cursed for seeing your dad naked?

[LeoSalinas22]

hello everyone,
let me start this thread off with the most utmost respect for anyone of african american origin. it is just that this question i have has been bugging me for the longest time. let me start this off with the scripture that started this:
Genesis 9 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.
ok, let me get to my point. i was told already by two christian friends that the descendants of Ham, are the modern-day african americans. just wanted to know if anyone knew if this was true, and if it is, if there is any scriptural basis or perhaps historical basis for anyone to claim this. if it is false, then i am a moron and may God smite me for even considering this, but most of all i apologize if i offended anyone.

thanks and God bless you all...

[wil]

Well since the 'white' gene is a mutant which became a beneficial and replicated as the people traveled north it appears that your 'friends' may have it a little misconstrued...ie whisper ...odds are adam and eve were dark (despite the European paintings), so while it may be the case that africans are descended it is not a curse...

I really like how your 'friends' indicated that African Americans were descended from this...sort of implies that the ones that stayed or emmigrated elsewhere were not...interesting sortings we come up with when we start out with the intention finding some justification of our personal bias 'cough' bigotry.

Tis a great way though of finding out who we should have as our 'friends' these kind of insights are...

[pattimax]

This has nothing to do with your question about people origin, but I have heard strange things about this verse. Could someone help?

[LeoSalinas22]

Originally Posted by pattimax

This has nothing to do with your question about people origin, but I have heard strange things about this verse. Could someone help?

well, spill the beans, woman. what have you heard?

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by LeoSalinas22

well, spill the beans, woman. what have you heard?

Didn't really want to go into this... (I know- I should not have started, but I AM curious)Ham did more than SEE his father naked.

[LeoSalinas22]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Didn't really want to go into this, (I know- I should not have started, but I AM curious)Ham did more than SEE his father naked.

what?! that's insane. i guess we will have to wait and see.

[LeoSalinas22]

Originally Posted by wil

Well since the 'white' gene is a mutant which became a beneficial and replicated as the people traveled north it appears that your 'friends' may have it a little misconstrued...ie whisper ...odds are adam and eve were dark (despite the European paintings), so while it may be the case that africans are descended it is not a curse...

I really like how your 'friends' indicated that African Americans were descended from this...sort of implies that the ones that stayed or emmigrated elsewhere were not...interesting sortings we come up with when we start out with the intention finding some justification of our personal bias 'cough' bigotry.

Tis a great way though of finding out who we should have as our 'friends' these kind of insights are...

ok, i read thru your post just to be sure i understood it. i will have you know that my friends and i aren't white, but of hispanic origin, so we aren't biased or racist or prejudice. just want to clear that up.

[Caimanson]

Originally Posted by LeoSalinas22

ok, i read thru your post just to be sure i understood it. i will have you know that my friends and i aren't white, but of hispanic origin, so we aren't biased or racist or prejudice. just want to clear that up.

They probably read/heard it somewhere, I've heard the same thing before.

Pattimax is probably right, "uncovering" is just a very prudish way of saying something else, goes to show that the bible is not very child friendly!

From Wiki Curse of Ham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The "curse of Ham" has been used by some members of Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of African ancestry, who were thought to be descendants of Ham (often called Hamites), either through Canaan or his older brothers. This racist theory was common during the 18th-20th centuries, but has been largely abandoned even by the most conservative theologians since the mid-20th century.


It seems that the racial connotations originate well before american and european slavery.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Leo

and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

Originally Posted by LeoSalinas22

what?! that's insane. i guess we will have to wait and see.

Yeah, could you imagine what rating the movie would have, or what corner the library would relegate this book had it been written today...

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Didn't really want to go into this... (I know- I should not have started, but I AM curious)Ham did more than SEE his father naked.

I heard a similiar claim. This theory hinges of Genesis 9:24:

"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him." [Emphasis mine]

Which implies than something more happened than a glance at his father's nakedness.

But while we are on the subject, I've heard another theory: That Noah didn't know he made fermented wine. The reason is because before the flood, there was a canopy of water that covered the earth and kept heavy ozone conditions that retarded the fermentation process of the juice of the grapes, and therefore any grape juice drunken before the flood did not cause intoxication. But after the flood, the conditions of the atmosphere worsened and grape juice was subject to fermentation, so when Noah made his vineyard and produced the grape juice, it soon turned into wine and thus his drunkenes was accidental. Those same ozone conditions were also responsible for the gradually shortened lifespans evident in the chronology of Noah's descendents after the flood.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Caimanson

They probably read/heard it somewhere, I've heard the same thing before.

Pattimax is probably right, "uncovering" is just a very prudish way of saying something else, goes to show that the bible is not very child friendly!

It seems that the racial connotations originate well before american and european slavery.

Yes, we've heard it before...keeping the story going today is ridiculous.

Slave trade in the US began in the early 17th century, probably the reason the conjecture was made. Many bible verses were used to keep slaves in line and to keep slavery acceptable. Slaves were also not allowed to read so as to stay away from the verses that would benefit their plight.

Yes we know what 'know' means in the bible...

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Noah made his vineyard and produced the grape juice, it soon turned into wine and thus his drunkenes was accidental. Those same ozone conditions were also responsible for the gradually shortened lifespans evident in the chronology of Noah's descendents after the flood.

So that explains why Noah became an alcoholic. Shows how sneaky Satan can be.

[post-abrahamic]

We must always remember who was writing this stuff. Of course, those who claim Shem as their progenitor with Shem's line being the one the Jewish writers followed would likely disparage the other two lines of descent from Noah. But we all know now that Noah himself was a makeover of an older Sumerian legendary figure, so in essence, it's all tribal propaganda which has led unfortunately to racist policies by Jews and Christians while Muslims are much freer of racial prejudice.

Noah may have cursed Ham but God didn't. Otherwise, why would the Promised Land be named after Ham's son?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Pattimax!

Originally Posted by pattimax

Didn't really want to go into this... (I know- I should not have started, but I AM curious)Ham did more than SEE his father naked.

I gotta feeling I may regret entering this....

You are pointed in the right direction, according to some teachings. "Uncovering his father's nakedness" is a figure of speech, supposedly, that conveys much more than simply seeing his dad without any clothes on. It has to do with sex, and Ham's mother (Noah's wife, therefore his "nakedness"), and I think I will leave the remainder to imagination...but that is why Noah was so pee'd and went so far as to curse Ham.

BTW, I agree with wil, that some of these interpretations are "convenient" to time and place, although I had heard them before. Somewhere around here, I think in the Applied Anthropology thread, I brought to light the research made known about a year and a half ago about a mutant skin gene in fair skinned peoples of European descent. Seems Caucasians descended from Africans, not the other way around, at least according to current thinking by genetic studies. Interestingly though, this mutant gene is *not* the cause for Oriental fair skin...that is still open to discovery.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by post-abrahamic

We must always remember who was writing this stuff. Of course, those who claim Shem as their progenitor with Shem's line being the one the Jewish writers followed would likely disparage the other two lines of descent from Noah. But we *all* know now that Noah himself was a makeover of an older Sumerian legendary figure, so in essence, it's all tribal propaganda which has led unfortunately to racist policies by Jews and Christians while Muslims are much freer of racial prejudice.

Noah may have cursed Ham but God didn't. Otherwise, why would the Promised Land be named after Ham's son?

Ummm...no, we *don't* all know this. Frankly, it is supposition. And not well supported supposition at that.