AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Studies (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Noah and Ham--Noah's Curse (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1403)

Mary 06-28-2009 08:50 PM

Noah and Ham--Noah's Curse
 
In Genesis 9:22-27,
In Verse 24-25, "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his done younger son had unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan, (Noah's grandson) is servant of servants shall be unto his breathren.

I know that there is no way of know what exactly happen between Noah and Ham to have a Father put a Curse on His Son, but it seems to me that Ham did more than to see his Father nude.

I think that this could be the first act of homosexuality in the Bible because of this "knew what his younger son had done unto him". It describes an action rather than a "look".

Does any one know about Jewish family traditions -if a Father can render a curse upon a child-son for an inappropirate look or Hebrew words? Anything!

There was a question about this passage at my church, and the pastor used the NIV translation, which I do not think is the most accurate translation.

What do you think? Please back up with scripture if able.
Mary

Bro. Parrish 06-29-2009 04:35 PM

Mary, welcome to the forum...

You are correct about the NIV it's a terrible translation, in fact the word "sodomite" was removed, and this is no surprise since the translation team included a lesbian and a homosexual. :(


I'll see if I can add a few thoughts for you to consider...


24 "And Noah awoke from his wine,
and knew what his younger son had done unto him."


Yes, that is the key verse, it indicates something happened to Noah, and more directly that his son DID SOMETHING TO HIM, but it is not specific so it's hard to be dogmatic about some of these things.

However, please notice the word "UNCOVERED" below...

21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken;
and he was uncovered within his tent.


If you compare the use of the word "UNCOVER" in later passages of the Bible you will see this is associated with a sinful act, for example in the context of Leviticus 18, you can see how many times that term UNCOVER is used and the context is various types of incestuous relations (food for thought)...

6None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

7The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

8The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

9The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

10The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.

11The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

12Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.

13Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.

14Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.

15Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

16Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.

17Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

18Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

19Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.

Luke 06-29-2009 05:00 PM

My question is why?

I can understand Ham doing something to Noah's wife... which is also considered to be "His Nakedness"

The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

But why would Ham sodomize his father? It makes little sense...

chette777 06-29-2009 06:38 PM

Luke the Heart of men is wicked. Strange flesh is an attraction for some unsaved. the perverseness of his heart would answer why he would do something.

but because God had Already blessed Ham to be fruitful and multiply Noah holding to not cursing that whom the LORD has blessed, curses his son Canaan and Hams decedents to be a slaves to the other two brothers decedents forever.

KingSolomon1611 06-29-2009 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke (Post 23006)
My question is why?

I can understand Ham doing something to Noah's wife... which is also considered to be "His Nakedness"

The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

But why would Ham sodomize his father? It makes little sense...

It would also be lacking in sense if the act was with his mother :pound:


I have heard it asked, "Do you ever wonder why they have a particular reason why their culture popularized the term mother f--- "? Another observation is asked that why do a lot of the rappers use the expression "Who is your daddy?" I have a buddy and know a few folks that have experience as prison guards who have stated that there is an usual amount of sodomy activity in the prison populations.

In Alabama Limestone Correctional Facility was the only place where HIV positive and AIDS prisoners could be housed. They were segregated from the rest of the population at the prison. After a while the prison officials discovered that one chain link fence was not sufficient to achieve their desires of keeping them apart.


If this is too much detail let me know and I'll edit the post. I tried keeping it as civil as possible without spelling it out. If you need more details...don't worry about it. We aren't even supposed to speak of some of the things people do.

chette777 06-29-2009 11:40 PM

King,

Is it safe to assume that a majority of those are Hamite descendants correct?

Bro. Parrish 06-30-2009 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke (Post 23006)
My question is why?....
why would Ham sodomize his father? It makes little sense...

Brother, first of all I'm not sure that it happened.
That's why I said it's hard to be dogmatic about some of these things.
But I think we can all agree that common sense plays no part in it either way... how much sense does it make when one of these perverts sodomizes a little child? :( ...it's horrible and it happens all the time.

greenbear 06-30-2009 03:57 AM

The account doesn't say that Noah was asleep when Ham saw his nakedness. It just says he was drunk and that at whatever point when he woke up he knew what Ham had done to him.

I've never studied this point but:

Do we know that Canaan was born yet? If he wasn't then possibly Noah prophesied about a grandson who had just been conceived by his wife. Who's your daddy wouldn't be the right question in this case. Maybe someone else knows if scripture elsewhere would refute this idea.

Genesis 9:20-27 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 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. 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. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

PaulB 06-30-2009 04:10 PM

Hi Mary
 
Good question, I think that the text itself is clear enough of the issue.

Regarding Luke’s possible interpretation I must say that it is a new one to me!

“And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.”

It seems clear to me that this is nothing other than an immoral act of some kind (more than likely of a homosexual nature). They alone had all been given the chance to start a new world together and lo and behold, before they had hardly got going Ham brings the perversity of the cursed world back into their midst again.

No one knows for sure what took place but it does seem pretty obvious that Ham took a sexual advantage over the inebriated state of his own father, probably with the thought that he wouldn’t know anything about it afterwards.

But it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was an immoral act that Ham had carried out upon Noah. And because God cursed the world with a devastating judgement that history will never be allowed to forget, Noah cursed Ham in a similar manner thus distancing the cursed thing from the redeemed.

Hope this is helpful

God bless

PaulB

KingSolomon1611 07-01-2009 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chette777 (Post 23017)
King,

Is it safe to assume that a majority of those are Hamite descendants correct?

It is safe.

chette777 07-01-2009 11:37 PM

Yeah it is sad to say know the Hamite's want the Jhaphite Americans to apologize for slavery and give them appropriations. when it was God who put them in that predicament. They should thank the God of Israel they have freedom in the USofA. I have seen a few Hamite submit themselves to a Jhaphite company owner and work hard and that Jhaphite has blessed them and they are well off because of that.

Brother Tim 07-02-2009 08:37 AM

Where are the posters, George and others, that examine the exactness of God's words, and yet are silent with this absolute distortion of Scripture?

Underlining and bold mine for emphasis:
Quote:

Genesis 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Can someone show me, Chette, Solomon, or others, WHERE the entire family of Ham was cursed??? ONE man's decendents, Canaan's, were cursed. These are NOT identified as all black-skinned people!!!

It is apparent that some among us have fallen into the trap of bigotry.

Who are the Canaanites (who received the curse)?
Quote:

Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

Genesis 10:15 And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
18 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.
Refer again to verse 19. Is any of this territory in Africa???

This idea of equating the black-skinned person with the curse of Canaan is false, ignorant, and shameful. It needs to be retracted and rejected!

tonybones2112 07-03-2009 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 23135)
Where are the posters, George and others, that examine the exactness of God's words, and yet are silent with this absolute distortion of Scripture?

Underlining and bold mine for emphasis:Can someone show me, Chette, Solomon, or others, WHERE the entire family of Ham was cursed??? ONE man's decendents, Canaan's, were cursed. These are NOT identified as all black-skinned people!!!

It is apparent that some among us have fallen into the trap of bigotry.

Who are the Canaanites (who received the curse)?


Refer again to verse 19. Is any of this territory in Africa???

This idea of equating the black-skinned person with the curse of Canaan is false, ignorant, and shameful. It needs to be retracted and rejected!

Tim, I'm working on the passages myself at the moment, from the perspective of what the SCRIPTURES say, precept upon precept, line upon line. This is another example of things I've said many times: You can't bend the Scriptures around a preconceived notion, they don;t bend. You either bend with them or you break.

I have computer problems at the moment, but needless to say, there is no link between Leviticus 18 and Genesis 9. I'll demonstrate what Noah "knew" was "done to him" and it wasn;t sodomy. The curse was fulfilled and does not extend into the Grace age, we were not prophesied in the Scriptures(Eph. 3) We were all, black and white, red, purple and green, out of the commonwealth of Israel BUT NOW made nigh by the blood of Christ. I find the whole premise as distasteful as you do.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

Diligent 07-03-2009 08:31 AM

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 07-03-2009 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent (Post 23175)
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 07-03-2009 09:48 AM

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 07-03-2009 12:38 PM

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 07-03-2009 12:56 PM

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 07-03-2009 01:09 PM

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 07-03-2009 02:25 PM

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 07-03-2009 04:34 PM

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

Brother Tim 07-03-2009 05:09 PM

"...his grandfather." It was his father. Ham committed the offense, not Canaan.

"I find that Brother Tim is correct." Well, that is once so far this week. :(

JOHN G 07-03-2009 05:37 PM

Howdy.......
 
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Gen 9:23 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.

Ham "saw the nakedness of his father".
Shem and Japheth
1. took a garment
2. laid it on both their shoulders
3. went backwards
4. covered the nakedness of their father
5. and their faces were backward

Did they (Shem and Japheth) do all this not to have homosexual sex with their father or not to see his nakedness? I sumbit it is the latter.


BTW Chette, We all have decended from Noah and his wife. Every person on this earth is your cousin; white, black, red, yellow, or green.

greenbear 07-03-2009 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 23198)
"...his grandfather." It was his father. Ham committed the offense, not Canaan.

"I find that Brother Tim is correct." Well, that is once so far this week. :(

Brother Tim,

greenbear quote from post # 17
Quote:

I'm glad Brother Tim called us on it. He and Brandon and Tony are right and I agree.
That would make it at least twice in one day and it's only Friday night. :)

chette777 07-03-2009 06:36 PM

I apologize to those of you who were offended.

I am in no ways a Bigot or a racist. My wife is part Hamite and part Shemite. I am Jehephite and there is Hamite as it seems in my own family line. if that will ease anyone's pain. the nations did come form these three sons of Noah and it does not take a PhD to figure where those sons were scattered to and the Nations that they produced. nations does not mean just where someone is born but to whom someone is born.

All I did was ask a question of King and he answered positive and I made further reference that slavery (servant of servants) and Jhephite's in the tents of Shem of whom he would serve. Jhephite's did indeed capture the tenting ground of the American Shemite nations, who were said to be red skinned. you all know that even science labels men by their color there are five yellow, red, brown, black and white. they are now all innermixed to create variety but those five basic tones are there.

Tim Quoted here: "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 in no way bashed anyone's belief or view of life on conjecture or their race (nation). We can stretch scripture but we must always remember God is correct.

When I fill our applications here with the Government there are two questions you will only find one in the US. 1) what is your Citizenship. and 2) what is your Nationality? My citizenship is US. I would often ask what do you mean by this and some would say what country were you born. So my nationality if American. But on occasion some would respond what is your Race. Which generally is Caucasian or White.

Gen9:24 knew what his younger son had done unto him.
Ge 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Ge 4:1 ¶ And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Ge 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
Ge 4:25 ¶ And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, [said she], hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

In every instance of the use of the word knew with nakedness and that that goes on when a couple is naked shows that Noah Knew that his son Ham had done something that was sexual in nature. that according to the use of God's words of which we are to study.

We don't have to know exactly what the act was but we know by the word knew it was sexual it wasn't just looking on. all the instances where God talks about looking upon or look upon in the Levitical laws concerning sexual conduct all refer to sex.

greenbear 07-03-2009 06:46 PM

Brother Presswood,

Thanks for posting your study of Noah's curse. It's a great study.

I think your statement
Quote:

Proper respect will seek to cover failure rather than to expose it.
is a profound truth that I know I, for one, need to reminded of.

1 Peter 4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Proverbs 17:9 He that covereth a transgression seeketh love; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends.

Jennifer

Brother Presswood 07-03-2009 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chette777 (Post 23202)
Do any of you know what mark God placed on Cain?

Ge 4:13 ¶ And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
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.


Some have argued that black races are descendants of Cain. They rightfully claim that after Cain killed Abel, God cursed him, made him a fugitive and a vagabond, and “set a mark” upon him. But then the biblical segregationist erroneously maintains that the “mark” is the black skin and the divine curse justifies discrimination against his descendants – the black race. This assertion is ridiculously easy to disprove. First, the text does not state or even imply that the “mark” set on Cain was black skin. We do know that the other “marks” in the Word of God were just that, literal marks.

The mark of the beast is a literal mark in Revelation 13:16, And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: The mark put on the 144,000 tribulation witnesses is a literal mark in Ezekiel 9 and again in Revelation 7:2-3, And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. To say that the mark is one thing in one passage and a completely different thing in another passage is not being consistent. It amounts to misusing the Bible to fit your own agenda.

Second, black people cannot be descendants of Cain for the simple fact that all of Cain’s descendants died in the Flood. The only people saved in the Flood were Noah’s family which descended from Seth and not Cain. If Cain’s blood were in one of Noah’s sons, it would be in all of them.

chette777 07-03-2009 07:16 PM

the Jhephite nations did capture the Shemite nations tenting grounds and did in fact have slaves that came from the Line of Ham (whether some of you want to believe it or not) according to the scattering that the LORD did at the tower of Babel.

I asked a question of King he answered affirmative I then made a remark that blacks (Hamites) are now wanting the white's American via their representative in office to Apologize for the slavery (which was legal at that time) and give them money for coming from the line of a slave over 100 years ago.

it wasn't bigotry nor racism that spawned my conversation but truth as to what was happening today. my ancestors came here as indentured servants (volunteer slaves) so they could be in The New World.

Do you feel that is what we as a nation need to do? make apologies for people we did not know to people we did not know and then pay their descendants money which would amount to 100,000 of individuals if not millions, all getting money for nothing other than being black?

chette777 07-03-2009 07:24 PM

Press,

first what mark would God place on a man that if any man saw it they would know it was Cain lets say from 200 feet?
The mark of the beast does not need to be seen from a distance but up close. that is the difference between these two marks. I am not saying the mark was blackness. and to avoid that I removed those remarks from my previous post and this conversation can be carried on in another post.

How do you know they all died in the flood?

could not they have intermixed with Adams grand sons and daughter's or even Noah's sons?

Remember Cain built cities, made metallurgic tools and musical instruments. do you think the herdsman farmers of Adams Sons did not intermix with these city folk? intermix meaning they did not have dealing with these people? if they had dealings would not it be safe to assume they gave their sons and daughters to marry which was a common practice.

you would be wrong in thinking that. I am not saying anything of the nature of sons of God saw the daughter of men. for those were Angelic beings not Cain's descendants. but if you think that Cains whole race died in the flood and in no way had husband or mixed via one of Noah's sons or the wives of Noah's sons you would be wrong even our current nature shows nation mixing to be prevalent. as in the days of Noah so shall it be in the coming of the Son of man.

you see how Cain did everything in his power to negate the curse placed on him by God. Built cities, no vagabond lived in a city. Where did Cain's sons learn how to do metallurgical arts?

chette777 07-03-2009 07:45 PM

you know what caught my attention was we used the term Hamite and everyone of you et al all recognized it as our meaning black people? And then went on to say we have no idea where the black race came from and that we can't say without any conjecture as to the fact they came from Ham. If you don't know where the black people came from then why did you all jump us and call us racist and bigoted? we could have been talking about the thousands of white slaves from Europe, the 2,000,000 Chinese slaves that were sold in the US. Or maybe we were talking the 100,000 Filipino's slaves that was sold in Hawaii to the Mormon owned pineapple and Sugar plantations. Hypocrisy is subtle isn't it.:tsk:

Many of the African slaves sold to the US market were done so by their enemies to whom they lost a war. this was common practice of the victor clear up to today and many were sold by Muslims to the US (Muslims still practice it today where are the bleeding hearts and the Amnesty Intl and human rights groups confronting the Muslim?).

Why don't the black slaves seek to get appropriation from the Muslims in Morroco, Chad, Nigeir and Egypt to pay them. OH yeah there are none alive today. Why then do their descendants asking only the white America to apologize and pay them money?

The whole point of the apologetic event for slavery in America is mute and it should not be done.

Brother Presswood 07-03-2009 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chette777 (Post 23207)
Press,

first what mark would God place on a man that if any man saw it they would know it was Cain lets say from 200 feet?

The fact is, my friend, we may never know the answer to this until we get to glory. We must be careful not to read something into the text that just isn't there.

Quote:

How do you know they all died in the flood? could not they have intermixed with Adams grand sons and daughter's or even Noah's sons?
It is my opinion, based on the chronology of Genesis 5 & 6, that Noah's son's were married in Seth's godly lineage before Genesis 6:2, when Cain's descendants inter-married with Seth's descendants, which is fodder for another debate, I realize.

If this is the case, Noah's family, including daughters-in-law, were all descendants of Seth; all of Cain's seed died in the flood.

Quote:

but if you think that Cains whole race died in the flood and in no way had husband or mixed via one of Noah's sons or the wives of Noah's sons you would be wrong
First, you are arguing from silence. There is simply no scriptural support for this belief.

Quote:

even our current nature shows nation mixing to be prevalent. as in the days of Noah so shall it be in the coming of the Son of man.
Secondly, you discount the providential working of God to preserve unto Himself a godly seed.

chette777 07-03-2009 08:18 PM

press,
Let's move this to another thread.

only men are recorded in the Noah's genealogy. so you are reading into the text that all the wives came from Seth. so what you are saying is It is ok for you to "read into the text" but for others they need to be careful?

Seth did not have a godly line. 99.9 percent of them died in the flood. so much for godly line theory.

again it is ok for you to argue from silence but everyone else it is wrong.

It was only Noah that found grace in the eyes of the LORD not his sons. they and their wives got a benefit for submitting to their father and husband. Just as my children who if not saved or before they got saved benefited the blessings of the Lord for my sacrificial service to the Lord's work.

After they went forth there sure wasn't a whole lot of godliness going on for the people quickly perverted themselves and were found in disobedience to the Lord's command. So much for God's sovereignty in preserving himself a godly seed. and the seed of Seth or Noah sons or that of Christ would not be affected by Cain's seed. Unless you think Cains father was Satan.

Please answer in another thread. Just start it and let me know where you went to.

Brother Presswood 07-03-2009 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chette777 (Post 23212)
only men are recorded in the Noah's genealogy. so you are assuming they all came from Seth.

I am assuming that all the men listed in Genesis five, all the way to Noah and his three sons are all descendants of Seth, yes. I believe the Bible clearly indicates this.

Quote:

and to say the daughter all came from seth is to read intot he text your bias-ness so what you are saying is It is ok for you to "read into the text" but for others they need to be careful
If I resort to conjecture, I will always indicate that it is my opinion, as I did relative to the daughters-in-law of Noah. Again, I base that on the chronology of chapters five and six.

Quote:

Seth did not have a godly line. 99.9 percent of them died in the flood. so much for godly line theory.
Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
I believe this clearly indicates that a godly seed was indeed preserved in the lineage of Seth,

Quote:

again it is ok for you to argue from silence but everyone else it is wrong.
Not at all; it is a weak argument regardless who resorts to using it. It is certainly your prerogative to assume that I did this myself. You'll have to pardon me if I disagree with you.

chette777 07-03-2009 08:46 PM

go back an reread I clarified it was all the wives came from seth.

where are any women mentioned in the Genealogy of Gen 5 or 6?

One just man doesn't make a godly line

It is ok to disagree but I should be allowed to use silence as you do or to read into it if you do.

I based all my opinions on the scripture as well.

Brother Tim 07-03-2009 09:00 PM

Chette, I am not going to pick at this sore too much longer, but it was you who attached Canaan's curse of slavery to all Hamites. That simply does not exist in Scripture. You are the one trying to attach black slavery with the curse.

Secondly, there are TWO uses of the word "knew". It does not always indicate that sex is involved.

Quote:

In every instance of the use of the word knew with nakedness and that that goes on when a couple is naked shows that Noah Knew that his son Ham had done something that was sexual in nature. that according to the use of God's words of which we are to study.
This makes absolutely no sense!

"Adam knew his wife", "Cain knew his wife" - These are clearly intercourse. [ a very obvious word pattern!]

"Noah awoke ..., and knew what his younger son had done unto him." Completely different use of the word "knew", that is, this is the more common use meaning "was aware of, had knowledge of", not "had intercourse with". UNLESS you would like to explain this verse differently based on your claim, "In every instance of the use of the word knew with nakedness..."?!?[bold mine]
Quote:

Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Or this?!?(unborn babies are naked)
Quote:

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
A little ridiculous, don't you think?

Brother Tim 07-03-2009 09:16 PM

Chette, are you saying that Cain's mark was that he was black?

chette777 07-03-2009 11:07 PM

No it is not a little ridiculous as the word knew and know are uses more to refer to sexual activity. you would have to deny Gods word. and it is obvious that it was sexual because there is nakedness involved, and the Knew what his son had did surely indicated it was sexual in nature.

no, I am not saying the mark was black. I asked if anyone knew then I figured it was the wrong place so I removed it. I have know Idea what the mark was but it would have to be seen from at least 200 feet. so those who saw him would not kill him.

We may have linked a nation of people together in our post but we never used the word black. but you can't say you don't know where the black nation came from. we all know the Ham is the father of black nations. even the Hebrew today know it. Ask any Jew who is the father of the Black nations and they will tell you HAM.

chette777 07-03-2009 11:48 PM

Tim,

We may have made references to a Nation of people who could have or could not have been carrying the curse of Noah. But when you guys so quickly called me a racist and a bigot for what I believe. You bashed me for just saying what i believed and then you write a pointed remark like this, " basing one's belief or view of life on conjecture is wrong".

What happened here? double standard of Tim? you still have to conjecture if I am right or wrong so you bash me call me a racist and a bigot.

I made my apology and you don't want it.

chette777 07-04-2009 06:20 AM

I just don't think it was so fair that you all jumped the band wagon and called me a racist and bigot. even some referred to white supremacy of which I definitely don't hold to. I may believe what I said to be true by my study of God's word. but I do not hold racist hatred towards Hamites.

It was quite cruel of you all to label me such.

I apology for it was not my attempt to give such.

George 07-04-2009 08:53 AM

Re: "Noah and Ham--Noah's Curse"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 23135)
"Where are the posters, George and others, that examine the exactness of God's words, and yet are silent with this absolute distortion of Scripture?

Underlining and bold mine for emphasis:Can someone show me, Chette, Solomon, or others, WHERE the entire family of Ham was cursed??? ONE man's decendents, Canaan's, were cursed. These are NOT identified as all black-skinned people!!!

It is apparent that some among us have fallen into the trap of bigotry.

Who are the Canaanites (who received the curse)?


Refer again to verse 19. Is any of this territory in Africa???

This idea of equating the black-skinned person with the curse of Canaan is false, ignorant, and shameful. It needs to be retracted and rejected!
"


Brother Tim,

WHY have you singled me out (out of ALL the "active" members)? Am I obligated (in any way) to comment on every single issue that crops up on this Forum?

I do not have time today, but I will answer your question - and then I will have a "question" for you!:confused:

In the mean time - I have maintained for some time now that a society's (whether a Country, a State, a City, a Town, or even institutions like Schools, Churches, Clubs, etc.) "BELIEF SYSTEM" produces a "CULTURE", and that "CULTURE", in turn, produces the form of GOVERNMENT that will govern that society: Witness the predominately Roman Catholic Countries in South America, Central America, Mexico, the Caribbean, the Philippines and Western Europe; witness the Eastern Orthodox Countries of Eastern Europe and Asia; witness the Hindu Countries of Asia; witness the Buddhist Countries of Asia; witness the Confucian Countries of Asia; and witness the Islamic Countries of the Mid-East; Africa; Asia; and Indonesia.
{This is WHY it is "FUTILE" to try to "DEMOCRATIZE" an Islamic Country!} :doh:

Our own country has undergone a radical "SHIFT" in it's "BELIEF SYSTEM" (Look at our elected "leaders" :eek:) in the last one hundred years (from a basically Judeao/Christian "BELIEF SYSTEM" to a HUMANISTIC "BELIEF SYSTEM" - This is WHY it is "FUTILE" to try to "CHANGE" the "SYSTEM" (i.e. Government) from within! :() WHAT a nation's people "BELIEVE" is reflected in the form of Government they have and the Character of its leaders! :eek:

I shall answer your question, but I WONDER WHY you singled me out - out of all the people on this Forum???? :confused: :tsk: :(

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study