Folks, there's always lots of conjecture related to these passages, that's why I stated early on it's hard to be dogmatic about any of this... but just for consideration, there is another passage in Ezekiel where God had some men "marked" and others killed.

"And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer's inkhorn by his side;

And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof." Ezek. 9:3-4

So here the MARK was in the forehead which is kind of interesting when you compare that with Rev. 13:1, :16, :17...just food for thought.

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by chette777

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.

Chette,

I don't think I said or did anything to label you a racist or a bigot. I jumped off the band wagon in this thread of mingling together the two topics of Noah's curse on Canaan and American slavery of blacks. I'm not saying you hold that position, either. I saw I had unthinkingly used lingo that tied American blacks with the curse on Canaan and when I saw that I jumped off that band wagon as fast as I could because I saw I was wrong. I don't even think Noah's curse is even in effect today. I in no way meant to imply you were a racist or bigot by any thing I wrote. In fact, I feel quite the opposite is true. I view you as a brother in Christ who spends his life bringing Christ to tribes of people in cultures steeped in paganism and Islam. I don't consider myself to be racist or bigoted, either. I think our viewpoints are probably pretty similar.

This is how I see it:

For the most part, the ancestors of blacks in America today were brought here as slaves in unimaginable conditions. It's horrible beyond comprehension. Yet, slavery in terrible, cruel and inhumane conditions has been practiced for most of human history by the descendants of all three of Noah's sons. They have all been enslaved and done the enslaving to themselves and each of the others. Africans defeated and enslaved other africans and sold them off to the slave traders, the arabs were heavily into this slave trade as they have been throughout history. This idea of American whites making reparations to American blacks is absurd. Why should I have to make reparation for something I never did to an individual or group alive today to whom the offense was not done? Ridiculous! It's impossible for every nation to make reparations for enslaving every other nation at some point in history.

God didn't condemn slavery in the Bible. He doesn't do the enslaving, either. Fallen man has done the enslaving. God allowed His people Israel to be enslaved by other nations on different occasions as punishment for their unfaithfulness to Him. To question why God allowed slavery in general is no different than questioning why God allows evil to continue in this world. The answer is that if He were to wipe out evil he would have to wipe out the entire human race. He is not done saving people out of the world, yet.

Somehow, Ham was the father of the black nations. I don't know how they became black but scripture and ancient and modern historical research seem to support it. People can read among other things bible dictionaries and encyclopedias and even wiki it if they want to study it. Noah's curse was upon Canaan, why is not clear, but Noah could not curse Ham whom God had already blessed so he cursed one of Ham's sons. From what I can tell, all of Ham's descendants were black so the curse was not on all blacks. I don't think you have said it is. It just confuses things when the issues of black slavery in America and the curse of Canaan are either blended or not distinguished as separate topics which I'm not saying you did but it happened on this thread.

I think Bro. Presswoods explanation of what Ham did to Noah is right on, except that I think Noah's wife may have been there, too. Ham didn't just accidently glance upon his father's nakedness (which could include Noah's wife's nakedness) and look away. He also went and told his brothers so they would look, too. If that wasn't the reason, he would have just covered up his father himself or just not repeated what he accidently saw. But that's not clear and not worth arguing about. I am with you about the sons of God issue in Ge 6, of course. It is not possible that they were the sons of Seth's "godly line". That's a topic for another thread, though I'm not sure I would want to get involved in another thread about Gen. 6 any time soon.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I was judging you or abandoning you to other people's judgement. I was just correcting my own position.

blessings,
Jen

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by greenbear

Chette,

I don't think I said or did anything to label you a racist or a bigot. I jumped off the band wagon in this thread of mingling together the two topics of Noah's curse on Canaan and American slavery of blacks. I'm not saying you hold that position, either. I saw I had unthinkingly used lingo that tied American blacks with the curse on Canaan and when I saw that I jumped off that band wagon as fast as I could because I saw I was wrong. I don't even think Noah's curse is even in effect today. I in no way meant to imply you were a racist or bigot by any thing I wrote. In fact, I feel quite the opposite is true. I view you as a brother in Christ who spends his life bringing Christ to tribes of people in cultures steeped in paganism and Islam. I don't consider myself to be racist or bigoted, either. I think our viewpoints are probably pretty similar.

This is how I see it:

For the most part, the ancestors of blacks in America today were brought here as slaves in unimaginable conditions. It's horrible beyond comprehension. Yet, slavery in terrible, cruel and inhumane conditions has been practiced for most of human history by the descendants of all three of Noah's sons. They have all been enslaved and done the enslaving to themselves and each of the others. Africans defeated and enslaved other africans and sold them off to the slave traders, the arabs were heavily into this slave trade as they have been throughout history. This idea of American whites making reparations to American blacks is absurd. Why should I have to make reparation for something I never did to an individual or group alive today to whom the offense was not done? Ridiculous! It's impossible for every nation to make reparations for enslaving every other nation at some point in history.

God didn't condemn slavery in the Bible. He doesn't do the enslaving, either. Fallen man has done the enslaving. God allowed His people Israel to be enslaved by other nations on different occasions as punishment for their unfaithfulness to Him. To question why God allowed slavery in general is no different than questioning why God allows evil to continue in this world. The answer is that if He were to wipe out evil he would have to wipe out the entire human race. He is not done saving people out of the world, yet.

Somehow, Cush was the father of the black nations. I don't know how they became black but scripture and ancient and modern historical research seem to support it. People can read among other things bible dictionaries and encyclopedias and even wiki it if they want to study it. Noah's curse was upon Canaan, why is not clear, but Noah could not curse Ham whom God had already blessed so he cursed one of Ham's sons. From what I can tell, all of Ham's descendants were black so the curse was not on all blacks. I don't think you have said it is. It just confuses things when the issues of black slavery in America and the curse of Canaan are either blended or not distinguished as separate topics which I'm not saying you did but it happened on this thread.

I think Bro. Presswoods explanation of what Ham did to Noah is right on, except that I think Noah's wife may have been there, too. Ham didn't just accidently glance upon his father's nakedness (which could include Noah's wife's nakedness) and look away. He also went and told his brothers so they would look, too. If that wasn't the reason, he would have just covered up his father himself or just not repeated what he accidently saw. But that's not clear and not worth arguing about. I am with you about the sons of God issue in Ge 6, of course. It is not possible that they were the sons of Seth's "godly line". That's a topic for another thread, though I'm not sure I would want to get involved in another thread about Gen. 6 any time soon.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I was judging you or abandoning you to other people's judgement. I was just correcting my own position.

blessings,
Jen

I confused myself. I meant Cush, Ham's son and Canaan's brother is father of the black nations, not Ham is the father of black nations. That would mean, if I understand correctly, that Noah's curse has nothing to do with the black races, whatsoever.

[Brother Presswood]

Originally Posted by greenbear

I confused myself. I meant Cush, Ham's son and Canaan's brother is father of the black nations, not Ham is the father of black nations. That would mean, if I understand correctly, that Noah's curse has nothing to do with the black races, whatsoever.

Noah’s prophecy did not result in a special curse upon black people. Ham had four sons. These were:
Cush – the progenitor of the Ethiopians.
Mizriam – the progenitor of the Egyptians
Phut – the progenitor of the Libyans and peoples of Africa
Canaan – the progenitor of the Canaanites

Since the curse was specifically levelled at Canaan and not Phut, there exists absolutely no racial implications whatsoever within the curse. In fact, the skin texture of Israelites and Canaanites at the time of Joshua’s invasion was probably very similar. The problem concerning the Canaanites was not in the color of their skin but rather in the condition of their hearts.

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by Brother Presswood

Noah’s prophecy did not result in a special curse upon black people. Ham had four sons. These were:
Cush – the progenitor of the Ethiopians.
Mizriam – the progenitor of the Egyptians
Phut – the progenitor of the Libyans and peoples of Africa
Canaan – the progenitor of the Canaanites

Since the curse was specifically levelled at Canaan and not Phut, there exists absolutely no racial implications whatsoever within the curse. In fact, the skin texture of Israelites and Canaanites at the time of Joshua’s invasion was probably very similar. The problem concerning the Canaanites was not in the color of their skin but rather in the condition of their hearts.

Brother Pressman,

In my post# 43 I clarified that I confused myself, that Cush was the father of the black nations, not Ham, and therefore Noah's curse was not upon the black nations but upon Ham's son Canaan's descendants which are not black. I don't know how you maintain that Phut was the only progenitor of the peoples of Africa, it seems clear that Ethiopians came from Cush as well as others.

And you are new to this board so you don't know me. If you had been here to read posts I've made on other threads you would probably know that I have never confused the color of someone's skin with the condition of their hearts. But thanks for the info.

[Brother Presswood]

Originally Posted by greenbear

Brother Pressman,

In my post# 43 I clarified that I confused myself, that Cush was the father of the black nations, not Ham, and therefore Noah's curse was not upon the black nations but upon Ham's son Canaan's descendants which are not black. I don't know how you maintain that Phut was the only progenitor of the peoples of Africa, it seems clear that Ethiopians came from Cush as well as others.

And you are new to this board so you don't know me. If you had been here to read posts I've made on other threads you would probably know that I have never confused the color of someone's skin with the condition of their hearts. But thanks for the info.

I apologize if you thought that my post was a direct response to you. I simply cut and pasted a portion of my writing here in the thread. I certainly did not mean to imply you compared skin color with spirituality. Even had I thought that, and I do not, I would not have been so tactless as to bring it up here. My desire is simply to discuss the issue, not attack the person.

That Phut fathered the African nations is something that I gleaned from Wilmington's Guide to the Bible by Dr. Harold Wilmington. Cush, as you stated, fathered the Ethiopians and more than likely some others. I am not going to be dogmatic either way.

Again, I apologize for the confusion.

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by Brother Presswood

I apologize if you thought that my post was a direct response to you. I simply cut and pasted a portion of my writing here in the thread. I certainly did not mean to imply you compared skin color with spirituality. Even had I thought that, and I do not, I would not have been so tactless as to bring it up here. My desire is simply to discuss the issue, not attack the person.

That Phut fathered the African nations is something that I gleaned from Wilmington's Guide to the Bible by Dr. Harold Wilmington. Cush, as you stated, fathered the Ethiopians and more than likely some others. I am not going to be dogmatic either way.

Again, I apologize for the confusion.

No problem, brother Pressman. I also apologize for taking something you wrote personally when it was not meant that way. My knowledge about the origins of African or black skinned nations, other than a shallow understanding of what scripture says, is based on a few paragraphs out of bible dictionaries and wikipedia rather than any kind of deep study of the topic. I was just trying to express my general perspective about "race" and slavery in the bible and throughout history.

[chette777]

Thanks Jen apology accepted. It wasn't so much your words as others. But your apology may represent some of the others as well.

[chette777]

Originally Posted by Brother Presswood

The problem concerning the Canaanites was not in the color of their skin but rather in the condition of their hearts.

This is true and if you will go to Israel and visit some of the museums meant to preserve Canaanite culture you will see Phallic symbols and Sex was used in their religious ceremonies and prevalent in their culture as well. this is why God was driving them out of the land to give it to Israel.

So if Canaan son of Ham is the father of the Canaanites there were strong sexual perversion going on in that Line that Noah had cursed. there are plenty of curses in the Bible that pass to the sons and future generations.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by greenbear

I confused myself. I meant Cush, Ham's son and Canaan's brother is father of the black nations, not Ham is the father of black nations. That would mean, if I understand correctly, that Noah's curse has nothing to do with the black races, whatsoever.

The curse placed by Noah was that the Canaanites would serve the the children of Israel(servants to the Egyptians), not white American Gentiles. We appear nowhere in Scripture as prophecy, neither does the Body of Christ.

Grace and peace sister.

Tony