69. Following are extracts translated from the Epic of Creation concerning the
building of the Tower of Babel: A vague recollection of the Supreme God is discernable:
" `Now, 0 lord, thou who hast caused our deliverance, what shall be our homage to thee -
let us build a shrine ... Brightly glowed his features, like the day: `Like that of lofty
Babylon, whose building you have requested, ` Let its brickwork be fashioned, You shall
name it"The Santuary". For one whole year they molded the bricks. When the second year
arrived, they raised high the shrine equaling a great height. Having built a stage-tower a
great height, They set up in it an abode for Marduk, Enlil, and Ea. This is Babylon, the
place that is your home! ...
The account in Genesis describes exactly what is given here — the building of a Tower, a
religious edifice, and a city. The epic continues with the beginning of human government.
At this point the document is fragmentary, but a father and a son are clearly spoken of:
"He set up a throne ... Another in ... Verily, most exalted is the son ... His sovereignty is
surpassing ... May he shepherd the human race.".
The Biblical account names these two individuals. Cush, the father, and Nimrod, the son:
"And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth ...And the beginning
of his kingdom was Babel ... (Genesis 10:8, 10).
With the reign of Cush and Nimrod, the history of civilization begins. At this point
commences the history of China, Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia and of the whole Near East.
Exact Date Preserved!
The exact beginning date of civilization was preserved down to Roman times. Velleius
Paterculus cites from Aemilius Sura, in his Roman History, book 1, section VI, the following:
"Between this time (when Rome conquered Philip V, king of Macedonia) and the beginning
of the reign of Ninus (Nimrod) king of the Assyrians, who was the first to hold world power,
lies an interval of 1,995 years."
Philip V, was conquered in 197 B.C. Nimrod, therefore, began his sole reign in 2192 B.C.
It followed a joint reign with his father Cush for 62 years, according to Julius Africanus
(refer to page 1)! That places the overthrow of Babel 2254 B.C. The two previous years,
according to the Epic of Creation, had been spent in erecting Babel. Thus, the building of the
Tower may be dated 2256-2254, B.C. So by what authority have scholars rejected the Bible
account of the history of China? None! "Let God be True and every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4).
Jer-USA-lem
The End
Trans-World Ministries
"Be ye Trans formed by the Renewing of your Mind (Rom. 12:2)"
11