Black History Culture : Negro Slavery and The Myth of Ham's Curse

Discussion in 'Black History - Culture - Panafricanism' started by I-khan, Jul 13, 2006.

  1. I-khan

    I-khan Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +47
    you already know I am not the author of this piece.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------





    by: Babu G. Ranganathan

    (B.A. Bible/Biology)

    *All Scripture quotations are from the King James Version of the Bible.

    copyright 1995, 2001: Babu G. Ranganathan

    The author, Babu G. Ranganathan (pronounced Ranga-nathan), has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East.




    I am not African-American. I am Indian-American. I was born in India but I lived most of my life here in the United States and I am a proud citizen of this great country.

    I am also a Christian. I converted from Hinduism when I was fourteen. As a Christian, therefore, I am deeply troubled that there are still quite a number of people who believe that there was a biblical justification for enslaving the black people of Africa. Those who hold to this view say that Noah, in the Book of Genesis, cursed Ham and that the black people of Africa being descendants of Ham were justifiably enslaved and treated with contempt. This belief is far from being extinct in our society so it is important that this belief is examined in the light of what the Bible actually teaches.



    http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/5862/slavery.html
     
  2. cursed heart

    cursed heart Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    3,527
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +38
    Thank you for sharing
     
  3. Destee

    Destee destee.com STAFF

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Messages:
    34,792
    Likes Received:
    8,985
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    Ratings:
    +9,686
    Brother I-khan ... if you don't have the owner's permission to post their work here, please only include a few lines of it, and a link to their site, where we can read it in its entirety. You may want to review our Forum Rules - # 2. Thanks.

    :heart:

    Destee
     
  4. I-khan

    I-khan Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +47
    woops. it is fixed now.
     
  5. soul9x9

    soul9x9 Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    THE REAL CURSE

    The people of Ham were not cursed at all. It was the people of Canaan, the were cursed with leprosy, or Hansens disease or Ham's SONS disease and that son was Caanan. Not to be confused with Keenan. They are two different people.
    Caanan was the 4th son of Ham and he was cursed with leprosy GEN 9:25.
    This can be backed up by Levitius 14:16 where it speaks of the different forms of leprosy and what is to be pronounced unclean.
    Then you can look and see in Matt 23:15 if not it may be 32:15 that Jesus referred to a Canaanite as a dog.
    These are the Amorites, Jebusites, WHITE PEOPLE they are cursed with leprosy!
     
  6. Clyde C Coger Jr

    Clyde C Coger Jr going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    39,440
    Likes Received:
    10,421
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Speaker/Teacher/Author
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Home Page:
    Ratings:
    +12,079
    In the Spirit of Sankofa and Peace and Love!


    .......Brother I-khan, you've been on it, thanks for this post. soul9x9, your premise, as highlighted above in blue, is an example of eisegesis of text, let me cautioned you to go back and take another look at Genesis 9: 25. I can only hope you did...Peace In,



     
  7. cherryblossom

    cherryblossom Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,252
    Likes Received:
    5,505
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +5,560
    The Nakedness of Noah and the Cursing of Canaan (Genesis 9:18-10:32)
    Study By: Bob Deffinbaugh



    The Cursing of Canaan
    (9:18-29)

    ......Regardless of Noah’s source of information, his response was one with broad implications. Canaan, the youngest son of Ham, was cursed. He was to be the lowest servant to his brothers. While some understand the “brothers” of verse 25 to refer to his fellow man, I believe it refers specifically to Canaan’s earthly brothers, the other sons of Ham. In this way, Canaan’s curse is intensified in these three verses. In verse 25, Canaan will be subservient to his brothers; in verses 26 and 27, to his father’s brothers, Shem and Japheth.

    Viewed in this way, it is impossible to see any application of this passage to the subjugation of the Black people of the earth. Ham was not cursed in this passage, but Canaan. Canaan was not the father of the Black peoples, but of the Canaanites who lived in Palestine and who threatened the Israelites.

    In verse 26, it is not Shem who is blessed, but his God: “He also said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant” (Genesis 9:26).

    By this, the godly line is to be preserved through Shem. From his seed the Messiah was said to come. The blessing comes not from Shem, but through Shem. The blessing flows out of the relationship which he has with Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel. And the servitude of Canaan is one of the evidences of this blessing.

    The Lord will cause your enemies who rise up against you to be defeated before you; they shall come out against you one way and shall flee before you seven ways. The Lord will command the blessing upon you in your barns and in all that you put your hand to, and He will bless you in the land which the Lord your God gives you. The Lord will establish you as a holy people to Himself as He swore to you, if you will keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and walk in His ways (Deuteronomy 28:7-9).

    Just as Shem’s blessing consists in his relationship to Yahweh, Japheth will be blessed in his relationship to Shem.

    May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant (Genesis 9:27).

    The name “Japheth” is thought to mean ‘to enlarge’ or ‘to make wide.’102 By a word play, Noah blessed Japheth by using his own name.103 The blessing of Japheth is to be found in relationship to Shem and not independently. This promise is stated more specifically in chapter 12, verse 3: “And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

    God promised to bless Abram, and the other nations in him. All who blessed Abram would experience God’s blessing, while all who cursed him would be cursed. Again, Canaan will be subjected at those times when Japheth is found in union with Shem.

    There is a clear correspondence between the activities of Ham, Shem, and Japheth and the curses and blessings which follow them. Shem and Japheth honored God when they acted together to preserve the honor of their father. Ham dishonored both his father and his God by relishing the humiliation of Noah. So Ham was cursed and Shem and Japheth were blessed in cooperative unity.

    The problem which must arise from the cursing of Canaan is this: Why did God curse Canaan for the sin of Ham? Beyond this, why did God curse the Canaanites, a nation, for the sin of one man?

    The explanation which best seems to answer these questions is that the words of Noah convey not only a cursing, and a blessing, but a prophecy. While it is true that the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons, this is only “to the third and fourth generations” (Exodus 20:5). If this principle were to be applied, all the sons of Ham should have been cursed.

    By prophetic revelation, Noah foresaw that the moral flaws evidenced by Ham would be most fully manifested in Canaan and in his offspring. Knowing this, the curse of God falls upon the Canaanites because of the sinfulness Noah foresaw.104 The emphasis thus falls upon the fact that the Canaanites would be cursed because of their sin, not due to Ham’s. I think this explains why Canaan is cursed and not Ham, or the rest of his sons.

    The words of Noah, then, contain a prophecy. Canaan will most reflect the moral flaws of his father, Ham. And the Canaanites will manifest these same tendencies in their society. Because of the sinfulness of the Canaanites foreseen by Noah, the curse of God is expressed. The character of these three individuals and their destiny will be corporately reflected in the nations which emerge from them.....



    >>>>>COMPLETE ARTICLE HERE: http://bible.org/seriespage/nakedness-noah-and-cursing-canaan-genesis-918-1032
     
  8. Clyde C Coger Jr

    Clyde C Coger Jr going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    39,440
    Likes Received:
    10,421
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Speaker/Teacher/Author
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Home Page:
    Ratings:
    +12,079
    In the Spirit of Sankofa and Peace and Love!




    .......Yes, this commentator is accurately on point with exegesis of the text...the only thing missing would be some interjection into the commentary as to what happened inside the tent, which lays a foundation in support of the above quote...Peace In sister cherryblossom.

     
  9. Clyde C Coger Jr

    Clyde C Coger Jr going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    39,440
    Likes Received:
    10,421
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Speaker/Teacher/Author
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Home Page:
    Ratings:
    +12,079
    In the Spirit of Sankofa and Peace and Love!




    .......soul9x9, another excellent source, which speaks to the "curse," from a black scholarly perspective would be: The 1993 Trial on the Curse of Ham by Wayne Perryman. I reference to this material in my book, Does Color Matter? Here are links for your review:

    http://www.amazon.com/1993-Trial-Cu...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296091303&sr=1-1

    http://www.amazon.com/Does-Color-Matter-Only-Misrepresented/dp/1425931367

    If you are interested in purchasing Perryman's book, which was denied reprint by publishers, I have some copies much cheaper than those shown.

     
  10. Chevron Dove

    Chevron Dove Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    2,583
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +2,731
    I think what he says was awesome, but I'm not sure if I understand him clearly about 'Ham relishing in the humiliation of Noah'. I beleive it was just the opposite. I believe that Ham was ashamed and went to go get his brothers. But, I might be misunderstanding this author at this point because he brought other issues later. However, I don't understand his train of though when he pose the question of why did God punish Canaan for the sin of Ham, for the sin of one man.

    I think he is giving Noah too much power to judge Canaan for the future. It's as if he saying that Noah said, 'I'm going to judge you now Canaan and curse you now because I can forsee that you and your descendants are going to sin because of Ham, but not the other sons of Ham' That does not make sense to me. I understand that the sins of the father are visisted on the sons but that in no way means that God would not judge the father for his sin. I know that the later prophets brought situations in which if the father becomes saved and dies and if the son still sins then the son will be judged for that sin, not the father. and this further adds to my issue with this authors full interpretation with regards to Ham.

    Yes, I believe that Ham sinned when 'he saw the nakedness of Noah' but, I don't believe that he was judged for it as being the perpetrator and for the following reasons:

    1. If Ham was guilty and deserved to be punished, I don't believe that God, nor Noah, as the high priest of God, would overlook it and just judge Canaan,

    2. Technically, the Bible did not say that Ham sinned, but that he was without the tent and his brother went into the tent and covered the nakedness of Noah... It never said that Ham sinned, but that Noah pronounced judgement against Canaan.

    3. Abram became AbraHAM and his generations were sent into the land of Ham; the Hamites were suppressed in their own land by the Egyptians and the descendants of AbraHam whom were also suppressed obviously intermixed with them. I believe that this is for a reason and not because Ham sinned, but because he was exploited, and so were his sons.

    4. Jesus later defines the Cush Hamites as being the best empire system of the empire age and I believe their works stem from their ancestor Ham.

    5. Melchezedek was the high priest of God during the lifetime of Abraham and he was Canaanite, so I believe that the sin was Canaans and his generations were not actually marked for even his sin, but that they lost land inheritance. The land of Canaan, as the Bible refers to it, became land that was controlled by the priesthood of Shem ultimately but, if individual Canaanites were under the priesthood like Melchezedek, they were not bound to the sins of Canaan, their ancestor.

    So, it seems to me that the sin belonged to Canaan and Canaan alone. Whatever Ham did may have been ‘Passover’ or ‘overlooked’ due to a specific reason.

    Japheth was the elder but Jesus did not come through his generations, that means that Japheth did something wrong…his name is listed last, that means he fell from his position for some reason. Their names are always listed as such ‘Shem, then Ham and then Japheth’…always in the Bible. And I think that has something to do with him too, having to be blessed under the tents of Shem [high priesthood]. I believe too, that this is the basis for anti-Semitism.

    so yes, I believe that Japheth took the opportunity and thereby respected Noah his father and 'the nakedness of Noah' and that he retained his inheritance with Noah, his father because he was a legitamate son of Noah, but he also fell from grace, somewhat. And I believe this part is difficult for some Christians to interpret this part of the Bible because they still seem to want to find fault some subtle way with Ham, and I don't think Ham was targeted in this way, in my opinion.

    I think it is great and refreshing that this author at least realizes the differences between Canaan and the Canaanites from the other sons of Ham, but I also believe that he is reading too much into the future regarding 'what he believed happened in the future'. Noah did not say anything to Ham just Canaan. Therefore its not what Canaan was going to do in the future but what he did at that point in his life that caused him to reap a curse from Noah, the high priest of the God, in my opinion.
     
Loading...