[Diligent]

Brothers Tim and Tony,

I'm with you guys. I'm really, really tired of people reading into this passage -- both in making assumptions about what was "done to" Noah and assuming that our modern ideas of "race" can be grafted on to the curse in some way.

[peopleoftheway]

Originally Posted by Diligent

Brothers Tim and Tony,

I'm with you guys. I'm really, really tired of people reading into this passage -- both in making assumptions about what was "done to" Noah and assuming that our modern ideas of "race" can be grafted on to the curse in some way.

Agreed Brother.

Only when we are received into Glory will this topic be settled for me when I hear it straight from the Lords lips, as far as what was "done" unto Noah, does it matter to our salvation? no of course not, the trouble with speculation is that it is NOT exact truth, unless the Bible was absolutely CLEAR about what was done unto Noah, I choose not to speculate but simply rest in the fact all these questions I see through a glass darkly will one day be answered in a manner that no man on earth through speculation will ever attain to, the truth from the Blessed Saviour, the Word himself, the Lord Jesus Christ
Until that day I pray that The Lord keeps my thoughts fuzzy and unclear when it comes to speculation, for I know I shouldn't be doing it.

Psalms 19:14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

[Brother Tim]

There is two separate issues, though connected.

First, the act committed by Ham.
Second, the false application of the curse to a group of people who were not in any way included in that curse.

As far as the first, WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW what that specific act was. If God intended that we should know the details, HE WOULD HAVE TOLD US in no uncertain terms! Sufficient for us is that Canaan's decendents were cursed by Noah based on this act. We are simply given that the curse had a reason. We cannot even assume that Noah's curse carries the full weight of God's judgment.

As for the second, this horrible, false connection between the history of the slavery of black-skinned people with the curse of Canaan is purely and absolutely based in bigotry and racism, and has NOT a SINGLE iota of Scriptural evidence. The reality is that there has been throughout history a continuous string of one people enslaving another people. I dare say that the total numbers of slaves throughout history is far greater among non-blacks than blacks. Using Chette's and KingSolomon's terms, "Hamites" have enslaved other "Hamites" just as much or more as any "Jephethites" have enslaved "Hamites"! Just how does the Egyptian (who were likely "Hamites") enslavement of "Shemites" fit?? This idea of Chette's is quite prevalent around here in Florida among a certain group of people. They still wear the pointed white hats when they have their meetings. I challenge Chette, an otherwise strong Bible student, to re-evaluate his prospective, and then publicly retract and reject this filthy idea.

[greenbear]

I did notice the incorrect references to the Hamite curse.

I personally feel that conjecturing about things in scripture that aren't clear is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you realize it is indeed conjecture. Whether it's wise to post those conjectures on a public forum is another matter entirely. Maybe I'll try not to do that again.

With that said, my other cynical comment about who's your baby's momma is not in character with my viewpoint on race, which is that it is not relevant in any way in the church age to God and it shouldn't be to us, either. I regret writing that comment. It was foolish jesting and certainly doesn't uplift Christ who died for ALL of the sons of Adam. Shortly after posting I felt slightly sick to my stomach about it but by then it was too late to edit. Hopefully, we have black brothers and sisters who read and participate on this forum and God forbid we should hurt or offend them in that way. If they read this thread and weren't offended but only saddened, as I'm certain Christ is, then they fill up the love that was missing here.

The ignorance and lack of love displayed in this thread is also not a very good testimony to any unsaved people who might happen upon Brandon's website, either. I believe it undermines all of Brandon's purposes in providing this forum.

I'm glad Brother Tim called us on it. He and Brandon and Tony are right and I agree.

[Brother Tim]

Conjecture itself may not be wrong, but basing one's belief or view of life on conjecture is wrong. Using one's imagination to fill in the scenes of the Bible may not be not erroneous in itself, but creating a doctrine or Bible interpretation on such is fallacy.

I have met far too many Christian folk in my life that somehow think that the "white race" is superior to the "black race" (although they used a far more derogatory term) based on what they have heard some preacher say about Ham's curse. It is the scourge of the common American church that there is such a saying, "The most segregated place in America is the Sunday morning church service."

[greenbear]

1 Corinthians 1:26-29 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.

[Brother Presswood]

A few years ago, I found a pamphlet entitled Biblical Segregation, in which the author was attempting to prove that God demands that the races be segregated when it comes to worship. I chose to refute this concept in my doctoral dissertation. In it, I address the issue being discussed in this thread. I would like to offer some of my thoughts on the matter.

At the foundation of the false ideology of biblical segregation is a gross misinterpretation of God’s curse on Noah’s son, Ham, recorded in Genesis chapter 9. In this passage, segregationists found what they considered a clear explanation of the role of the black man in society. According to Pastor Humphrey K. Ezell, “In this account God has segregated the races. Shem and Japheth are to dwell in tents together; but a curse is placed upon Ham and his descendants, and they are to be servants to Shem and Japheth. There is no evidence anywhere in the Scriptures that this curse…has been lifted.”

Genesis 9:22, And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. Ham showed serious disrespect for his father. Instead of covering him when he saw him uncovered, he went and told his two brothers. What exactly is Ham's sin? Noah's judgment seems harsh if all Ham did was see his father without any clothes on and poke a little fun at him.

To fully understand Ham’s sin, we need to see how the problem is solved in verse 23. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. Shem and Japheth back into the tent, carefully avoiding a glance at their father's nakedness, and they put a covering on him.

It is best to take this story at face value, understanding Ham’s sin as one of disrespect of his father and broadcasting of his father’s shame. Again, to read something else into the story is mere speculation. The connection between drunkenness, nakedness, and shame runs throughout the Word of God.

Ham should have been covering his father's nakedness, taking pity on his shame. Ham is a “talebearer” who “revealeth secrets” instead of being of a “faithful spirit” and one who “concealeth the matter” (Proverbs 11:13). Ham did not seek love by covering his father’s transgression (Proverbs 17:9). Ham is breaking the fifth commandment, which tells us to honor our father and our mother.

This commandment is more about duty to God than duty to parents. Parents rule with the authority of God, and honor given to them is honor that is due to God. So Ham, in despising his father’s nakedness and ridiculing him, is committing a truly terrible act; he is despising and ridiculing the authority of God. Ham believes his father, who bears a godlike relation to him, is not to be respected but rather to be ridiculed and made the object of gossip and jokes. For children to disobey their parents is to disobey God. To disrespect them is to disrespect God. To hate them is to hate God. At the time of this event in Noah’s life he was over 500 years old; his children are grown. It is a sin, at any age, to dishonor your parents, to ridicule them, or make yourself look good or wise at their expense. This is to dishonor and ridicule God and make yourself wiser than He.

The sin against God in this story comes in the form of sin against his appointed ruler, Noah. Shem and Japheth take over God’s role in covering their father's nakedness, just as God Himself covered the nakedness of Adam and Eve. Noah, rather than God himself, will be the one to pronounce the curse on Ham and to pronounce a blessing on Shem and Japheth.

Shem and Japheth at least showed the respect that was due to their father, by going backwards into the tent and covering their father. Proper respect will seek to cover failure rather than to expose it. Ham had exposed his father’s nakedness; Shem and Japheth’s action is the direct opposite of Ham's. Notice the care with which they accomplish this covering: they lay a garment on their shoulders and carefully back into the tent until their averted eyes recognize the edge of their father's bed. Then, sending the garment backwards from their shoulders, they lay it upon him, never looking. They take every precaution. Their action is Godlike.


And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. (Genesis 9:24, 25)
When Noah awoke, he knew that Ham had shown this disrespect toward him, though we are not told how he found out. He then pronounced a curse, not upon Ham, but upon Ham’s son Canaan. Ham could not have been cursed because God has already blessed him. Canaan would be “a servant of servants” to his brethren. He would serve Shem (vs. 26) and he would serve Japheth (vs. 27). How far this curse would extend to Canaan’s children we do not know.

The curse on Canaan has nothing whatsoever to do with skin color, but is an example warning fathers to train their children in godly principles. Perhaps Noah saw in his grandson Canaan the same disrespect and propensity to mock as did his son Ham. The Word of God bears testimony to the fact that, all too often, when the father sins, the next generation learns from their father. The sons are often more wicked than their father and are prone to pass on the generational curse to their children. It seems that Noah understood that Canaan’s descendants would also possess the insolent nature of Ham.

[Denny]

Hi All,

After reading all the posts, I find that Brother Tim is correct. It was Ham's younger son Canaan who did something to his grandfather. To say it was a homosexual act is reading something into the scriptures that isn't there. Whatever it was, it was showing total disrespect for his grandfather. We can see by other scriptures what God's thoughts are on this. Noah, who was a servant of God, whould be inspired th have the same thoughts. I don't know if this curse would still be in
effect today or not.

Denny

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Diligent

Brothers Tim and Tony,

I'm with you guys. I'm really, really tired of people reading into this passage -- both in making assumptions about what was "done to" Noah and assuming that our modern ideas of "race" can be grafted on to the curse in some way.

Brandon, I'm having mucho computer problems, I've missed being in the forum. I'm gonna use this message of yours as a base so to speak, and explore the various myths dealing with Scripture being used to justify hatred becasue of something as insignificant as skin color.

God put a mark on Cain and many, many people stop there, and say, "h'it was black skin..." without reading what the Scriptures say. Why did God put a mark on Cain? "Wayall, he killded his brother..."

Ge 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

oops. All those hangings, burnings, shootings, stabbings, stonings, and dragging behind pickup trucks has put a lot of the white pointy kaps into hell. If the "mark" was "black skin", we should be as nice as we can to black folks because the "mark" was given for Cain's protection, not curse.

It's possible if every murder in the Bible is studied, the identity of this "mark" might be revealed, if there is a reason God would want to have us know it. People have commented to me the mark of Cain and the mark of The Beast in Revelation is the same mark> Rationally I can;t see this as being the same mark. The mark of Revelation is a mark of damnation, the mark put on Cain was for his protection. I can also find no Scriptural evidence that God has cursed one race of people from nearly Adamic times to the present, considering that "Hamites" are Gentiles and according to Eph. 2 and 3 all Gentiles, from then to the revelation given to Paul of the mystery of Jew and Gentile in the same Body co-equal, we were all out of the Commonwealth of Israel, we were all afar off "but now" all made nigh by the blood of Christ, "Hamites" and "Japethites".

An anthopological anomaly exists that cannot be explained by the JEB Stuart College Of Natural Sciences: The aborigines of the Solomon Islands are scientifically and anthropologically Caucasians, their skin is black as coal.

The native tribes of Africa did not jump into little wooden canoes and cross the Atlantic to invade South Carolina in the 1600s, these people were brought here against their will, stolen from their homes and sent here in the most brutal conditions known to man and subjected to persecution that makes the children of Israel in Egypt look cushy.

I'm a pretty hard person and I have a "secret sin" I make no secret of: I'm a cynic. I'm the person they used to invent the word "cynic". But there are two things I will absolutely not tolerate in a Christian setting of any kind where I hold the reins: Galatianism, being made nigh by the Spirit through the shed blood of Christ and then made "perfect" by "ordinances", "obediences", "traditions", "laws", and using the Scriptures to justify racism.

My next message will demonstrate the Scriptures disconnecting Leviticus 18 from Genesis 9.

Grace and peace friends

Tony

[Brother Tim]

Greenbear, I know that you have said that you were leaving, but I hope that you will see this and respond.

I do not understand what it was that caused you to make your last post here directed at me. I am going to reprint portions and comment, but first I appeal to you to continue posting on the forum. Because it does not fit this thread, I want to comment on the general chat part of the forum.

I will answer your post here if we are reconciled on the other thread.